Holistic management (agriculture)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holistic_management_(agriculture)

Holistic management was developed as an approach to managing resources for grazing management.

Agriculture

In agriculture, holistic management (from ὅλος holos, a Greek word meaning "all, whole, entire, total") is an approach to managing resources that was originally developed by Allan Savory for grazing management. Holistic management has been likened to "a permaculture approach to rangeland management". Holistic management is a registered trademark of Holistic Management International (no longer associated with Allan Savory). It has faced criticism from many researchers who argue it is unable to provide the benefits claimed.

Definition

"Holistic management" describes a systems thinking approach to managing resources. Originally developed by Allan Savory, it is now being adapted for use in managing other systems with complex social, ecological and economic factors. Holistic planned grazing is similar to rotational grazing but differs in that it more explicitly recognizes and provides a framework for adapting to the four basic ecosystem processes: the water cycle, the mineral cycle including the carbon cycle, energy flow, and community dynamics (the relationship between organisms in an ecosystem), giving equal importance to livestock production and social welfare. Holistic Management has been likened to "a permaculture approach to rangeland management".

Framework

The Holistic Management decision-making framework uses six key steps to guide the management of resources:

1. Define in its entirety what you are managing. No area should be treated as a single-product system. By defining the whole, people are better able to manage. This includes identifying the available resources, including money, that the manager has at his disposal.
2. Define what you want now and for the future. Set the objectives, goals and actions needed to produce the quality of life sought, and what the life-nurturing environment must be like to sustain that quality of life far into the future.
3. Watch for the earliest indicators of ecosystem health. Identify the ecosystem services that have deep impacts for people in both urban and rural environments, and find a way to easily monitor them. One of the best examples of an early indicator of a poorly functioning environment is patches of bare ground. An indicator of a better functioning environment is newly sprouting diversity of plants and a return or increase of wildlife.
4. Don't limit the management tools you use. The eight tools for managing natural resources are money/labor, human creativity, grazing, animal impact, fire, rest, living organisms and science/technology. To be successful you need to use all these tools to the best of your ability.
5. Test your decisions with questions that are designed to help ensure all your decisions are socially, environmentally and financially sound for both the short and long term.
6. Monitor proactively, before your managed system becomes more imbalanced. This way the manager can take adaptive corrective action quickly, before the ecosystem services are lost. Always assume your plan is less than perfect and use a feedback loop that includes monitoring for the earliest signs of failure, adjusting and re-planning as needed. In other words use a "canary in a coal mine" approach.

Four principles

Savory stated four key principles of Holistic Management planned grazing, which he intended to take advantage of the symbiotic relationship between large herds of grazing animals and the grasslands that support them:

1. Nature functions as a holistic community with a mutualistic relationship between people, animals and the land. If you remove or change the behavior of any keystone species like the large grazing herds, you have an unexpected and wide-ranging negative impact on other areas of the environment.
2. It is absolutely crucial that any agricultural planning system must be flexible enough to adapt to nature’s complexity, since all environments are different and have constantly changing local conditions.
3. Animal husbandry using domestic species can be used as a substitute for lost keystone species. Thus when managed properly in a way that mimics nature, agriculture can heal the land and even benefit wildlife, while at the same time benefiting people.
4. Time and timing is the most important factor when planning land use. Not only is it crucial to understand how long to use the land for agriculture and how long to rest, it is equally important to understand exactly when and where the land is ready for that use and rest.

Development

The idea of holistic planned grazing was developed in the 1960s by Allan Savory, a wildlife biologist in his native Southern Rhodesia. Setting out to understand desertification in the context of the larger environmental movement, and influenced by the work of André Voisin, he hypothesized that the spread of deserts, the loss of wildlife, and the resulting human impoverishment were related to the reduction of the natural herds of large grazing animals and, even more, the changed behavior of the few remaining herds. Savory hypothesized further that livestock could be substituted for natural herds to provide important ecosystem services like nutrient cycling. However, while livestock managers had found that rotational grazing systems can work for livestock management purposes, scientific experiments demonstrated it does not necessarily improve ecological issues such as desertification. As Savory saw it, a more comprehensive framework for the management of grassland systems — an adaptive, holistic management plan — was needed. For that reason Holistic Management has been used as a Whole Farm/Ranch Planning tool  In 1984, he founded the Center for Holistic Resource Management which became Holistic Management International. 

In many regions, pastoralism and communal land use are blamed for environmental degradation caused by overgrazing. After years of research and experience, Savory came to understand this assertion was often wrong, and that sometimes removing animals actually made matters worse. This concept is a variation of the trophic cascade, where humans are seen as the top level predator and the cascade follows from there.

Savory developed a management system that he claimed would improve grazing systems. Holistic planned grazing is one of a number of newer grazing management systems that aim to more closely simulate the behavior of natural herds of wildlife and has been claimed to improve riparian habitats and water quality over systems that often led to land degradation, and claimed to improve range condition for both livestock and wildlife.

Savory claims that Holistic Planned Grazing holds potential in mitigating climate change, while building soil, increasing biodiversity, and reversing desertification. This practice uses fencing and/or herders to restore grasslands. Carefully planned movements of large herds of livestock mimic the processes of nature where grazing animals are kept concentrated by pack predators and forced to move on after eating, trampling, and manuring an area, returning only after it has fully recovered. This grazing method seeks to emulate what occurred during the past 40 million years as the expansion of grass-grazer ecosystems built deep, rich grassland soils, sequestering carbon, and consequently cooling the planet.

Uses

While originally developed as a tool for range land use and restoring desertified land, the Holistic Management system can be applied to other areas with multiple complex socioeconomic and environmental factors. One such example is integrated water resources management, which promotes sector integration in development and management of water resources to ensure that water is allocated fairly between different users, maximizing economic and social welfare without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems. Another example is mine reclamation. A fourth use of Holistic Management® is in certain forms of no till crop production, intercropping, and permaculture. Holistic Management has been acknowledged by the United States Department of Agriculture. The most comprehensive use of Holistic Management is as a Whole Farm/Ranch Planning tool which has been used successfully by farmers and ranchers. For that reason, the USDA invested six years of Beginning Farmer/Rancher Development funding to use it to train beginning women farmers and ranchers. 

