Environment

Splice Whine

I’m sure at least some of you sciency types have seen the recent movie: Splice. Its a horror show about science gone wrong, or taken too far. The movie, which I enjoyed, taps into that old Frankenstein fear, and mixes it with modern genetics, and plays on the quite real fear many have of things “Genetically Modified”.

Now the movie takes some liberties, but what good horror movie doesn’t.

I also recently saw The Last Exorcism, which does to skepticism, what Splice does to Biology. Skeptics and scientists are arrogant and misguided and pride goeth before the fall. (I also liked this movie by the way, it had some good scares)

And yet, I’m a big fan of science and skepticism. What is a horror fan to do?

Well recently I learned of a real life horror, even more like Frankenstein, where scientists took parts, not just genes, from one creature and surgically spliced them onto a creature of a different species. And then, to compound the horror, they used this abomination to produce a product sold worldwide and consumed by millions.

Even worse, they have been doing this for over a hundred years, and there is not even a legally mandated warning label.

This abomination’s scary scientific name is Vitis vinifera, and the product is what we so naively refer to as wine. Both red and white. If you drink it, you are almost certainly, part of the problem.

Now, how could this happen? Is it all about corporate profits, and controlling your mind? (Well, yeah, sorta, it is alcohol after all, and it ain’t free.)

Thing is, natural evolution can be a real bugger. And a very real bug that evolved in the Americas is as gluttonous as it is unstoppable when it comes to devouring the roots of Vitis vinifera which, being an immigrant, has no natural defenses.

Even a century after the bug almost put an end to European wine production, science still has no way of protecting Vitis vinifera roots from the bug plague.

But wait, we still have lots of wine. (I can personally attest to lots.) Well even back then there were plenty mad scientists. In this case, they took the roots from native American plants and grafted them onto the Vitis vinifera vine. Voila, as the french say, instant resistance. And this is how almost all wine grapes are grown to this day, Frankenwine IS wine.

what-happened-to-oil

BP Oil Has Vanished

Like a good little skeptic I was concerned when I read on BBC that the “majority of oil has been dealt with“. “What do you mean, dealt with!?” I thought to myself. The report went on to explain that only a quarter of the 4.9 million barrels of oil that had been spewed into the ocean has been left behind for us, humans, to deal with.

Speaking on the ABC television network, White House energy adviser Ms Browner said: “The scientists are telling us about 25% was not captured or evaporated or taken care of by mother nature.”

“Mother nature will continue to break it down. But some of it may come on shore, as weathered tar balls. And those will be cleaned up. They can be cleaned up. And we will make sure they are cleaned up,” Ms Browner said.

Now, I’m willing to admit that I’m a bit of a hippy; I’m in environmental studies, I like the sound of a didgeridoo and I will never have my license, purely out of principle… but doesn’t it piss off other non-hippies when people talk about “mother earth” as if “she” is something that is going to solve all of our gigantic screw ups? The Earth is supposed to be seen as some self-regulating system that will just “fix” itself no matter how badly we treat it?

Alright, I’ll give this idea a little bit of lee-way, but not much because it isn’t going to self-regulate fast enough to put up with what we do to it (or her…whatever). As secularists/humanists/atheists we should care about the environment a lot anyway, because we know this life is all there is and we need to treat it (life and giver of said life) with respect to make it (life and giver of said life) last as long as possible.

Treehugger has done a story questioning this information, a little bit.

And as John Laumer has reported, there’s still a pretty serious health risk presented by all of the oil that has evaporated into the air — air that is of course routinely breathed by residents around the Gulf Coast.

So I’ll make a point that I’ve gotten used to making in the course of the BP Gulf spill coverage: Whether or not the US government says that the remaining oil only poses a ‘slight risk’ or not, as the NY Times reports, it’s better to remain skeptical of their reports until independent studies are done, and we realize the full extent of the damage.

Unfortunately, if there is one thing I’ve learned from Chris Mooney it’s that once there is a headline on some major media outlet, it is hard to take it back and correct people’s opinions on the matter.

I’m not saying that the BBC is wrong in saying that a lot of the oil has been “dealt with”, if by “dealt with” they mean “humans can’t really do anything about that 75% of oil at this point so lets just forget about it and say that mother earth did us a favour”… But what BBC *has* done is that they have made it seem like the oil spill is less of a big deal because the oil has, by natural causes, become “less of a problem” than if 4.9 million barrels were just sitting there waiting for us to scoop them up. And they did this before, as treehugger mentions, “we realize the full extent of the damage”.

I can hear it now. I’ll be talking with some oil-driven asshole about the oil spill and he’ll say “well, you know 3/4 of that oil was dealt with by natural processes, so I don’t know what you’re so upset”. Then no matter how hard I try to tell them that they’re stupid, I’m just going to get called a crazy/dirty hippy. Thanks BBC, et al.!