Biocombustibles: grave amenaza disfrazada de verde

World Rainforest Movement/ Movimiento Mundial por los Bosques

La sustitución de los combustibles fósiles por biocombustibles (elaborados a partir de biomasa vegetal) puede parecer un paso en la dirección correcta para evitar el agravamiento del cambio climático. Sin embargo, los planes previstos para su producción y uso no sólo no solucionan ese grave problema sino que agravan muchos otros.

Los biocombustibles que se plantea adoptar son el biodiesel (obtenido de plantas oleaginosas) y el etanol (que se obtiene de la fermentación de la celulosa contenida en los vegetales). Entre los muchos cultivos posibles para ese fin, se destacan la soja, el maíz, la colza, el maní, el girasol, la palma aceitera, la caña de azúcar, el álamo, el eucalipto.

Dado que los grandes consumidores del Norte no se plantean seriamente reducir su consumo desmedido de combustibles y que en la mayoría de los casos no disponen de tierras agrícolas suficientes para autoabastecerse de materia prima para producir sus propios biocombustibles, sus gobiernos y empresas planean promover cultivos para biodiesel y etanol fundamentalmente en los países del Sur.

Es importante resaltar que en las áreas boscosas del Sur, tal política no implicará ningún cambio en materia de explotación petrolera o gasífera, que no solo continuará sino que se seguirá ampliando, puesto que los combustibles fósiles seguirán siendo el principal componente de la matriz energética de los países del Norte. Sin embargo, el negocio de los biocombustibles agregará nuevos impactos a los ya existentes en los bosques.

Como prueba de lo anterior alcanza con mencionar la soja y la palma aceitera, que aparecen como las principales candidatas para la producción de biodiesel a gran escala. La primera se ha constituido en la principal causa de deforestación en la Amazonía brasileña y en Paraguay, aun antes de que se la haya comenzado a producir con fines energéticos. La segunda es también la principal causa de deforestación en Indonesia y está impactando en bosques de muchos otros países de África, Asia y América Latina.

Por otro lado, ya se está comenzando a desarrollar tecnologías para convertir la madera en etanol (con el uso de organismos genéticamente modificados), por lo que la industria de los biocombustibles impulsará una expansión aún mayor de los monocultivos de árboles de rápido crecimiento, tanto en áreas boscosas – aumentando así la deforestación – como sobre suelos de pradera.

Tanto la deforestación como el cambio en el uso de suelos de pradera implican la liberación del carbono allí almacenado. A ello se agregan las emisiones resultantes del cultivo, procesamiento y transporte de los propios biocombustibles, realizados en gran medida en base a petróleo y otros elementos que emiten gases de efecto invernadero: la producción de la maquinaria utilizada, el combustible empleado para su funcionamiento, la producción y uso de fertilizantes químicos y de agrotóxicos, los camiones y barcos para el transporte a destino, etc. Es decir, que el balance neto de carbono en las áreas destinadas a la producción de biocombustibles puede ser hasta negativo, aumentando así la concentración de gases de efecto invernadero en la atmósfera, que es precisamente lo que se pretendía evitar con este cambio.

En definitiva, el uso de los biocombustibles no sólo no soluciona el problema del cambio climático, sino que a la vez significa el agravamiento de otros problemas igualmente serios.

En efecto, decenas o centenas de millones de hectáreas de tierras fértiles se concentrarán bajo el poder de grandes transnacionales y pasarán, de producir alimentos, a producir combustibles –en un mundo donde el hambre y la desnutrición son ya problemas gravísimos. En el mismo proceso expulsarán a millones de productores rurales y pequeños campesinos, que en su mayoría deberán emigrar a los cinturones de miseria de las grandes ciudades. Los bosques dejarán de asegurar el sustento de millones de personas que de ellos dependen para ser sustituidos por soja, palma aceitera u otros cultivos energéticos. El agua se contaminará (por el uso de agroquímicos) o desaparecerá (por la plantación de árboles de rápido crecimiento), la fauna local se verá gravemente afectada por enormes desiertos verdes que no les proporcionarán alimentos, la flora nativa será eliminada y sustituida por extensos monocultivos y muchas especies locales serán contaminadas por los organismos genéticamente modificados utilizados en dichos monocultivos, en tanto que los suelos se degradarán por el monocultivo y el uso de agroquímicos.

Resulta por tanto evidente que ésta no es una buena solución ni para la gente ni para el ambiente. Sin embargo, es una excelente oportunidad de negocios para grandes empresas que operan a nivel nacional y en particular para las grandes transnacionales. Entre ellas se cuentan las vinculadas a la producción y comercialización de productos agrícolas de exportación, las industrias biotecnológica y química (que aumentarán sus ventas de material transgénico e insumos agrícolas), la industria automotriz (que podrá seguir creciendo bajo un manto “verde”), las nuevas empresas surgidas en la ola de los biocombustibles y las propias empresas petroleras, que ya se están incorporando a este nuevo y lucrativo negocio.

Es por ello que tantos gobiernos, organismos de asistencia, agencias bilaterales, organismos multilaterales y expertos internacionales están involucrados en la promoción de esta absurda solución: para servir los intereses de esos poderosos grupos económicos, que son quienes dictan las políticas globales en su propio beneficio.

Cabe aclarar finalmente, que los biocombustibles en sí no son el problema. Es más, dentro de un enfoque social y ambientalmente adecuado pueden servir para satisfacer parte de las necesidades energéticas de nuestros países y en particular de las comunidades locales. El problema central es el modelo en el que se los pretende implementar, caracterizado por la gran escala, el monocultivo, el uso masivo de insumos externos, la utilización de transgénicos, la mecanización y su exportación para alimentar el consumo desmedido de energía que se realiza en el Norte.

Se hace por tanto imperioso enfrentar esta nueva amenaza que se cierne sobre los pueblos y ecosistemas del Sur e incorporar el tema de los biocombustibles a la lucha por la defensa de los bosques y la biodiversidad, contra el avance de los monocultivos y los transgénicos, por la soberanía alimentaria y por el derecho de los pueblos a decidir sus propios destinos.

Would the World's Largest Science Teacher's Organization Ignore Climate Change Education? (Why did the NSTA say no to free "An Inconvenient Truth" DVDs?)