Criticism

There are many peer-reviewed studies and journalistic publications that dispute the claims of Holistic Management theory.

A 2014 review examined five specific ecological assumptions of Holistic Management and found that none were supported by scientific evidence in the Western US. A paper by Richard Teague et al. claims that the different criticisms had examined rotational systems in general and not holistic planned grazing.^[35] A meta-analysis of relevant studies between 1972 and 2016 found that Holistic Planned Grazing had no better effect than continuous grazing on plant cover, plant biomass and animal production, although it may have benefited some areas with higher precipitation. Conversely, at least three studies have documented soil improvement as measured by soil carbon, soil nitrogen, soil biota, water retention, nutrient-holding capacity, and ground litter on grazed land using multi-pasture grazing methods compared to continuously grazed land.

There is also evidence that multi-pasture grazing methods may increase water retention compared to non-grazed land. However, George Wuerthner, writing in The Wildlife News in a 2013 article titled, "Allan Savory: Myth And Reality" stated, "The few scientific experiments that Savory supporters cite as vindication of his methods (out of hundreds that refute his assertions), often fail to actually test his theories. Several of the studies cited on HM web site had utilization levels (degree of vegetation removed) well below the level that Savory actually recommends."

These critiques have been challenged on the grounds that many studies examined rotational grazing systems in general and not Holistic Management or Holistic Planned Grazing. In addition to a grazing method, Holistic Management involves goal setting, experiential learning and an emphasis on monitoring and adaptive decision-making that have not been captured by many scientific field trials. This has been proposed as a reason why many land managers have reported a more positive experience of Holistic Management than scientific studies. However, a 2022 review of 22 “farm-scale” studies, many of which included adaptive management, again found that Holistic Management had no effect on or reduced plant or animal productivity. The same study found that Holistic Management was associated with improved social cohesion and peer-to-peer learning, but concluded that the “social cohesion, learning and networking so prevalent on HM farms could be adopted by any farming community without accepting the unfounded HM rhetoric”.

Carbon sequestration claims

Savory has also faced criticisms for claiming the carbon sequestration potential of holistic grazing is immune from empirical scientific study. For instance, in 2000, Savory said that "the scientific method never discovers anything" and “the scientific method protects us from cranks like me". A 2017 factsheet authored by Savory stated that “Every study of holistic planned grazing that has been done has provided results that are rejected by range scientists because there was no replication!". TABLE Debates sums this up by saying "Savory argues that standardisation, replication, and therefore experimental testing of HPG [Holistic Planned Grazing] as a whole (rather than just the grazing system associated with it) is not possible, and that therefore, it is incapable of study by experimental science", but "he does not explain how HPG can make causal knowledge claims with regards to combating desertification and climate mitigation, without recourse to science demonstrating such connections."

There is a less developed evidence base comparing Holistic management with the absence of livestock on grasslands. Several peer-reviewed studies have found that excluding livestock completely from semi-arid grasslands can lead to significant recovery of vegetation and soil carbon sequestration. A 2021 peer-reviewed paper found that sparsely grazed and natural grasslands account for 80% of the total cumulative carbon sink of the world’s grasslands, whereas managed grasslands (i.e. with greater livestock density) have been a net greenhouse gas source over the past decade. A 2011 study found that multi-paddock grazing of the type endorsed by Savory resulted in more soil carbon sequestration than heavy continuous grazing, but very slightly less soil carbon sequestration than "graze exclosure" (excluding grazing livestock from land). Another peer-reviewed paper found that if current pastureland was restored to its former state as wild grasslands, shrublands, and sparse savannas without livestock this could store an estimated 15.2 - 59.9 Gt additional carbon.

In 2013 the Savory Institute published a response to some of their critics. The same month Savory was a guest speaker with TED and gave a presentation titled "How to Fight Desertification and Reverse Climate Change". In his TED Talk, Savory has claimed that holistic grazing could reduce carbon dioxide levels to pre-industrial levels in a span of 40 years, solving the problems caused by climate change. Commenting on his TED talk, Savory has since denied claiming that holistic grazing can reverse climate change, saying that “I have only used the words address climate change… although I have written and talked about reversing man-made desertification”.

RealClimate.org published a piece saying that Savory's claims that his technique can bring atmospheric carbon "back to pre-industrial levels" are "simply not reasonable." According to Skeptical Science, "it is not possible to increase productivity, increase numbers of cattle and store carbon using any grazing strategy, never-mind Holistic Management [...] Long term studies on the effect of grazing on soil carbon storage have been done before, and the results are not promising.[...] Because of the complex nature of carbon storage in soils, increasing global temperature, risk of desertification and methane emissions from livestock, it is unlikely that Holistic Management, or any management technique, can reverse climate change.

According to a 2016 study published by the University of Uppsala, the actual rate at which improved grazing management could contribute to carbon sequestration is seven times lower than the claims made by Savory. The study concludes that Holistic Management cannot reverse climate change. A study by the Food and Climate Research Network in 2017 has concluded that Savory's claims about carbon sequestration are "unrealistic" and very different from those issued by peer-reviewed studies. The FCRN study estimates that, on the basis of meta-study of the scientific literature, the total global soil carbon sequestration potential from grazing management ranges from 0.3-0.8 Gt CO2eq per year, which is equivalent to offsetting a maximum of 4-11% of current total global livestock emissions, and that “Expansion or intensification in the grazing sector as an approach to sequestering more carbon would lead to substantial increases in methane, nitrous oxide and land use change-induced CO2 emissions” Project Drawdown estimates the total carbon sequestration potential of improved managed grazing at 13.72 - 20.92 Gigatons CO2eq between 2020–2050, equal to 0.46-0.70 Gt CO2eq per year. A 2022 peer-reviewed paper estimated the carbon sequestration potential of improved grazing management at a similar level of 0.15-0.70 Gt CO2eq per year.

