History and Advancements

Diamond, J.  1997.  Chapter 4 – Farmer Power (pg. 85-92), Chapter 5 – History’s Haves and Have-Nots (pg. 93-103), Chapter 6 – To Farm or Not to Farm (pg. 104-113), and Chapter 8 – Apples or Indians (pg. 131-156) in Guns, Germs and Steel.  W. W. Norton & Company, New York, New York.

History.  Human history is a compilation of stories.  For the past year I have been editing my own family history, which my mother assembled using literature and many ancestors’ personal stories.  I was initially shocked at how little I actually knew before I started this.  I knew that my mom’s side of the family were Mennonite in origin, but I didn’t know that they (for instance) would cut branches of mulberry leaves – just as the young leaves were beginning to unfurl – to lay crosswise over brown paper that had silkworm butterfly eggs on it from the previous year.  I had absolutely no clue that my ancestors grew silk worms, or that to obtain the silk they had to place the cocooned silk worms in boiling water before fishing out the loose ends of the silk and attaching up to 100 threads to the spindle of a spinning wheel to put the silk on a spool.  This I found to be fascinating (along with other things I learned about my history), and I think this is why I found how Diamond wrote, with personal or example stories, interesting;  for instance, Diamond mentioned how the pioneer farmer, Fred Hirschy, helped to change the American West from hunter-gatherer tendencies to farming (p. 85).  History affects us personally;  but, as Diamond pointed out, it also has affected what we eat today. 

Diamond stated that “Plant and animal domestication … [was] a prerequisite for the development of settled, politically centralized, socially stratified, economically complex, technologically innovative societies” (p. 92).  A “sedentary lifestyle” (p. 89) allowed for individuals to specialize in areas other than food gathering, leading to such positions as kings, bureaucrats, soldiers, priests, metalworkers, and scribes (p. 90).  However, the thing that struck me was that this also caused a lot of wars:  killing, subjugating, and thus decreasing many populations of people throughout the world.  I find it really upsetting that such an ‘advancement’ lead to such pain and suffering.  Yeah, it’s amazing and great that people became able to do more things, but I don’t appreciate how Diamond almost seemed to be praising the wars and conquests of the past when a lot of them were caused by power hungry people trying to wipe out and control others.  Something else that I hadn’t considered before was that a lot of disease epidemics were caused by domesticating animals due to infected animals passing their germs onto humans (p. 92).  I can’t say plant and animal domestication is all bad though, as domesticating animals and producing such items as cotton, flax, hemp, wool, silk, leather, gourds, wagons, etc., has improved human societies drastically (p. 90);  these, and other, inventions have dramatically changed our existence time and time again throughout history. 

While I was reading Diamond’s discussion of the extensive knowledge of hunter-gatherers concerning their local wild plants and animals, I thought again (as I quite often have) about how totally screwed us people in the technologically advanced world would be if all our technology was suddenly taken away from us.  Even me, whose mother is quite knowledgeable in her garden, would be totally useless if I had to suddenly start growing my own food instead of picking it up from the supermarket.  And there are many people far worse off. 

The Potato

Pollan, M.  2001.  Chapter 4 – Desire: Control/Plant: The Potato (pg. 183-238) in The Botany of Desire:  A Plant’s-Eye View of the World.  Random House Trade Paperbacks, New York. 


Being someone who was raised on both wheat and potatoes, I found it quite entertaining to learn from Pollan how controversial the introduction of the potato was to most European countries and in what creative ways the leaders of some countries introduced the potato.  What stood out in my mind especially was how “Marie Antoinette took to wearing potato flowers in her hair, and Louis” XVI protected his royal potato garden by his most elite guards till midnight in order to convince the local peasants that the potato was of value (p. 201). 

After attending the lecture by Percy Schmeiser (which had a large effect on my opinions and views of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms)), it was a little disconcerting to learn that Pollan planted genetically engineered potatoes from the Monsanto corporation in his garden (p. 187) as I kept thinking about all the problems Monsanto GM canola has caused (e.g.  decreased crop yields;  decreased nutrition;  increased chemical use;  decreased biodiversity;  health concerns;  etc.) and what more problems could be caused by these NewLeaf potatoes.  Another thing to consider is that conventional farming “saddles the farmer with debt, jeopardizes his health, erodes his soil and ruins its fertility, pollutes groundwater, and compromises the safety of the food we eat” (p. 190) as well as allowing corporations to have a “noose” around the necks of these farmers (p. 235).  All these (and other) negative repercussions, that Percy Schmeiser and Michael Pollan pointed out, made me consider just how much of a problem our own cultural thinking (e.g.  monoculture (p. 228)) has negatively affected the farming industry, and thus us ourselves. 

