America – it has its flaws and we know it. Poverty, pollution, outsourcing, topics ranging from global political issues to internal ethical controversies. But what if solving these problems only introduces an epidemic of fresh complications? I have reason to believe that it might.
Here’s an unlikely example: corn.
While I researching how questionable corn is for our health as a new topic in my other blog (heartsmartandpennywise.wordpress.com), my mind began imagining how to solve our country’s problems. The thing about corn is it’s in pretty much everything in America. Just watch the movie The Informant and you’ll get the idea. Not only do we eat corn as corn, we eat it as sucrose, high-fructose corn syrup, corn starch, corn-fed animals,… We rely heavily on corn. Come a draught or epidemic big enough to wipe out a portion of our corn and the price of everything is going to skyrocket. We won’t know what to do with ourselves. Another factor to this problem is that about 80% of corn is genetically modified. (I say 80 because I saw a stat that indicates 20% of corn demand is for organic kinds.) Not only is corn already difficult for our bodies to digest and a nutritional wasteland, but genetic modifiers accelerate corn’s negative effect on our health.
So now you know about corn. You know we rely too much on it and it is affecting our health. But how would we solve these problems? Here are my initial thoughts – and the points at which I realized the Catch 22’s:
1. Stop using so much corn. Seems like a no-brainer. We eliminate corn products and then we don’t need to rely on it so much. Besides, it’s better to spread our dependencies around to different crops so that, in the event of a blight or other tragedy, we don’t lose absolutely everything in one swipe. The problem: Why should companies eliminate corn? It’s cheap, it does its purpose, it’s versatile. There is no motivation to change it… unless the FDA steps in a changes regulations. That’s a whole mess of controversies and complaints, of time and energy to actually follow through, etc. Products everywhere would be changing ingredients, tastes, costs, allergy warnings, calorie counts. Farmers with tons of corn crops would have suddenly a dramatic demand decrease and would have to change crops. But not all soil is suitable for all crops, and there’s the whole crop rotation issue to factor in. Corn pretty much strips soil of nitrogen, and each crop has its own soil demands. So maybe stopping using corn – at least all at once – isn’t the quick fix solution?
2. Ban genetic modifiers. There’s so much internal controversy over the health and environmental effects of genetic modifiers as it is. The problem: No genetic modification means more organic crops. Organic crops are more expensive and the FDA would keep farmers under strict regulation. Not only this, but organic crops would yield less and smaller crops, so the volume of what would be produced would be insufficient and require more land to produce enough. One plus might be that these demands means increased price which might in turn cause the demands to go down, but that isn’t want a farmer wants to hear, even if that means less product would end up going to waste in the end. However, no genetic modifiers would likely affect the shelf-life of produce, thereby increasing the transportation demand which is already a problem in this country. By improving one environmental issue, we’d introduce another.
This same thought process can be applied to a number of situations. Like poverty. If we could actually spread the wealth so that everyone was happy (which they inadvertently wouldn’t be anyway), it is the error of humans being vain humans that would lead to a collapse. There is a disparage in the wealth for a reason, I believe, and it’s like the expression: “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish, feed him for life.” Maybe this is a highly Republican viewpoint, but I think it is applicable. I also think the Communism is wonderful concept, it’s just that humans are too greedy and corrupt by nature to be equally committed to making it work. It is in our nature to want to come out on top. It’s called survival, as trivial as a thing that may seem in modern society. Hand-outs seem like a quick fix, putting heavier taxes on the wealthier temporarily smoothes out some intrinsic problems, but, in the long run, the equilibrium will balance itself back out. These “fixes” will only aggravate the system.
This “Catch 22” theme also applies to my previous post on LEED certification, where we do more environmental damages in the long run to prove that we tried to care about “going green”. Now that we’ve entered this energy-dominated era, there is little hope for turning back. There are so many things to fix that, honestly, I feel like we will have buried ourselves before we can ever hope to get back out. You can only have so many cracks in your windshield before you realize they’re running and you can’t see anymore.
I can’t take credit for writing a particularly organized post because, I’ll admit, this has become somewhat of a rant. But I guess this is a blog and not an article. Hopefully my point-of-view sparks some thoughts for whoever might read this. I genuinely do believe America is in quite a jam – or, at least, is heading into one quite quickly – and that it’s going to take a lot of hard work to clean it up before it falls apart.