Mahboobin 10:00
L14
Ethical Decisions around Monocultures in Agriculture
Stephen Selvidge (scs98@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION
The world of agriculture has been revolutionized by the
introduction of genetically modified organisms, commonly
referred to as GMOs. Genetically modified organisms allow
us to produce far more food than we would be capable of with
standard agricultural practices, this is because genetically
modified crops are far more resilient to weather, pests and
other environmental pressures than normal crops. Genetically
modified crops have gained this resilience through the
modification of their genomes, hence the name genetically
modified organism. The genome of a genetically modified
organism has had DNA from a foreign organism implanted in
it, meaning that that a trait that the foreign organism possessed
will be replicated by the genetically modified organism [1].
The ability to implant foreign DNA into crops allows any
number of useful traits to be implanted into the crops. One
such possibility is implanting the piece of DNA from a cold
weather microorganism that codes for a protein that allows
the plasma membrane of the microorganism to remain
aqueous at colder temperatures. The proteins ability keep the
microorganism’s plasma membrane aqueous at cold
temperatures would apply just as well to a plants plasma
membrane, and therefore could help the plant survive at lower
temperatures than the same species of plant that lacked the
DNA of the microorganism. This intern would allow for the
crop to be grown in colder climates or have a longer growing
season in the climates it is already present in. Similarly the
DNA of a bacteria that produces a protein that is poisonous to
certain pests could be implanted into the DNA of a plant [2].
This would cause the plant to produce the protein and cause
potential pests to die when they attempt to ingest the plant.
The plant would produce its own natural pesticide, preventing
pests from killing nearly as many of the plant and increasing
the yearly yield of food produced. Furthermore DNA can be
placed into the genome of a plant that allows it to be resistant
to herbicides used by farmers. This allows farmers to kill
weeds without damaging their crops, therefor increasing crop
yields. These are just a few of the many ways that genetically
modified organisms can produce higher yields of food.
Even with the benefits that genetically modified
organisms give us we have a very difficult time producing the
amount of food that we need to feed the population of Earth.
Recent famines in countries such as North Korea and Ethiopia
show the difficulty we have feeding the human population.
Similarly nearly half of deaths among children under five in
2015 where in some way related to malnutrition [3]. But what
makes genetically modified organisms even more crucial to
our ability to feed the planet’s population is that Earth’s
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2015-11-03
1
population is increasing by 1.1% annually or roughly 80
million people per year. That means the population will be
nearly ten billion by the year 2050 [4]. Our difficulty to feed
the people of Earth will grow exponentially along with the
population. Furthermore climate change, due to greenhouse
gases, will cause areas that were once fertile will become far
more difficult to farm in. Similarly climate change will cause
more droughts, which in turn will make it more difficult to
produce the amount of food needed to feed the population of
the planet. Due to all of these factors genetically modified
organisms will need to be used in the future to produce the
amount food necessary to feed the planet.
Dangers of Monocultures
However despite all of the benefits that genetically
modified organisms offer us, the way in which we implement
them leaves our agricultural system in a very precarious
position. This is because genetically modified foods are
planted in a monoculture. A monoculture is a population of
organisms that all contain the exact same genome, meaning
each organism has identical DNA to every other organism, or
in other words each organism is a clone of every other
organism. This guarantees that every plant contains the gene,
and therefore the trait, that was implanted into the plant.
However monocultures can lead to unintended consequences
which was the case in Ireland during the Irish Potato Famine.
In the early 1700’s potatoes where introduced to Europe
from their native South America. They were then transported
to Ireland from mainland Europe. The potato soon became a
staple of the Irish diet because it had evolved in the harsh
climate of the Andes Mountains. Due to its ability to sustain
the harsh climate of the Andes the potato was equally suited
for the cold weather and poor soil Ireland. The potato’s ability
to thrive in the environment of Ireland soon made it a staple
of the Irish diet [5], similarly to how genetically modified
foods have become a staple of our diets. The Irish method for
growing potatoes is known as Vegetative Propagation. This
method of planting involves taking an already full grown
plant and cutting part of it off and then planting that piece.
The piece of the full grown plant then grows and develops
into a second full grown plant that is a genetic clone of the
first plant [5]. Over years of planting potatoes with this
method the Irish potato population became a monoculture,
with all of the potatoes of the country possessing the same
genetic code as every other potato. This made the population
of potatoes extremely fragile to changes in its environment[6].
This is because the potato population lacked any form of
genetic diversity, which in turn meant that every member of
the population was equipped with the same traits to deal with
Stephen Selvidge
pressures from the environment. So when a new
environmental pressure is placed on the population either the
entire population survives the pressure, or they are all
unequipped to deal with it and the population collapses.
and the Code of Ethics presented by the Constitution of The
American Society for Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
The Code of Ethics’ fundamental canons for both societies
where to protect the health and safety of the public, to act in
areas where your knowledge is applicable, be truthful to the
public, be faithful to your employer, to “avoid deceptive acts”
and finally to carry ones self in an honorable manor [8][9].