by John Borowski

The National Teachers Association (NSTA) has spurned 50,000 free DVDs of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and is squandering a golden opportunity to educate tens of millions of youth in the United States! Why? This 55,000- member organization of teachers and scientists could use Al Gore's film to orchestrate the single most influential educational goal in human history: the awareness and subsequent solving of climate change. There is no denying the escalating list of climate change evidence: from the potential extinction of Polar bears and retreating glacial environments to the increase of global temperatures in unison with increased carbon dioxide levels. Laurie David, a producer on the film An Inconvenient Truth, helped to broker a "sweet deal" for the NSTA. Sitting in an LA warehouse are 50,000 free DVDs just waiting to be given out to every member of the NSTA. No strings, no catches, just a clear and simple agenda: provide teachers with a spectacular and scientifically acclaimed production to engage millions of students nationwide. And the NSTA states, "No?" Is the NSTA placing economic expediency over "true science education", do they fear the alienation of funders such as Exxon and the fossil powerhouse the American Petroleum Institute? Laurie David, who is also the founder of StopGlobalWarming.org received an email refusal of the free teaching materials from the NSTA that is ominous and foreboding. The NSTA wrote that acceptance of the DVDs would place an "unnecessary risk upon the (NSTA) capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters." Also in the email, NSTA claimed that they didn't want to offer "political" endorsement of the film and they saw "little, if any benefit to NSTA or its members" in accepting the free DVDs. No benefit to teachers? Science teachers across the country are under-funded, overworked and often grab on to free lessons and materials as a matter of "educational survival 101." What I find despicable is that the NSTA if fully aware of that need and sadly, often aids and abets the "Fossil fuel cartels." They often deny or mislead on climate change and provide teachers with everything from "coal coloring books" to misleading videos such as "Fuel-less-You Can't Be Cool Without Fuel." Simply stated, the NSTA's refusal to distribute Al Gore's film is an unmitigated disaster that will tarnish their reputation as "brokers" of credible science materials, while squandering a prolific moment in educational history: the chance to allow students to become energy pioneers. I wrote in Commondreams.org about this dilemma and three special sentences comes to mind from a July 7th, 2005 piece in which I write an open letter to NSTA Executive Director about the distribution of corporate sponsored materials via the NSTA: In a recent NSTA annual report document, Exxon Mobil Foundation President Edward Ahnert explains its "partnership" with the NSTA clearly. "NSTA is such a natural partner for us. No other organization has the ability to reach thousands of teachers who share ExxonMobil's commitment to improving science education." The question that begs to be answered Mr. Wheeler is this: can you trust Exxon Mobil? Exxon recognizes the incredible power of distributing its materials to teachers. Exxon-Mobil makes no apologies for their anti-climate change stance, funds "misinformation campaigns" like the American Petroleum Institutes' (API) 1998 "Science Education Task Force" created to debunk climate change and publishes ads in newspapers to cast doubt on climate change. And the NSTA has the brazen nerve to state that they expressed concern over taking Al Gore's movie because of "special interests?" The NSTA's own admittance about refusing the Gore DVD because it would place "unnecessary risk" upon their own capital campaign speaks volume to the mess we are in and must correct. Big oil and climate despoilers own the airways and advertising sections of magazines with their "half-truths" about climate and continued demand for using coal, oil and gas. Look at the Scientific American magazine's first four pages (December 2006) it shamelessly has a Chevron spread that pushes use of oil tar sands and states "Oil, natural gas and coal have been the energy workhorses for the last 100 years, and will continue to play a crucial role in the next 100 years." Or how about BalancedEnergy.org with their teenage television actors claiming "Learn about coal!" Go to the site and see the preverbal cool teenager holding a skateboard named Adam stating, that he is "pretty stoked" and that he "learned more about American coal" and lastly, "thankfully we can have it all" with coal! Will 10,000- 14,000 teachers return home after attending the NSTA national conference March 29 -April 1st (St.Louis), 2007 with more oil and coal propaganda? Know this, teachers go to these conferences for ideas and materials. The ongoing joke about attending a NSTA conference is this, "Bring two suitcases: one for your clothes and one for all the freebies!" I am an environmental science teacher of 26 years and I have a steamer trunk of materials from NSTA's past conferences: Project Learning Tree's Energy module, supported by API's Red Cavaney who wants ANWR opened, opposes the Kyoto Treaty and wants more public land opened to energy exploration; Lesson plans, coloring books, free coal samples from the American Coal Foundation: minus any substantive discussion let alone mention of climate change; Lessons and videos from a group that was called the "Greening Earth Society" funded by the Western Fuels Association. The message of the film was firm and academically clear: there is no human induced climate change; Our youngest teachers need help to plan and write lesson plans, engage students in critical, scientific scenarios like climate change and help those students face those challenges with facts in hand. The NSTA is the logical leader on this front with their prestige and deep pockets. Will the NSTA tacitly sit back and even conspire with the likes of Exxon-Mobil to fill this void? Exxon-Mobil and Monsanto and the American Petroleum Institute have little interest in providing science data: instead, they see flooding our schools with their "dubious science" as the last component of a major PR effort to continue profits and damn the consequences. Climate change is an environmental challenge of epic proportions. Humans have never faced a dilemma that could so radically change the face of the planet: not just ecologically, but economically and culturally. Students, as our youngest citizens, have always been the targets of our civically minded democracy that is fostered by our public education system in the United States. Our free public education system is bound by law and moral compass to provide students (via their teachers) with a world- class education that bestows the tools of critical thinking and access to factual data. The hope is that those tools grow our democracy and equip our children to be ecologically fluent as well as become civic-minded voters who can read, write and invest in our political system. It is not too late for Gerald Wheeler and the NSTA to find the courage and educational moral high ground by accepting those 50,000 free DVDs sitting in an LA warehouse. If you are a teacher, student, parent or citizen: please email Gerald Wheeler at gwheeler@nsta.org and tell him that the special interest that would benefit from those DVDs would be our children! Ask the NSTA via Mr. Wheeler to reconsider their alliances with the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon-Mobil and Project Learning Tree. How can it be educationally sound to allow big industry at your conferences and receive your "education awards" but not to discuss climate change? Find the emails to your favorite "Big Green organization" (from the Sierra Club to Audubon to Defenders of Wildlife) and ask them: "why aren't you in the schoo ls giving out sound, ecological data and why aren't you at the NSTA conferences?" Folks like Al Gore and Laurie David are providing an invaluable tool that could be used not just in science, but also in health, economics, history and English classes. Learning about the current state of the climate should be akin to learning the A, B, Cs or basic math. An Inconvenient Truth has the hard data all American kids need to know and act on. Just like recycling became a national mindset through the lessons taught by teachers and brought home by children, climate change can be solved. Doesn't the world's largest science teachers' organization owe this to our children? John F. Borowski is a science teacher of 26 years; his pieces have appeared in the N.Y. Times, UTNE Reader, Counterpunch, Commondreams and many other sites. He can be contacted at jenjill@peak.org and urges you to email Gerald Wheeler.

Boom in Nanotechnology Poses Consumer Risks, NRDC Warns

Products Made with Nanoparticles Growing, But Safety Studies Lag

WASHINGTON - November 27 - The explosion of consumer products made with nanotechnology, highlighted today by an independent report, is raising growing concern among scientists and health experts that too little is known about potential health risks. Nanotechnology involves the manipulation of materials one-billionth of a meter in size -- larger than atoms, but much smaller than a cell.

While such advances hold the promise of breakthroughs in biomedical treatments, energy efficiency and many other fields, the very real potential risks posed by nanoparticles are largely being ignored, according to Dr. Jennifer Sass, a staff scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

"Nanoparticles behave unpredictably and could harm human beings, wildlife and the environment," Sass warned.

A report released today by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars found a 70 percent increase since March in the number of consumer products made with nanotechnology, such as food containers, stain-resistant clothing, eyeglass coatings that reduce glare, and even more durable tennis balls. In all, more than 350 such products are now on the market, according to the center's Project on Emerging Technologies. (For the report, go to www.nanotechproject.org/consumerproducts.)

"In the face of such a significant jump in the number of everyday products containing untested and unlabelled nanoparticles, the Environmental Protection Agency is moving much too slowly to ensure that they are safe," Sass said. "We need to know about the short- and long-term risks, especially since we're already wearing stain-resistant nanoparticle clothing, applying nanoparticle cosmetics and sunscreens, and swabbing our babies' bottoms with nanoparticle baby wipes."

The most prevalent nanomaterial today is nanosilver, which also is widely used as a pesticide. Today nanosilver is found in 47 consumer products -- nearly double the number from just eight months ago.

