AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

BY:AL GORE

A Reaction Paper
Presented to: Sir. Jojo Cabras
UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO

KIM IVAN RADA SUMAGAYSAY

Al Gore, a former US vice president, narrated and spoke about a number of real-life incidents that
made up the film. For easier understanding, the audience was well-informed on the data collected and
the trends of various climatological graphs. The program also gave viewers a broader grasp of the
most delicate environmental issue, namely global warming.
Given that carbon is one of the numerous greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that actively contributes
to the planet's rapid warming and subsequent increase in temperature, it was disturbing to observe
the different repercussions of the world's significant increase in carbon emissions. Along with this, it
was claimed that a number of catastrophic incidents had begun to worsen, causing a great deal of
damage and loss. In order to convince Americans of the truth of global warming and the fact that
human activity is what is causing it, this documentary presents factual data. Whether or not we
concur with Mr. Gore's beliefs, there must undoubtedly be some sort of action. Understanding our
position as a society is crucial if we are to change the course of the crises affecting the world. Al Gore
presents a documentary that was personally enlightening and had a profound impact on his life based
on the major themes and a "call to action" strategy.
Gore draws a line between truth and fantasy. It is important to pay attention to the precise warnings
and scientific analyses. Gore focuses on the key issues that touch all of us by putting politics aside and
focusing on the facts. Large amounts of greenhouse gases are the primary cause of wealthy countries'
global warming emissions, while emerging countries' per-capita emissions are still considerably lower
than those of developed nations. However, developing nations in the construction phase must produce
a lot of pollution, resulting in high carbon emissions; however, the West in the development phase,
too; however, the West is a historical account does not count, as the Anglo-American history, 1,100
tons of carbon emissions per capita in China only 66 tons; therefore, not counting the historical
account is unfair for developing nations. In order to reduce carbon emissions in emerging nations,
developed nations cannot impose restrictions.

An Inconvenient Truth is a film that was shown in class. The same reality was revealed to us. My
thoughts about the structure of this documentary film were already set when I first heard the title,
"An Inconvenient Truth." The unfortunate reality of global warming is that it is already happening in
our world. This tragedy affects all Earth's inhabitants severely, not just those who live in certain
countries. Perhaps the word "global warming" only refers to the extreme heat we experience, but it
actually has a deeper connotation. Not only does global warming make the Earth's state worse, it also
plays a role in the tragedies that occur around the world.
Al Gore said something in the 2000 presidential. The film “An Inconvenient Truth” is a documentary
film about global warming. Al Gore discusses the scientific opinion on climate change, as well as the
present and future effects of global warming. The warming of the earth is caused by the greenhouse
gasses preventing the sun’s heat to escape from the earth’s atmosphere. That’s the elementary
explanation of Global Warming by the movie. Al Gore describes the consequences he believes global
climate change will produce if the amount of human-generated greenhouse gases is not significantly
reduced in the very near future. Some is the collapse and melting of the major ice sheets in the world,
which Gore showing some illustrations, before-and-after photographs of glaciers, which will soon cause
the sea level to rise, and flood some regions near coastal areas (e.g. New York, China, New Zealand. etc.)
and this will cause over 100 million refugees. Also, the melt water from Greenland because of its lower
salinity, could then halt the currents that keep northern Europe warm and quickly trigger dramatic
local cooling there. Some of the consequences also are the, much stronger typhoon and hurricanes,
stronger and often earthquakes, more kinds of epidemics, drought, etc. and this will cause a disaster of
our earth. The issue regarding the “Inconvenience”, of the film Inconvenient Truth, is the interception
of Gore’s journal about global warming. The truth behind global warming by Al Gore and his crew,
composed of top scientists, was rejected by the Bush administration, and publicized it as scientifically
unproven or that will be insignificant. In the film, President George W. Bush asked whether he would
watch the film, responded: "Doubt it." He later stated that "And in my judgment we need to set aside
whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects, and focus
on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and at the same time protect the environment."
"Doubt it." This disturbing statement calls my attention in the film. Gore’s presentation on climate
change was based on the global scientific community. His detailed graphs, flow charts, stark visuals,
slide shows, are deadly convincing that 90 percent of human activity is responsible for global warming.
The documentary film was produced to serve as a campaign to educate citizens about global warming. It
intersperses Gore's exploration of data and predictions regarding climate change and its potential
disaster on our very own planet. The documentary ends with Gore arguing that if appropriate actions
are taken soon, the effects of global warming can be successfully reversed by releasing less CO2 and
planting more vegetation to consume existing CO2. Gore calls upon his viewers to learn how they can
help him in these efforts. Some things at home you can do to combat climate change is to recycle, try to
use bicycle or walk, instead of using a car, use sustainable building materials, don’t burn plastics, and
encourage everyone you know to watch this movie. For me honestly, I don’t really give care about
whether global warming is unproven or the truth. All i care about, as a resident, is doing my
responsibilities to save my planet. Al Gore was right about global warming, is a Moral issue, agreed. the
movie was great. When Gore enrolled in a course taught by Professor Roger Revelle, one of the first
researchers to quantify carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, at Harvard University, he developed an
interest in global warming. Later, in 1981, Gore organized the first congressional hearing on the topic
while he was a member of Congress. The 1992 book Earth in the Balance by Al Gore, which covered a
variety of environmental issues, made it onto the New York Times bestseller list.

Gore advocated for the implementation of a carbon tax while serving as vice president under President
Clinton in order to promote energy efficiency and diversify the available fuel options, which would
better reflect the true environmental costs of energy use. The carbon tax was partially implemented in
1993. The movie contains sections meant to counter arguments made by detractors who contend that
global warming is unproven or won't have much of an impact. Gore provides nine examples, including
the Grinnel and Boulder Glaciers and Patagonia, of how melting has caused nearly all glaciers to retreat
in recent decades. He talks about the potential for the collapse and melting of a sizable ice sheet in West
Antarctica or Greenland, either of which may cause the sea level to rise by about 20 feet (6 meters),
drowning coastal areas and creating 100 million refugees. Because of its lower salinity, melt water from
Greenland might abruptly stop the warm-trapping currents in northern Europe and produce a
significant local cooling. When Gore enrolled in a course taught by Professor Roger Revelle, one of the
first researchers to quantify carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, at Harvard University, he developed an
interest in global warming. Later, in 1981, Gore organized the first congressional hearing on the topic
while he was a member of Congress. The 1992 book Earth in the Balance by Al Gore, which covered a
variety of environmental issues, made it onto the New York Times bestseller list.