The last six of the fundamental canons do not apply to the
question at hand and the first fundamental canon does not
offer a clear solution. The first canon states that an engineer
should always be concerned with the safety and health of the
general public, but this offers no guidance on weather or not
to continue to use genetically modified monocultures. This is
because both options, to continue to using monocultures or to
stop using them, would cause the population to be unsafe. The
Code of Ethics offered by the national society of engineers is
too narrow for application in this moral question because it
assumes that engineers will always be confronted with ethical
questions that can be answered with a simple safe or not safe,
a black and white situation, however in this case, and in many
cases in the real world, both options can result in dangerous
consequences.
In a healthy population, that contains genetic diversity,
every member of the population has a slightly different
genome and therefore different traits that could allow them to
survive environmental pressures. Because of the diversity in
the population the population as a whole is more equipped to
deal with outside pressures and therefore far less likely to
collapse than one that contains no genetic diversity. Because
of the fragility of the Irish potato population, due to its lack of
genetic diversity, when an environmental pressure effected
the population it collapsed. This environmental pressure was
“The Blight” [6], a pathogenic fungus that began destroying
the potato population. The blight turned the leaves of the
potato plants black and turned the potato itself into inedible
mush. Due to the Ireland’s heavy dependence on the potato
for food the collapse of the potato population was
catastrophic. The population collapse resulted in a feminine
that killed approximately one million people and sparked the
massive migration of Irish to the United States.
After consulting the National Society of Professional
engineer’s Code of Ethics, I talked to my mother. She has a
Masters Degree in mechanical from Tufts University and
worked as an engineer for five years before giving birth to my
older sister. She suggested doing a risk reward calculation to
determine which option what the best [10]. Similarly I
consulted a broader and realistic code of ethics: The
philosophical school of utilitarianism, more specifically the
works of philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism is an
ethical philosophy that focuses on guarantying the most
happiness comes out of any given decision. Meaning that the
option that would produce the most happiness as a result is
the most ethical decision to choose. This can also work
conversely meaning that the option that produces the most
unhappiness would be the least ethical decision to make. This
ethical systems focus on relativity allows an engineer to make
decisions that are not black and white opposed the code of
ethics presented by the National Society of Professional
engineer’s which only applies in black and white situations
[11].
We are currently in a similar position to the Irish in the
1800’s; a dependence on a system that can no support itself.
Without genetically modified foods we cannot possibly
support our current population, let alone our future population
combined with the effects of global warming making it even
more difficult to produce a sufficient amount of food. But if
we continue to use genetically modified organisms and
planting monocultures, we are setting up what could be on one
of the greatest humanitarian disasters in human history
because, just like the Irish potato population, our genetically
modified monocultures lack the genetic diversity that would
allow them to survive changes in their environments, which
will be even more common due to changing weather patterns
due to climate change. If our agricultural system where to see
a collapse in a major crop such as corn, its estimated that three
out of four products in American super markets contain corn
[7], the foods we have come to be staples of our diets would
either spike in price or simply be unavailable.
Moral Dilemma
Bentham’s understanding of utilitarianism utilizes the
concept of hedonist calculus to make utilitarianism a more
exact method to approach ethical problems. The hedonist
calculus is a group of factors to consider when attempting to
estimate how much happiness or unhappiness that any one
decision will produce. The factors which the hedonistic
calculus considers are Intensity, Duration, Certainty or
uncertainty, Propinquity or remoteness, Fecundity, Purity,
and Extent. Intensity is the amount of either happiness or
unhappiness that will be produced by the course taken.
Duration is how long the happiness will last after the initial
decision is made. Certainty takes into account the likelihood
This presents a very distinct moral dilemma. Either we can
stop using a system that without we cannot possibly feed our
population without or we can continue using said system and
risk a massive famine similar to the one that the Irish faced in
the 1800’s, only on a global scale. Both options will likely
result in a great number of deaths. Neither option is
particularly appealing.
To answer this question I looked first to the Code of Ethics
provided by the National Society of Professional Engineers
2
Stephen Selvidge
that the desired result will take place after a course of action
is pursued. For example if there are two possible courses of
action and the first of them could produce twice as much
happiness than the other but only has one out of a thousand
chance of producing that happiness whereas the second option
has a one out of fifty chance of producing half of the
happiness of option one the ethical decision would be to
choose option two because of the extremely low chance of
option one unfolding as intended. Propinquity accounts for
how long it will take for the intended happiness to actually
occur after the course of action is taken. Fecundity is the
probability that the resulting happiness from the original
action will produce more future happiness [12]. Purity
accounts for weather or not the happiness produced by one
course of action will be offset by unhappiness for another
individual, however purity does not need to be taken into
account if one simply applies the hedonistic calculus to
unhappiness as well as happiness. The final factor of the
hedonistic calculus is extent, which is how long the happiness
from the course of action lasts.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Boyle. (2011). “How To Genetically Modify a
Seed, Step By Step.” Popular Science. (Online Article).