Samsung, for example, sells a new kind of washing machine that releases nanosilver ions during the wash and rinse cycles to kill bacteria. And Sharper Image is marketing nanosilver-treated slippers, socks and food containers that the company says are "anti-germ, anti-mold and anti-fungus."

Last week, the EPA announced that it plans to only regulate nanosilver products that are advertised as germ-killing. In a recent letter to the agency, NRDC asked it to review all consumer products containing nanosilver and require manufacturers to register such products as biocides. (For a copy of the letter, go to www.nrdc.org/media/docs/061127.pdf.)

Although very little is known about the risks associated with nanotechnology, laboratory tests have proved worrisome. Animal studies suggest that nanoparticles can cause inflammation, damage brain cells and cause pre-cancerous lesions. (See www.nrdc.org/health/science/nano.asp.)

"The genie is out of the bottle," Sass said, "and that's all the more reason the agency needs to move quickly to put some standards in place to protect the public."

NRDC's concerns are shared on Capitol Hill. At a hearing this fall, members of the House Science Committee criticized the Bush administration for moving too slowly to develop a research program on nanotechnology. "There is too much at stake to continue to dally," Reps. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) and Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), the committee's chairman and ranking Democrat, said in a November 15 statement.


CONTACT: Natural Resources Defense Council
Elliott Negin, 202/289-2405 or 202/997-1472 (cell)

From that great blog Tree Hugger:

The TH Interview: Geetie Singh of The Duke of Cambridge Organic Pub

November 27, 2006 - Bonnie Alter, London

The Duke of Cambridge Organic Pub is the first organic pub in England, opened in 1998 by Geetie Singh. Treehugger interviewed Geetie, the Managing Director, whilst partaking of a delicious lunch at the busy and cozy gastro-pub in the trendy Islington area of London. Having quaffed some Eco Warrier beer to get into the spirit, we asked Geetie about her philosophy at the pub. She said that her menu is led by ingredients that are hearty, basic and full-flavoured. She wants to have all of the food sourced as locally as possible; and tries for a radius within the London area. If the food is not local, then it is of British origin. There are more seasonal foods available now because organic growers have expanded their season due to climate change. Given the compact size of Europe, in terms of cartage, she noted that there is little difference between bringing something in from France or from Scotland. In the same way, wine shipped by sea from New Zealand may cause less pollution than that driven from Italy. Nothing comes by air freight. It is important to find a good chef, give him artistic freedom, and then work with him to think about organic principles.

We asked her what it was like to be organic in l998; which seems like the dark ages. Since she had been raised on a self-sufficient commune where they grew their own food, she didn’t realise how ahead of the times that she was. Having also managed a health food store she knew all the suppliers and sources for many of the foods. Initially suppliers didn’t want to provide bulk food and restaurant sizes and this caused waste but they changed quickly. Meat was always easy to find in England. Because of all the press about organic, more and more producers were interested in supplying to her.

She is constantly monitoring her business to assess where she can become more environmental, keeping tight controls and figuring out how she can reduce the mileage of her suppliers. As for the future direction: provenance is becoming more important. She is placing more emphasis on buying locally. Her biggest challenge is to buy food grown organically and locally. As for the direction of the organic movement in England; Geetie is concerned about the European Union’s loose definition of organic. Restaurants can mix organic and non-organic foods and still be called organic. She feels that full traceability is the key to the future success of the organic movement.

When asked to pick the one thing that she would change in the world, she was unhesitating in her response. She would like to set up a charity that would develop youth centres; to teach young people about political and environmental issues. Children in the poorest areas have no hope; they have no positive role models in their lives and need something meaningful to do.

As we completed our salad with marinated feta cheese and butternut squash and moved on to a dessert of apple cake with maple syrup and toffee sauce, we toasted Geetie, with Pitfield Organic Lager this time, and wished her continued success in this delicious and important endeavour. :: The Duke of Cambridge Organic Pub

Lugares para escribir

El escritor profesional necesita de largos períodos de silencio sin interrupción para hacer su trabajo. Pero a veces se hace imposible conseguir ese solaz y sosiego, especialmente en una ciudad como Nueva York. En la calle 14 de Manhattan está Paragraph, un espacio para miembros solamente en el que escritores de todos los géneros pueden trabajar en paz, 24 horas al día, todos los días del año.

En su local de 2,500 pies cuadrados contiene, además de espacios de trabajo, un balcón con una biblioteca y una cocina con mesas de comer.

Muy cerca, en el cachendoso sector Tribeca, está The Village Quill, que ofrece lo mismo que Paragraph, y además presentaciones de libros y talleres educativos para autores de diversos géneros.

¿Cuando tendremos algo así en Puerto Rico?

- Carmelo Ruiz Marrero (El Nuevo Día, 19 de noviembre 2006)

From World Changing:

Using Cell Phones for Food Traceability

Sarah Rich
November 23, 2006

When the E.coli spinach scare swept the nation, we talked a bit about the importance of knowing the backstory about the things we eat and buy. The best way most of us have to do this is by purchasing food directly from the grower at farmer's markets and through CSAs.

But in Japan, it's becoming more and more common to be able to trace the history of your food using your cell phone. The Japanese Food Safety Commission, which was established in 2001 after a Mad Cow Disease (BSE) outbreak, has been working to put food safety in the hands of the consumer by tagging products (even fresh farm produce) with RFID or QR codes that can be read with a cell phone (most Japanese phones produced today come equipped with a QR code reader). According to FOODEX JAPAN's Trend & Info page:

Consumers can trace back the vegetables until the day of harvest, when and where they were packed, how they were shipped, etc. Many of the local producers have followed this example and some even go as far as displaying a picture of the farmer to bring a sense of proximity as additional reassurance to the consumer.

The Food Safety Commission has found that Japanese consumers are choosing to purchase local food over imported food primarily because of the improved ease of traceability. For foreign food producers who want to capture the Japanese market, the ability to offer a backstory through technology increases their chances of success. Of course, we'd argue that any cause for purchasing more food locally is a worthy cause, but it's an interesting finding and it's driving companies -- domestic and foreign -- to take accountability for their practices.

One frequently-cited case study into the use of QR codes on food is Ishii Foods Corporation, which has been posting information about their products online since 2002, "including the retraceable history of the raw materials, the ingredients, production, etc." Digital graphs like those that Ishii puts out are even available on display screens in some supermarket aisles.

This trend makes me wonder what kind of cultural differences make knowing a product's backstory so much more apparently valuable in Japan than in the U.S. Both countries have had nasty foodborne illness outbreaks over the years, and both have relatively good systems in place for regulating quality and safety. Yet it's hard to imagine the standard American shopper taking their QR-equipped phone to CostCo to be sure what they're bringing home to the family passes muster. If we were to gain more advanced means of tracing our food's history, if we were able to see a photo of the farmer who grew our lettuce, would we? What's the key factor in getting people to appeciate the equation food + backstory = increased probability of good health?

Cafuné breaking the limits for Open Business models

Imagine showcasing a feature film, not only on a cinema screen, but simultaneously on a computer screen too. Imagine that on the première day of Troy or Titanic, or any boxoffice hit, the movie was also released on online peer-to-peer networks too. A Utopian idea yes, and while you may be pondering if this could ever happen, we can stop you in your tracks and say - it already did! This scenario became a reality when Brazilian director, Bruno Vianna released his first full-length feature film, Cafuné.