Gore advocated for the implementation of a carbon tax while serving as vice president under President
Clinton in order to promote energy efficiency and diversify the available fuel options, which would
better reflect the true environmental costs of energy use. The carbon tax was partially implemented in
1993. A global agreement intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Kyoto Protocol was
negotiated with his assistance in 1997. Al Gore's documentary has a significant influence on raising
global awareness of climate change and global warming. The documentary highlights the problem'
origins, ripple effects, ramifications, and potential remedies.

Al Gore advocated for the adoption of the Kyoto protocol, a deal intended to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in industrialized countries, during his time as vice president. He also ran a campaign in favor
of the establishment of carbon taxes, which control the quantity of carbon in fuel by levying a fee on the
carbon content of the fuel. Additionally, the essay analyzes the factors that contribute to global
warming's causes, impacts, and potential solutions.
 THE FUTURE: SIX DRIVERS
OF GLOBAL CHANGES

A Reaction Paper
Presented to: Sir. Jojo Cabras
UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO

KIM IVAN RADA SUMAGAYSAY

Al Gore, a former vice president and Tennessee senator, won the popular vote but lost the presidential
election to George W. Bush in 2000. Since then, he has become a best-selling author, starred in the
Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" (2006), won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for
his environmental activism, and amassed a fortune some have estimated to be larger than Mitt
Romney's, in part due to the recent sale of his stake in the company he co-founded Gore tackles a
topic whose scope matches that of his accomplishments and aspirations in "The Future: Six Drivers of
Global Change."

Gore's "six drivers of world change" are broken down into corresponding chapters, mostly
concerning When at his best, Gore is a well-spoken, interesting, and creative polymath who can
discuss both modern globalization and commerce flows from a millennium ago or mention the Middle
Ages' usage of invisible ink as an early form of modern cryptography. He exhibits a willingness to
reconsider ideas and acknowledge mistakes, which is uncommon among politicians as well as
commentators, prophets, and politicians. For instance, when discussing the potential for coping with
global warming while also making an effort to lessen it, he writes: "For my part, I used to argue many
years ago that resources and effort put into adaptation would divert attention from the all-out push
that is necessary to mitigate global warming and quickly build the political will to sharply reduce
emissions. Gore's perspective on the impact of technological innovation on politics will be of greater
interest to many readers than the mostly technical discussions about species diversity and the negative
effects of fracking. referencing H. In line with G. Wells's idea of a "world brain," Gore suggests that
the Internet and other technologies are building a virtual "Global Mind" at the same time that
transnational businesses and supply lines are establishing a globalized Earth Inc. While Gore's
language is frequently original and striking (for example, "Democracy and capitalism have both been
hacked"), his treatment of globalization as an almost inexorable force, for good or ill, has been the
accepted view at Davos, Aspen, and other gatherings of the policy-making jet set since the 1990s. In
the chapter titled "Power in the Balance," Gore defends the thesis that the nation-state, while still the
dominant form of political organization, is losing authority and power to "multinational corporations,
networked entrepreneurs, and billions of people in the global middle class." He acknowledges the role
of what he calls "state-guided capitalism" in the economic rise of China and other East Asian
countries, but maintains without much argument that "the emerging global middle class."

While his examination of state capitalism is superficial, his discussion of political nationalism suffers
from the same linguistic problems that plague many other arguments of this nature. "From Kurdistan
to Catalonia to Scotland, from Syria to Chechnya to South Sudan, from native people in the Andean
countries to tribal people," he writes even the most pessimistic realist, however, must admit Gore's
point that there have been "many examples" of an international consensus advancing human rights
prior to the invention of the Internet. "The spread of anticolonialism in the 1960s, the ban on
atmospheric nuclear testing, the promotion of women's rights, restrictions on child labor, the anti-
whaling movement, the Geneva Conventions against torture, and successive waves of the democracy
movement all gained momentum from the sharing of ideas and ideals among groups of committed
people in various countries who pressured their governments to cooperate."

Gore says in his conclusion that the fight to change humanity's Sadly, history is developing differently.
The money saved by outsourcing and robo sourcing is not being allocated in a way that balances out
the egregious disparities that afflict humanity, but one that emphasizes them instead. Gore comes as
close to a complete indictment of capitalism as any US vice president is ever going to in his explanation
of the enormous damage that the rising concentration of wealth in the hands of the super-rich has
produced.
According to Gore, the way the American branch of the world's dominant oligarchy is undermining
democracy is even worse than the widening wealth disparity. The Supreme Court's controversial
Citizens United ruling, which, to put it briefly, permitted billionaire. Near the start of his new book,
The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change, Al Gore says, "The way we think about the future has a
past. The crushing disappointments that are so often a part of the human experience have occasionally
led to crises of confidence in the future, replacing hope with despair. Gore, who won the Nobel Peace
Prize in 2007, is the co-founder and chairman of Generation Investment Management. The majority
of people have learned from their life experiences and the tales told by their elders that what we do in
the present, when informed by knowledge of the past, can reshape the future in objectively better
ways. Additionally, he serves as the chairman of the Climate Reality Project, a non-profit organization
focused to addressing environmental concerns. Served by Gore. But Gore's concern that the American
political system isn't up to the task is both the most engaging and the most dismal element of the book.
That cute phrase is a little unfortunate because his point is serious and bold: "The United States
Congress, the avatar of the democratically elected national legislatures in the modern world, is now
incapable of passing laws without permission from the corporate lobbies and other special interests
that control their campaign finances." He can't help but use his techno-enthusiasm to describe the
issue: "American democracy has been hacked."

The source of this accusation is largely what makes it so potent. Since Gore is a former vice president
and a board member, this isn't the wrath of the oppressed. He refers to the American political system
as a "quarterly democracy," stating that the requirement for 90-day public reporting of fundraising
has produced a cycle in which lawmakers frantically raise money every three months, in part as a
show of strength to stave off opponents. Gore tells a detailed account of the corporate legal takeover,
beginning in the 1970s with the opinions of Justice Lewis Powell, who "created the novel concept of
"corporate speech," perhaps not surprisingly for a man whose bid for the presidency was blocked by
the Supreme Court, and places much of the blame for America's hacked democracy with the country's
top judges.

You won't be shocked to learn that Gore ends his chapter on politics in an operatic key: "We as
occasionally transitions from being an evangelical nerd to a smug know-it-all, though, and those lapses
irritate me. I didn't need to be told that the narrative is "well-known," but I didn't mind his
mentioning the "Sorcerer's Apprentice" or being reminded (well, knowing) that it was originally a
poem by Goethe, published a decade before "Faust."