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/life-cyclegenetically-modified-seed
[2] Monsanto Inc. (2015). “Commonly Asked Questions
about the Food Safety of GMOs.” Monsanto Inc. (Online
Blog).
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/foodsafety.aspx
[3] J. Barns. (2015). “Global Nutrition Report” The Guardian
(Online
Blog).
http://www.theguardian.com/globaldevelopment/2015/sep/16/malnutrition-children-under-five2015-global-nutrition-report-sustainable-development-goals
[4] History (2014). “How Fast is the World’s Population
Growing”
History
(Online
Blog)
http://www.history.com/news/ask-history/how-fast-is-theworlds-population-growing
[5] J. Turnin. (2011). “Monoculture and the Irish Potato
Famine: cases of missing genetic variation.” University of
California
Berkeley
(Online
Blog).
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/agriculture_0
2
I then applied the hedonistic calculus to the question of
monoculture use in agriculture. So first looked at the first
option of no longer using monocultures in agriculture. This
would produce immediate food shortages that we would be
unable to deal with. However it would be gradual, genetically
modified crops could be slowly phased out and therefore the
total unhappiness while lasting longer would be of less of an
intensity. Whereas if we continue to use the system of
genetically modified monocultures, we will delay the
unhappiness produced but at the same time it will be very
sudden, and therefore is more likely to cause additional
problems such as wars or other conflicts over food shortages.
But on the other hand it is possible that in the future we will
have solved the fragility of monocultures somehow. However
I do not feel it is responsible to put ones faith in technology
that does not exist. Therefore it is prudent to discontinue the
use of monocultures because by accepting the food shortages
it will cause now we will be preventing a far worse food
shortage in the future, and thereby will be minimizing the
unhappiness caused by our course of action and therefore
choosing the ethical choice according to utilitarianism.
[6] T. Bricks. (2012). “The Blight Begins.” The History Place
(Online
Blog).
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/famine/begins.ht
m
[7] B. Lutz. (2012). “Here Are 16 Everyday Foods That
Surprisingly Contain Corn.” Business Insider. (Online Blog).
http://www.businessinsider.com/everyday-foods-containcorn-prices-soar-2012-7
[8] National Society of Professional Engineers. (2007). “Code
of Ethics for Engineers.” National Society of Professional
Engineers
(Online
Article).
http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/Ethics/
CodeofEthics/Code-2007-July.pdf
[9] American Society of Agricultural and Biological
Engineers. (2009). “Constitution, Bylaws and Rules.”
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers
(Online
Article).
https://www.asabe.org/media/54033/constitution.pdf
[10] A. Gandjour. (2007). “Is It Rational To Pursue
Utilitarianism.” Ethical Perspectives (Online Article).
http://www.ethicalperspectives.be/viewpic.php?TABLE=EP&ID=1060
[11] Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2003). “Act and
Rule Utilitarianism.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Online Blog). http://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/
CONCLUSION
Using the ethical codes that I consulted, I would choose to
stop using genetically modified monocultures in our
agricultural system. This is because by stopping the use of
monocultures we would minimize the unhappiness could
result from our decision. This would follow the utilitarian
modal of Jeremy Bentham which says that the most ethical
choice is the one that maximizes happiness and conversely
minimizes unhappiness.
[12] D. Jacobson. (2000). “Utilitarianism without
Consequentialism: The Case of John Stuart Mill.”
Philosophical
Review
(Online
Article).
3
Stephen Selvidge
http://philreview.dukejournals.org/content/117/2/159.full.pdf
+html
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
WebGuru. (2000). “Pinocchio’s Nose.” WebGuru (Case
Study). http://www.webguru.neu.edu/professionalism/casestudies/pinocchios-nose
Online Ethics Center. (2013). “Engineers Without Borders
(EWB).”
Online
Ethics
Center
(Case
Study).
http://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/EWB.aspx
BioDesign. (2010). “Third Worlds Considerations.”
BioDesign
(Case
Study).
http://biodesign.stanford.edu/bdn/ethicscases/10thirdworld.js
p
A. Carr. (2011). “Overview of the Process of Plant Genetic
Engineering.” University of Nebraska. (Online Blog).
http://agbiosafety.unl.edu/education/summary.htm
J. Foley. (2013). “It’s Time to Rethink America’s Corn
System.”
Scientific
American.
(Online
Article).
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethinkcorn/
M. Kelly. (2012). “Top 7 Genetically Modified Crops.”
Huffington
Post.
(Online
Article).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margie-kelly/geneticallymodified-food_b_2039455.html
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge my writing instructor Ms.
McAdoo and my Mother for helping me with my essay.
4