The Introduction of Biotechnology in Traditional Agricultural - Essay Example

Should biotechnologies replace traditional agricultural in the future? Since the beginning of agriculture by human beings, it has constantly changed to accommodate the different human needs. This change has ensured a constant evolution of agriculture to such an extent that it has been able to sustain different civilizations throughout history. While this change may be the case, the modern world has seen the development of new agricultural technologies designed to make sure that there are improvements in agricultural production as well as an increase in profits. The development of biotechnologies is one of the factors that has come to affect the manner through which agriculture is conducted and it has brought about a situation where there has been widespread debate concerning whether these technologies should replace traditional agriculture. Biotechnology should not be allowed to replace traditional agriculture because it will result in more harm than good. One of the reasons why biotechnology should not replace traditional agriculture is that it will neither benefit the farmers in the developed world nor those in the developing world. This is mainly because biotechnology is profit driven and does not have the interests of farmers at heart. As a profit driven industry, biotechnology can be considered to be a means through which major agricultural corporations are attempting to increase the dependence of society on industrial products to the almost total exclusion of products from traditional farmers. The intensification of farmers’ dependence on industrial products through the adoption of biotechnology would ensure that they end up having to endure restrictions based on intellectual property rights owned by major biochemical corporations. The enforcement of these rights would mean that farmers would be denied the right to not only reproduces, but also to share and store the seeds that they have purchased. Such conditions would be highly detrimental to farmers and would force them to have to purchase expensive industrial products in order to continue practicing agriculture. It should be noted that without the much needed capital in order to purchase biotechnological products, most traditional farmers would be forced out of business, with the market being almost completely dominated by large corporations that are profit driven. Therefore, if biotechnology were to replace traditional agriculture, it would create a situation where it would be difficult for a significant number of people employed in the latter industry to survive the new market conditions. There would be an increase in the number of unemployed while at the same time ensure that agriculture is no longer a viable business except for large corporations that have the capital to survive the market. If biotechnology were to replace traditional agriculture, such a situation would prove disastrous for small farmers as well as the poor individuals in the third world. This is especially because it would bring about the marginalization of small farmers because they would not have the resources they need to ensure that they are able to adopt biotechnology in their businesses. Furthermore, in the third world, it has become the norm for farmers to retain some of their crops so that they can be used as seeds during planting season. The system that has been developed by the latter has ensured that they do not lack the means of producing new crops on an annual basis; hence reducing their dependency on outside forces for their survival. The introduction of biotechnology would greatly hamper these farmers because not only would they be removed from the agricultural sector as a result of unfair competition, but they would also end up being left paupers in the process. Large corporations such as Monsanto, which are extremely ruthless in business, would make use of biotechnological products to remain dominant in the market through making sure that their products are cheaper than those produced through traditional agriculture. Countries in the third world would end up suffering because their exports would become compromised by biotechnology and this would be to such an extent that thousands, if not millions of people, would end up being unemployed. Such a situation would have a negative effect on these countries since it would allow for the continued dependence of the third world on economic aid from developed countries. The introduction of biotechnology would bring about a situation where the ecological sovereignty of the rest of the world, especially in third world countries, would end up being compromised. Such a situation has already began taking place where large corporations are making a rush in these countries to ensure that they get the best genes from local crops to use in the development of their own biotechnological products. This situation has led to the loss of massive revenues by third world countries which would have used the billions lost to implement development projects at home. The compromising of the ecological sovereignty of the third world has led to a situation where it has become difficult for local farmers to receive the compensation that they deserve for the development of diverse crop strains over a period of many centuries. Instead, large corporations, using their immense resources, have been able to attain the various genetic strains from these farmers, usually without their knowledge, and make huge profits from them. The lack of reward for farmers in the third world can be considered to be as a result of the development of biotechnology by multinational corporations which are essentially profit-making entities which will do so at any given opportunity. Because biotechnology is almost completely in the hands of the private sector, specifically large corporations, it would be inadvisable to allow it to replace traditional agriculture because such a move would make these corporations richer at the expense of those individuals in the third world who have worked hard for centuries to develop diversity among their crops. The adoption of biotechnology would not lead to the conservation of genetic diversity. This is because despite its capacity to help in the development of products that enhance biodiversity, biotechnology at the hands of multinational corporations would most likely not be willing to do so. For the most part, the strategy of large corporations is always to ensure that they create as large a market for single products as possible because such a move would help in lesser expenditure while enhancing their profits. Furthermore, through their owning of patents for their various products, corporations will prevent the development of improved varieties of crops on farms; thus hampering continued biodiversity. The influence that most of these corporations have all over the planet would end up undermining the efforts of individual farmers to practice their trade through creating diverse genetic strains of the same products. Instead, the monopoly of biotechnology would make it extremely difficult for poor farmers to have a say in the manner through which crops are developed. They would be forced to give up their livelihood for the sake of satisfying the desires of large corporations which, using their influence, will most likely end up making sure that patent laws protecting them are put in place in all countries within which they have operations. Thus, the biological complexity that has been the mainstay of traditional farming methods will end up being compromised; hurting both human and animal life in the process of the massive genetic erosion that will likely take place. It has been argued that the adoption of biotechnology in place of traditional agriculture will ensure an ecologically safe and sustainable agriculture. Blake Hurst argues that “critics of “industrial farming” spend most of their time concerned with the processes by which food is raised.” This argument does not put into consideration the potential hazards that would be involved in the process. Biotechnology is essentially being implemented in a bid to patch-up the problems that were brought about through the use of agrochemical products that were promoted by those corporations that have taken a lead in biotechnology. According to Jeremy Rifkin, “virtually every genetically engineered organism released into the environment poses a potential threat to the ecosystem.” There should be concern about the possibility of pest-resistant plants being able to transfer their genes to their wild relative; effectively leading to unintended consequences that might be harmful to the environment. In conclusion, the discussion above attempts to show that biotechnology should not be allowed to replace traditional agriculture because it will result in more harm than good. One of the reasons states is that it will neither benefit the farmers in the developed world nor those in the developing world. Furthermore, it has been argued that if biotechnology were to replace traditional agriculture, such a situation would prove disastrous for small farmers as well as the poor individuals in the third world. Moreover, the introduction of biotechnology as a replacement for traditional agriculture would bring about a situation where the ecological sovereignty of the rest of the world, especially in third world countries, would end up being compromised. In addition, it has been argued that the adoption of biotechnology would not lead to the conservation of genetic diversity. Finally, the argument against biotechnology has been countered through the argument that that the adoption of biotechnology in place of traditional agriculture will ensure an ecologically safe and sustainable agriculture. Works Cited Hurst, Blake. The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals. The American. 2009. Web. Rifkin, Jeremy: Playing Ecological Roulette with Mother Natures Designs. . The Biotech Century. n.d. Web. Read More