Although if you were to read a specific section of Pollan’s chapter on the potato you may think he is supporting one side of the GMO debate, however throughout the extent of the chapter he actually provided a very well rounded discussion, considering the positives, negatives, and unknowns that he gathered from extensive research regarding Monsanto’s GMO potato, the NewLeaf. 

Agriculture and Plant Cultivation

Pollan, M.  2001.  Introduction – The Human Bumblebee (pg. xiii-xxv) in The Botany of Desire:  A Plant’s-Eye View of the World.  Random House Trade Paperbacks, New York. 

Diamond, J.  1997.  Chapter 7 – How to Make an Almond (pg. 114-130) in Guns, Germs and Steel.  W. W. Norton & Company, New York, New York.

The introductory chapter of ‘The Botany of Desire:  A Plant’s-Eye View of the World’ explains Pollan’s logic behind where his ideas came from and what he was trying to accomplish:  linking the desires (sweetness; beauty; intoxication; control) and destinies of humans and plants, specifically focusing on the points of view of apples, tulips, cannabis, and potatoes.  Pollan pointed out that many things involving plants can be thought of from two different perspectives, from humans and from plants perspectives.  An example of this is how Pollan stated that agriculture can be thought of as our own brilliant way of gathering food, as well as “something the grasses did to people as a way to conquer the trees” (p. xxi).  Pollan states that when discussing each of the four plants, he considered many things – including their history, science, philosophy, and mythology – with the ultimate goal that our thinking will be altered to consider ourselves having a “reciprocal relationship” (p. xxv) with nature.  How Pollan represented both sides and considered them both equally important and true makes me very interested in reading what he will have to say about each of the four plants and the interactions we share with them. 

I enjoyed how Pollan spoke very personably during this introduction; using a specific instance in his life (planting fingerling potatoes in his garden) to draw the audience into his thoughts and ideas, as well as using imagery such as “sowing rows in the neighborhood of a flowering apple tree that was fairly vibrating with bees” (p. xii).  I have found that I learn information much better, and remember it much easier, when this information is expressed as a descriptive, vibrant story.  Thus, Pollan’s writing in his introduction was very appealing to me. 

I quite like how Pollen spun the idea of coevolution, with the plants “playing on the animals’ desires, conscious and otherwise” (p. xv).  His thought:  “So the question arose in my mind that day:  Did I choose to plant these potatoes, or did the potato make me do it?” (p. xv) is a humorous way of explaining his point that “in a coevolutionary relationship every subject is … an object, every object a subject” (p. xxi).  Though he was slightly repetitive when backing up this point, stating it in these (and other) different ways helped me to understand better exactly what he was trying to say and what his ideas encompass. 

I really liked when Pollan said that “Plants are nature’s alchemists, expert at transforming water, soil, and sunlight into an array of precious substances, many of them beyond the ability of human beings to conceive, much less manufacture” (p. xix).  Comparing plants to alchemists enforced in me the amazing ability that plants have to make things that other organism need (but can’t make themselves) from materials/reagents that they can’t use. 

Chapter 7 of Diamond’s book ‘Guns, Germs and Steel’, entitled ‘How to Make and Almond’, used the almond as an example crop while discussing the cultivation of wild plants.  Plant domestication was examined, along with comparisons of the differences between wild and cultivated plants.  Diamond then addressed some invisible changes that assisted humans in cultivating some specific crops.  One of these was the mutations that occurred in peas, wheat, and barley, which caused them to not disperse their seeds properly in the wild, thus they were cultivated for easier gathering of the seeds by humans (p. 120). 

The way Diamond began his chapter on ‘How to Make an Almond’, by first starting with what wild plant hikers sometimes eat then going on to mention that a few dozen wild almonds contain enough cyanide to kill us, immediately got my attention as I was unaware of this fact.  In this chapter, Diamond occasionally wrote in a similar was as Pollan did;  for example “Naturally, strawberry plants didn’t set out with a conscious intent of attracting birds when, and only when , their seeds were ready to be dispersed.  Neither did thrushes set out with the intent of domesticating strawberries” (p. 116);  which I quite enjoyed.  I also liked how on page 122 Diamond goes into examples of how humans have artificially selected for different parts of plants that have purposes for us, as this enforced some of the examples that we did in our laboratory. 