Vianna chose to use several innovative distribution strategies for his debut release. Firstly, he licenced his film under a Creative Commons licence. He then released the film in cinemas and on the web, with two different endings. Furthermore, he encouraged the internet downloaders to create new conclusions for the work, thus encouraging the audiences’ creative expression and involvement in the work.

Cafuné not only introduced a new way of distributing Brazilian movies, but also showed the world that this type of distribution can succeed too.

(Taken from iCommons)

Peace Oil

November 22, 2006 8:16 AM - Bonnie Alter, London, for Tree Hugger

It's extra virgin, great on salads and a lubricant for relationships in the Middle East. It's Peace Oil-- olive oil produced in Northern Israel by a collaboration of Arabs, Jews, Bedouins and Druze working together. This joint venture is sponsored by the Charities Advisory Trust which encourages co-operation between communities. Its vision is that through economic co-operation and daily contacts, barriers will be broken down, and understanding and respect built. The label for the bottle reflects this with the words "Peace Oil" in English, Hebrew and Arabic. The oil is pressed from organically grown Suria olives found in the foothills of the Carmel Mountains in the Galilee. They are grown organically, but because the neighbouring farms are not organic, they do not yet have certification. It is not produced in bulk and the olives are taken straight from the tree to the mill and pressed within hours of picking. This gives it a very pure and characteristic taste--perfect for salads and garnish. Profits from sales are used to support peace and reconciliation work in the Middle East. :: Peace Oil

DECLARACION DE LA VIA CAMPESINA

QUE LA FAO REGRESE A SU MANDATO ORIGINAL

20 de Noviembre 2006

Es urgente que la FAO vuelva a su mandato original y recupere un papel de liderazgo a nivel internacional en la promoción de iniciativas y políticas que buscan combatir el hambre y la marginación en las zonas rurales.

En los últimos años, la FAO se ha alejado progresivamente de su mandato original, llegando a un punto en que los movimientos sociales y las organizaciones de la sociedad civil empiezan a plantearse la posibilidad de que la FAO pueda ser parte del problema en vez de una solución.

Los resultados de la Sesión Especial del Comité sobre Seguridad Alimentaria (CFS) de la FAO que acabó el 4 de noviembre son particularmente decepcionantes. El informe final de la sesión no toma en cuenta importantes puntos discutidos ampliamente durante el encuentro con la sociedad civil, tales como Soberanía alimentaría y la necesidad de proteger a los pequeño/as campesinos y campesinas contra las importaciones de alimentos a bajo precio.

A demás, los EEUU, Canda y la Unión Europea bloquearon una iniciativa tomada por países en desarrollo (Brasil, Argentina, Filipinas, Indonesia, Malí…) de recomendar acciones concretas al Consejo de la FAO en cuanto a la implementació n de las conclusiones de Conferencia Internacional sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural (CIRADR). La Presidencia Francesa del CFS cerró las discusiones en el CFS, transfiriendo la discusión al Comité de la FAO para la Agricultura (COAG) en 2007.

Finalmente, La Vía Campesina y otros grupos fueron escandalizados por la falta de intereso y de responsabilidad de los gobiernos para erradicar el hambre. No jefe de estado asistió al SCF que se llevaba a cabo diez años después de la Cumbre Mundial de la Alimentación donde muchos de ellos se comprometieron a combatir el hambre.

La Vía Campesina llama con urgencia a los Gobiernos que participan en la reunión del Consejo de la FAO (20-25 de Noviembre 2006) de asegurar la implementació n de la CIRADR como también otras políticas y iniciativas para fortalecer la producción alimentaría campesina. Eso deben ser las actividades estratégicas, centrales de la FAO en el combate contra la pobreza y en los esfuerzos para apoyar a la capacidad de los pueblos de alimentarse.

Los movimientos sociales y organizaciones de la sociedad civil exigimos a la FAO que tenga un papel fuerte y pro-activo a la hora de fomentar, defender y garantizar políticas e iniciativas que aseguren el acceso a la tierra, las semillas, el agua y otros recursos productivos para las comunidades de las zonas rurales.

Actualmente, la FAO e IFAD son los únicos espacios intergubernamentale s y multilaterales dedicados específicamente a la agricultura, la pesca y la alimentación. La FAO debe defender la producción campesina así como políticas que respeten los derechos de todos los pueblos rurales y que se basen en los criterios de sostenibilidad y soberanía alimentaria. El mandato de la FAO no incluye el trabajar con el sector empresarial para fomentar la producción agrícola y alimentaria intensiva y dirigida a las exportaciones.

Resulta escandaloso que aún haya cientos de millones de campesinos y indígenas en el mundo marginados y sufriendo hambre, producto de las agresivas políticas de liberalizació n y privatización fomentadas por el Banco Mundial, el FMI y más recientemente, la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC) y los tratados de libre comercio que han destrozado el sustento de muchas personas y han deteriorado sus condiciones de vida, especialmente en los países del Sur.

La liberalizació n de los mercados agrarios y de la pesca, la manipulación de los precios de mercado por parte de las multinacionales, la reconcentració n de la tierra en manos de grandes dueños y empresas, las patentes de las semillas y sobre otras formas de vida, y la supresión y privatización de los servicios públicos han empeorado las desigualdades ya existentes beneficiando sobretodo a las transnacionales y las elites capitalistas del mundo entero.

El resultado es un aumento creciente de la pobreza y la marginalidad, en las zonas rurales donde viven dos tercios de la población más pobre y hambrienta del mundo. Esto ha traído como consecuencia la expulsión de miles de campesinos y un aumento de los procesos migratorios provenientes de zonas rurales. Además las políticas agrícolas han regenerado una situación insustentable que han llevado al suicidio de miles de campesinos endeudados.

Los trabajadores de las empresas agro exportadoras se ven forzados a aceptar condiciones indignas de trabajo con puestos de empleo peligrosos, mal remunerados, desprotegidos socialmente, lo que implican una nueva forma de esclavitud.

A pesar de que la constitución de la FAO determina la promoción de acuerdos internacionales con el fin de regular el comercio agrícola y así mejorar el bienestar general, se ha sometido a la OMC, el Banco Mundial y el FMI y los tratados de libre comercio a través del desmantelamiento continuo de dichos acuerdos y la introducción, a nivel mundial, de políticas de libre comercio que no han hecho sino aumentar los niveles de pobreza. Bajo a la presión constante de las instituciones financieras multilaterales los compromisos internacionales como el de terminar con el hambre y la pobreza en las zonas rurales cada vez están más debilitados.

Es la responsabilidad de las naciones miembros de la FAO proporcionar los medios económicos, institucionales y políticos que permitan a la FAO desempeñar su mandato de forma eficiente. Los mecanismos alternativos como la Plataforma Mundial de Donantes para el Desarrollo Rural no hacen sino reducir la autonomía de la FAO.

Las transnacionales y las estrategias de “Ayuda a cambio de apertura” han promovido la agricultura intensiva dirigida a la exportación, la acuicultura y los monocultivos a costa del exterminio de la agricultura campesina, de la cultura y los recursos naturales de quienes viven en las zonas rurales. El modelo de producción empresarial que se basa en las exportaciones ha tenido impacto muy drástico sobre lo medio ambiente e la biodiversidad.

La FAO no ha tenido una posición crítica frente a las políticas de tierra basada en el mercado promovida por el Banco Mundial, estas han demostrado ser un fracaso en los países donde han sido implementadas, solo ha logrado profundizar el exterminio de la agricultura campesina y la pobreza en las zonas rurales.

