Plant or Patent?

Plant or Patent?

Pollan M. The botany of desire. New York, NY: Random House, Inc.; 2001. 183-238p.

Chapter 4

Desire: Control

Plant: The Potato (Solanum tuberosum)

Terms of interest

Allée: a walk or passage between evenly planted trees

Hubris: excessive pride or self-confidence

Modus operandi: mode of operation

Debonair: confident, stylish, and charming

Laconic: (of a person, speech, or style of writing) Using very few words

Chapter four, of The Botany of Desire, plants the seeds for change in agriculture. Michael Pollan beautifully compares a city to green vegetable seedlings, organized in his garden.  He describes the sublime of nature having her way with us, making us feel small as we awe at her power. As the chapter progresses, Pollan often refers to the fact that mankind has a need for power.  Something often associated with oversimplification and the formation of new problems, problems that often outweigh the original. The evolution of the potato is explained with the integration of historical facts. Uncertainty is focused upon along the way. Pollan provides a gate way for insight into the science behind commercial potatoes of today, bringing humor to the often humorless field of study. Pollan provides the means for a new perspective on genetically modified organisms (GMO’s).

As Pollan described the sublime of feeling small and in awe by nature, I felt moved on a personal level.  This sublime is something I have always been fond of, something I have always craved, appreciated, and embraced since I was a child. Being somewhat of a free spirit, my father was my greatest influence in this.

It is here, in having the capacity to not only work toward but to obtain power, I think our appreciation for nature stems. This is something that has caused problems in all facets of life across history, especially agriculture.  In agriculture, as power increases “…every new step in the direction of simplification-toward monoculture, say, or genetically identical plants-leads to unimagined new complexities” (pg. 185). In self-interest, possible repercussions are often not weighed. Immediate benefits are all that are taken into consideration. On the scale of an individual, Pollan describes personal sacrifices for power when he admits to using his tomatillos, planted near his potatoes, as scapegoats for beetles. He reminds us of the commonality our species has for power, even if seemingly, at first glance, non-existent.

Through small details like this, I am reminded of why I see the authors (Pollan and Diamond) contrast so greatly. Pollan brings in dates and explanations of historical events instead of just spewing “facts”. He explains that Solanum tuberosum was first domesticated by the Incas 7000 years ago. He is careful to prevent doubt in the minds of his readers - I respect the consideration.  Despite the contrast in, what I consider, relevant details, my poor first impression of Diamond is lifted by Pollan touching on many of the same points. For example, they both consistently touch on our role in co-evolving with plants.

Back to what matters…

In a nutshell, on pg.186, Pollan describes the course of our relationship with plants saying “…together, the people and the plants embarked on a series of experiments in co-evolution that would change them both forever”. Throughout the chapter, we get the impression that people are not the only things with a strong relationship to plants. Things, such as beetles, seem to be dependent on plants for many of the same reasons we are, using plants for protection, food, etc. On this note, I find it particularly interesting that companies like Monsanto are so willing to produce insecticidal vegetables when they affect more than just the target species, such as the case with monarch butterflies. With such uncertainty in the effects of a plant, not knowing what species it will affect in a given ecosystem and how those affects will play out in the long run, I am more than surprised to hear of how widespread GMO’s are, especially when more conventional farms still exist.

I love that Pollan is willing to acknowledge the uncertainty science is composed of, something often overlooked by many new, or not actively involved, in the field of study. Unfortunately, however, it is sometimes overlooked by those that should know better (Monsanto). With respect to power, Pollan says that ideally he wishes to control for every variable but one, and that unfortunately the reality is that everything affects everything, no matter what scale. The uncertainty within the roots of science is made clear when the gene gun, and the genetic methods associated with it, are described as nothing more than a gun shooting rounds coated in DNA (pg. 207). It was disheartening to hear Pollan say, on pg. 210, that he believes “uncertainty is the theme that unifies most of the questions now being raised about agricultural biotechnology by environmentalists and scientists”. Maybe it is for this very reason that Pollan often refers to our actions as to those of either the God Apollo or Dionysus, to diffuse accountability. Aside from obvious pitfalls of a unifying theme like uncertainty in agriculture, I found the whole topic very interesting.

