Week 3 - 'Botany of Desire'

Pollan, Michael. 2002. The Botany of Desire. Random House, Inc., New York; p.183 - 238.

"Stop, Nature, stop!  Stop having your way with me!"

"Never!"

First of all, I love how Pollan takes examples from everywhere!  For anyone who hasn't been, Versailles and the neighbouring petit Hamlet is a sight to take in - Like Pollan said - gardens as far as you can see. (PS: I couldn't find my actual Versailles pictures, so this is Butchart Gardens on the Island - also very impressive)

So, for lack of a better way of saying this, why the hell would we want rainbow coloured cotton?  I know, I know... we wouldn't have to dye it.  But really, have we come to the point where we're that lazy??  I don't know how I feel about this.  When I first read this, the image of neon trees came to mind - and neon just seems weird in terms of nature and wilderness.

What really bothers me is this idea of plants being modified to carry vaccines (Pollan 188).  This begs the question, how would it work?!  Would we go to the supermarket, and, while buying bananas, be in truth forcibly  (unknowingly) fed vaccines?  No mom, I don't want a dash of vaccine with my potatoes, thanks.  But really, I know people who get flu shots every year - and then they get the flu.  If I don't have to get them, I'd really prefer not to.

I find it really funny that these GMO companies are giving contradictory answers on what modified plants really are.  In my view, when Pollan mentions that these kinds of responses make GMO plants seem chimeric (Pollan 189), it makes it really hard to decide whether or not to eat them.  On the one hand they might not be so novel, but on the other hand these modifications might be doing some funky things in the plants - which may sooner or later affect our health.

These stories about GMO just keep on making me say, what?  I mean, truly, why would you 'make' glow in the dark tobacco plants (Pollan 194).  I've heard of farmers painting their sheep with glow in the dark paint to ward off predators.  But glowing plants?  It just blows my mind.

"While walking through the woods one day, 

Chris and Martin see something strange."

Nope, not a leaping lemur, but glow in the dark trees...

Modification by descent is being replaced... or is it (Pollan 196)?  We sure are trying, throwing it out the windows left and right with advances in genetic engineering.

The GMO's may be smarter than the plain guys in the planter (Pollan 198) - but hey, the villains in the other corner of the ring can get smarter too (and fast).  "Bugs are always going to be smarter than we are... (Pollan 222)".  Which is not only bad news for the GMO plants but these superweeds and superinsects could have a doubly negative impact on any plants that haven't been modified.

So as Marie Antoinette is known for saying:  "Let them eat... potatoes!"

The question now is, what kind?

The emergence of GMO products brings along with it the problem of biological pollution (Pollan 213).

Where through cross pollination (212) GMO plants can spread their new genes into non-GMO plants - the next resulting generation expressing the modified traits.

Scary stuff, right?  I thought so.

The worrisome thought is that Bt resistance might arise as a result of this biological pollution -  its like our current state within the field of medicine.  Where abuse and overuse of antibiotics has led to multi-drug resistant 'superbugs', so will overuse of this natural (yet modified) pesticide lead to resistance in the future.

For now, the beetle 'falls drunkenly' to the ground (but for how long?)

*sigh* ... McDonald's, what are we going to do with you?  

McD:  "Sorry, we don't want brown spots on our french fries."

~ "So you'd rather a deadly chemical in them instead?"

This sounds wrong doesn't it?  I'm not the only one who thinks so, right?  Apparently not, even one of the farmer's interviewed by Pollan won't eat potatoes from his crop - he plants a separate garden crop without chemicals (Pollan 220)  --> joy, so we're the ones eating the potentially 'lethal spuds' (of doom).

What literally made me laugh out loud is the Organic Farmer's response to this whole situation.

"So Mr. Organic Farmer, what do you do about net nicrosis?"

Farmer: Uh, I plant potatoes that don't suffer that."

... Damn you McDonald's for demanding a potato that needs to be pumped full of chemicals to survive!

All I have to say in conclusion is that I'm so glad that I don't buy New Leaf potatoes when I plant potatoes in the yard - I would be notorious for breaking the law!

"Intellectual property" indeed...

... it's mine, all mine!!

Week 2 - Guns, Germs, and Steel

Diamond, Jared. 1999. Guns, Germs, and Steel. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York; p. 114 - 130.


"This tea is quite bitter, with a strange almondy taste... no, you couldn't have!  Curse you Miss Peacock in the dining hall!"

Similarly to Michael Pollan's, Botany of Desire, Jared Diamond discusses the mechanism of plant domestication in Guns, Germs, and Steel.  Historically, many of the plants we know grow and use were poisonous or untasty.  Diamond begins his argument with the question of how then, were such plants 'changed' to become the plants we use in everyday life (114)?  Interestingly, Diamond takes his argument in a slightly different direction than Pollan.  Where Pollan mentions that domestication and coevolution
(xiii - xxv) are driven both consciously and (mostly) unconsciously on the human's part (even in todays world, where we have genetic engineering, etc.), Diamond argues that the origin of domestication of plants (and animals) by humans was for the most part a fluke.  Mutations in the plants and animals made them more approachable or available and humans unwittingly took advantage of these mutants (118).

Diamond continues to say that today's domestication is 'controlled', that the human is completely on top of things.  Reducing the boundaries between domestication and wilderness until the whole planet is a genetic playground for humans - where nothing is uncontrolled.  Which in a way is true, we do (more and more) monitor aspects of the wilderness (such as protecting endangered species - species who by natural selection seem to be falling out of favor and decreasing in fitness) and climate.