En este contexto, se hace urgente que los objetivos fijados por la misma FAO en su última Cumbre Alimentaria para reducir el hambre sean materializados.

Uno de los pasos positivos relacionados con el mandato original ha sido la Declaración Final de la Conferencia Internacional sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural (CIRADR marzo 2006), que declara: “Nosotros, los Estados Miembros (… ) creemos firmemente en el papel fundamental que tienen la reforma agraria y el desarrollo rural en la promoción del desarrollo sostenible que incluye, Inter alia, la realización de los derechos humanos, la seguridad alimentaría, la erradicación de la pobreza y el fortalecimiento de la justicia social…” Y más adelante continua: “Reiteramos la importancia de la agricultura tradicional y familiar y otros sistemas de producción en pequeña escala, al igual que el papel que juegan las comunidades rurales tradicionales y los grupos indígenas en el fomento de la seguridad alimentaria en la erradicación de la pobreza”. Finalmente, el documento propone incluir “la participación de la sociedad civil y de otros organismos de Naciones Unidas que tienen que ver con la soberanía alimentaria, la seguridad alimentaria, la reforma agraria y el desarrollo rural”.

Sin embargo, tenemos clara conciencia que una declaración de principios no es suficiente. Por lo que llamamos a que la FAO trabajemos proactivamente en:

1. La formulación de políticas para la realización de la Reforma Agraria Integral que contemple redistribució n de la tierra, lo reconocimiento y respeto a los territorios ancestrales de los pueblos y el respeto de los sistemas de pesca de los pueblos pescadores.

2. La protección de los derechos de los pueblos y las comunidades sobre las semillas y el conocimiento tradicional, incluyendo la prohibición de la tecnología Terminator y el patentado de seres vivos

3. La protección de los derechos colectivos de los pueblos y comunidades sobre los recursos naturales, así como de los derechos públicos e sociales como la educación, la salud e la seguridad social.

4. Proteger la producción de los alimentos provenientes de la agricultura familiar campesina, destinada principalmente al consumo local y nacional, fomentando métodos de producción agroecológicos

5. Promover la recuperación de tecnologías y formas de producción tradicionales de los campesinos y las campesinas teniendo en cuenta que son indispensables para la protección de los suelos e preservación de la biodiversidad.

Por lo señalado y a fin de poder tener una relación constructiva, planteamos a la FAO dé considerar en forma urgente lo siguiente:

1 La necesidad de que la FAO tenga un papel fuerte y proactivo frente a las negociaciones comerciales internacionales, con el fin de proteger la producción de alimentos para los mercados locales y comerciales, provenientes de la agricultura campesina y familiar, y de la pesca y acuacultura artesanal.

2 La FAO debe establecer mecanismos que permitan avanzar en el desarrollo de acuerdos internacionales relacionados con la alimentación, la agricultura y la pesca promoviendo los derechos humanos y especialmente los derechos de los campesinos, los que deben prevalecer por sobre los acuerdos comerciales.

3 Es indispensable que haya un seguimiento concreto de la Conferencia Internacional sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural (CIRADR) y que la FAO tome los pasos necesarios para crear un fondo y mecanismos financieros internacionales para apoyar a los gobiernos nacionales dispuestos a llevar a cabo programas efectivos de reforma agraria genuina e integral y de desarrollo rural, basados en los principios de la CIRADR, y en cooperación con las organizaciones y movimientos sociales.

4 Definir en consultación con las organizaciones de la sociedad civil internaciona, através del proceso del Comité Internacional de Planificación para la Soberanía Alimentaria (CIP) los mecanismos de implementació n, seguimiento y monitoreo de los compromisos de Porto Alegre (CIRADR).

5 La FAO debe tomar una posición clara en contra del uso de transgénicos y la tecnología Terminator en el sector de la agricultura, la pesca, la ganadería y la forestaría.

6 La FAO debe revisar el Acuerdo Internacional sobre Recursos Fitogenéticos y establecer una prohibición clara de las patentes y otras formas de propiedad intelectual (incluyendo UPOV) sobre los materiales fitogenéticos y del control corporativo de las semillas.

7 La investigación agrícola bajo el sistema de CGIAR esta básicamente orientada hacia los intereses empresariales y en contra de los intereses de los pequeños agricultores y la agricultura sostenible. La FAO debe presionar de manera proactiva a favor del desarrollo de sistemas alternativos de investigación, que se basen en formas de investigación dirigidas por los mismos agricultores, a fin de encontrar soluciones para el hambre y la marginación mediante métodos de producción ecológicos que respondan a las necesidades de las personas que trabajan con la tierra, los ríos y el mar

8 La FAO tiene que reconocer el concepto de « territorio », que es mas amplio que « tierra », para proteger la biodiversidad, el agua, los bosques, los áreas de pesca, y otros recursos básicos de los pueblos indígenas y campesinos de la privatización y de la incursiones de las corporaciones multinacionales.

9 Prestar atención especial a las necesidades y prioridades de los pescadores artesanales, los pueblos indígenas y las mujeres. Todos, las minorías étnicas, las tribus, los pescadores y pescadoras, los campesinos y campesinas, los y las sin tierra, los pastores nómadas y los pueblos desplazados quienes tienen el derecho a mantener sus propias relaciones espirituales y materiales con sus tierras y territorios. Esto implica el reconocimiento de sus leyes, tradiciones, costumbres y sistemas de tenencia. LA FAO debe desarrollar de manera urgente iniciativas que aborden estos elementos.

10 La necesidad de adoptar mecanismos de diálogo social a nivel global, regional, nacional y local que posibiliten la cooperación entre diferentes actores y el seguimiento y la evaluación de los avances en la reforma agraria y el desarrollo rural, respetando el principio de autonomía y promoviendo una participación efectiva de las organizaciones sociales y diversas formaciones de la sociedad civil en los distintos niveles de toma de decisiones.

La reforma de la FAO debe generar la capacidad institucional y política para abordar adecuadamente los puntos anteriores. La Vía Campesina entiende que la FAO y los gobiernos nacionales deben actuar de forma urgente para parar lo desastre creciente sobre la agricultura campesina e la alimentación de los pueblos.

Continuaremos luchando por políticas que estén basadas en la soberanía alimentaría, que incluye, entre otros, el derecho de los pueblos y las comunidades a definir su modelo de producción y de consumo de los alimentos así como el derecho a acceder y controlar sus recursos locales.

¡No esperaremos 10 años más sin que haya cambios reales!

¡Ya es tiempo de Soberanía Alimentaria!

Nuclear Weapons, War and the Media

Beyond the Bomb Conference

Pace University

New York City

November 4, 2006

Karl Grossman
Professor, State University of New York, College at Old Westbury

In examining the interplay between nuclear weapons, war and the media, it is instructive to examine how The New York Times, the paper of record in the United States, gave direction to press coverage in this country as the so-called “nuclear age” opened.

It’s a shocking story. As Beverly Deepe Keever, a reporter for Newsweek, The New York Herald Tribune and The Christian Science Monitor before becoming a professor of journalism at the University of Hawaii, details in her important book, News Zero: The New York Times and The Bomb, “from the dawn of the atomic-bomb age, [William L.] Laurence and The Times almost single-handedly shaped the news of this epoch and helped birth the acceptance of the most destructive force ever created.”

