Good morning,
It seems there are any number of calamities that can befall us—often too many to list. But for every possible catastrophe or eventuality that may face, there thankfully are people considering how to respond. One such example is the idea of saving various species of plants for when drought, pestilence or disease may kill off a particular strain.
WHY STORE SEEDS?
If a crop is devastated, for whatever reason, having seed stock available to replant—or if the devastation is the result of a strain-specific disease, having a resistant substitute available to replace the crop is critical. In this age of declining biodiversity resulting from fewer crops that maximize production, many former common varieties are not planted. Because of this, it might be difficult to find an alternative strain. To do this requires that seeds must be preserved in controlled conditions in labs. There are nearly 2,000 seed banks around the world that do just this, ready to step in when an emergency may require. The largest and most significant of these is the “seed bank” in Svalbard, Norway: https://time.com/doomsday-vault/. The Svalbard vault contains 930,000 species of plants. The purpose of the vault is to retain the seeds of plant species that might be affected by drought, storm, war, fire or other problem, requiring a “replanting.” Some say this doomsday vault not only is important to address localized challenges, but also has value because of the potential need to recover from a global catastrophe.
LACKING BIODIVERSITY ALSO POSES GLOBAL RISKS
Another reason seed vaults are critical is because humans have over-planted certain strains of crops that can produce greater yields, at the expense of a diversity of crops. As such, a disease or pest can devastate a majority of a particular food crop, posing potentially devastating reductions in food production. As stated in a recent Time magazine article:
“Over the past 50 years, agricultural practices have changed dramatically, with technological advances allowing large-scale crop production. But while crop yields have increased, biodiversity has decreased to the point that now only about 30 crops provide 95% of human food-energy needs. Only 10% of the rice varieties that China used in the 1950s are still used today, for example. The U.S. has lost over 90% of its fruit and vegetable varieties since the 1900s. This monoculture nature of agriculture leaves food supplies more susceptible to threats such as diseases and drought.”
The lack of species diversity is the result of trying to grow only the most sturdy fruits, vegetables and grains that can withstand long-distance transit and long periods on grocery shelves. But this also means that we lack diversity in our diets and diversity in our fields. It is a problem I am happy some people are thinking about.
POLITICAL DIVERSITY ALSO ENSURES SURVIVAL
The need for diversity manifests itself in circumstances other than nature.
There have been a number of studies recently that show that each political party increasingly is on one side of every issue, with fewer people in the party varying from the party’s orthodoxy. A Pew Research article from 2014 shows the extent of political polarization that existed before and after the current sorry state of polarization: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/
What was occurring through the 90s and 00s has accelerated in recent years. As shocking as the separation of the parties in recent years is the fact that people increasingly share the fringe view that the other side not only is mistaken, but that it is dangerous to the nation. Further, those on the fringes are more likely to be politically active and are more likely to invest money in political campaigns and political speech—as well as control county party machines and vote in primaries.
I’ve been thinking about a metaphor to address the dangers of a political party that brooks no disagreement and no variant. This wasn’t always so. I recall that in the 70s, the Republican party was the party of Nelson Rockefeller and Everett Dirksen. I recall that Margaret Chase Smith and Edward Brooke were the only woman and Black man in the Senate, respectively—both Republicans. Similarly, there were more than a few Democrats who might be considered conservative today (including JFK). Today, neither party shows much signs of diversity; although the Republican party seems particularly uniform in its unwillingness to buck the populist/nationalist trends stoked by former President Trump.
The last election may have changed this dynamic. Perhaps the Republican party has broken the fever of the Trumpism and the nonstop adulation of this narcissist. He is running; hopefully others step into the breach and offer real differences and distinct ideas. That said, the leading candidate appears to be Ron DiSantis, who has willingly taken the Trump/MAGA mantle, as well as emerging as a leader in the far-right culture war.
The various ways political polarization can resolve itself, ranging from de-polarization to democratic collapse, were explored by the Carnegie Endowment for Peace. We can go any number of ways from where we stand today: When Democracies Become Perniciously Polarized
There was a time when the gene pool of wheat and other grains were diverse. When a disease or a parasite came by, it might attack some, but couldn’t affect all the grains in the biosystem. Now, given the limited biodiversity in agriculture, entire systems now are more vulnerable. Similarly, political parties are collections of living things—ideas, philosophy and politicians. When the gene pool becomes only of a single variety, the right kind of parasite can infect it and, because there is no diversity, most will become sick. It feels like the Republican party is there. It has been infected with a nationalistic populism that is unhealthy to the party. And while there is good reason to be concerned with the more extreme ends of the Democratic party (and we should be vigilant and resistant to its more extreme excesses), that threat has not yet infected the majority of the party.
I think the best thing that can happen to encourage de-polarization and increased cooperation is for the political parties to expand their vision and be more accepting of honest discussion among people of similar ideology but different policy prescriptions. A slightly right of center politician (e.g., Joe Manchin?) should find a home in the Democratic party, just as a slightly left of center politician (e.g., Lisa Murkowsky?) should find a home in the Republican party. These are among the few examples, with most members of each party towing the party line. How we expand their number to include more people in the middle will require patience, good will, and the desire to win elections on ideas, rather than turnout.
THOUGHTS ON READING, WRITING AND IDEAS
“Write boldly and tell the truth fearlessly.” –Joseph Medill
“I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all.” –Alexis de Tocqueville
“I’m all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let’s begin with the typewriter.” –Oscar Wilde
“The Books that the world calls immoral are books that show the world its own shame.” –Oscar Wilde
Have a great day,
Glenn
From the archives:
Glenn. I agree that the polarization of both sides of the isle is distressing. I can’t remember when I voted Democrat so I guess I’m considered right leaning. Cannot speak for everyone in my shoes but I do not consider myself and many of the Republicans I speak with “gripped” by Trumpism (if that is really a thing). I find my Democrat friends declaring to me what I think and truly surprised to find that they understand only a small fraction about issues that Republicans believe. I am sure that I also only understand a small fraction as well. For example, DeSantis’ complaints about the AP Black Studies. It is my understanding that he took issue with a very small piece of that curriculum. Yes, leave that piece in and he believed it was inappropriate for balanced teaching of that subject. I also believe he is proponent of Black Studies. There should be a clear dialogue between right and left where each can talk to increase understanding. In my view there are many like me who liked a bunch of what Trump did but are distressed at who he seems to be and how he did it. His grip on the party, I believe, is slipping as he has lost people like me. I am sad that leaders of the Democratic Party seem to read from the same hymnal on every issue. Other than Manchin, there seems to be as few or fewer independent thinkers, as you point out on the right.
One thing is for sure, Glenn. Your musings provoke thought. It opens discussion. It provides as valuable forum and is worthy of support. BTW. Mas Que Nada is a terrific You Tube.