Search the archive.

Contrary to popular myth, the IPRs regimes we have today are not universal verities (Drahos, 1998), but products of European political economy and history. The contemporary dominance enjoyed by modern IPRs regimes across the globe is a product of the aggressive and often violent conquest and colonization of diverse cultures and societies by European states in the past five centuries (Penrose, 1951; Helge, 1956). It is a historical fact that modern IPRs such as copyrights, trademarks, and patents regimes have deep roots in European culture, worldview, and imperial impulses (Lowenstein, 2002). Thus, modern IPRs, often portrayed as universal truths with global genetic makeup are in fact originally local expressions of European thought and philosophy. The diffusion and spread of IPRs regimes from Europe to other parts of the world followed distinct patterns of violence, suppression, and outright dispossession. Therefore, the pre‐eminence of Western‐styled IPRs is a direct manifestation of the forceful imposition of European economic, political, and cultural ideas on colonized parts of the globe. Very few erstwhile colonized states chose and institutionalized modern IPRs on their own volition.

As a colonial construct and implant, Eurocentric IPRs were part of the cultural, economic, and legal instruments for the control and subordination of colonized peoples and economies (Sagoe, 1992; Sklan, 1978). The colonization of the Americas, the Oceania, Australia, Africa, Asia and other parts of the world was premised on two main grounds, namely, a propaganda of European superiority over colonized peoples (Mgbeoji, ibid) and of course, economic exploitation of the colonized (Lindley, 1969). Although the transplantation of Eurocentric IPRs (Abbott et al,1999) to colonized territories has yielded mixed results in post‐colonial states (Mgbeoji, 2007), in the colonial encounter, Eurocentric IPRs successfully crowded out TK in many aspects with baleful consequences (Adewopo, 2002).

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose1: Racism as shapeshifter – The polymorphous cycles of racism in everyday life and world politics

While liberal conceptions construct a progressive-evolutionary vision of world politics wherein racism gradually evaporates as the bright sunlight of modernity intensifies, nevertheless, numerous critical race scholars point to a recurring dark cycle of racial control that marks the long history of modernity (e.g. Alexander, 2012: 20–58; Bonilla-Silva, 2018: 17–52; Omi and Winant, 2014: 84–91; Perry, 2007). Focusing on the United States, Michelle Alexander (2012: 21) asserts that

The NotPetya case is just one example. Nevertheless, the overall absence of any meaningful instances of cyber escalation raises questions about the extent to which the cyber domain is truly escalatory, let alone more dangerous than other domains of warfare or strategic competition. In other words, there is a significant mismatch between the cyber escalation views held by many prominent experts and the available evidence. Three factors could account for this gap.

First, differences between theoretical expectations and empirical reality may stem from definitional issues—specifically, how those who assert that the cyber domain is inherently escalatory define what "escalation" means. As we discuss in detail later in this chapter, we conceptualize escalation as something that changes the nature of a strategic interaction between parties in a way that makes war more likely or, if conflict is already taking place, more severe. According to this definition, neither the sheer volume of cyber incidents in the international system nor evidence of any type of response to a cyber incident necessarily constitutes escalation.2, In contrast, some may point to the observation of a high volume of cyber incidents or any form of tit-for-tat dynamic (irrespective of the relative level of cost and risk they may generate) as forms of escalation. However, the mere presence of behavior or activity per se is not sufficient evidence of escalation.

More importantly, there are powerful strategic constraints on those who have the ability to launch catastrophe attacks. We have more than two decades of experience with the use of cyber techniques and operations for coercive and criminal purposes and have a clear understanding of motives, capabilities, and intentions. We can be guided by the methods of the Strategic Bombing Survey, which used interviews and observation (rather than hypotheses) to determine effect. These methods apply equally to cyberattacks. The conclusions we can draw from this are:

Nonstate actors and most states lack the capability to launch attacks that cause physical damage at any level, much less a catastrophe. There have been regular predictions every year for over a decade that nonstate actors will acquire these high-end cyber capabilities in two or three years in what has become a cycle of repetition. The monetary return is negligible, which dissuades the skilled cybercriminals (mostly Russian speaking) who might have the necessary skills. One mystery is why these groups have not been used as mercenaries, and this may reflect either a degree of control by the Russian state (if it has forbidden mercenary acts) or a degree of caution by criminals.