Who was William L. Laurence? He was the granddaddy of embedded reporters­plus. A science reporter for The Times, he was hired by the Manhattan Project, the World War II crash program to build an atomic bomb and, while working for the government remained on The Times payroll, his Times weekly salary going to his wife while he also was paid by the government.

The arrangement was made by the Manhattan Project’s head, General Leslie Groves, with the publisher and editor of The Times. Keever writes: “To sell the bomb, the U.S. government needed The Times...and The Times willingly obliged.”

At the Manhattan Project, Laurence participated in “the government’s cover-up of the super-secret Trinity shot.” Held a month before the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in the Trinity test a nuclear device was exploded for the first time. Laurence prepared a press release to “disguise the detonation and resulting radiation.” The “fake news” claimed there had been a “jumbo detonation of an ammunition magazine filled with high explosives at the 2000-square mile Alamogordo Air Base.”

The Timesman didn’t stop with this deception.

He prepared a 10-part series at the Manhattan Project glorifying its making of atomic weapons­and all but ignoring the dangers of radioactivity. And after the bombs fell on Japan, The Times itself ran the series and “on behalf of the government” distributed it free “to the press nationwide.”

Laurence’s avid pro-nuclear writings continued when he returned to The Times this becoming an institutional stance of the publication. The Times, writes Keever, “became little more than a propaganda outlet for the U.S. government in its drive to cover up the dangers of immediate radiation and future radioactivity emanating from the use and testing of nuclear weapons.”

The Times, she writes, “tolerated or aided the U.S. government’s Cold War cover-up that resulted in minimizing or denying the health and environmental effects arising from the use in Japan and later testing of the most destructive weaponry in U.S. history in Pacific Islands once called paradise….The Times aided the U.S. government in keeping in the dark thousands of U.S. servicemen, production workers and miners, even civil defense officials, Pacific Islanders and others worldwide about the dangers of radiation.”

Other Times writers who participated in the pro-nuclear spin included its military editor, Hanson Baldwin. Writes Keever: “In editorials and articles, The Times clearly favored Operation Crossroads,” a major nuclear test in the Pacific, and when President Truman “postponed the first scheduled dates for the test, Baldwin complained that ‘well-meaning but muddled persons, in and out of Congress, are proposing the permanent cancellation of the tests.’”

The atomic dysfunction at The Times went on and on. The nuclear testing-caused tragedy “from 1947 to 1991 unfolding in the faraway Marshall Islands,” for instance, was “largely untold by The Times.”

And the dysfunction continues today as The New York Times leads U.S. media in pushing for a “revival” of nuclear power.

Notes Keever, “A huge outcry followed the revelation of a breach of reporting ethics by a single individual when the Times in mid-2003 exposed the plagiarism and fraud committed…yet the issues raised” by her research “are far more pervasive and more importantly condoned and institutionalized as part of media management policies and practices. This investigation serves as a wake-up call for journalists of today and tomorrow.”

It’s more than a wake-up call for journalists today.

It could be a critical to the lives and survival of millions.

I helped Keever with her book sharing with her the work of Deborah Lipstadt, professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University, the author of Beyond Belief: The American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust, and Kenneth Libo, author and curator.

Beyond Belief is about how much was known about the Holocaust­as hundreds of thousands and then millions of Jews were being killed in the 1930s and 1940s­and this was intensely covered by the Jewish press. Yet The Times, Lipstadt writes in Beyond Belief, downplayed the horrible news coming out of Europe. Lipstadt writes that if The Times had done solid journalism about the situation, “it is possible that other American papers would have followed suit”­and what was happening could have been widely exposed­and efforts made to stop it.

Libo was responsible for exhibits on this issue including one at the National Museum of American Jewish History which featured enlarged photocopies of small, back-page Times articles on the shipping off of Jews to concentration camps placed alongside the major stories on this which ran in Jewish papers. A sign at the exhibit, Keever notes, quoting an article by me, read: “Setting the tone for coverage in the general press” of the Holocaust was The New York Times which “downplayed” the news.

Keever ends her book stating that “history might have unfolded quite differently if The Times had reported the Holocaust more prominently and vigorously,” and, likewise, “History might also have unfolded quite differently if The Times had given more than News-Zero coverage of the effects” of the “nuclear holocaust” of our time.

What should The Times and other media be reporting? First and foremost, that nuclear weapons and nuclear power are two sides of the same coin­that there is no “peaceful atom.”

Then it should examine the proposition that the only real way to end the threat of nuclear weapons spreading throughout this world today is to also put a stop to nuclear technology.

Radical? Yes, but consider the even more radical alternative: a world in which scores of nations will be able to construct nuclear weaponry because they possess nuclear power technology. There are major parts of the Earth­Africa, South America, the South Pacific, and others­that have now been designated nuclear-free zones. If we are really to have a world free of the horrific threat of nuclear weapons, the goal needs to be the designation of this entire planet as a nuclear-free zone­no nuclear weapons, no nuclear power.

Radical? Yes, but consider the alternative­trying to keep using carrots and sticks, juggling on the road to inevitable nuclear disaster.

A nuclear-free world is the only way, I believe, through which humanity will be free of the specter of nuclear warfare. Some will say putting the atomic genie back into the bottle is impossible. I say: anything people have done, other people can undo. Especially if the reason is good. And the prospect of massive loss of life from nuclear destruction is the best of reasons.

As Amory and Hunter Lovins wrote in their book, Energy/War: Breaking the Nuclear Link: “All nuclear fission technologies both use and produce fissionable materials that are or can be concentrated. Unavoidably latent in those technologies, therefore, is a potential for nuclear violence and coercion which may be exploited by governments, factions.”

“Little strategic material is needed to make a weapon of mass destruction. Nagasaki-yield bomb can be made from a few kilograms of plutonium, a piece the size of a tennis ball.”

“A large power reactor,” they noted, “annually produces…hundreds of kilograms of plutonium; a large fast breeder reactor would contain thousands of kilograms; a large reprocessing plant may separate tens of thousands.”

Civilian nuclear power technology, they say, provides the way to make nuclear weapons­furnishing the materiel and trained personnel.

That’s how India got The Bomb in 1974. Canada supplied a reactor for “peaceful purposes” and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission trained Indian engineers. And lo and behold, India had nuclear weapons.

Where have media been in examining the operations of the International Atomic Energy Agency­the global nuclear-pusher?

The IAEA was formed as a result of President Eisenhower’s 1953 “Atoms for Peace” speech before the UN General Assembly. Eisenhower proposed the creation of an international agency to promote civilian applications of atomic energy and, somehow at the same time, control the use of fissionable material­a dual role paralleling that of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. In 1974, the AEC was abolished after the U.S. Congress concluded that, in theory and practice, it was in conflict of interest. But the IAEA­in the AEC’s image­remains with us.

The IAEA’s mandate: “To accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world.”

From its outset, the IAEA has been run by atomic zealots.

Its first director general was Sterling Cole, who, as a U.S. congressman was an original member and then chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, as extreme in its promotion of nuclear technology as the AEC.

Later, Hans Blix became IAEA director general­after, his official IAEA biography stresses, leading a move in his native Sweden against the effort to close nuclear power plants there.

Blix was outspoken in insisting nuclear technology be spread throughout the world­calling for “resolute response by government, acting individually or together as in the [IAE] Agency.”

