在同一个页面上,BBC 也列出了一些读者的评论,其中一条反对意见非常有趣:
> This seems like an overblown issue. For one, if some of these crop varieties, such as O. glaberrima, are superior for a certain climate, would they not naturally outlast their alternatives in such regions anyway? It won't be mankind's cultivation that continues their existence. Furthermore, mankind has been genetically engineering crop species through artificial selection since agriculture has existed? If there is a lack of diversity, it is because mankind has settled on a very productive variety of crop, that makes the others simply not worth cultivating. I was expecting a far more compelling argument for crop diversity, like natural resistance to certain diseases (banana blight, etc.), not just diversity for diversity sake.
> _Chris C, Salt Lake City, USA_

- Image via Wikipedia
这里有一个假设,就是对某种气候适应较好的物种必然会全面地淘汰那些并非为这种气候而进化或人工选择的物种。如果这个假设成立的话,物种入侵也就不会是一个如此紧迫的问题了。农业生产中原生的亚种被取代,并不是因为它们对环境的适应性比引进的亚种差(事实可能恰恰相反),而是因为它们带来的经济回报没有引进种高。而对于任何系统,过度的同质化必然带来适应能力的降低。今天大片种植同一品种的田地没有问题,并不代表将来在改变的环境条件下它们仍然没有问题。而如果原生亚种和引进亚种都不能适应变化的环境,我们最好还保留有来自其它地区的物种或亚种,能够起到替代的作用。在这个问题上任由市场做出选择,不是促进竞争和发展的方法,而是会导致农业走向垄断和衰落。从这个意义上说,为了多样性而保护多样性是必要的,我们永远不能预知,也许今天某个被遗忘的亚种,明天就是人类的救星。
幸运的是,商业动机也可以成为保护这些亚种的动力。有些马铃薯亚种已经堂而皇之地在超市里包装上市了。但是更多的作物没有这么幸运,还需要人们在它们彻底消失以前发现它们的价值。
(照片来自 Wikipedia, 由 [Gerry Manacsa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gmanacsa) 拍摄,按创作共用 [Attribution-Share Alike 2.0](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/) 许可发布。Photo by [Gerry Manacsa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gmanacsa), under the CC license [by-sa 2.0](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/))
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f8c5e2a7-0d1d-4f9b-8250-d296f001c10c)
没有评论:
发表评论