Awards

Savory received the 2003 Banksia International Award and in 2010 the Africa Centre for Holistic Management in Zimbabwe, Operation Hope (a "proof of concept" project using Holistic Management) was named the winner of the 2010 Buckminster Fuller Challenge for "recognizing initiatives which take a comprehensive, anticipatory, design approach to radically advance human well being and the health of our planet's ecosystems". In addition, numerous Holistic Management practitioners have received awards for their environmental stewardship through using Holistic Management practices.

Exploitation of natural resources

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploitation_of_natural_resources

The exploitation of natural resources describes using natural resources, often non-renewable or limited, for economic growth or development. Environmental degradation, human insecurity, and social conflict frequently accompany natural resource exploitation. The impacts of the depletion of natural resources include the decline of economic growth in local areas; however, the abundance of natural resources does not always correlate with a country's material prosperity. Many resource-rich countries, especially in the Global South, face distributional conflicts, where local bureaucracies mismanage or disagree on how resources should be used. Foreign industries also contribute to resource exploitation, where raw materials are outsourced from developing countries, with the local communities receiving little profit from the exchange. This is often accompanied by negative effects of economic growth around the affected areas such as inequality and pollution

The exploitation of natural resources started to emerge on an industrial scale in the 19th century as the extraction and processing of raw materials (such as in mining, steam power, and machinery) expanded much further than it had in pre-industrial areas. During the 20th century, energy consumption rapidly increased. Today, about 80% of the world's energy consumption is sustained by the extraction of fossil fuels, which consists of oil, coal and natural gas.

Another non-renewable resource humans exploit is subsoil minerals, such as precious metals, mainly used to produce industrial commodities. Intensive agriculture is an example of a mode of production that hinders many aspects of the natural environment, for example the degradation of forests in a terrestrial ecosystem and water pollution in an aquatic ecosystem. As the world population rises and economic growth occurs, the depletion of natural resources influenced by the unsustainable extraction of raw materials becomes an increasing concern. The continuous alteration of the environment through water, mineral, and forest exploitation poses increased risks of climate-based displacement and conflict stemming from scarcity, which threaten to perpetuate social inequities.

Revenue from mineral exports makes up a large portion of the Democratic Republic of Congo's economy. While Congo is rich in mineral resources, these deposits require extensive manual labor to extract, often under life-threatening conditions. Mining of cobalt is tied to human rights abuses, such as unsafe worksites, child labor, and forced Congolese labor, in addition to environmental degradation.

Causes

• Advancing technology: Increasing technology sophistication enables faster rates of natural resource extraction. For example, in the past, it could take a long time to log a small amount of trees using only saws. Due to better technology, the rates of deforestation have greatly increased.
• Overconsumption has created a high demand for natural resources, further exacerbating natural resource exploitation 
• Development of new technologies, such as electric vehicles and portable technologies, i.e, Smartphones, also heavily rely on cobalt mining, often leading to loss of green cover and detrimental health impacts for surrounding communities, often in developing countries like the D.R. of Congo where mining occurs.
• Consumerism: Unsustainable consumption, driven by both population growth and materialistic ideologies, increases the demand for production and, thereby, the extraction of the natural resources needed to supply this demand. For instance, the consumption of fine jewelry leads to increased mining of gold and diamonds. The extraction of precious metals like gold has degradation effects on the environment, such as loss of forestry during construction of the mining facilities, increased exposure to toxic materials, and disturbance of the nearby ecosystem.
• Management thinking: In relation to the previous point, companies have adopted the idea according to which the rarer the resource, the more it contributes to the company's competitive advantage. When it comes to natural resources, such an idea leads to natural resource exhaustion.
• A general lack of respect for native land rights leads to increased exploitation of natural resources on and around native land.

Consequences of exploitation of resources

A deforestation in Nigeria team patrolling the deforestation site. Nigeria has experienced an increase in deforestation in part due to expansion of agriculture, lumbering, and urban growth. These land-use changes are driven by population increase and poverty.

Natural resources are not limitless, and the following consequences can arise from the careless and excessive consumption of these resources:

• Deforestation: Removal of trees for use as resources, such as in agriculture or industry, can lead to large-scale destruction of forests. Around 40% of the Earth's original forest cover has been lost in the last 8000 years.
• Desertification: Human-led changes in land management practices lead to changes in the ecological characteristics of a region. Land mismanagement and climate change can lead to a loss of ecosystem services, such as through degradation of soil. Together, these losses can result in desertification seen in arid and dry areas.
• Decrease in natural resources: When resources are exploited faster than they can be replenished, it results in an overall decrease in natural resources in an area.
• Extinction of species: Processes involved in resource exploitation can directly or indirectly lead to the extinction of species. Animals used for resources can be directly hunted, while destruction of environments, such as through harvesting timber, can also cause extinctions.
• Forced migration
• Soil erosion
• Oil depletion
• Ozone depletion
• Greenhouse gas increase
• Water gasification
• Natural hazard/Natural disaster
• Metals and minerals depletion.
• Indigenous groups have limited ways to relate to the environment and survive on traditional food and water sources 

Economic consequences

Natural resources are vital for human survival, however, if their consumption surpasses their natural replenishment rate, the resources can become depleted. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, around 33% of the Earth's soils are presently classified as moderately to highly degraded, with projections indicating that more than 90% could face degradation by the year 2050 and thus cause significant economic consequences. With such rate of erosion of fertile soil, agricultural commodity prices tend to increase significantly. The connection between the consumption rate and the supply rate of resources holds significant implications for long-term economic growth, as sustained high consumption rates of certain resources ultimately jeopardize economic sustainability. For instance, in the case of extracting soil minerals, supply rate is exceedingly slow over geological time spans, inevitably leading to a consumption rate surpassing the supply rate. Such a scenario is evidently unsustainable in the long run. To ensure sustainability, the consumption rate must remain equal to or less than the supply rate.