These same voices often claim that doubling American production is a moral imperative, not simply a market opportunity. They say people will go hungry if U.S. farmers don’t respond (see sidebar). In some cases, they imply or even say outright that the collateral damage to natural resources, the environment, human health and ecosystems that would result from meeting this moral imperative would be regrettable but unavoidable. Finally, they argue that “modern” farming systems that rely heavily on biotechnology, fertilizers and chemicals are the only way U.S. farmers can meet this challenge, and that hewing to more agro-ecological methods of producing agricultural bounty will put countless people at risk of hunger and malnutrition.

Many farmers sincerely believe this. Others use this scenario more cynically to pursue political or business objectives. In either case, the “moral imperative” to feed the world has become an important rationale for maintaining the status quo in U.S. farm policy. It has also been deployed to deflect attention from the damage that “modern” agriculture does to the environment and human health, and to discredit calls for reform.

It is perhaps surprising, then, that there is little scholarly merit in the notion that a short-term reduction in access to food increases the probability that conflict will break out. This is because to start or participate in violent conflict requires people to have both the means and the will. Most people on the brink of starvation are not in the position to resort to violence, whether against the government or other social groups. In fact, the urban middle classes tend to be the most likely to protest against rises in food prices, since they often have the best opportunities, the most energy, and the best skills to coordinate and participate in protests.

Accordingly, there is a widespread misapprehension that social unrest in periods of high food prices relates primarily to food shortages. In reality, the sources of discontent are considerably more complex – linked to political structures, land ownership, corruption, the desire for democratic reforms and general economic problems – where the price of food is seen in the context of general increases in the cost of living. Research has shown that while the international media have a tendency to seek simple resource-related explanations – such as drought or famine – for conflicts in the Global South, debates in the local media are permeated by more complex political relationships.

Why don’t cover crop mixes work better than monocultures? Well, first, some ecological theory. The idea that biodiversity is better than monoculture comes from ecologists studying natural habitats. In nature, they observe niche differentiation (Connor et al. 2011). The idea is that a diverse mix of organisms can better use the available resources because of their different use characteristics. When their resource use does not overlap much, they are complementary. Take a field of wheat. If some plant species needed different resources than wheat, then we could expect that adding that species to the wheat field might result in more production in the same area. Better resource use means better productivity. That is the theory.

Niche differentiation is seen most clearly with animals, but plants are different. First, they do not move. They are stuck where chance happens to put them. Second, plants require the same resources; sunshine, CO2, water, and nutrients (nitrogen for legumes is the exception). For these reasons, plants, especially annual crops, have much less opportunity for niche differentiation. And this is what we see in cover crop research results, little evidence of complementarity. Even in more natural systems, support for complementarity in plants is rare (Cardinale et al. 2011). The authors of this paper ask, “how can species be ‘complementary’ in their use of resources and production of biomass, and yet, a diverse community not perform processes any more efficiently than its most efficient species?” The simple answer is that there is no complementarity in these diverse mixes. Cardinale and colleagues cannot go this far, but rather think it “warrants more investigation.”

AS SOMEONE who spends far too much time reading academic journals and far too little talking to real people, I find it fascinating how different the actual meaning of terms can be to how they are often used in popular culture. It is like the Alanis Morissette interpretation of “ironic” compared with, well, what the word actually means. Ironically, kind of ironic, you might say.

Of all the terms with colourful interpretations that I see used in conversations, in the media and online, perhaps the most common is “monoculture”, especially in the field of environmentalism. Far from this just…

Are we safe now from events like this? Or are we more vulnerable? Could a pandemic threaten humanity’s future?10

The Black Death was not the only biological disaster to scar human history. It was not even the only great bubonic plague. In 541 CE the Plague of Justinian struck the Byzantine Empire. Over three years it took the lives of roughly 3 percent of the world’s people.11

Firstly, we can’t continue to deal with the twin challenges of food and water in isolation. As the World Food Day theme reminds us, ‘Water is Food’. We cannot feed the world’s growing population without solving the water crisis. And vice versa. Increasing water scarcity, flooding and pollution pose an ever growing threat to food security, but our unsustainable food production system is the main driver of the worsening water crisis. We need to tackle water and food together.

Secondly, and just as critically, we must prioritize a solution that goes to the very root of both these challenges: valuing and investing in healthy freshwater ecosystems. Until now, decision makers have invariably overlooked and undervalued the rivers, lakes, wetlands and aquifers that store and supply water — and that underpin global food production. Instead they have focused solely on extracting water without appropriate management, ignoring their other values and the damage that is done in the process. Damage that is now threatening our ability to sustainably nourish the world’s growing population.