Blix’s long-time IAEA second-in command: Morris Rosen­formerly of the AEC and before that the nuclear division of General Electric. After the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster, he rendered this advice: “There is very little doubt that nuclear power is a rather benign industrial enterprise and we may have to expect catastrophic accidents from time to time.”

As for the current IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, he too, is a great nuclear booster. “There is clearly a sense of rising expectations for nuclear power,” he told a gathering in Paris last year organized by the IAEA entitled “International Conference on Nuclear Power for the 2lst Century.”

The IAEA has been doing everything it can to fuel those expectations­scandalously downplaying the public health consequences of nuclear accidents including the Chernobyl disaster, promoting all sorts of atomic technology and, with its nearly $300 million annual budget, encouraging the spread of nuclear power around the globe.

The War & Peace Foundation has wisely proposed that the IAEA be replaced with a World Sustainable Energy Agency which would promote the use of safe, clean, non-lethal energy technologies.

Meanwhile, true nuclear non-proliferation, as Amory and Hunter Lovins state, requires “civil denuclearization.”

Even Admiral Hyman Rickover, the “father” of the U.S. nuclear navy and manager of construction of the first commercial nuclear plant in the U.S., in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, in the end came to the conclusion that the world must­in his words­“outlaw nuclear reactors.”

Rickover, in a farewell address, told a committee of Congress in 1982: “I’ll be philosophical. Until about two billion years ago, it was impossible to have any life on earth: that is, there was so much radiation on earth you couldn’t have any life­fish or anything. Gradually, about two billion years ago, the amount of radiation on this planet and probably in the entire system reduced and made it possible for some for some form of life to begin.”

“Now,” Rickover went on, “when we go back to using nuclear power, we are creating something which nature tried to destroy to make life possible…Every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has life, in some cases for billions of years, and I think there the human race is going to wreck itself, and it’s far more important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it.”

As for nuclear weaponry, the “lesson of history,” said the retiring admiral, is that in war nations “will use” whatever weaponry they have.

Where have media been on focusing on these realities? In the case of The New York Times and most of mainstream media: in league with a power structure archly pro-nuclear…at News Zero.

Now, positively, the media revolution of our time and what it can mean to get the truth out­in Q&A.
***

Karl Grossman is professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury and coordinator of its Media & Communications Major. A major concentration for decades has been nuclear technology. Among the six books he has authored are: Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed To Know About Nuclear Power; The Wrong Stuff: The Space Program’s Nuclear Threat To Our Planet; Power Crazy; and Weapons in Space. Grossman has given presentations on nuclear issues around the world. He has long also been active on television. He narrated and wrote the award-winning documentaries: The Push To Revive Nuclear Power; Nukes In Space: The Nuclearization and Weaponization of the Heavens; and Three Mile Island Revisited, all produced by EnviroVideo (www.envirovideo.com). For the past 15 years, Grossman has hosted Enviro Close-Up, aired nationally on Free Speech TV, the DISH satellite network (Channel 9415), and on more than 100 cable TV systems and on commercial TV. His magazine and newspaper articles have appeared in numerous publications. He is a charter member of the Commission on Disarmament Education, Conflict Resolution and Peace of the International Association of University Presidents and the United Nations. He is a member of the boards of directors of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service-World Information Service on Energy and Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, and board of advisors of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. He can be reached at kgrossman@hamptons.com or Box 1680, Sag Harbor, NY 11963

PROYECTO DE BIOSEGURIDAD Y GRUPO ABRAXAS EN FORO SOCIAL DE PUERTO RICO

Este domingo de 10:30 a 11:50 de la mañana el Proyecto de Bioseguridad de Puerto Rico y el Grupo Abraxas ofrecerán un panel como parte del Foro Social de Puerto Rico:

Puerto Rico ante la biotecnología: ¿Promesa o amenaza?

Descripción: Ante la política del gobierno de promover de manera irreflexiva todo lo que tenga que ver con biotecnología (economía del conocimiento), se nos presentan serias interrogantes. ¿Cuáles son las implicaciones sociales, políticas, ecológicas y de salud pública de este conjunto de nuevas tecnologías, especialmente los cultivos y alimentos genéticamente alterados? ¿Son necesarias? El panel indagará estas preguntas y delineará alternativas saludables, equitativas y agroecológicas para el futuro.

Panelistas:

Carmelo Ruiz Marrero, periodista y educador ambiental, autor de "Balada Transgénica" y director del Proyecto de Bioseguridad de Puerto Rico

María Suárez, fundadora de Orgánica 3

Magha García, de la Fundación Oro Verde


DONDE: Edificio Ana M. O'Neill (Facultad de Administración de Empresas), salón 401. Universidad de Puerto Rico, recinto de Río Piedras

Artificial Hippocampus, the Borg Hive Mind, and Other Neurological Endeavors by Gregor Wolbring November 15 , 2006

Many of us know about 'Borg Hive Mind' from TV programs where the characters are linked through brain-to-brain or computer-to-brain interactions. However, this is more than a science fiction fantasy. The idea was contemplated seriously in the 2002 National Science Foundation report, Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. 'Techlepathy' is the word coined, referring to the communication of information directly from one mind to another (i.e. telepathy) with the assistance of technology.

Many research activities focus on neuro-engineering and the cognitive sciences. Many neuroscientists and bioengineers now work on:

• cognitive computing
• digitally mapping the human brain (see here and here); the mouse brain map has just been published
• developing microcircuits that can repair brain damage, and
• other numerous projects related to changing the cognitive abilities and functioning of humans, and artificial intelligence.

Journals exist for all of these activities -- including the Human Brain Mapping journal. Some envision a Human Cognome Project. James Albus, a senior fellow and founder of the Intelligent Systems Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology believes the era of 'engineering the mind' is here. He has proposed a national program for developing a scientific theory of the mind.

Neuromorphic engineering, Wikipedia says, "is a new interdisciplinary discipline that takes inspiration from biology, physics, mathematics, computer science and engineering to design artificial neural systems, such as vision systems, head-eye systems, auditory processors, and autonomous robots, whose physical architecture and design principles are based on those of biological nervous systems."

There are many examples.

Researchers from Harvard University have linked nanowire field-effect transistors to neurons. Three applications are envisioned: hybrid biological/electronic devices, interfaces to neural prosthetics, and the capture of high-resolution information about electrical signals in the brain. Research is advancing in four areas: neuronal networks, interfaces between the brain and external neural prosthetics, real-time cellular assays, and hybrid circuits that couple digital nanoelectronic and biological computing components.

Numenta, a company formed in 2005, states on its webpage that it "is developing a new type of computer memory system modelled after the human neocortex."

Kwabena Boahen, an associate professor of bioengineering at Stanford University, has developed Neurogrid, "a specialized hardware platform that will enable the cortex’s inner workings to be simulated in detail -- something outside the reach of even the fastest supercomputers." He is also working on a silicon retina and a silicon chip that emulates the way the juvenile brain wires itself up.

Researchers at the University of Washington are working on an implantable electronic chip that may help to establish new nerve connections in the part of the brain that controls movement.

The Blue Brain project -- a collaboration of IBM and the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne, in Lausanne, Switzerland – will create a detailed model of the circuitry in the neocortex.

A DNA switch 'nanoactuator' has been developed by Dr. Keith Firman at the University of Portsmouth and other European researchers, which can interface living organisms with computers.