There has been an ongoing debate among scholars and researchers on the economic implications of dependence on natural resources. Natural resources yield economic rents that can be allocated towards public welfare initiatives and other projects beneficial to local communities. However, in the long term, uncertainties linked to potentially unstable terms of trade for commodities might lead to decline in public finances and deter investment. For instance, if oil prices decline, it may lead to fiscal unease in significant petroleum-producing countries such as Russia, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Resource abundance challenges the progress of political and governance institutions by nurturing a culture of rentierism. For instance, revenues obtained from resources can be used for political manipulation. Additionally, extra capital from resources can dilute government accountability to both citizens and businesses by abandoning taxation completely, which leads to lack of government incentive to support economic growth through innovation. At the same time, citizens may lack the motives to advocate for better governance and transparency.

Because of environmental pollution, cities whose economies rely on natural resources face difficulties in attracting technology-driven businesses and skilled labor, posing significant challenges to their economic transformation and advancement. These resource-centric cities face disadvantages in the competition among local governments striving for environmental quality. Analyzing panel data spanning from 2005 to 2017 for 30 coal-mining cities, it's been discovered that environmental regulations offer a new approach to potentially reversing the adverse effects of resource dependence, and thus fueling greener sustainable development in coal-mining regions.

Despite the inevitability of environmental contamination associated with resource extraction because of current mining technologies, this pollution delays residents' engagement in agricultural and aqua cultural activities, which are negatively influenced by environmental conditions. As a result, these cities tend to rely heavily on a singular economic development model centered around resource exploitation, making them ill-equipped to address environmental crises effectively. Economic gains from natural resources are mostly beneficial when directed towards initiatives such as job creation, skill enhancement, capacity building, and pursuit of long-term developmental objectives. Thus, reliance on one or more natural resources holds financial risk when aiming for a stable economic growth.

Impacts of settler colonialism

Multiple scholars have explained how Settler colonialism has had profound influence on the dynamics of resource exploitation throughout history, especially in regions where settler populations have previously asserted dominance over indigenous peoples and their territories. Among these scholars Dina Gilio-Whitaker, an expert in Native American Studies from California State University explains that, “Indigenous peoples fighting for political autonomy from the hegemony of the State are fighting the forces of colonialism while simultaneously fighting capitalism—all aimed at control of land and resources" This encompasses the establishment of permanent settler communities, typically accompanied by the displacement, marginalization, or even extermination of indigenous populations. Settler Colonial exploration is most often driven by the pursuit of land and resources which has historically created the exploitation of natural wealth to fuel economic growth, infrastructure development, and territorial expansion.

One of the key way which settler colonialism drives resource exploitation is through the appropriation of indigenous lands and natural resources. Kyle Powys Whyte, an expert in natural resources and the environment highlights how the continued legacy of settler colonialism continues to harm indigenous communities. In his piece “The Dakota Access Pipeline, Environmental Injustice, and US Settler Colonialism” he writes, “as climate change becomes more apparent in its homelands, the shifting plant and animal habitats tied to agriculture, wildlife, and ceremonial species, as well as the loss of territory and resources as a result of US settler colonialism, will make it harder to adjust.”

Settler societies often view the land as a commodity to be exploited for economic gain, leading to the establishment of extractive industries such as mining, logging, and agriculture on indigenous territories. This exploitation is facilitated by legal frameworks that prioritize settler property rights over indigenous land tenure systems, resulting in the dispossession and displacement of indigenous communities from their ancestral lands. Moreover, settler colonialism often entails the imposition of Western concepts of land ownership and resource management that marginalize indigenous knowledge and practices, further exacerbating environmental degradation and social injustice.

Dakota Access Pipeline protest

Impacts of industrialization and globalization

Industrialization, the large scale growth of industry, has had profound impacts on natural resource exploitation. As societies undergo industrialization, there is an increased demand for raw materials to fuel manufacturing, construction, and energy production. As outlined by Farhan Ahmed, professor of economics and finance, industrialization can bring a myriad of challenges for natural resources. In his piece “The environmental impact of industrialization and foreign direct investment: empirical evidence from Asia-Pacific region” Ahmed writes “In addition to the many benefits of foreign direct investment and industrialization that have affected economic growth, both have significant potential for environmental degradation because most of their activities are related to the production and exploitation of natural resources." This demand often leads to intensified extraction activities, such as mining, logging, and drilling, which can result in extensive habitat destruction, deforestation, and ecosystem degradation. Additionally, industrial processes often generate pollution and waste, further exacerbating environmental impacts and threatening ecosystems and biodiversity. industrialization has been associated with the commodification of natural resources, where resources are valued primarily for their economic potential rather than their intrinsic ecological or cultural value. This commodification mindset often leads to unsustainable exploitation practices, as resources are overexploited for short-term economic gain without consideration for long-term environmental sustainability.

Globalization has significantly impacted resource exploitation by reshaping patterns of production, consumption, and trade on a global scale. The interconnectedness of economies and the proliferation of multinational corporations have led to increased competition for access to natural resources, such as minerals, fossil fuels, timber, and agricultural products, in diverse regions around the world. This heightened demand for resources has driven intensified extraction activities, often in environmentally sensitive areas, and has contributed to the overexploitation and depletion of finite resources. Haiying Liu, professor of economics, explains how globalization results in more environmental stress in her piece “Impact of governance and globalization on natural resources volatility”. In this piece she writes, “In addition to natural resources exported from the region, the technical capability required to explore natural resources is also dependent on economic globalization. Environmental pressure increases as a result of globalization.” Globalization has spurred the development of complex supply chains and trade networks that connect resource-rich regions with centers of production and consumption across the globe. While this interconnectedness has fueled economic growth and development in some regions, it has also led to the commodification and commercialization of natural resources, where resources are valued primarily for their economic potential rather than their intrinsic ecological or cultural value. Globalization has contributed to the unequal distribution of benefits and burdens associated with resource exploitation, with marginalized communities often bearing the environmental and social costs of resource extraction while multinational corporations and rich nations reap the profits

Effects on local communities

Papua New Guinea

Human Resources Macon, Georgia, 1909

When a mining company enters a developing country in the global south to extract raw materials, advocating the advantages of the industry's presence and minimizing the potential negative effects gain the cooperation of the local people. Advantageous factors are primarily in economic development establishments, such as health centers, police departments, and schools, that the government may not provide. However, these advantages are not always distributed evenly among local populations, and the income generated from extracting natural resources can result in internal conflict within the developing country. In addition to unequal distribution, the adaption of consumerist values also results in conflict over resources within local communities.