For the fourth time in 10 years, farmers I know in California are facing a harsh reality — they won't see a drop of water from federal government reserves to supplement the little bit they'll get from Mother Nature.

Water allocations have become a hot-button issue throughout the state, as citizens, environmentalists and farmers fight for their fair share in a drought that's made it impossible to please everyone.

China has bought almost half the world’s food reserves in the last 12 months. This will cause worldwide inflation, we well as famine in some countries. This report provides us with clear information on what we should prepare for in the 21st century.

Prices will rise globally, including in the U.S. and Europe; a significant portion of lower-income states will be doomed to famine. The fact that the U.S. and Europe are gravely concerned about inflation for the first time is an indication that this process has already started.

The Anthropocene includes a plethora of manifestations in terms of the activities of humanity and the translation of those into a variety of environmental repercussions [16]. The former are represented by a set of socio-economic variables underlying growth, including, for example, the growth rate of the number of vehicles, of fertilizer consumption, of water consumption, of the number of dams, of fast-food mega-businesses, or total world gross domestic product (GDP) (see magnitudes of change in [16]). The accelerated growth rate of these socio-economic variables is driven by an explosive human population growth, particularly in countries or regions of countries where the consumption of resources is inordinately wasteful. That is, civilization is living now under a syndrome of too many people, with those in ‘developed’ parts of the world consuming an unfair share of Earth's resources and all together using an unsustainable fraction of our planet's natural capital (defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity as the world's stocks of natural assets which include geology, soil, air, water and all living things; https://www.cbd.int/business/projects/natcap.shtml). Humanity in many parts of the world is overconsuming, writing cheques heedlessly on our biological resource banks and disregarding the declining balance of natural capital rather than living more frugally on its ‘interest'.

The environmental translation of these socio-economic drivers includes the correspondingly accelerated rate of greenhouse emissions (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide), leading to climate disruption on land and in oceans. Such climatic disruption encompasses global warming, with dramatic snow- and ice-thawing from polar and high-elevation lands and consequent global sea-level rise, ocean acidification and increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events (see [14,17]). Despite the active disinformation efforts of deniers (often sponsored by big corporations and special interest groups, in particular the fossil fuel industry; see https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-machine-how-fossil-fuel-industry-blocks-climate-action), climate change-related calamities do manage to make their way into mainstream media, including movies and documentaries. This is understandable, given the increasingly vivid, short-term catastrophic consequences on humans (and their infrastructures) around the world. However, this is not the only global environmental change of the Anthropocene. Land-use change, over-drafting of soils and groundwater, rampant terrestrial and aquatic toxification, the proliferation of invasive organisms (plants, animals and pathogenic microbes) and, especially, the intimately connected loss of biodiversity are also grave manifestations of the Anthropocene [14,18].

Most species cannot survive and reproduce in agricultural land20, meaning this transformation has resulted in rapid population decreases for thousands of species across the world21 and 22 and is a major cause of extinction risks: almost 90% of the critically endangered mammal species, and more than 80% and 70% of the critically endangered amphibian and bird species, respectively, are unable to live in agricultural lands and have thus been greatly impacted. Harm is particularly severe for species with narrow ranges and specialized habitat requirements23, and for large-bodied species24.

South and Southeast Asia are home to the greatest regional diversity of large mammals (155 species) but rapid agricultural expansion, economic growth and hunting pressures over the last 60 years have resulted in ~60% of these being threatened with extinction25 and 26. Current food system trajectories could push many of these mammals toward global extinction27. In Sub-Saharan Africa only 30% of large mammals are threatened, but current food system trajectories could elevate these to extinction risks that exceed those currently observed in South and Southeast Asia. Similarly, large mammals of tropical South America could attain extinction risks in 50 years like those of present-day South and Southeast Asia28.

The majority of crop prices vary depending on supply and demand on the market. The only way for farmers to increase profitability is to decrease production costs without compromising crop yield or increasing the risk of the activity. Precision agriculture is aimed at increasing the efficiency of using machines and inputs to improve yield and profitability and decrease environmental impact1. Precision agriculture allows an improvement in agricultural production management, using practices within the field, and requires an accurate assessment of spatial variations in short scales of resolution2.