Mounted head.  Fintry, BC.




It might be some kind of 'chronological bias', but this reading did not impress/impact me to the extent that Botany of Desire did.  The reading became very repetitive - not only was it very similar to Pollan's writing, but I guess there's only so much you can write about domesticating the almond in a unique fashion (and Diamond overdid it).

What did intrigue me in this reading was Diamond's view that agriculture as we know it started out in the latrines of the people 10, 000 years ago.  The seeds of plants the people would eat (obviously were the ones that they preferred) survived their journey through the digestive tract  - and so the first evidence of gathered and selected plants (that are now crops) were in these peoples latrines (117, 119).  What a charming thought, agriculture is believed to be a milestone in human culture/development.  As so many people in Biology like to say, "Shit happens".  Yes, yes does - and it did back then too.

Week 2 - Botany of Desire

Pollan, Michael. 2002. The Botany of Desire. Random House, Inc., New York; p. xiii - xxv.


"No, I swear officer, the potato made me do it!"

In Botany of Desire, Michael Pollan, takes an interesting stance on the mechanism of domestication of plants.  No longer is it the humans, toiling away in the fields, the main driving force of this mechanism - but plants themselves.  Living in the world along side animals, plants adapt (evolve) to better seduce us.  Exploiting our desires to better their overall fitness.  Indeed, just as Pollan states, I don't think I'll ever think of my garden again as just something I do as a hobby (xiv, xv).  Plants know what we want, and they take full advantage of that - getting attention and care as a bonus.  In a way, we are their (clueless) slaves, serving the almighty plants, and begging for a reward.

I truly enjoyed reading and learning (hopefully) Pollan's view on domestication and how we (people) erroneously think we're in charge (xvi).  Really plants only put up with us and our polluting ways because (presently) it is favourable to coevolve.  Once again, I digress to John Wyndham's Day of the Triffids - it'll be a scary world where plants no longer need us.  Even scarier is Pollan's statement that they know us better than we know ourselves (xvi, xvii) - they evolve, adapt to be as appealing to us as possible, while all we do is say,"Hey cool, I can use this!" but they already knew that, didn't they?

What further struck me in Pollan's dissection of domestication was the fact that  humans tend to be fascinated by 'wild' species rather than by the domesticated ones (xvi).  I've never really thought about this, but it seems so true.  I mean, who wouldn't say that a bear or cougar is more hardcore or interesting than the common house cat or dog?

Plamka (cat), Panda (dog) ... yeah, not too intense are they?



"... beauty's gravitational pull..." (xviii)  The concept which arose when human culture became attracted to a flower's beauty.  Unfortunately the 'beauty' of this idea has been repeatedly tarnished for me - oh yes, thank you for this bouquet of reproductive structures.  (Which now makes me wonder why flowers are given as a gesture of congratulations?) I digress, sorry.

Lastly, Pollan's revised definition of fitness really wrapped up the argument well.  Where 'fitness' is now the ability to get along with people, the most powerful evolutionary force (and to think we're total suckers to their devices).  If we don't like 'em, they don't thrive as well as those that we do prefer - yet they know what we like, so we sow them - it's an idea of circular reasoning.  This idea also makes humans seem cliquey towards plants - loving some, shunning others.

PS:  "... back to Amsterdam, where another, far less lovely flower has made itself ... more precious than gold."  Brilliant, meaning that Amsterdam and BC are best 'buds'.

Week 1: 'In Praise of Plants'

Hallé, Francis. 2002. In Praise of Plants. Timber Press Inc., Oregon, USA: p. 41-124, 173-184.


In the beginning there was nothingness... and then bang!, it was all about having the 'perfect form'.  I see them, flaunting their vibrant colors (I see them every where!).

With Hallé, the brutally (honest) comparisons start right off the bat in 'A Visit to the Landscape of Form'.  Picking at the similarities and differences between plants and animals; their forms, and their methods of obtaining energy.  Enough said.  I've seen this all before in various classes and textbooks - structure versus function and all that jazz.

The new metaphors make it all worth reading though.  I ask, what kind of crazy (brilliant) imagination do you need to say: 'Animals are confused plants, turned inside out... [p]lants are fantastic animals, their insides turned out, bearing their entrails like feathers.' ( Hallé p.50)
Looking at the diagram (can't stop looking at it) used to demonstrate the metaphor it really seems true.

(Unfortunately, polarity and symmetry are lost to me; I fell asleep while reading that bit, though NyQuil could be the blame for that, not the book.)

More than anything, these readings really made me want to go outside and look at plants first hand (no offense to whoever drew the book's diagrams).  Going into the yard probably wouldn't be enough for me, though - my best memories of looking at plants are when I have gotten lost in the forest (this happens often) looking for raspberries, blueberries, morels (these tricky buggers look way too much like pinecones), etc.

What also struck me was the section about mobility, Fixed but Not Immobile (p.101).  Hallé explains that   plants seemingly immobile lifestyle is what makes most people think that plants are inferior.  Toiling away in  my garden every year I've never thought of plants as immobile - they're always moving.
The concept of mobility worries.  If evolution took a crazy turn in the plant kingdom and plants 'gained' animal-type mobility how drastically would our view of plants change? How would plants feel about animals?  Would the world become a scene out of 'Day of the Triffids' by John Wyndham? (That's a very disturbing thought!)