Alex+W.

=Unit 1-Genetics= =Feeding Seven Billion-A Task Too Big For Mother Nature?= “We’re running out of food,” says Roy Klabin, a writer for Policymic online. And he’s not alone in saying that. Despite being projected, with the inclusion of modern agricultural techniques, to vastly surpass necessary crop yields needed to support the projected 9.2 billion people estimated to populate this planet by the year 2050, the modern farms of the world have not lived up to the expectations.



 But thankfully new science has proposed a solution to this grave issue: Genetically modified crops.

 GMO’s (Genetically modified organisms) are any organism that has been altered through gene splicing by taking characteristics (created by genes-or specific segments of DNA) from other organisms and placing them into the original. By applying this technology to crops we can improve them in several different facets, such as by making them resistant to pesticides, herbicides and frost, thus making less crops die off before there are harvested and increasing yields.  The first genetically engineered crop to be approved by the FDA was the Flavr Savr tomato. Scientists discovered that an enzyme by the name of polygalacturonase, or PG for short was responsible for softening a ripening tomato. PG dissolved the cyclin present in the cell walls of the tomato, thus causing the softening. Traditionally tomatoes had been picked while they were green then later artificially ripened to prevent rotting of the fruit while being transported. By genetically altering the tomato genes to reduce the amount of PG found it the tomato, they were able to allow the tomato to remain ripe longer. This allowed them to remove the artificial ripening process of the tomato as well as increasing the flavor.



 By making a vast number of genetic changes to a vast number of crops much will be improved. Yields will be much better, less chemicals will need to be used and shelf life will be increased. Crops can even be modified to survive during droughts. The potential for these improvements are endless. media type="custom" key="24074300" At this moment, crops enhanced by these forms of biotechnology are being grown on practically 13 million acres of land in 13 different countries. Moreover, thousands of food products available on the shelves of grocery stores contain genetically altered crops in their ingredients. Certainly this sounds like an ingenious solution to a starving planet, doesn’t it?

Some say no, not at all.

A number of concerns come along with genetically altered crops. One of the main concerns is how it affects local farming. Certainly it takes money and well educated individuals to genetically alter a crop, and virtually every farmer who produces on a local level doesn’t have access to these resources. A number of anti-GMO activists have raised concerns over the manipulation of something we as humans don’t totally understand. It’s pointed out that by adding foreign genes to crops we can see unexpected results, such as change in nutritional content and actually producing less yields.



 Moreover several scientists have raised concerns over making plants resistant to pesticides. By doing this, pesticides can be used to kill bugs and weeds that would normally destroy fields of crops. But some researchers claim this will lead to these same bugs and weeds developing resistance to those pesticides meaning that more and more powerfully chemicals will need to be used to combat the resistant pests. This increased use of chemicals will have to mean introducing more chemicals to our ecosystems, the effects of which could be deadly, some warn.  A deeper issue exists in all of this. 90% of the world’s GMO crops are altered and created by Monsanto, a corporation that has come under fire multiple times for it’s supposed unsafe handling of these crops. Naturally Monsanto wants to make these crops commercially viable to make profit, but many green groups have questioned their ethics in doing so. Virtually every study provided on GMO’s are based only on data provided by Biotech companies like Monsanto who would take a serious financial loss if these crops were deemed unsuitable for commercialization. Accusations have been made that independent researchers are unable to obtain GMO’s from Monsanto for testing, followed by Monsanto claiming their research data is flawed and irrelevant.  Monsanto has come under further criticism for their other exploits as well as GMO crops. The same company that produces the majority of the world’s GMO’s, a sizeable portion of which are resistant to pesticides (and therefore pesticides can be used on the crops to illuminate bugs and weeds) also produces one of the world’s most used pesticides, round up. Although Monsanto has claimed that the pesticide is safe for use, several environmental groups claim that is not the case, and that the main toxin present in Round Up (glyphosate) causes more harm than good, especially to bugs that don’t cause issues with crops. It’s claimed that glyphosate can mix with air and poison bugs around the crops.



 Another issue present with Monsanto is that of labeling. Despite being labeled in 64 other countries, foods made with GMOs in North America are not required to be labeled as containing GMOs. The motivation behind this is that a negative stigma exists around GMOs, regardless of whether or not they are safe, and that the everyday shopper will be quick to choose a brand that is advertised without GMOs, regardless of the safety of the product. On the other side of this issue, it’s believed that people deserve to have the choice in regards to GMO foods. As of right now, there is virtually no way to know whether or not food present in the grocery store aisles of North America contains GMOs; however, 70% do. media type="custom" key="24074274" align="left"

Bill Maher debates Monsanto with his Panel of Guests. Regardless of the debate, GMOs are becoming more and more omnipresent amongst North American foods. This trend is not expected to die out anytime soon.