Despite being rich in natural resources, the Democratic Republic of Congo is one country in the global south suffering from the effects of the resource curse. Its valuable copper and cobalt mineral deposits make Congo vulnerable to local and international conflict over the distribution of resources. These conflicts, along with the environmental degradation effects of mining, exacerbate high poverty rates, which approximately 64% of the Congolese population live under. Natural resource extraction and climate change are intertwined in Congo, as mining for copper and cobalt creates a biodiversity loss as green covers are cleared for constructing artisanal mines and roadways. Conflict over resources, poverty, and environmental degradation leaves a large number of the Congolese population vulnerable to internal displacement, lacking resources to adapt to climate change. Beyond climate impacts, mineral mining has also been linked with adverse health impacts, such as high levels of cobalt in urine and blood samples in populations located on or near industrial mines. Mining ores pose health risks long after mining has ceased, as wastelands generate toxic metal-rich dust. The injustice perpetrated by unsafe mining ores is not exclusive to the adult and child laborers. Instead, it impacts the whole country as low wages for high-risk mining worsen poverty rates, exacerbating negative social impacts such as conflict, higher crime rates, and child mortality.

The effects of the exploitation of natural resources in the local community of a developing country are also exhibited in the impacts from the Ok Tedi Mine. After BHP entered into Papua New Guinea to exploit copper and gold, the economy of the indigenous peoples boomed. Although their quality of life has improved, initially disputes were common among the locals in terms of land rights and who should be getting the benefits from the mining project. The consequences of the Ok Tedi environmental disaster illustrate the potential negative effects from the exploitation of natural resources. The resulting mining pollution includes toxic contamination of the natural water supply for communities along the Ok Tedi River, causing widespread killing of aquatic life. When a mining company ends a project after extracting the raw materials from an area of a developing country, the local people are left to manage with the environmental damage done to their community and the long run sustainability of the economic benefits stimulated by the mining company's presence becomes a concern.

Responses and solutions

Responses and solutions to natural resource exploitation have emerged across the globe as communities and stakeholders grapple with the environmental, social, and economic impacts of unsustainable practices. These movements often employ a variety of tactics, including protests, legal challenges, boycotts, and direct actions, to challenge destructive practices and promote alternatives that prioritize environmental sustainability, social justice, and community well-being. Additionally, there has been growing recognition of the importance of indigenous knowledge, traditional ecological practices, and community-based approaches in addressing the root causes of resource exploitation and advancing sustainable development goals.

Resistance to mining in Peru

Resistance to natural resource exploitation in the developing countries is often intertwined with broader social and economic struggles. Many communities facing exploitation are marginalized and economically disadvantaged which exacerbates the unequal power dynamics at play. Resistance movements often demand not only environmental justice but also fair compensation, employment opportunities, and community development initiatives. Solidarity networks, both within countries and internationally, have been crucial in amplifying the voices of affected communities and exerting pressure on governments and corporations to adopt more sustainable and equitable practices. Despite facing significant challenges, these movements continue to inspire hope for a more just and sustainable future in the Global South and beyond.

Anti-mining protests in Peru have emerged as a significant expression of resistance against large-scale mining projects that pose environmental and social threats to local communities. One notable instance is the resistance against the Conga mining project in the Cajamarca region. José Manuyama Ahuit, a native Peruvian activist working against local mining, was quoted saying, “The river forms part of our spirit and culture. If the river dies, so does our human dignity, now this river is doomed. The colour of the water is changing, and the same devastation in other mining areas is beginning to be reproduced here in the Nanay. Local communities, including farmers and indigenous groups, have vehemently opposed the project due to concerns of water contamination and depletion. The proposed mining operation, led by multinational corporations, has been met with widespread demonstrations, blockades, and legal challenges. These protests underscore broader issues of environmental protection and indigenous rights, as communities seek to safeguard their lands and livelihoods from the detrimental impacts of resource extraction.

In response to the anti-mining protests, Peruvian authorities have often deployed security forces to quell dissent, leading to clashes and instances of violence. These clashes have resulted in injuries and fatalities on both sides, escalating tensions between mining companies, local communities, and the government. Efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict have been disrupted by deep-seated mistrust and differing interests among the stakeholders involved.

Resistance in Native American communities

Resistance to natural resource exploitation in native communities has been a recurring theme throughout history, as indigenous people  have sought to protect their lands, cultures, and ways of life from the adverse impacts of extractive industries. In many cases, indigenous resistance movements have emerged as powerful forces advocating for environmental justice, indigenous rights, and sovereignty over ancestral territories. These movements often mobilize around issues such as land rights, resource extraction, and environmental protection, employing a variety of tactics, including protests, legal challenges, direct actions, and advocacy campaigns to assert indigenous control over natural resources and resist exploitative practices.

The Dakota Access Pipeline resistance, also known as the Standing Rock movement, emerged as a significant indigenous-led protest against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline in the United States. The pipeline, proposed by Energy Transfer Partners, was intended to transport crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois, traversing ancestral lands and sacred sites of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, as well as posing potential threats to water sources, including the Missouri River, which serves as a vital water supply for the tribe and millions of others downstream. The resistance movement, which began in 2016, brought together indigenous activists, environmentalists, and allies from across the country and around the world in a unified effort to oppose the pipeline's construction. Nick Estes, a scholar of American Indian studies who has followed the Dakota Access Pipeline protests closely, points out that the tactics being used in protest of the Dakota Access Pipeline have been used for generations. In his piece  “Our History is The Future”  he writes, “Our history and long traditions of Indigenous resistance provide possibilities for futures premised on justice. After all, Indigenous resistance is animated by our ancestors' refusal to be forgotten, and it is our resolute refusal to forget our ancestors and our history that animates our visions for liberation.