Kevin Warwick had an RFID transmitter (a future column will deal with RFID chips) implanted beneath his skin in 1998, which allowed him to control doors, lights, heaters, and other computer-controlled devices in his proximity. In another experiment, he and his wife Irena each had electrodes surgically implanted in their arms. The electrodes were linked by radio signals to a computer which created a direct link between their nervous systems. Kevin’s wife felt when he moved his arm.

In his book I, Cyborg, Kevin Warwick imagines that 50 years from now most human brains will be linked electronically through a global computer network.

St. Joseph's Hospital in the United States has implanted neurostimulators (deep brain stimulators) using nanowires to connect a stimulating device to brain. A pacemaker-like device is implanted in the chest, and flexible wires are implanted in the brain. Electrical impulses sent from the 'pacemaker' to the brain are used to treat Parkinson’s, migraine headaches and chronic pain, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, improve the mobility of stroke victims, and curb cravings in drug addicts.

In 2003/2004 a variety of publications (see links below) reported on the efforts of professor Theodore W. Berger, director of the Center for Neural Engineering at the University of Southern California, and his colleagues, to develop the world's first brain prosthesis -- an 'artificial hippocampus' which is supposed to act as a memory bank. These publications highlighted in particular the use of such implants for Alzheimer’s patients.

The research program is proceeding in four stages: (1) tests on slices of rat brains kept alive in cerebrospinal fluid… reported as successful in 2004; (2) tests on live rats which are to take place within three years; (3) tests on live monkeys; and (4) tests on humans -- very likely on Alzheimer’s patients first.

The Choice is Yours

If these advancements come to pass, they will create many ethical, legal, privacy and social issues. For the artificial hippocampus we should ask: would brain implants force some people to remember things they would rather forget? Could someone manipulate our memory? What would be the consequence of uploading information (see my education column)? Will we still have control over what we remember? Could we be forced to remember something over and over? If we can communicate with each other through a computer what will be the consequence of a Global Brain?

It is important that people become more involved in the governance of neuro-engineering and cognitive science projects. We should not neglect these areas because we perceive them to be science fiction. We also need to look beyond the outlined 'medical applications.' If the artificial hippocampus works, it will likely be used for more than dealing with diseases.

I will cover brain-machine interfaces, neuro-pharmaceutical-based 'cognitive enhancement,' and neuroethics and the ethics of artificial intelligence in future columns.

Gregor Wolbring is a biochemist, bioethicist, science and technology ethicist, disability/vari-ability studies scholar, and health policy and science and technology studies researcher at the University of Calgary. He is a member of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University; Member CAC/ISO - Canadian Advisory Committees for the International Organization for Standardization section TC229 Nanotechnologies; Member of the editorial team for the Nanotechnology for Development portal of the Development Gateway Foundation; Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People's International; and Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO. He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website, moderates a weblog for the International Network for Social Research on Diasbility, and authors a weblog on NBICS and its social implications.

EL NOBEL DE ECONOMIA ES UN PREMIO DE SEGUNDA CLASE

Por Hazel Henderson (*)

ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, Nov 06 (IPS) Peter Nobel, nieto de Alfred Nobel, ha sido parte de un movimiento académico crítico del premio de economía, al que consideran ilegítimo. Nobel dijo: "El Banco de Suecia, que estableció este premio, es como un cuclillo que pone sus huevos en el nido de otro pájaro, en este caso el Premio Nobel." Muchos receptores del Premio Nobel y científicos han protestado porque el Premio del Banco de Suecia devalúa a los verdaderos Premios Nobel y otros piensan que debería ser desvinculado de los Nobel o abolido."

La cosecha de Premios Nobel de este año incluyó otra curiosa anomalía, que se agrega a las dudas existentes sobre el premio de economía.

El economista bengalí Muhammad Yunus, famoso en todo el mundo por haber creado el Grameen Bank, que otorga microcréditos a los pobres por un total de varios miles de millones de dólares, en lugar de recibir el premio de economía ha sido galardonado con el Premio Nobel de la Paz, un honor mucho más grande.

Mientras tanto, un importante representante de la corriente económica dominante en Estados Unidos, Edmund Phelps, de la Universidad de Columbia, fue galardonado con el premio en economía. Este premio menor fue establecido en 1969 por el Banco Central de Suecia para ayudar a legitimar la economía, la cual es ampliamente reconocida más como un arte que como una ciencia.

Ese premio provocó una gran controversia entre los matemáticos y los físicos. Ellos señalan que la economía no es una ciencia y que muchos ganadores del premio del Banco de Suecia han hecho mal uso de la matemática para "disfrazar" ideas no probadas o intentan "probar" hipótesis cuestionables.

Un grupo de matemáticos hizo pública su protesta en diciembre 2004 en el diario Dagens Nyheter, de Suecia, cuando acusaron a los ganadores de ese año, Edward C. Prescott y Finn E. Kyland, de haber recurrido a tales prácticas en su artículo de 1977, donde trataban de "demostrar" porqué los bancos centrales deben verse libres de la supervisión política, incluso de parte de los gobiernos más democráticamente elegidos. Estoy de acuerdo con Joseph Stiglitz, otro ganador del premio del Banco de Suecia, quien escribió que "los bancos centrales independientes que no son políticamente responsables socavan la democracia."

La mayor parte de los premios del Banco de Suecia han ido a estadounidenses partidarios del "libre mercado" y a seguidores de la neoconservadora Escuela de Chicago, comenzando por Milton Friedman en 1969. Algunos de esos economistas que usan o hacen mal uso de las matemáticas incluyen a esas "lumbreras" cuyos modelos de comportamiento de los mercados bursátiles condujeron al colapso del notorio fondo de cobertura Long Term Capital Management (LTCM) en 1998. Sus errores fueron tan grandes y produjeron pérdidas tan graves que el LTCM causó un cataclismo financiero y requirió que el entonces presidente del Consejo directivo de la Reserva Federal de Estados Unidos, Alan Greenspan, organizara un rescate.

¿Cuáles son los méritos de Phelps para llegar a la fama? Phelps recibió el premio en 2006 por un trabajo en el que redefinió la supuesta tasa "natural" de desempleo más allá de la llamada "Curva Phillips" que postuló erróneamente una compensación entre desempleo e inflación en un ensayo en 1958. Sucesivas generaciones de economistas faltos de sentido crítico adoptaron el punto de vista de Phillips, que se convirtió en la justificación de los banqueros centrales para elevar las tasas de interés para contener la inflación a costa de un creciente desempleo. Sin embargo, es ampliamente sabido que hay muchos modos de reducir la inflación sin penalizar a los trabajadores, los propietarios de casas y los constructores de automóviles.

En cambio el trabajo de Phelps publicado en 1967 llega a afirmar que el desempleo es necesario para mantener a los trabajadores disciplinados y sumisos hacia los patrones de las empresas en que trabajan. Más adelante Phelps se mostró preocupado por comprender porqué los niveles de desempleo fluctuaban por otras razones. En su trabajo "Depresiones estructurales" (1994), admitió la existencia de otras fuerzas en acción en nuestra globalizada economía.

Cuando hablé con Peter Nobel, él no se mostró sorprendido por el premio a Phelps, pero agregó un comentario sobre Yunus: "Es la primera vez que un economista obtiene un Premio Nobel verdadero." (IPS)

(*) Hazel Henderson, economista estadounidense, es la autora de la serie televisiva Ethical Markets (www.EthicalMarkets.com) y del indicador sobre calidad de vida Calvert-Henderson (www.Calvert-Henderson.com).