Malaysia airlines accidents

A flying airplane is something that has always puzzled and amazed me since I was a child. I remember staring them in the skies and asking myself how on earth something so huge and heavy was capable to fly. Since then, I look at it with profound admiration and devote my sincere respect for aviation engineering.

In my opinion, airplanes are some of the few things that best represent connectivity, cutting edge technology and evolution. Thus, as stressful as airports can be, as uncomfortable as a long flight can be, I’ve always faced them as a symbol of new discoveries, connection, a borderless world, unforgivable vacations… hence: happiness.

Needless to say that when I hear about airplane crashes, it devastates me in ways words can’t explain. Mostly, of course, due to the commotion of losing so many lives at once, but also because it represents a flaw of what I consider an impeccable advanced and sophisticated engineering system.

The recent tragedies of the Malaysian airlines have been resonating non-stop in my mind. Both cases are tremendously worrisome: one for still being a complete conundrum and the other for being the direct result of mankind’s stupidity. Shooting down an aircraft passenger (even if mistook by a military one) is so repulsive that causes the deepest dismay even in insensitive hearts. Not checking what type of plane was crossing the air space before activating a missile makes it intentional. Seeing the greatest symbol of a world without borders being shot down due to primitive borders conflict does really consternate me.

I wonder if we humans have learned anything from history. Sometimes I doubt it because I keep seeing us repeating the same mistakes again and again. And considering the amount of information we have on hands nowadays, as well as the stage of human development we should have reached on the year 2014of the 21^st century, attitudes like this are too pre-historical to be accepted (to say the least).

Acknowledging the human being ignorance that still reigns, I express my sincere condolences and sentiments to the families and friends who lost their loved ones.

May these souls rest in peace.

Food

It is expected that by the time we reach the year 2050, the world population will increase about 35% based on current numbers. The huge concern when it comes to food supply is that to feed a population of 9 billion people, crop production will need to double. One of the main reasons for that is associated to the economic prosperity the developing world has been experiencing, which led them to eat more, especially more meat. According to the National Geographic magazine, the increase in the per capita daily protein demand will be revolving 15.3% in the developed countries, while in the emerging ones it is supposed to be around 103.6%.

Agriculture poses several challenges to the environment: it is among the greatest greenhouse gases emitters (due to the release of methane gas by cattle and forest clearing to grow crops/livestock, to name a few reasons); it is – by far – the industry that requires more water supply to operate; it is associated to the acceleration of biodiversity loss; and the constant use of fertilizers and pesticides may cause irreparable damages to nearby groundwater, rivers and community.

The pressuring demand for meat will require not only more livestock availability (including more land for it), but also an increase in crops (mostly corn and soybeans) to feed the cattle, pigs and chickens the planet will be requiring. Here lies one of the main reasons why we will need to double the amount of crop by 2050. This also fuels another debate about organic versus conventional agriculture. The former argues that small (organic) farmers are capable to increase yields in ways that would help meet the world demand, while the latter advocates that only modern agriculture techniques such as mechanization, irrigation, chemicals and improved genetics will be the answer to fill the demand blanks.

I don’t intend to point fingers to the right or wrong here. My intention is to raise the awareness for the fact that achieving sustainable agriculture may become increasingly harder and also to ask my fellows a few important questions: do we really need that much food (especially meat) on our plates everyday? Do we need food portions as big as the ones offered by restaurants nowadays? Should the increase in income lead people to eat more or eat better? Does better mean more? I personally think it is absurd that an increase in 35% of population will require 100% more food. Another absurd is to accept the huge food portions we are getting lately as a normal thing. I would go for a campaign of charging me half the price for a half the size meal.

Let’s think about that for a while and try not to be part of those who will demand 100% more food. Maybe by doing so, in 2050 we will prove wrong the statistics we foresee now.

Source: National Geographic Magazine, May edition 2014.