The Dakota Access Pipeline resistance garnered widespread attention and support, drawing thousands of people to the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota to stand in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and protect their lands and water. Among the supporters was activist and performing artists Dallas Goldtooth of the Dakota tribe. Goldtooth highlighted the importance of social media in modern protests saying, “social media allowed immediate direct one-on-one access and kind of this perception of unfiltered access – unfiltered access to what was happening on the ground"

The movement was characterized by nonviolent protests, prayer ceremonies, and acts of civil disobedience, as well as legal challenges aimed at halting the pipeline's construction and holding the government and energy companies accountable for violating indigenous rights and environmental regulations. The resistance movement also sparked a broader conversation about indigenous sovereignty, environmental justice, and the impacts of fossil fuel infrastructure on indigenous communities and the environment.

Genetically modified bacteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_bacteria

Genetically modified bacteria were the first organisms to be modified in the laboratory, due to their simple genetics. These organisms are now used for several purposes, and are particularly important in producing large amounts of pure human proteins for use in medicine.

History

The first example of this occurred in 1978 when Herbert Boyer, working at a University of California laboratory, took a version of the human insulin gene and inserted into the bacterium Escherichia coli to produce synthetic "human" insulin. Four years later, it was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Research

Top: Bacteria transformed with pGLO under ambient light Bottom: Bacteria transformed with pGLO visualised under ultraviolet light

Bacteria were the first organisms to be genetically modified in the laboratory, due to the relative ease of modifying their chromosomes. This ease made them important tools for the creation of other GMOs. Genes and other genetic information from a wide range of organisms can be added to a plasmid and inserted into bacteria for storage and modification. Bacteria are cheap, easy to grow, clonal, multiply quickly, are relatively easy to transform, and can be stored at -80 °C almost indefinitely. Once a gene is isolated it can be stored inside the bacteria, providing an unlimited supply for research. The large number of custom plasmids make manipulating DNA excised from bacteria relatively easy.

Their ease of use has made them great tools for scientists looking to study gene function and evolution. Most DNA manipulation takes place within bacterial plasmids before being transferred to another host. Bacteria are the simplest model organism and most of our early understanding of molecular biology comes from studying Escherichia coli. Scientists can easily manipulate and combine genes within the bacteria to create novel or disrupted proteins and observe the effect this has on various molecular systems. Researchers have combined the genes from bacteria and archaea, leading to insights on how these two diverged in the past. In the field of synthetic biology, they have been used to test various synthetic approaches, from synthesizing genomes to creating novel nucleotides.

Food

Bacteria have been used in the production of food for a very long time, and specific strains have been developed and selected for that work on an industrial scale. They can be used to produce enzymes, amino acids, flavourings, and other compounds used in food production. With the advent of genetic engineering, new genetic changes can easily be introduced into these bacteria. Most food-producing bacteria are lactic acid bacteria, and this is where the majority of research into genetically engineering food-producing bacteria has gone. The bacteria can be modified to operate more efficiently, reduce toxic byproduct production, increase output, create improved compounds, and remove unnecessary pathways. Food products from genetically modified bacteria include alpha-amylase, which converts starch to simple sugars, chymosin, which clots milk protein for cheese making, and pectinesterase, which improves fruit juice clarity.

In cheese

Chymosin is an enzyme produced in the stomach of young ruminant mammals to digest milk. The digestion of milk proteins via enzymes is essential to cheesemaking. The species Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis can be genetically engineered to synthesise and excrete chymosin, providing a more efficient means of production. The use of bacteria to synthesise chymosin also provides a vegetarian method of cheesemaking, as previously, young ruminants (typically calves) had to be slaughtered to extract the enzyme from the stomach lining.

Industrial

Genetically modified bacteria are used to produce large amounts of proteins for industrial use. Generally the bacteria are grown to a large volume before the gene encoding the protein is activated. The bacteria are then harvested and the desired protein purified from them. The high cost of extraction and purification has meant that only high value products have been produced at an industrial scale.

Pharmaceutical production

The majority of the industrial products from bacteria are human proteins for use in medicine. Many of these proteins are impossible or difficult to obtain via natural methods and they are less likely to be contaminated with pathogens, making them safer. Prior to recombinant protein products, several treatments were derived from cadavers or other donated body fluids and could transmit diseases. Indeed, transfusion of blood products had previously led to unintentional infection of haemophiliacs with HIV or hepatitis C; similarly, treatment with human growth hormone derived from cadaver pituitary glands may have led to outbreaks of Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease.

The first medicinal use of GM bacteria was to produce the protein insulin to treat diabetes.^[19] Other medicines produced include clotting factors to treat haemophilia, human growth hormone to treat various forms of dwarfism, interferon to treat some cancers, erythropoietin for anemic patients, and tissue plasminogen activator which dissolves blood clots. Outside of medicine they have been used to produce biofuels. There is interest in developing an extracellular expression system within the bacteria to reduce costs and make the production of more products economical.

Health

With greater understanding of the role that the microbiome plays in human health, there is the potential to treat diseases by genetically altering the bacteria to, themselves, be therapeutic agents. Ideas include altering gut bacteria so they destroy harmful bacteria, or using bacteria to replace or increase deficient enzymes or proteins. One research focus is to modify Lactobacillus, bacteria that naturally provide some protection against HIV, with genes that will further enhance this protection. The bacteria which generally cause tooth decay have been engineered to no longer produce tooth-corroding lactic acid. These transgenic bacteria, if allowed to colonize a person's mouth, could perhaps reduce the formation of cavities. Transgenic microbes have also been used in recent research to kill or hinder tumors, and to fight Crohn's disease.

If the bacteria do not form colonies inside the patient, the person must repeatedly ingest the modified bacteria in order to get the required doses. Enabling the bacteria to form a colony could provide a more long-term solution, but could also raise safety concerns as interactions between bacteria and the human body are less well understood than with traditional drugs.

