For decades, chemical farming has been the conventional method of raising crops in the Philippines.  Although many farmers still stick with chemical input procedures, there has been a recent shift to organic farming in local communities.  In their article, “Farmer by Farmer, an Organic Transition” John Cavanagh and Robin Broad write about the work of Don Bosco Foundation, a non-profit that teaches farmers about “biodynamic farming.”  Click here for the full story

An organic rice farm in the Philippines

The two married couples featured in the article describe how Don Bosco has helped them transition to sustainable agriculture.  Tired of accruing debt from using traditional farming methods, they decided to try what they learned from the seminars: farming with zero chemical input.  It worked!  Costs of farming dropped drastically, while the harvest yielded an abundant crop.

After a decade of adopting the new methods, both families are virtually free from debt.  One couple mentions how the switch allowed them to add fruits and vegetables to their rice crop.  The other says that they have been able to make enough money for their children to finish their schooling – who are now looking into going into the farming business themselves.

These success stories illustrate how the significance of biodynamic farming is not only based on monetary gains.  As one farmer puts it, “It’s not simply farming.  It’s healing the earth.”

Share on Facebook

I am currently working on a research article on U.S. and global “ecological terrorism” (there’s debate on the nomenclature here), another way of describing environmental radicalism –a fascinating concept!  Since the creation of Animal Liberation Front (ALF) in 1976, numerous like-minded organizations have been founded, such as, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Earth First!, and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF).

Protest march by EarthFirst! and other environmental groups

These “eco-terrorist” groups advocate the preservation of life, and use scare tactics (like arson, for example) against those who implement any form of animal or environmental abuse.  Further, estimated property damages caused by these organizations (otherwise known as “eco-tage”) exceed $100 million.  In a way, they destroy (or threaten to destroy) with the end goal of ending destructive measures.  What do you think about this?  Is destruction that aims to correct a larger evil justified?

Unlike many terrorist groups, eco-terrorists have traditionally  steered clear from tactics geared towards human casualties.

However, extreme versions of these organizations that have formed in more recent years think differently.  These “splinter groups” aim their attacks against individuals spanning from those who implement activities like animal drug-testing in their day-to-day operations, to those in mid- and senior management positions of corporations that collaborate with companies that partake in such activity. These groups, such as, the Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) and Arissa have been responsible for militant acts, including car-bombings and the planting of small incendiary devices in corporate branch locations.

Today, the possibility of eco-terrorists targeting nuclear or chemical facilities has become one of the government’s biggest fears.  The likelihood of any of these groups getting access to a biological weapon is another dreaded possibility.  According to the FBI, the implications of these events would not only lead to overwhelming consequences for the general population, but it would also cause an enormous threat to our country’s national security.

Share on Facebook