Only a wonk will enjoy this book. This isn't inherently a bad thing, but it does indicate that the
majority of readers won't appreciate being informed that GDP stands for "the system of economic
value measurement known as gross domestic product."
With this exposition of how he views everything in the world that counts, Gore has cleared his throat,
and I hope his next speech will address. Although it plays a significant role in one of the chapters, the
climate problem is not the main topic of this book. Six fundamental forces that are influencing the
current changes for the world and humans are covered in detail by Al Gore, along with how they
influence and interact with one another. As a "emergent" phenomena, each of these forces is not only
greater than the sum of its parts but also distinct from the aggregate in significant and potent ways.
Emergence of a highly networked global economy, or Earth Inc., as Al Gore refers to it, that
increasingly functions as a separate entity and has fundamentally different relationships with
governments, labor, capital, and consumers than past economic systems do.
Making use of computers in the classroom higher. Unprecedented advancements in the life sciences
have led to the development of a brand-new set of biological, biochemical, genetic, and material
technologies that allow us to both restructure and generate new life forms. These strong advances are
overwhelming our current capacity for thoughtful collective decision-making and for meditation on
the significance of the decisions we make today for the future of the human species, even while they
present the possibility to reshape life as we know it.
Endangered ecological foundations - The emergence of a fundamentally different relationship between
the combined might of human civilization and the natural systems of the world, particularly the
atmosphere and climate, which are essential to the survival of human life. The functioning of the new
global plan is more sophisticated than what people can handle comfortably. We favor straightforward
problems that can be settled in a single lifetime or political cycle. Because we seek clarity, we support
ideas that offer straightforward solutions. We like to think that problems just aren't that complicated,
or that if they are, specialists will be able to fix them. However, to reclaim power over our destiny, we
must acknowledge and transcend familiar distortions and oversimplified notions.
Spending, investment, and deficit graph for consumers and the government.
The economic value measurement known as the gross domestic product is one oversimplified notion
that is widely used. The GDP introduces significant distortions by arbitrarily including some
quantities and ignoring others. The print revolution played a role in the development of democracy
and modern market capitalism. Ideas that resonated with a huge audience could now be spread
cheaply and widely debated. New economic opportunities were generated, national identities were
strengthened, and informed citizens could play a larger role in their own administration. A sketch of a
vintage printing press. Gore responded to a caller who said that if the FAA and intelligence agencies
had followed the recommendations of the aviation safety panel he oversaw while president, Sept. 11
might have been avoided. One of the ideas was to have a system that would automatically flag
passengers who were on FAA watch lists before they boarded a plane. Few people are aware of what
your caller just said, yet it is true. The ability of those hijackers to board the jet would have most
likely been prevented if the commission's recommendations had been carried out, Gore added. I have
a lot of regard and respect for Al Gore. I admire his intelligence and his analytical—and, yes, wonkish
—approach to problems and public affairs. I adore his sharp, frequently ironic sense of humor, which
is on display in the video clip above when he plays with the term "scary." The unreasonable and
excessive amount of animosity some of his critics have thrown at him, as evidenced in so many of the
entries in this site, always amuses me.

If for no other reason than that he would not have begun a war with Iraq, we would have avoided the
huge economic and social unrest, I firmly believe that the United States would have fared considerably
better under Gore's presidency from 2001 to 2009. Although I have a lot of respect for Al Gore when it
comes to the energy/climate change debate, his late-interview response about agriculture was actually
quite subpar. We simply lack the personnel required to transform our system into an organic system.
Further organic has its own issues because it is heavily tillage dependent, which is a significant
contributor to erosion. Modern continuous no-till farming is becoming more labor- and resource-
efficient than traditional tillage-based agriculture, and it almost eliminates soil erosion, a major cause
of civilizational collapse throughout history. In the long run, it also sequesters substantial amounts of
carbon in the soil. Until political leaders either genuinely catch up with the reality of agriculture. The
primary thesis of Al Gore's most recent publications and of this global extinction disaster is that we
are operating under "a deeply defective economic compass" (outdated capitalist views about
property). A detailed investigation reveals Gore as a compassionate person rooted in the 20th
Century, unable to let go of old comfort blankets, and with an unrealistic faith in profit-driven science
and technology. Jerry Mander wrote essentially the same thing in "Capitalist Papers: Fatal Flaws of
an Obsolete System." His statements undoubtedly give older people and anyone with authoritarian
tendencies comfort. When someone clings to their position as chairman of the New Generation
Investment Fund, it may be a bad sign for their leadership. (Silver spoon lads like Gore and John
Kerry are no longer relevant.) Attacks on Al Gore's character and claims are justified in light of his
admission that lying is acceptable when advancing his cause. Ad hominem attacks in this situation are
probably not as severe as labeling beliefs as such. Over the years, Al Gore has revealed himself to be a
seriously problematic person.

Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual

presentations on how dangerous (global warming is), as a precondition for opening up the audience to
listen to solutions. "In the United States of America, unfortunately, we still live in a bubble of
unreality, and the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. On this
taxpayer-funded farce, charlatans get to solo for an hour. He was just mentioning how much solar and
other renewable energy sources had decreased in cost and pricing. greater by several orders of
magnitude than anyone could have ever imagined. I love that! Legislation is unnecessary because
everyone wants clean energy, and if the price keeps dropping, we can all move toward cheerful, sunlit
uplands. The issue is that this is a different universe from the one in which we must currently reside.
Although it won't change anything, we may HOPE that he isn't yanking our strings. There can be no
such thing as "enviro-terrorism" in the face of global climate change, which will kill hundreds of
millions of people. If someone is putting yourself and your family in danger, you have a right to defend
yourself.

It is actually self-defense to try and halt "leading governmental and corporate polluters." It might
have qualified as "terrorism" forty years ago, but that time has long since passed.

Any steps that reduce CO2 emissions, in my opinion, are appropriate. Human Values and the
Revolution in the Life Sciences
Right now in human history, technology allows us to alter the fundamental nature and trajectory of
development. Already, new types of bacteria, plants, animals, and humans are emerging as a result of
genetic, biochemical, and structural advancements in life itself. We are erasing barriers that once
divided different species, humans from other animals, and the living from the artificial. Incorporating
human genes into other species, developing hybrid animals, growing replacement organs, implanting
computer chips into the body and brain, and selecting certain qualities for our progeny are all
currently achievable or soon will be. A cellphone-wielding bushman
Some of these changes will be genetically transmitted to future generations. Global political
equilibrium is changing drastically, on a scale unseen in the previous 500 years. Numerous
presumptions that the nation-state system was founded on are now being questioned. The only
practical method to reclaim control of our destiny, however, is to seek a global consensus within the
community of nations because nation-states still have the only authority to negotiate policies and
enforce them internationally.
At a crucial juncture in history when there is a perilous leadership void on the international stage, the
emerging revolutionary changes threaten to overwhelm us. Any country's political influence and
chances for leadership are considerably increased if it is perceived as working toward universally
beneficial objectives. If, however, it is perceived as primarily pursuing.

TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS

BY: HARRET GARDIN

A Reaction Paper
Presented to: Sir. Jojo Cabras
UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO

KIM IVAN RADA SUMAGAYSAY

INTRODUCTION
Humans are naturally selfish and put their own interests before those of others. According to Garrett
Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons, people would rather pursue short-term gains at the expense of
long-term disadvantages than put up with minor inconveniences in exchange for long-term
advantages. Unfortunately, the majority of those who contribute to this tragedy are unaware of what
they are doing. I must admit that I was unaware of this issue prior to reading your paper, and I still
have no idea how to prevent this disaster.

Our demographic problem is not getting better. Instead, it keeps expanding. But there are only so
many resources in the globe. As a result, as the population of humans grows, each person's share of
the planet must also decrease. But what is happening right now? Each individual seizes. One of the
most important environmental challenges related to this subject is illegal logging. The only goal of
illegal loggers is to collect lumber to sell. They don't give the future of this planet the smallest thought.
These are the folks who don't consider what will ultimately be good for the world and those around
them. It might already be too late when they finally recognize their error. The phrase "too late" refers
to the point at when we won't even be able to see any green pastures around us, more animals will go
extinct due to habitat loss, and a great number of humans would perish as a result of pollution that
has been slowly but surely destroying their health over the years. Aren't the results of people's
negligence already apparent? In rivers and the oceans, chemical waste is being dumped, which kills
aquatic life. The impact on our water resources won't be felt right now, but it will eventually. Imagine
if all factories were to dump their wastes into rivers and seas merely because "the rest are doing the
same," killing fish, turtles, and other marine life. We would then lose our freshwater and marine food
supply. We will also run out of water, in addition to everything else. After that, what will we do? Can
we get clean water to drink and bathe with from these factories? Or will they attempt to sell us pricey
water that has been chemically manufactured artificially? We won't be able to when that moment
comes to do so. Heaters and air conditioners have become essential. We prefer it hot when it's chilly.
We prefer cold things when it's hot. Can it be possible for people to be happy? When can we stop
concentrating on what we don't have or what we desire and start seeing the "bright side of life"? We
are fortunate to live in a world that is rich in resources, vibrant with life, and kind. What have we
done with it, though? As "stewards of God's creation," we have mistreated it and ignored its needs,
fragility, and carelessness. All of these statements are being said while my air conditioner is running,
yes. Yes, despite the fact that I'm stating all of this, I still need a heater to use the shower.

PROBLEM RAISED
"Both sides in the arms race are... confronted by the dilemma of steadily increasing military power
and steadily decreasing national security. It is our considered professional judgment that this dilemma
has no technical solution. If the great powers continue to look for solutions in the area of science and
technology only, the result will be to worsen the situation." A technical solution is one that solely
changes the methods used in the natural sciences and calls for little to no adjustments to moral
standards or human values. We look forward to and anticipate technical solutions. Garrett Hardin,
though, wanted us.
No, and here's why:
The first is an abstract concept. Maximizing two variables simultaneously is not possible in
mathematics. It is difficult to provide everyone with the greatest number of resources and people. (For
instance, if I had $1,000 to donate to charity, I could donate it all to the Red Cross or I could donate
$500 to both the Red Cross and the American Cancer Society, but I would have to pick a compromise
as I couldn't provide $1000 to both.)
The second justification is directly related to biology. We require energy to survive (for example, the
calories in food). Both maintenance and work are done using this energy. The simple act of keeping
our We want the most good for each individual, but what is good? It might be a wilderness to one
person and a resort with thousands of skiers to another. Both cannot be pleased at the same place.
Estuaries are used by some as a source of ducks for hunters to shoot, while manufacturing land is used
by others. How do we balance the needs of everyone?

The concept of a "invisible hand," which states that a person who "intends only his own gain" is "led
by an invisible hand to promote... the public interest," was popularized by Adam Smith in The Wealth
of Nations (1776). This contributed to the prevailing belief that decisions made by an individual will,
in fact, be the best decisions for an entire society. We can suppose that humanity will govern the
universe if this assumption is accurate. This is how the tragedy of the commons unfolds. Imagine a
pasture where anyone can go. It is assumed that each herdsman will make an effort to retain as many
animals on the commons as feasible. Due to tribal conflicts, poaching, and sickness, both the
population of humans and animals is kept much below what the land can sustain for centuries. The
day of reckoning, or the day when the long-awaited objective of social stability becomes a reality, does,
however, finally arrive. At this point, tragedy is inescapably produced by the commons' fundamental
logic.

Each herdsman seeks to maximize his earnings because they are rational animals. Every extra animal
he sells and keeps, he receives the full earnings. More keeping similar principles apply to pollution.
The logical man discovers that the expense of cleaning up after dumping wastes is less costly.
Everyone experiences this, so as long as we act solely as autonomous, logical, free-enterprisers, we are
confined to a system of "fouling our own nest."

The owner of a factory or farm on the bank of a stream, whose property extends to the middle of the
stream, frequently finds it difficult to understand why it is not his natural right to muddy the waters
flowing past his door. We use laws and taxes to try to stop this pollution, but in many cases, the owner
doesn't understand why it is not his natural right. A result of population growth is the pollution issue.
How a lone American frontiersman got rid of his trash was not particularly important.
How Can Temperance Be Regulated?
Some morals, like "Thou shalt not" doesn't take special circumstances into account. But the fact that
circumstances matter is a general morals concept. Under frontier conditions, using the commons as a
cesspool does not damage the general public because there is no public; nonetheless, the same
behavior in a city is intolerable. A plainsman could kill an American bison 150 years ago, remove only
the tongue for his dinner, and throw away the remainder of the animal. He wasn't being wasteful in
any meaningful way. Today, we would find such behavior repugnant.

Legislating prohibition is simple (though it may not always be enforced), but how can we legislate
moderation?

The Right To Reproduce Is Intolerable

How many kids a family had would not be a topic of public interest in a society where "dog eat dog"
was the only rule. Because they wouldn't be able to provide for their kids properly, most parents who
reproduced excessively would leave fewer descendants rather than more. Although certain animals
have been found to behave in this fashion, humans have not done so in thousands of years.

There would be no public interest in regulating family breeding if every human family relied only on
its own resources, if the offspring of unfrugal parents starved to death, and if overbreeding therefore
brought its own "penalty" to the germ line. However, the welfare state is a deeply held belief in our
society, and the family is referred to as the natural and fundamental unit of society in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, any decision about family size must be decided by the
family collectively and cannot be delegated to another party. It is currently international law. It hurts
to have to firmly reject the legitimacy of this privilege.

Conscience Self-Destructs

It is erroneous to believe that a call to conscience will allow us to permanently regulate human
reproduction. People differ. Some people will likely respond to pleas to restrict reproduction more
than others. People who have more kids will contribute a greater portion of the following generation
than people who have fewer kids. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers to the family as
the natural and core element of society. As a result, any choice about family size must be made by the
entire family and cannot be passed off to a third party. International law now governs this. It aches to
have to vehemently deny this privilege's legitimacy.

