In my article Binary Star EF Eridanus Baffles Astronomers (link here) I have come to question whether I should have titled the post as I did.
I especially apologize to those more affluent in astronomy and astrophysics if I overstated the importance of this find, especially in my use of the word "baffled". Comments are welcome.
It seems I've touched on a volatile issue here. Please consider this elaboration. Hopefully it will show you that I do consider my thoughts carefully.
With every technological innovation there are consequences. Coal power produced pollution the likes of which had never been seen before; the proliferation of the automobile has contributed greatly to increased greenhouse emissions; and genetically modified foods have been met with great skepticism is most industrialized nations
Indeed, agriculture has been around a very, very long time. And with that experience comes hesitation when introducing something as bold as GMF.
Selectively breeding the best strain of rice or rose or whatever? Great. When chemically asserting our influence on a plant's genetics, fine tuning resistances, making the stalk more hearty, whatever is desired, should not the system in which that plant is introduced be carefully examined and all possible consequences be taken into account, even those of which we have no knowlege of?
When my children come of age, I don't want them to deal with any more problems than they have to. Leave the world better than when you entered it, I've heard so often. Granted, GMC can produce high yields and produce great profits. But what of their affects on their regions? The soil? Groundwater? Neighboring flora and fauna? What of the pesticides/herbicides/fertilizers used to nourish these crops? No one can answer these questions with any degree of certainty because we have yet to understand 100% of nature's processes.
Look at the Mississippi River, at the "Dead Zone" where it empties into the Gulf of Mexico. Is that what we want our kids to inherit?
I'm not broadcasting nameless, shapeless fear, but I do have reason to be concerned. What I am concerned about is the long term consequences of our implementation of modern GMC the likes of which have never been seen in 2000+ years of agriculture, and, specifically, how those changes will affect the health and yields of future crops.
In my article "Green Housing Takes Root in Oregon", I made a blatant error in my arithmetic in converting square feet to square meters. There were several comments made by the community alerting me to this error, and I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
Eight hundred square feet is roughly equivalent to seventy four square meters. My most sincere apologies to the Slashdot community and its devoted readers.
Never trust anyone who says money is no object.
