For some months during the year the task of mowing grass becomes necessary. During this mindless exercise there is time to contemplate other matters. The aim of mowing is to keep the, and I use the word euphemistically, native ground cover under control, make sure the neighbors do not look at me askance if the yard takes on a wild look, and to reduce the habitat for unwelcome critters. It is also doing something else, it is reducing the amount of oxygen produced. Admittedly the amount on my particular area is small, but I would wager measurable; the overall result of all those charged with doing this task probably adds up. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on the point of view, the grass, or whatever is in the yard, will regrow and take up the task of regenerating the gas that we need to live so that we can go and re-mow the grass. Okay, I am not crazy about mowing grass.
The plant lungs of the planet are distributed pretty evenly over the northern and southern hemispheres. We hear a lot about the Amazon, and the diversity of life and the benefit derived from it being there. In the northern hemisphere there are vast stretches of forested land, much as underpopulated as in the southern hemisphere rain forests. When I, in the northern hemisphere am in the months where growing grass is not a weekly occurrence, those in the southern hemisphere are involved in that task. Also, along with the grass that is savaged on a regular basis during the appropriate months depending on location, are all the other trees, shrubs, herbs, and other types of plants that make up the biome that converts man-made pollution into a breathable gas.
The problem is that the biome evolved over eons and millennia into a balance. Plant populations came and went, and animals evolved keeping the plant world in check – and then came man. When we were a very small population we were one of the groups kept in check by other creatures. But we out-populated, and out thought, them to become the dominant apex predator on the planet. The vast grasslands were converted to farms, the forests to homes and other structures, the oceans to a suppository of meat that ends up in small cans and disposable pouches. But, you say, the farms, fisheries and forests had to be used to support the growing population, members of which conjure up the most impressive thoughts, and build amazing things. The brain of man has developed some wonderful and truly awe-inspiring concepts. However, I am amazed that groups, of otherwise similar people, can look at the same thing and decide to either preserve or destroy it.
Those of us who work in science in general, and specifically in the processes that allow us to feed ourselves and others, are involved with the bringing forth, destruction of, and recreating habitats to serve the growing population. We all must eat, I get that, but the current problems with the processes of feeding the world’s population is not a lack of quantity, it is the delivery, and affordability, of food. It might be better if resources and treasure are placed in the improvement of infrastructure so that the abundance grown can be moved to where it is needed and stored in a manner to keep it fresh. Is it necessary to wipe out the large forested areas for more soybeans or vegetables? What good will that do if the air left in is not breathable? Proposals have been put forth that suggest the population be moved to where the food is grown. By doing that the land that is being used for growing crops would have to be converted to housing and other concrete entities which cannot produce food. Television shows and movies have been produced where last-ditch efforts are made to transport humanity to another planet. Fine for Hollywood, but as of now there is no lifeboat. Even if there was how many of the billions of people we have spawned would be able to be transported, and who would make the decision of who goes or who stays?
Wait a minute, you say, we are the good guys. We are trying to improve quantity, quality, and affordability of edible plants. I will stipulate we are the better guys. However, as editor of this journal, I receive manuscripts that describe methods that are lawful and efficient, but in my opinion not sustainable for use in food production. Sure, I could reject the manuscripts out of hand but that would be unethical in its own right. I will leave it up to the reviewers, and readers of the journal, to decide which manuscripts contain information which will push the bar forward to a type of vegetable production that can be justified. Each person involved in research has to ask: why am I doing the research? Is it to get another manuscript so that I am that much closer to a promotion, or is the work being done so that you can serve in the betterment of your fellow human beings?
Reviewers of Submitted Manuscripts
In addition to the Editorial Consulting Board, I extend my gratitude to the voluntary reviewers who provide their time and efforts to assure that the quality of the manuscripts meets the standards expected by the journal and its readers. They are: Z. Adamski, J. Elvyra, A. Farhadi, R. Figueroa-Brito, B. Kibar, F.R. Kolar, A. Pokhrel, J. Rouphael, S.J. Sijtsema, S. Stepniowaska and A.M. Ukom.