One example of such an intermediate, which only forms short-term colonies in the gastrointestinal tract, may be Lactobacillus Acidophilus MPH734. This is used as a specific in the treatment of Lactose Intolerance. This genetically modified version of Lactobacillus acidophilus bacteria produces a missing enzyme called lactase which is used for the digestion of lactose found in dairy products or, more commonly, in food prepared with dairy products. The short term colony is induced over a one-week, 21-pill treatment regimen, after which, the temporary colony can produce lactase for three months or more before it is removed from the body by a natural processes. The induction regimen can be repeated as often as necessary to maintain protection from the symptoms of lactose intolerance, or discontinued with no consequences, except the return of the original symptoms.

There are concerns that horizontal gene transfer to other bacteria could have unknown effects. As of 2018 there are clinical trials underway testing the efficacy and safety of these treatments.

Agriculture

For over a century bacteria have been used in agriculture. Crops have been inoculated with Rhizobia (and more recently Azospirillum) to increase their production or to allow them to be grown outside their original habitat. Application of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) and other bacteria can help protect crops from insect infestation and plant diseases. With advances in genetic engineering, these bacteria have been manipulated for increased efficiency and expanded host range. Markers have also been added to aid in tracing the spread of the bacteria. The bacteria that naturally colonise certain crops have also been modified, in some cases to express the Bt genes responsible for pest resistance. Pseudomonas strains of bacteria cause frost damage by nucleating water into ice crystals around themselves. This led to the development of ice-minus bacteria, that have the ice-forming genes removed. When applied to crops they can compete with the ice-plus bacteria and confer some frost resistance.

This artwork is made with bacteria modified to express 8 different colours of fluorescent proteins.

Other uses

Other uses for genetically modified bacteria include bioremediation, where the bacteria are used to convert pollutants into a less toxic form. Genetic engineering can increase the levels of the enzymes used to degrade a toxin or to make the bacteria more stable under environmental conditions. GM bacteria have also been developed to leach copper from ore, clean up mercury pollution and detect arsenic in drinking water. Bioart has also been created using genetically modified bacteria. In the 1980s artist Joe Davis and geneticist Dana Boyd converted the Germanic symbol for femininity (ᛉ) into binary code and then into a DNA sequence, which was then expressed in Escherichia coli. This was taken a step further in 2012, when a whole book was encoded onto DNA. Paintings have also been produced using bacteria transformed with fluorescent proteins.

Bacteria-synthesized transgenic products

• Insulin
• Hepatitis B vaccine
• Tissue plasminogen activator
• Human growth hormone
• Ice-minus bacteria
• Interferon
• Bt corn
• Terraforming § Other possibilities

Buddhist economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_economics 

Slogan in Bhutan about gross national happiness in Thimphu's School of Traditional Arts.

Buddhist economics is a spiritual and philosophical approach to the study of economics. It examines the psychology of the human mind and the emotions that direct economic activity, in particular concepts such as anxiety, aspirations and self-actualization principles. In the view of its proponents, Buddhist economics aims to clear the confusion about what is harmful and what is beneficial in the range of human activities involving the production and consumption of goods and services, ultimately trying to make human beings ethically mature. The ideology's stated purpose is to "find a middle way between a purely mundane society and an immobile, conventional society."

The most fundamental feature of Buddhist economics is seeing "people interdependent with one another and with Nature."

Sri Lankan economist Neville Karunatilake wrote that: "A Buddhist economic system has its foundations in the development of a co-operative and harmonious effort in group living. Selfishness and acquisitive pursuits have to be eliminated by developing man himself." Karunatilake sees Buddhist economic principles as exemplified in the rule of the Buddhist king Ashoka.

The core values of western economics are based in the selfishness of human nature and profit maximization. In Buddhist Economics on the other hand, the driving principle is maximization of wellbeing with minimal use of resources. E. F. Schumacher, an early proponent of Buddhist economics, drew inspiration from the Buddhist principle of "Right Livelihood" in his influential essay "Buddhist Economics." The focus of right livelihood is finding employment which harms neither oneself nor others. Schumacher seizes on the point that the capitalist system assumes that people see work as "a necessary evil," or something to be disliked. He proposes that, based on Buddhist ideas of divine balance, there ought to be a healthy split between leisure and work. In Buddhist economics, there are three major functions to work, "to give man a chance to utilise and develop his faculties; to enable him to overcome his ego-centredness by joining with other people in a common task; and to bring forth the goods and services needed for a becoming existence." This shift in the way work is viewed, both by employers and employees, if applied to the western world, would be fundamentally altering to the incentives driving modern economies.

Bhutan's King Jigme Singye Wangchuck and its government have promoted the concept of "gross national happiness" (GNH) since 1972, based on Buddhist spiritual values, as a counter to gauging a nation's development by gross domestic product (GDP). This represents a commitment to building an economy that would serve Bhutan's culture based on Buddhist spiritual values instead of material development, such as being gauged by only GDP.

U.S. economics professor Clair Brown sets up a Buddhist economics framework that integrates Amartya Sen's capability approach with shared prosperity and sustainability. In her Buddhist economics model, valuation of economic performance is based on how well the economy delivers a high quality of life to everyone while it protects the environment. In addition to domestic output (or consumption), measuring economic performance includes equity, sustainability, and activities that create a meaningful life. A person's well-being depends on cultivation of inner (spiritual) wealth even more than outer (material) wealth.

Buddhist economics holds that truly rational decisions can only be made when we understand what creates irrationality. When people understand what constitutes desire, they realize that all the wealth in the world cannot satisfy it. When people understand the universality of fear, they become more compassionate to all beings. Thus, this spiritual approach to economics doesn't rely on theories and models, but on the essential forces of acumen, empathy, and restraint. From the perspective of a Buddhist, economics and other streams of knowledge cannot be separated. Economics is a single component of a combined effort to fix the problems of humanity and Buddhist economics works with it to reach a common goal of societal, individual, and environmental sufficiency.

History

Buddhist ethics was first applied to the running of a state's economy during the rule of the Indian Buddhist emperor Ashoka (c. 268 to 232 BCE). The reign of Ashoka is famous for an extensive philanthropic and public works program, which built hospitals, hostels, parks, and nature preserves.