Further Reading:
[] A 2001 study about GMO crops. [] A Yahoo! News article that deals with the main issues of GMOs. [] A Monsanto Page about world hunger. [] A link to the David Suzuki website about GMOs. =Sources= [] [] [] []

=Genetics-The Genetic fallout of Nuclear Testing=

 Despite its inception being only a short time ago, the nuclear bomb is plentiful among the modern world. Naturally, when dealing with highly reactive nuclear materials it is in the best interest of humankind to test out these bombs prior. But the lingering effects of these tests is felt in the genes of the humans who still live around and even no wear near former testing sights. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 0px; overflow: hidden;">

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> Radiation is naturally present in an environment. However, due to the activities of man of the past 65 years a large amount of radiation has been added to the atmosphere with several negative effects. Roughly 510 megatons of radiation has been caused by nuclear testing, equal to the simultaneous explosion of 29 thousand Hiroshima bombs. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> The beginning of these effects was felt by the servicemen who were actually present at the time of testing. Specifically in Great Britain, this has led to a number of law suits against the government by past servicemen who were exposed to radiation after watching nuclear explosions from the 1950 deemed safe distance of 15 miles. Not only did this harm the service men, but their generations that followed. The radiation caused several DNA mutations that were passed down to their children. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;">This caused birth defects and illness for some 22 thousand service men who witnessed these test, and that is in Great Britain alone. The rate of miscarriage was three times higher than normal among these servicemen, and several diseases such as muscular dystrophy and Down syndrome. Around 10% of children suffered serious congenial effects.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> Virtually all nuclear tests done by the United States occurred in Nevada. Located 100 km north of Las Vegas, over 100 tests were conducted at this site. The after effects of these tests resulted in a plethora of nuclear material to be released into the atmosphere, and transported by winds all over the United States. This saw a rise in cancer among soldiers exposed and infected milk of various animals with harmful radiation. As of July 2010, an estimated 1.5 billion dollars has been won in various court cases for service men and civilians who were harmed by nuclear tests.

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 1.5;"> In the former Soviet Union, nuclear missile tests occurred as well. 456 tests were conducted between 1946 and 1989. Local villagers were told to wait outside their houses, for fear they may collapse, if they could not leave. Despite several tests releasing harmful amounts of radioactive material, a number of residents returned to their villages a short time after the tests had occurred. A number of genetic effects have been reported among the local population, all attributed to the testing. These range of birth defects to cancers. A local hospital has estimated 60000 cases of cancer caused by nuclear testing.



<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt;"> In 1996, the UN created a treaty to end nuclear testing for the betterment of the environment. However, the treaty has not been fully enforced as of the moment. Since the 1950s, an estimated 2053 nuclear explosions have been conducted on the planet. media type="custom" key="24572202"

Sources:
[] [] [] []

Further Reading:
[] [] [] [|http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/effects/physical.ht]

=Unit 2-Evolution-The Future=

The iconic image of human evolution above displays a very different beginning turning into a very different end. But say we take this picture, which represents millions of years, and put it on a smaller scale. How will humans evolve? Or will they evolve at all?

media type="youtube" key="cZxCn7YgYJ8" width="560" height="315"

Theory number one-Humans won't evolve
<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;">"Because we //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;">have //<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;"> evolved, it's natural to imagine we will continue to do so, but I think that's wrong,"

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;">That quote is from <span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif; line-height: 1.5;"> anthropologist Ian Tattersall which outlines a prominent theory on the subject--that humans will not evolve.

Evolution occurs when a mutation is passed down from generation to generation. This mutation must provide some kind of benefit to the species for this to happen. According to Tattersall, one of the driving factors in evolution is species isolation. Isolation doesn't not exist in modern society with transportation virtually universally available to transport humans all over the globe.

Steve Jones, a genetic professor at the university of London also agrees that humans won't evolve. His primary reason is that one of the key concepts in evolution-survival of the fittest-has been sidelined in modern humans.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;">"the fact that everybody stays alive, at least until they're sexually mature, means ['survival of the fittest' has] got nothing to work with. That part of the Darwinian fuel has gone." A quote from Jones reads.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;">This is because as humans, we don't allow the weak to die off. Morally, it is believed that all deserve to live and due to medical advantages many 'weak' genes are inert.



Theory Two-We will evolve
Some researchers disagree, and believe that human evolution is not over.

A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences in the United States set out to find modern occurrences of natural selection in the modern world. One of their examples was that women with short, 'plumper' bodies tend to have more children due to ovarian characteristics, and that these characteristics are passed down to their off spring very easily.

Geoffrey Miller, a professor at the University of New Mexico sites that sexual selection, something Darwin predicted many years ago, is alive and well in the modern world.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;">"We're also going to get stronger sexual selection, because the more advanced the technology gets, the greater an effect general intelligence will have on each individual's economic and social success, because as technology gets more complex, you need more intelligence to master it," he said.



<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;">Miller also states his belief that future technology, like the ones portrayed in the Andrew Nicol movie Gattaca, will cause artificial selection between humans to occur as humans pick their partners based on genetic benefit. He states that there would be a rise in sexually preferable traits as well, such as height, muscular development and energy.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; font-family: arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;">Some proposed examples of human evolution are:

Weaker immune system due to dependence on medication.

Wisdom teach may disappear. 35% of humans are all ready born without wisdom teeth.

Toes may disappear.

Teeth may get smaller.


 * Theory three-A new human species?**

For a new human species to develop, genetic isolation would be necessary according to anthropologist John Hawks. For this isolation to happen, a dramatic event must occur. Something like a disease out break of the pandemic scale, an environmental disaster or a major war.

However, some researchers have proposed that if humans develop the technology to further explore out space and inhabit new planets, this form of isolation may cause the development of a new species.

=Sources= http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/projecting-human-evolution-5-traits-we-might-possess-in http://listverse.com/2012/11/26/top-10-possible-next-steps-in-human-evolution/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/11/091124-origin-of-species-150-darwin-human-evolution.html http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/projecting-human-evolution-5-traits-we-might-possess-in =Further Reading= http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2013/06/07/how-the-human-face-might-look-in-100000-years/ http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/23/0906199106.abstract http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2013/jul/10/human-evolution-next-stages http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-future-of-man/