I was particularly interested to hear, on pg. 209, Pollans reaction to such a reality when he says “I was struck by the uncertainty surrounding the process, how this technology is at the same time both astoundingly sophisticated yet still a shot in the dark”. There seemed to be a transition of Pollans opinion, across the chapter, as he continually investigates GMO’s. Beginning to feel increasingly active in science myself, I am beginning to understand that the reality of front-line science seems to be dependent on whether you are proximal or distal to the field of study - I saw this too in hearing Pollans perspective. The further away (distal), the more precise and definite science seems to be. Whether from media or other second hand sources, science always seems to bring reassurance to people as a dependable, factual entity. I think this is something we should be ashamed of, as the essence of life itself is dependent on uncertainty. A false sense of security prevents us from the beauty life has to offer.

Philosophy aside, Pollan continues to avoid conventional thoughts on “factual” science by describing one of the head scientists at Monsanto as a “senior potato person”. With many farmers only netting $50 per acre of crops, laughter might be exactly what we need. No one needs brain damage from a buildup of cortisol in addition to being broke. Good for you Monsanto, you got two birds with one stone. I would say two potatoes with one seed but that would be violating the terms of your “intellectual property”.

Although I feel as if I want to rant and let the world (who all read my blog) know of my newfound distaste in GMO’s, I can’t bring myself to say too much. Simply put, I have an opinion but much as Pollan took the time to understand both sides of the story, I feel I must do the same. I want to hear what Percy Schmeiser has to say; I want to hear first hand the voice of the farmers.  I don’t want to be left in the dark in the face of revolutionary change. I want to grow. How did we go from a time where Charles Darwin once said, “man does not actually produce variability” to a time where man thinks he can patent it?

I think this question is the take home message from Pollan, and is the essence of the chapter.

I wish I had an answer to it but I just don’t understand.

Links of interest

Percy Schmeiser

Monsanto/Evil

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Domestication is a funny word

Domestication is a funny word

 Pollan M. The botany of desire. New York, NY: Random House, Inc.; 2001. xiii-xxvp.

In the introduction of The botany of desire, pg. xiii-xxv, Michael Pollan introduces the book as a means of investigating, and exploring, our (mankind’s) view on nature from an upside-down perspective. In other words, he aims to tell a story in an unconventional fashion from the plants perspective. As Pollan puts it, on pg. xxiii, the book delves into “four of the worlds success stories”, the apple, tulip, cannabis, and potato. These are exceptional stories to tell as they represent the successes of a fruit, flower, drug, and a staple food, respectively. Through the perspectives of these plants, which are so carefully woven into the history and future of our own species, Pollan hopes to achieve a change in our own perspectives, to see plants as a little less alien.

Let’s get to where I give you my opinion. Not having heard of Pollan, or his novel, my expectations were low. By no means am I trying to indirectly say that I am the guru of all books worthwhile or that I think Lyn has poor taste, I just made an assumption, based on the 3 at the beginning of the course number, that I would be reading something no more stimulating than a dictionary – was I ever wrong. I should have known that, being in science, making an assumption was a poor judgment call. In testing my assumption, or hypothesis in this case, I read a little. By the time I reached the end of the second paragraph, I knew I was in for something a little more stimulating than what science generally has to offer, something of substance, something lacking mass compilations of “facts”.