The term "Buddhist economics" was coined by E. F. Schumacher in 1955, when he travelled to Burma as an economic consultant for Prime Minister U Nu. The term was used in his essay named "Buddhist Economics", which was first published in 1966 in Asia: A Handbook, and republished in his influential collection Small Is Beautiful (1973). The term is currently used by followers of Schumacher and by Theravada Buddhist writers, such as Prayudh Payutto, Padmasiri De Silva, and Luang Por Dattajivo.

The 1st Conference of the Buddhist Economics Research Platform was held in Budapest, Hungary from 23–24 August 2007. The second conference was held at Ubon Ratchathani University, Thailand from 9–11 April 2009.

General views on economics

Unlike traditional economics, Buddhist economics considers stages after the consumption of a product, investigating how trends affect the three intertwined aspects of human existence: the individual, society, and the environment. For example, if there were an increase in the consumption of cigarettes, Buddhist economists try to decipher how this increase affects the pollution levels in the environment, its impact on passive smokers and active smokers, and the various health hazards that come along with smoking, thus taking into consideration the ethical side of economics. The ethical aspect of it is partly judged by the outcomes it brings and partly by the qualities that lead to it.

The Buddhist point of view ascribes to work three functions: to give man a chance to utilize and develop his aptitude; to enable him to overcome his self-aggrandizement by engaging with other people in common tasks; and to bring forward the goods and services needed for a better existence.

Differences between traditional and Buddhist economics

There are a number of differences between traditional economics and Buddhist economics.

• While traditional economics concentrates on self-interest, the Buddhist view challenges it by changing the concept of self to Anatta or no-self. It posits that all things perceived by one's senses are not actually "I" or "mine" and therefore, humans must detach themselves from this feeling. Buddhist Economists believe that the self-interest based, opportunistic approach to ethics will always fail. According to Buddhist Economists, generosity is a viable economic model of mutual reciprocity, because human beings are Homo reciprocans who tend to reciprocate to feelings (either positively or negatively) by giving back more than what is given to them.
• Traditional economists emphasize importance to maximizing profits and individual gains, while the underlying principle of Buddhist economics is to minimize suffering (losses) for all living or non-living things. Studies conducted by Buddhist economists correlate that human beings show greater sensitivity to loss than to gains, and concluded that people should concentrate more on reducing the former.
• There is a difference with respect to the concept of desire. Traditional economics encourages material wealth and desire in which people attempt to accumulate more wealth to satisfy those cravings. In contrast, in Buddhist economics, importance is given to simplifying one's desires. According to Buddhist economists, apart from the basic necessities like food, shelter, clothing, and medicines, other materialistic needs should be minimized. Buddhist economists say that overall well-being decreases if people pursue meaningless desires; wanting less will benefit the person, the community they live in, and nature overall.
• Views on the market are also different. While many economists advocate maximizing markets to a point of saturation, Buddhist economists aim at minimizing violence. Traditional economics do not take into consideration "primordial stakeholders", like future generations and the natural world because their vote is not considered relevant in terms of purchasing power. They think that other stakeholders such as poor and marginalized people are under-represented because of their inadequate purchasing power and preference is given to the strongest stakeholder. Therefore, they believe that the market is not an unbiased place, but truly representative of the economy. Thus, Buddhist economists advocate ahimsa or non-violence. Ahimsa prevents doing anything that directly causes suffering to oneself or others and urges to find solutions in a participatory way. Community supported agriculture is one such example of community-based economic activities. Buddhist economists believe that community-supported agriculture fosters trust, helps build value based communities and brings people closer to the land and their food source. Achieving this sustainability and non-violence requires restructuring of dominating configurations of modern business, which they advocate. This leads to de-emphasizing profit maximization as the ultimate motive and renewed emphasis on introducing small-scale, locally adaptable, substantive economic activities.
• Traditional economists try to maximize instrumental use where the value of any entity is determined by its marginal contribution to the production output while Buddhist economists feel that the real value of an entity is neither realized nor given importance to. Buddhist economists attempt to reduce instrumental use and form caring organizations that will be rewarded in terms of trust among the management, co-workers, and employees.
• Traditional economists tend to believe that bigger is better and more is more, whereas Buddhist economists believe that small is beautiful and less is more.
• Traditional economics gives importance to gross national product whereas Buddhist economics gives importance to gross national happiness.

Other beliefs

Buddhist economists believe that as long as work is considered a disutility for laborers and laborers a necessary evil for employers, the true potential of the laborers and employers cannot be achieved. In such a situation, employees will always prefer income without employment and employers will always prefer output without employees.

According to them, people are unable to feel liberated not because of wealth but because of their attachment to wealth. In the same way, they say that it is the craving for pleasurable baubles and not the enjoyment from them that holds humans back.

Buddhist economists do not believe in measuring standard of living by the amount of consumption because according to them, obtaining maximum well being as a result of minimum consumption is more important than obtaining maximum well being from maximum consumption. Thus, they feel that the concept of being "better off" because of greater levels of consumption is not a true measure of happiness.

Buddhist economics also gives importance to natural, renewable, and non-renewable resources. They feel that non-renewable resources should only be used when most needed and then also with utmost care, meticulously planning out its use. They believe that using them extravagantly is violent and not in keeping with the Buddhist belief of nonviolence. According to them, if the entire population relies on non-renewable resources for their existence, they are behaving parasitically, preying on capital goods instead of income. Adding to this, they feel that this uneven distribution and ever increasing exploitation of natural resources will lead to violence between men.

They also believe that satisfaction need not necessarily be felt only when something tangible is got back in return for giving something or something material is gained, as stated in modern economics. They say that the feeling of satisfaction can be achieved even when one parts with something without getting anything tangible in return. An example is when one gives presents to their loved ones simply because they want them to be happy.

Buddhist economists believe that production is a very misleading term. According to them, to produce something new, the old form has to be destroyed. Therefore, production and consumption become complementary to each other. Taking this into consideration, they advocate non-production in certain cases because when one produces less materialistic things, they reduce exploitation of the world's resources and lead the life of a responsible and aware citizen.