Conscience Destroys Itself

The idea that a moral appeal will enable us to permanently control human reproduction is false.
People vary. It is conceivable that some people will react differently to requests to limit reproduction.
People who have more children will make up more of the next generation than people who have fewer
children. It may well take hundreds of generations for the progenitive instinct to develop in this way,
but if it should, nature would have exacted her vengeance, and the variety Homo contracipiens would
go extinct and be replaced by the variety Homo progenitivus, in the words of C. G. Darwin, the well-
known Darwin's grandson.

Mutually Accepted Mutual Coercion

The social structures that foster responsibility involve some form of compulsion. Think about robbing
a bank. The person who robs a bank behaves as if the bank were a commons. How can we stop such
behavior? No, not by pleading with them not to loot banks. We've passed legislation. The fact that we
restrict thieves' freedom is unimportant to us.

SOLUTION
Top-down government regulation or direct management of a common-pool resource are two potential
solutions. Government investment in resource conservation and regeneration can assist prevent
resource depletion. Regulating consumption and use, or legally excluding some people, can limit
overconsumption. For instance, government regulation may impose restrictions on the number of
livestock that may graze on public grounds or establish fish catch quotas. However, the well-known
rent-seeking, principal-agent, and knowledge difficulties that are inherent in economically centrally
planned and politically motivated systems frequently plague top-down government solutions.

Another option is to grant individuals private property rights over resources, essentially transforming
a common-pool resource into a private good. To achieve this institutionally, a method for defining and
upholding private property rights must be developed. Because this process of privatization has
frequently involved a government seizing control over a common-pool resource through coercion and
then granting its citizens private property rights over the resource in exchange for a sale price or a
simple political favor, it can have some of the same issues as top-down government control. As he
wrote around the time of the English Parliament's Enclosure Acts, which reduced traditional common
property arrangements to grazing lands and fields and separated the land into private holdings, Lloyd
was really advocating for this. This brings us to a more widely-accepted approach to resolving the
tragedy of the commons: cooperative collective action, as advocated by Nobel laureate economist
Elinor Ostrom.
Prior to the English enclosure laws, common access to the majority of pasture and farm lands as well
as management of their usage and protection were part of the customary agreements between rural
people and aristocratic (or feudal) landowners. These collective action agreements easily addressed the
tragedy of the commons by restricting access to neighborhood farmers and herders, controlling use
through techniques like crop rotation and seasonal grazing, and offering enforceable punishments
against misuse and abuse of the resource (along with other problems).

CONCLUSION
Although the tragedy of the commons is still a well-known idea in economics, Hardin's dualistic view
of managing common resources has come under heavy fire for oversimplifying efficient management
of natural resource systems. Investigations of collective behavior within communities relying on
shared resources have given rise to alternative frameworks for comprehending the difficulties of
common resource management beyond the tragedy of the commons. When confronted with a
commons issue, it has been demonstrated that, given the right local circumstances, local groups and
communities are frequently capable of developing sophisticated solutions to manage their common
resources beyond the binary of state control and private property regimes. Ostrom examined the
intricate institutional structures necessary for effective, reliable common pool resource control at the
local level in Governing the Commons. Ostrom provided numerous examples of stable local common
pool resource management strategies that had developed through the establishment of complex
institutions outside of state or private ownership by highlighting key case studies like cattle grazing in
the Swiss Alps and irrigation systems in western Nepal. Ostrom demonstrated that, without the
imposition of top-down regulations from governments or other institutions, communities are capable
of developing the rules and monitoring mechanisms required to enable long-term, productive use of
common pool resources at various scales. He did this by drawing on game theory and new institutional
economics. Due to the fact that neither market nor governmental control of the commons is
consistently effective. Sustainable commons management therefore requires the formation of
appropriate institutions based on regional conditions and practices. Despite being an often used
metaphor, the "tragedy of the commons" does not accurately depict communal property. A
designated group of persons who have the authority to exclude nonowners, the obligation to take part
in use choices, and the duty to act as resource stewards are the owners of common property, or res
communes. For instance, the inhabitants of the neighboring coastal village may control and manage
the nearshore fishing territories. Owners within the community determine who is entitled to utilize a
resource, what types of rights are allowed, and what goals they have for resource productivity.
Fisheries management is sometimes considered as a remedy for "tragedies of the commons," in which
the absence of exclusive property rights results in the likelihood of overfishing and wasteful use of
resources such as labor and capital. The government must step in. However, intervention is unlikely to
be effective if the information applied is inadequate, the economic and social repercussions cause
significant political issues for the government, and the populace is unwilling to follow the rules. Our
examination of legitimacy emphasizes the significance of these challenges and the relevance of open
and inclusive decision-making procedures for fisheries management. Overfishing is an example of the
"tragedy of the commons," where multiple parties tend to overuse a shared resource, depleting it
(Day, 2008; Hardin, 1968). Due to the intergenerational loss of knowledge about the natural
abundance of exploited species, which causes fluctuating baseline values, it can also be challenging to
assess (Mc Clenachan et al., 2012; Pauly, 1995). Overexploitation of certain species can have a
significant impact on marine ecosystems since it can lead to drastic changes at the ecosystem level as
well as species-specific population declines and, in some cases, extinction (Crowder et al., 2008;
Hobday et al., 2011; Jackson et al., 2001).
By reducing the stock to levels that are difficult or impossible to recover, commercial and recreational
fishing can have a direct impact on marine species.
BUHOS: A CLIMATE CHANGE DOCUMENTARY
BY: LOREN LEGARDA

A Reaction Paper
Presented to: Sir. Jojo Cabras
UNIVERSITY OF MINDANAO

KIM IVAN RADA SUMAGAYSAY

It was noted that Senator Loren Legarda's production and presentation of the climate change
documentary "Buhos" at the SM Mall of Asia's Cinema 3 on September 13, 2010, made a significant
contribution to enlightening the entire country about the catastrophic effects of climate change and
global warming on our nation. The Chair of the Senate Committee on Climate Change told the
theater's packed audience of diplomats, academics, student leaders, environmentalists, NGO's, and
local government officials, "It had to take Ondoy, Pepeng, and Basyang for us to realize that climate
change is not just a scientific and environmental issue, but an all-encompassing threat to our basic
human rights - food, potable water, shelter, decent livelihood, and life itself. The senator worked with
renowned Filipino filmmaker and 2009 Best Director at Cannes Brillante Mendoza, who contributed
artistic credibility to create an aesthetically appealing, educational, and above all, touching
documentary. Buhos brilliantly demystifies global warming by reducing it to the level of everyday life,
providing simple scientific explanations of greenhouse gases and climate change as well as practical
solutions for dealing with this obvious and immediate threat in the context of Filipino living. Senator
Legarda was primarily responsible for the Climate Change Act of 2009, the Environmental Awareness
Education Act, the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, and the Clean Air Act when she served
as chair of the Senate Standing and Oversight Committees on Climate Change. Legarda, a UNEP
environmental laureate and a United Nations champion for disaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation for Asia and the Pacific, has advocated on behalf of climate-vulnerable countries like the
Philippines in a number of international fora and has pushed for "climate justice" for underdeveloped
nations.