Humanity requires ecological management practices with a decrease in the volume of pesticides used in farm fields. Accordingly, there are three possible ways to reduce the volume of pesticides used3: reducing the number of spray applications during the cropping period, which can compromise crop yield; decreasing the applied dose, which can decrease the level of control and promote the appearance of genetic resistance; and restricting the treated area. The third strategy is the basic principle of site-specific application of pesticides using precision agriculture techniques4.

Although bad-to-worst case scenarios remain underexplored in the scientific literature, statements labeling climate change as catastrophic are not uncommon. UN Secretary-General António Guterres called climate change an “existential threat.” Academic studies have warned that warming above 5 °C is likely to be “beyond catastrophic” (50), and above 6 °C constitutes “an indisputable global catastrophe” (9).

Current discussions over climate catastrophe are undermined by unclear terminology. The term “catastrophic climate change” has not been conclusively defined. An existential risk is usually defined as a risk that cause an enduring and significant loss of long-term human potential (51, 52). This existing definition is deeply ambiguous and requires societal discussion and specification of long-term human values (52). While a democratic exploration of values is welcome, it is not required to understand pathways to human catastrophe or extinction (52). For now, the existing definition is not a solid foundation for a scientific inquiry.

Many physical devices, such as the IoT, are first vulnerable to attacks on the hardware because the device can be placed in an open space for long periods of time without supervision. Typical security counter measurements are data encryption, tag frequency modification, tag destruction policy, use of blocker tags, etc. Location-based services are also exposed to device capture attack, which means after capturing the device, the attacker can extract cryptographic implementations and therefore have unlimited access to data stored in the device. Data can also be attacked when transferring from the device to the gateway, where the data is then uploaded to other infrastructures, like the cloud. The cloud servers are vulnerable to data tampering, which can unauthorizedly interfere the automated operations in the farm. Means such as session hijacking, logon abuse and denial of service (DoS) can also interfere cloud infrastructures. The corresponding security policies include cryptographic algorithms, data flow control policies, identity authentication mechanisms etc. Therefore, security issues are causing serious problems and should be addressed in different levels [14]+[17]

The fact that images taken when applied differ from the images used in control environments because of factors such as lighting variability, the complexities in the background, the angle when capturing, etc. In addition, grains cultivated in the field, even at the same location, are physically heterogeneous as a result of the impact of other elements, like insects, soil and inert matter. In that case, the physiological characteristics of individuals increases the complexity of variables to be considered when processing images, and therefore, a larger and more diverse set of control data was required to improve the current classification accuracy. Nevertheless, with the help of computer vision, algorithms like DBN (Deep Belief Networks) and CNN (Convolution Neural Network), regardless of the small number of case studies, indicate promising applications in the future for processing large sets of complicated data [16]. Moreover, in order to shorten the response time of a system, data processed should be the most relevant ones. A system’s capability of executing tasks precisely in a short period of time is critical in deciding its commercial value, affecting users’ selection greatly - what customers consider most is the minimized effort required for them and the maximized accuracy [13].

From the projection of robot shipments during the period 2011-2013, an average 9% increase each year in the U.S.s, a 12% increase in Asia-Australia countries and an 8% increase in Europe are anticipated. According to this trend, it is estimated that the penetration rate of robots by 2030 will be 15% and will be 75% by 2045. However, the distribution of mechanization can possibly be unevenly distributed with some areas lacking access to resources and having situations which can’t not be changed with science discoveries and technological development [6]. For example, since most AI systems are based on the Internet, their utilization may be restricted in remote or rural areas with the absence of a web service and familiarity with handling AI operations [13]. Therefore, a slower and unequally distributed adoption process of AI in agriculture should be expected, and meanwhile, whether the adoption would increase food production beyond certain natural limits of land or not remains uncertain [6].

Whether you live in farm country or in the city, you’ve probably noticed the quality of produce at your local supermarket has deteriorated over the years. These days, our “fresh” produce isn’t actually fresh at all — much of it has been picked too early, shipped across land and sea, and delivered to your grocer with a “Product of Mexico” or “Product of China” sticker tacked onto it. The United States is growing less and less of its own food and is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign countries to feed itself as a result.

The U.S. has been a proud agricultural powerhouse, consistently running an agricultural trade surplus. But in 2019, for the first time in more than 50 years, the mighty U.S. agriculture system ran an agricultural trade deficit, importing more than it exported: though we racked up a $9.7 billion agricultural trade surplus with the rest of the world, our $11 billion agricultural trade deficit with Mexico resulted in a $1.3 billion deficit. The USDA forecasts the U.S. will again run a deficit in 2023 for the third time since 2019.