Question: How do you feel about the use of herbicides and pesticides?
Ideally, the problems lessened through the use of herbicides and pesticides will be remedied with alternative scientific practices that are more positive for the long-range health of the environment and humans.
Two main benefits are argued in support of the use of herbicides and pesticides: an increased food supply and the decrease in insect borne diseases. Farms treated with said contaminates do yield a larger food quantity, at least for the short term. Increasing the food supply would undoubtedly better the lives of some at-need people, however, I see food supply problems more of a distribution and overconsumption issue. Another advantage to their use is a reduction in malaria, bubonic plague and typhus. Many lives are saved from killing insects that carry such diseases with herbicides and pesticides; however, there are alternative methods to containing insect borne diseases.
There are many negative results of the use of herbicides and pesticides. These effects are unknown in their entirety and appear to increase in severity over time. The destructive path has been observed to be non-self containing, spreading throughout ecosystems. The cycle starts with rain carrying key elements: nitrogen and phosphorous, into waterways. Algae growth is accelerated and nutrient rich algae blocks sunlight, killing aquatic animals below. Bacteria consumes these dead animals and organisms, this decreases oxygen levels in the water and causes more aquatic life to suffocate. Chemicals are passed through biomagnification; meaning that predators get chemicals in their tissues at a higher rate. This process damages the food chain from the bottom to the top. Additionally, genetic resistance occurs, less biological plant variety in leads to weakened food security. All aspects of the ecosystem are unbalanced due to the use of herbicides and pesticides. For these reasons, I do not view their use a sustainable and responsible approach.
Ideally, the problems lessened through the use of herbicides and pesticides will be remedied with alternative scientific practices that are more positive for the long-range health of the environment and humans.
Two main benefits are argued in support of the use of herbicides and pesticides: an increased food supply and the decrease in insect borne diseases. Farms treated with said contaminates do yield a larger food quantity, at least for the short term. Increasing the food supply would undoubtedly better the lives of some at-need people, however, I see food supply problems more of a distribution and overconsumption issue. Another advantage to their use is a reduction in malaria, bubonic plague and typhus. Many lives are saved from killing insects that carry such diseases with herbicides and pesticides; however, there are alternative methods to containing insect borne diseases.
There are many negative results of the use of herbicides and pesticides. These effects are unknown in their entirety and appear to increase in severity over time. The destructive path has been observed to be non-self containing, spreading throughout ecosystems. The cycle starts with rain carrying key elements: nitrogen and phosphorous, into waterways. Algae growth is accelerated and nutrient rich algae blocks sunlight, killing aquatic animals below. Bacteria consumes these dead animals and organisms, this decreases oxygen levels in the water and causes more aquatic life to suffocate. Chemicals are passed through biomagnification; meaning that predators get chemicals in their tissues at a higher rate. This process damages the food chain from the bottom to the top. Additionally, genetic resistance occurs, less biological plant variety in leads to weakened food security. All aspects of the ecosystem are unbalanced due to the use of herbicides and pesticides. For these reasons, I do not view their use a sustainable and responsible approach.