I enjoyed that Pollan didn’t just shove his opinion up into my face from the get go. Or maybe better said, I enjoyed that Pollan was able to convince me he was on my side before he gave me his opinion – this made me want to listen to him. I don’t think the world will ever be ready for another arrogant man trying to turn the world in his favor before any thought is invested in the possible repercussions of the actions needed to do so. Anyway, I don’t think this is the case with this author. After having established a baseline for how many people perceive the world around them, Pollan caught my attention when describing the role of consciousness between animal and plant saying, on pg. xiv, “consciousness needn’t enter into it on either side, and the traditional distinction between subject and object is meaningless”. I particularly like when Pollan sums up a human emotion by saying, on pg. xxi, that “our desires are simply more grist for evolutions mill, no different from a change in weather: a peril for some species, an opportunity for others”. Through statements as such in the introduction, I feel as if old perspectives begin to be up-rooted as the seeds for a new perspective, regarding our (animal) relationship with plants, begins to be planted.

Overall, Pollan introduces many new ideas regarding evolution (including co-evolution) and our role in nature that stimulate the imagination – he is no stranger to proper use of imagery. For this reason, I had no real dislikes and nothing nasty to say. I very much agree with his seeming want for reform of the many narrow-minded perspectives the people of this world currently hold. With many continually pressing environmental issues, of which we are causation and continue to ignore, I can’t say with certainty that a new approach to thinking is something we don’t need.

On a lighter and final note, I must say that I think there is way too much irony in the fact that the author of a book, revolving around vectors and the interaction of “subjects and objects”, has a name like Pollan – holy jeez.

  

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Diamond J. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The fates of human Societies. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.; 1999. 114-130p.

In chapter seven, of Guns, germs, and steel, Jared Diamond writes of the integrated history between plants and people. Diamond explains the traits early farmers might have been looking for, whether consciously or unconsciously, that may have been involved in the elementary stages of agriculture. He discusses the origin of many fruits and why some eluded to be domesticated. The chapter concludes with a subtle transition to artificial selection, and Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

Honestly, I felt as if Diamond never seemed to get to the point. Things got boring fast. He seemed to be beating around the bush during his passes to make a point. His walking in circles nearly put me to sleep. Maybe he could have defined words like “agronomist”? Not that, after breaking the word down, I couldn’t get an idea of the words meaning in the context provided, but it just felt like an unnecessary term to use. I mean, even the built in dictionary in iMacs version of Microsoft Word couldn’t give me a definition. I think that says something about the author’s choice of diction. In my opinion, Diamond seemed to make more than a few poor choices in his writing.

I did not think that Diamonds analogy of spittoons, garbage dumps, and latrines being the research laboratories for primitive man was fitting, especially without the addition of any factual information. This trend of making statements without addition of factual information is carried throughout the chapter. For example, on pg. 120, Diamond says with seeming confidence “…once humans began to bring wild peas home to eat, there was immediate selection for that single-gene mutant”. I understand the logic, and am willing to agree with it, but need a more concrete explanation to be fully convinced. In his final paragraph of the chapter, the one pertaining to Darwin, you seem to get a better idea of where things were supposed to be going but I simply felt I had lost interest by this time.

However, Diamond was able to provide some kind of useful information in the chapter. I enjoyed the addition of, the sparse, more factual information such as, on pg. 118, where he says “… flax is one of our oldest crops (domesticated by around 7000 B.C.)”. I prefer to hear a sense of uncertainty in writing when referring to an era we know very little about. On a similar note, I also enjoyed his explanation as to why apples, pears, plums, and cherries were not domesticated until more recent times; it is well established that some plants have a need for cross-pollination and others do not.

Overall, after reading a single chapter, I am in no rush to read more. However, I don’t feel as if a dislike for one chapter warrants not reading more, especially when required in a course I am currently enjoying. I do not think having a history should prevent us from questioning uncertainty. But Diamonds book was the winner of the Pulitzer Prize, so I will try to remain optimistic for the chapters to come.

More than a tree

More than a tree


Kishkan, T. 2011.  Pinus ponderosa:  a serious waltz. pg. 131-154 in Mnemonic:  a book of trees.  Goose Lane Editions, Fredricton, New Brunswick.

