David.R.Gilson

Three white elephants that could save the world as we know it

Dec 3

Editorial David 7 Comments
cloning, donation, energy, fission, fusion, genetics, nuclear, organ, population, science

Approximate reading time is 3 minutes

In the news lately, I’ve been hearing lots about alternative energies and the UK debate on whether to introduce “presumed consent” into human organ donation. What infuriates me every time when I hear these stories is that there are some clear cut, mostly technological, strategies that would answer all these problems, yet nobody talks about them. Ergo, our white elephants that could save the world as we know it.

1. Nuclear Fusion is carbon free energy.Everyone is looking for “carbon free” energy. So, they go to renewable energies (which I support), and they look to contemporary nuclear energy. Now, before you get on my case about nuclear, let me teach you something. Our present day nuclear energy comes from a process called “nuclear fission” where you have large unstable atoms that release energy as they break apart into smaller, but still unstable and heavy atoms. “Unstable” is the key word here, it’s the lack of stability in an atom that makes it radioactive, and dangerous.

   Meanwhile, “nuclear fusion” is the complete opposite, it is the clashing together of light, stable atoms, e.g. hydrogen, to form heavier yet even more stable atoms, e.g. Helium. Not only are the by-products of this more safe and stable, but the energy released, per atom, from fusing lighter atoms, is far greater than that released by having heavy atoms fall apart into lighter ones.

   The only problem here, is that no one has quite perfected nuclear fusion yet. It takes a lot of energy to smash two atoms together and make them stick. So far, fusion experiments are consuming more energy than they are producing. Although, research has been going on for a long time and we’re getting closer.

   If only governments across the world would cooperate* and make a concerted effort to perfect fusion. Then, the world’s energy needs would be satisfied, and we wouldn’t be causing any pollution.

   * An international project was once undertaken, but most countries dropped out due to political reasons.

2. Pollution comes from energy production, but energy requirements come from people.This is going to be a bit of a controversial point, but stick with me and follow my logic. The majority of the CO2 emissions in the world come from energy production. At it’s root, what drives demand for energy production? Population size, that’s what! (You’d be right to say industry too, but if there’s less people, there’s less industry). So, to be responsible in managing our home, i.e. planet Earth, the human race needs to curb it’s population growth. Particularly developing nations like India and China have a ridiculous number of people. Sure, I can see there would be arguments for having a stupendously high birth rate when mortality rates were nearly as high in those countries, but times are changing. Medical care is, overall, improving, so there is less mortality. This is why you see the population boom that there clearly is; there are more people being born than are dying.

   Therefore, to try and save our home, the human race needs to drastically reduce it’s birth rate. This may sound harsh or naive, but consider the following. If we keep going as we are, the planet will slash our population size for us, and it won’t be as kind as simply using contraception or sterilisation. No, the seas will rise, available land area will fall, and with it we will have less land to grow crops and cattle. There will be as many of us, if not more, than there is now, packed into smaller areas of land with less to eat. Hopefully I don’t need to paint the picture of what would happen next.

3. Don’t donate organs, grow organs!Organ donation is a controversial subject. Some people are more than happy to have their parts used after their death, while others don’t want to feel as if they are receiving second class medical care because they could be viewed as a walking bag of spare parts.

   In the meantime, there are thousands of people on waiting lists for a compatible organ to be harvested from a willing donor who has happened to die just at the right time. I understand and sympathise with both sides of the argument.

   However, it is all unnecessary! Stem cell research is close to being able to clone organs. If sufficient investment was made, then all the problems of availability, consent and organ rejection go away; because everyone would have 100% genetically compatible organs grown for them from their own genetic material. I believe in this solution so much, I would even go so far as to say that relatives of people in need of organs are wasting their time campaigning for people to carry donor cards. Instead, they should spend their campaigning efforts on campaigning for awareness and funding for cloned organs.