Legarda manages a national awareness and instruction campaign on climate change outside the scope
of her job. She worked as a producer on the documentaries Ulan sa Tag-araw, Ligtas Likas, and Now
is the Time for the United Nations. Through Lingkod Loren and Luntiang Pilipinas, Legarda carries
out a significant tree-planting campaign and mobilizes aid for disaster-affected and impoverished
communities. Through her efforts, she helped thousands of families who had been made homeless by
Typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng last year. "Buhos" was released with the help of SM Cinema, and in the
upcoming months, there will be additional special screenings in a few theaters, colleges, and
institutions. The Philippine Senate Committee on Climate Change was established in 2008 and has
since
Alter (PSCCC)has been actively interacting, consulting, and coordinating with diverse stakeholders
and sectors in an effort to lower the nation's risk of disaster and climate change. Its actions resulted in
the swift passage of two important laws on disaster the Climate Change Act of 200 and climate risk
reduction, Act of 2010 on Disaster Risk Reduction and Management in the Philippines, and made
mainstreaming catastrophe risk a national policy mitigation and adaptation to climate change in
national development budgets, plans, and government initiatives. The PSCCC relentlessly worked to
raise awareness among all sectors regarding the significance of lowering catastrophe and climate risks
through open forums and advocacy gatherings. It hosted UNISDR events. The GAR-09iv and GAR-11
launches and the United Nations-World Bank Natural Disasters and Unnatural Events: The
Economics of Effective Prevention,' and communicated their main points to lawmakers, Government
decision-makers, national agency leaders, local chief executives, and civil society leaders in private
industry, the diplomatic community, and the media. The UNISDR Consultative Meeting for Asian
States was held there. DRR is a tool for reaching the MDGs, according to lawmakers 2010 November
in Manila. Together with the PSCCC, the new legislation' implementation is being monitored to
UNISDR worked with local chief executives and important lawmakers to policy, institutional, and
system changes to improve disaster preparedness resilience. It made institutional cooperation and
coordination easier. A collaboration between two leading organizations, the National Disaster Risk
Reduction and the Climate Change Commission and the Management Council, to 'One Against Risk'
is a cooperation that implements legislation together. The month of February 2011; These actions have
produced wider results. Collaboration between local government leaders in creating disaster-resistant
and local governments that are climate-adaptive and in pursuing an integrated planning for
development based on river basins. The PSCCC promoted strengthening local government units'
capacity, frontline participants in developing and executing programs for catastrophe resistance It has
started distributing and holding public events. Briefings to provinces and municipalities on the use of
geohazard maps for the purpose of supporting vital infrastructure and efficient local urban planning
growth on a national scale. Additionally, it created and provided books, videos, and other resources on
disaster readiness climate change to students, women's organizations, the media, and the public to
promote community service and volunteering participation. It also encouraged young people to
advocate for the environment. through national informational, educational, and communication
campaigns, construction of school forests parks. Senator Loren Legarda is actively seeking any forum
she can to advance her campaign for environmental protection and to bring attention to the problem
of climate change. Her goal is to inspire Filipinos to take meaningful action. Legarda, who grew up in
the flood-prone Malabon, made the deteriorating flood condition the focus of her new climate change
documentary, named Buhos (Downpour). The senator worked with renowned Filipino director
Brillante Mendoza, who won Best Director at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, to create a visually
appealing, educational, and above all, touching documentary. Buhos, a Legarda production and
presentation, successfully demystifies global warming by bringing it down to the level of everyday life.
It provides simple scientific explanations of greenhouse gases and climate change as well as practical
solutions for dealing with this obvious and immediate threat in the context of Filipino life. Senator
Legarda was primarily responsible for writing and sponsoring important environmental laws,
including the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Awareness Education Act, the Ecological Solid Waste
Management Act, and the Senate Standing and Oversight Committees on Climate Change. Legarda,
an advocate for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation for Asia and the Pacific and a
UNEP environmental prize winner, has been the voice of climate-vulnerable countries like the
Philippines and has advocated for developing nations' "climate justice" at a number of international
forums. Legarda manages a national awareness and instruction campaign on climate change outside
the scope of her job. She worked as a producer on the documentaries Ulan sa Tag-araw, Ligtas Likas,
and Now is the Time for the United Nations. Through Lingkod Loren and Luntiang Pilipinas,
Legarda carries out a significant tree-planting campaign and mobilizes aid for disaster-affected and
impoverished communities. Through her efforts, she helped thousands of families who had been made
homeless by Typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng last year.
Representatives from the diplomatic corps, academia, student leaders, environmentalists, NGO's, and
local government officials will attend the launch of "Buhos," which has the support of SM Cinema. In
the upcoming months, there will be special showings in a few theaters, academic institutions, and
schools. Sen. Loren Legarda's short documentary, "Buhos: A Climate Change Documentary,"
explains what climate change is, its causes, and how it affects people, the environment, and the planet.
The video gave an explanation of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect, which is the
atmospheric retention of extra heat that should have been radiated back into space. Sen. Loren
Legarda argued that human actions that violate natural laws or throw our environment out of balance
are to blame for climate change. The activities include excessive energy and carbon emissions brought
on by industrialization, as well as irrational energy and vehicle use. Humans were so dependent on
technology and its advancement that we neglected the natural world and the garbage it produced as a
result. The climate change that resulted from our negligence is also a result of our neglect. "I
explained to him climate change; at that time, Ondoy and Pepeng were not there," Senator Legarda
stated as he began his story. "People will perish in terrible floods when it rains. The unfortunate fact
is that the landslide will engulf "the poorest, in the squatters' area," "the poorest, at the foot of the
mountain." The remainder will simply drift away on the sand. Senator Legarda said that during an El
Nio, "the weather would be scorching, the farmers will have no harvest, they will starve, and they will
just die since there hasn't been any knowledge of climate change till now." The senator and director's
acknowledgement raised awareness of climate change.
"I handed him a copy of each and every speech before the United Nations, all of my [created] laws...
Sen. Lauren said, "I was shocked, because he was busy, he got really engaged in everything, in a long
meeting. So, Direk Brillante gradually won over my climate change beliefs. And my enthusiasm is the
ideal match for his. Because we are perfectionists, to start. Second, whereas I am enthusiastic about
my cause, he is passionate about his craft. Bring two motivated Filipinos together, and you might have
an excellent project that can increase awareness of and enlightenment about issues that impact all
Filipinos, especially the impoverished ones. I discovered that if we don't take care of the environment,
numerous calamities will occur and they might even claim the lives of people. Therefore, we should
always protect them and keep them around for future generations. My family, friends, and other
members of my community will benefit from the information I received from watching these
documentaries. I will encourage them to take part in activities like planting trees and sorting trash,
among other things, that may help preserve our natural environment. I must do more to the
preservation of nature. I am aware that our nation is not yet fully aware of these odd phenomena since
we have not yet encountered them, unlike India, where many people perished and lost their lives. The
actions I've taken in my LCD Journal are insufficient to rescue the environment. I'll do my utmost to
motivate my neighborhood to protect the environment. If there is an initiative in my neighborhood
related to this, I will also participate. Knowing the effects of climate change is important since, as they
say, knowledge is half the battle. Being an activist and getting involved are crucial, but you must also
understand why you are doing it. Knowing will enable you to make more intelligent choices and long-
lasting behavioral and lifestyle improvements. A fantastic method to combat climate change is to take
the time to get engaged in local conservation activities. Long-term benefits might come from
organizing and implementing improvements in your neighborhood with the aid of student or local
groups. Additionally, connecting with larger groups is made possible by collaborating with regional
organizations. My first impression of the movie Buhos, which I watched a while ago, was that it began
with a scene of a family having a picnic next to a waterfall when the two kids ran off and one of them
threw a plastic wrapper. For the majority of people, it is just a small piece of trash and nothing to
worry about, but the narrative of the movie Buhos emphasizes how what we initially believed were
insignificant things actually have a significant negative impact on our environment and the earth as a
whole. The former senator Loren Legarda, who took the lead on the Luntiang Pilipinas tree planting
project and was proud of the 2009 climate change act, is the Presenter of "Buhos" set a more upbeat
tone of education and public awareness raising than, say, "Signos" from GMA 7, which resorted to
creating an unsettling atmosphere. Legarda's method was enhanced with soothing musical scores and
video that described the concepts being made. This strategy might be understood as an appeal to
viewers to take action to safeguard the environment and mitigate the negative effects of human abuse
on it. The premise for this documentary, as with many others focused on the environment, was to
define global warming and/or climate change and then explain its causes and effects. The actions that
we can do to prevent harm to our environment are also discussed. This particular instance highlights
the significance of growing plants and planting trees, which is related to the Luntiang Pilipinas project
if senator Legarda. In the latter part, self-sacrifice predominated as the central theme, resonating with
the notion that, even though we live in modern times with new technologies and lifestyles as parts of
our lives that cannot be changed, we must at least take steps to lessen their impact. Examples of this
include becoming more judicious consumers, saving money on gas and electricity, and recycling.
Buhos concluded with statistics demonstrating the effects of climate change, with the conclusion that
"the time to act is now." Given the abundance of documentaries and movies whose primary objective
is to enlighten the public about the flaws in our planet caused by human carelessness, Buhos stands
apart by taking a kind approach to educating rather than a terrifying one horror of our surroundings
retaliation may not be the best strategy, but it won't unnecessarily overwhelm and frighten the
populace. There is no doubt that our world is unique, at least for the time being. However, this won't
change until a habitable planet is found, so we must take additional precautions and lead responsible
lives in order to preserve our one and only planet. As depicted in the movies, the earth is in grave
danger right now, and although the harm has probably already been done, there is yet hope that we
might alter what appears to be the earth's doom. Although it is easier to speak than to accomplish, we
can lessen or even stop the deterioration of the environment and resources if we make modest
improvements. In the final part, self-sacrifice predominated as the central theme, resonating with the
notion that, even though we live in modern times with new technologies and lifestyles as parts of our
lives that cannot be changed, we must at least take steps to lessen their impact. Examples of this
include becoming more judicious consumers, saving money on gas and electricity, and recycling.
Given the sea of documentaries and films whose main objective is to inform the public about the flaws
of our planet caused by human carelessness, Buhos distinguishes itself with a gentle approach to
education rather than a chilling horror of the effects of climate change. It ends with facts and figures
and the message that "the time act is now." One thing is certain: until a habitable planet is found, our
earth is unique, at least temporarily. This calls for extra vigilance and a responsible way of living to
protect our one and only planet. As seen in the movies, we are at a turning point where our planet is in
great jeopardy. Even if the harm has already been done, the argument is that we still have a chance to
alter the doomsday future for the earth. Here are some activities that students may do to address
climate change. It is easier to say than to do, but if we make modest adjustments, we will be able to
lessen or stop the deterioration of resources and the environment. We must first practice energy
conservation in our daily lives. Simple energy-saving measures could help. To lessen the terrible
effects of global warming. Instead of having your parents transport you, for instance, try to walk or
ride your bike. When not in use, turn off your computer (do not leave it on merely to keep Facebook
or Myspace alive). Second, convince those near you to practice energy conservation. Since individuals
loathe being told what to do, you must exercise caution in this situation; persuasion is crucial. Your
parents are ideal targets for convincing, but do it with affection and humor. Here are some
suggestions that you might give to your family and friends. Finally, keep learning. All of these
recommendations are environmentally beneficial. While this is important, finding and utilizing non-
polluting energy sources is more essential. Everyone is aware that she was an environmentalist long
before Ondoy and Pepeng raised concerns. Legarda is a leading advocate at the UN for climate change
adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Asia and the Pacific. In her statements before the Philippine
Senate and elsewhere, she has advocated for "climate justice" for underdeveloped nations.