In this chapter, the author discusses the many intimate memories and experiences associated with Ponderosa Pines across her life. The chapter discusses Ponderosa Pines association with childhood memories, constructing baskets of pine needles, pine beetles and human history, and its many medicinal uses.

Throughout the whole essay it seems evident Kishkan sees beauty in Ponderosa Pines beyond the capacity of most. There seems to be a slow progression of overall peace achieved as she tells her stories and gathers pine needles to make her basket. Although obstacles always arise with making the pine basket, the author learns and stays persistent with the task at hand, holding on to all the things she loves about Ponderosa Pine. She eventually feels the difficulties get less severe and perseveres, completing her pine needle basket.

Many parts of the essay were more than engaging. From the moment I started reading the essay there seemed to be a strong sense of personification happening when describing trees. For example, on pg. 131, she describes the spruce as having “strong, supple arms” which give way to Ponderosa Pines. Later on in the chapter, on pg, 148, we get more personification as trees are described as being able to feel the organisms interacting with them. She even goes as far to describe how “a tree might have been startled awake by a bear climbing to its first strong branch”.  It is through these examples of personification that I felt I was able to acquire insight suggestive of Kishkan not seeing the plant world like an everyday, average person.

I felt it was difficult to be anything but engaged as Kishkan explains the personal functions Ponderosa Pines serve her; a trend that seemed to guide her progression in making her pine needle basket.  Having an allergic reaction to mosquitos, Ponderosa Pines are described as a sort of sanctuary for her, a place where her best memories are made and preserved. She even goes as far to say, on pg. 135, that she rests easy knowing, no matter where her children are, trees are watching over them. On pg. 133, she unveils the extent of her peaceful memories saying “I keep the cones in a bowl at home, a way back as sure as dreaming”. Even in situations of dissatisfaction she attempts to take what good memories she can from the trees. This is apparent, on pg. 133, when she explains that she only wants to keep memories of “healthy trees standing in their drifts of golden grass”.

What also kept me engaged in the chapter, was the extent of detail Kishkan was able to go into about her experiences with Ponderosa pine, continually displaying knowledge along the way. She is careful to make note of any personal highs and lows during the experience. When listing materials for the pine needle basket, on pg. 133, both raffia and the 18 tapestry needles are described as the easiest materials to get. Through her provided details you get the sense, as her experiences continue, she learns from her mistakes, frequently acknowledging her own imperfection. Even when, at the top of pg. 136, she describes a dog show, a seemingly unrelated memory with little contribution to her stories of Ponderosa Pine, the detail adds to the depth of her essay in the chapter.  It reminds me of how chaotic and random a human mind can be. On pg. 137, this sort of chaotic logic is also present when she doesn’t want to interrupt an intimate moment between owners of a store despite her want to inquire about one of the stores products.

Above all else I found it interesting how she, at the end of pg. 137, refers to beetles being worshiped when they emerge from rolled up balls of waste. I love that she seems to suggest a reevaluation of our current perspectives while making reference to our species past. She even goes as far to say, on pg. 142, what a remarkable idea it would be to let children and trees “meet as organisms”. Similarly, later on pg. 141, she compares the name for beetles “scarabs” to the Greek word “monogenes” for Christ saying that the words are quite literally one in the same. It was through this brave but comical comparison I really began to believe that Kishkan was a woman open to all the little joys life has to offer.

Overall, I thought Kishkan had a well written, entertaining essay. I didn’t feel like I was left with much to dislike. She used adequate detail in everything she explained and was able to bring excitement to her stories of Ponderosa Pine by using personification. In terms of a “take-home lesson”, I would have to say that, if Kishkan was suggesting anything at all, it is likely along the lines of a need for an increased appreciation for nature. I get the impression that, despite a strong fondness for Ponderosa Pine, she is firm to the idea that we should be closer to the world around us, the life around us.