Buhos, then, is classic Loren. Buhos is a climate change 101 film, in contrast to her other green
endeavors, such as the documentary Ulan sa Tag-Araw, the family animated film Ligtas Likas, and
the United Nations documentary Now is the Time. Back to the basics, indeed. Legarda discusses the
impact of climate change on daily living and provides simple scientific explanations of greenhouse
gases and climate change. It doesn't just stand still and do nothing. It offers remedies, such leading a
simple life, conserving water and energy, recycling, and segregating garbage. The strategy is to inform
the public first. They will then go in the appropriate way after that. The SM mall managers concur.
Every third Monday and Tuesday of the month, the enormous shopping mall screens Buhos on its
large screens. Over 230,000 students in public schools have watched the film, boasts Legarda, in the
recent months. If the numbers increase to the nth power, she will be bouncing up and down with
excitement. She explains that "Buhos" (which is in Filipino) has English subtitles for our foreign
visitors to understand. It can be used by teachers in their classes. My employees can burn it for them if
they are unable to do so. She is appreciative of her director, who had the option of charging exorbitant
costs but instead to request a "fair amount." A documentary is the greatest approach to combat
climate change, they decided when they gathered for breakfast one day because "it's more real, with
the victims and their struggle out there for everybody to witness." Legarda, a 20-year veteran of the
television industry and winner of numerous accolades, had the power to direct her director. She
didn't, though. "I sought advice from my employees and friends at the UN. I gave it ten previews. But
I allowed director Brillante complete creative freedom," she admits. It appears that Legarda will give
him full control once more in Buhos. The next one will be more intense, scaring people enough to leave
the comfort of their homes and take immediate action, she warns, because "this is just an appetizer."
This is due to the possibility that climate change will become our worst nightmare. According to
Loren, it "robs us of livelihood, makes food scarce, and harms our health." "I spoke with farmers who
claimed that because their rice fields had merged with Laguna de Bay, they had become fishers. They
no longer knew when to sow or harvest." But Legarda is aware of her other options. he suggests that
Buhos be condensed into 60-second infomercials. To air the vignettes, Legarda might always
collaborate with a television network. Similar to how SM's Buhos screenings are enhancing the mall's
reputation for social responsibility, this would be positive for the station's image. Most importantly, it
will be extremely beneficial for everyone, especially Mother Earth.
ANSWER THE FOLLOWING:

5.1 What is biotechnology?

Answer: Biotechnology is a field of engineering that makes use of biological systems, living creatures,
or fragments thereof, to develop or produce various goods. The utilization of yeast (a living organism)
to create the intended product is an example of a biotechnology process, as are brewing and baking
bread. While more current biotechnology typically entails a more sophisticated modification of the
biological system or organism, such older procedures typically use living organisms in their native
form (or further evolved through breeding). Research in biotechnology (and related fields like
medicine, biology, etc.) advanced quickly with the advent of genetic engineering in the 1970s as a
result of the new ability to alter organisms' genetic makeup (DNA). Today, biotechnology encompasses
a wide range of fields (eg. genetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, etc.). Every year, new goods and
technologies are developed in the fields of example. Healthcare (creating novel treatments and
medications), agriculture (creating genetically modified crops, biofuels, and biological remedies), or
industrial biotechnology (production of chemicals, paper, textiles and food).
5.2 What is GMO(Genetically Modified Organisms) and its example;
Answer: An animal, plant, or microorganism that has had its DNA transformed via genetic
engineering methods is referred to as a genetically modified organism (GMO). Humans have been
modifying creatures through breeding for thousands of years. Over many years, breeders have
systematically selected for specific features in animals such as corn, cattle, and even dogs. But recent
developments in biotechnology have made it possible for researchers to directly alter the DNA of
animals, plants, and microorganisms. Selective breeding and crossbreeding, which are traditional
methods of changing plants and animals, can take a very long time. Additionally, crossbreeding and
selective breeding frequently lead to results with both desired and undesirable qualities. The precise
targeted modification of DNA through the use of biotechnology has allowed researchers to circumvent
this issue and enhance an organism's genetic makeup without undesirable traits accompanying.
Corn:
The most widely cultivated crop in the US is corn, and the majority of it is genetically modified. The
majority of GMO corn is designed to withstand herbicides or fight insect pests. The GMO corn
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) produces poisonous proteins for some insect pests but not for people, pets,
livestock, or other animals. The proteins that organic farmers employ to manage insect pests are the
same ones that are safe for helpful insects like ladybugs. Insect damage is still prevented while using
less insecticide with GMO Bt corn. Although a lot of GMO maize is used to make processed meals and
beverages, the majority of it is fed to animals like cows and birds like chickens.

5.3 What is Genetic Modification?

Answer: Modifying an organism's genetic makeup is known as genetic modification. Since ancient
times, regulated or selective breeding of plants and animals has been used to do this indirectly.
Through genetic engineering, a specific gene can now be targeted more quickly and easily than before
thanks to advances in biotechnology. When discussing the labeling of foods that have been genetically
modified, or "GMO," the phrases "modified" and "designed" are sometimes used interchangeably.
The term "GMO" refers to a genetically modified organism in the biotechnology area, but the term
"GMO" in the food industry only refers to food that has been specifically engineered and not to
organisms that have been selectively bred. Because of the consumer confusion caused by this
mismatch, the U.S. The term "genetically engineered" is preferred by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).
5.4 Information about Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?
Answer: The Convention on Biological Diversity has a legally enforceable protocol known as the
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CBD). It was given the name Cartagena in honor of the Colombian
city, where the discussions were scheduled to end in February 1999. The Protocol was completed and
ratified on January 29, 2000, in Montreal, Canada, with the participation of 135 nations. Aiming to
"contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of the safe transfer, handling, and
use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects
on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human
health, and specifically focusing on transboundary movements," the Protocol's Article 1 states that it
is intended to protect living modified organisms from harm. In essence, it aims to safeguard
biodiversity from any hazards posed by living modified organisms (LMOs) brought on by
contemporary biotechnology.
5.5 GMO on Golden Rice?
Answer: Golden rice is a biofortified, genetically engineered grain. Crops with biofortification have
higher nutritional value. Beta-carotene, which is not typically found in rice, is produced by genetically
modifying golden rice. As beta-carotene is digested by the human body, vitamin A is produced.
Healthy skin, immune systems, and vision depend on vitamin A. When two professors, Ingo Potrykus
and Peter Beyer, presented a strategy to The Rockefeller Foundation in 1999 to genetically modify rice
to improve its nutritional content, the Golden Rice Project was born. The Rockefeller Foundation
helped them achieve their objective of offering a long-term biofortification strategy to address vitamin
A deficiency (VADs) in poor nations. VAD is common in nations where the majority of the population
consumes rice or other carbohydrate meals low in micronutrients. Using VAD have a number of
detrimental health impacts, including eye dryness that, if left untreated, can cause blindness, a
lowered immunological response, and an increase in the severity and mortality risk of infections. One
of the key factors contributing to avoidable blindness in young children from underdeveloped nations
is this. According to the World Health Organization, VAD affects roughly 250 million preschoolers,
and vitamin A supplements could stop 2.7 million child fatalities. The Golden Rice Project was
promoted as an exciting remedy for VAD in poor nations when it was initially introduced. The
project's development was, however, prevented by the emergence of GMO opposition. Numerous
individuals and groups, including Friends of the Earth, MASIPAG (a network of organizations
organized by Filipino farmers), and Greenpeace, filed claims in an effort to stop the Golden Rice
Project. The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the Humanitarian Board for Golden
Rice continued to extol the project's advantages at the same time. It is obvious that the argument over
golden rice involves GMOs in general as well as golden rice specifically.