All in all, I enjoyed reading Pollan’s introductory chapter more than Diamond’s chapter on almonds.;  however, I’m not entirely sure why this was the case. 

In Praise of Plants - Form and Evolution

Halle, F.  2002.  Chapter 2 – A Visit to the Landscape of Form (p. 41-124) and Chapter 5 – Evolution (p. 173-184) in In praise of plants.  Timber Press.  Portland.

The author began chapter 2 (A Visit to the Landscape of Form) by introducing the concept of form – first with quotes and then through their own words – as well as the difficulties of considering form and why these difficulties occur.  They then discussed the importance of form, especially compared to quantitative analysis, before going on to provide background information on plants and animals with regards to energy, surface area, volume, and growth.  The other factors of determining form – spatial structure, symmetry, and scale – were also discussed.  Chapter 5 (Evolution) also started off with quotes, but then went on to deal with the evolution of plants and animals with respect to their generations. 

The essence of this story is to compare the forms and evolution of plants and animals throughout their lives.

I thought that it was quite neat of the author, Halle, to start the chapters with quotes from other experts (p. 41 and 173) as they provided other peoples thoughts on the different subjects while introducing them. 

I also enjoyed the fact that the author tended to lead into the next section quite well – such as the ending sentence of the ‘Whence Form?’ section:  “So that the discussion may occur in the proper context, it is necessary to recall that plants and animals rely on different sources of energy” (p. 43), which came directly before the ‘Capturing Energy’ section.  Another example of this (out of many such examples) can be found in Chapter 5:  “…all plants possess two genetically different generations, one haploid and the other diploid.  And animals?  On this point they are much simpler than plants since they have only one generation” (p. 181) which occurs directly prior to the ‘One Animal, One Generation’ section.  Both these sentences properly conclude the previous sections while introducing the next. 

The author tended to provide background information and interesting facts, as well as to back up every point they made – such as when they were discussing how plants obtain energy, that this is done inefficiently, and what causes this process to be inefficient (p. 43).  Another fact I, personally, found interesting (since I am interested in visiting Japan sometime in the future) was the one concerning the botanical garden of mosses cared for by monks at the temple of Kokedera, Japan (p. 176).  Halle also often gave examples:  “Some [animals] profit from an elongated from by hiding among plants – pycnogonids, Phyllopteryx, stick and leave insects,” which I found quite nice as it helps put things in perspective for me (since I now know of some example organisms).  Though some background and back up information is nice, the author also spent way too much time on some things that could be summarized – and completely understood – in one sentence;  such as the multiple pages (p. 54-89) on plants having radial symmetry with one polarity and animals having bilateral symmetry with two polarities. 

The opinion:  “Animals are confused plants, turned inside out like a glove, with infolded leaves and roots in their digestive tracts.  Plants are fantastic animals, their insides turned out, bearing their entrails like feathers”  (p. 50) is quite interesting.  I do agree that there are similarities in function between plants outer surfaces and the digestive tract of animals, but, for me, that’s where the similarities end.  This sentence is however very descriptive and an interesting way to point out (in bold, capital, 72 pt font) that this similarity is present. 

I appreciate when the author uses descriptive words and sentences to help get their point across;  such as when discussing the mobility of plants (“…and throws flowers into the air, like pretty white butterflies the blossoms of Campanula or Gaura” (p. 101)) or the time scale of plants – using such words and phrases as “spectacular”, “majestic”, “frenetic”, “fierce swarming”, etc (p.103). 

I myself am not a very good writer, but I love reading those people who are, and I also detest grammatical mistakes, especially in published works.  I like writing to flow, and I very much dislike when sentences don’t make sense, though I understand that I quite often just read too fast or am in the wrong mindset when reading a sentence to understand it the first time I read it.  However, it angers me when I go back to read the sentence again and it still doesn’t make sense!  An example of this in this work is the sentence:  “Following Thom (1972), Boutot (1993) has shown very well the reasons for …” (p. 41), which  should have said ‘Thom (1972) and Boutot (1993) have shown very well the reasons for …”  Another example occurs in the first part of this sentence “Fundamentally a volume, an animal easily accommodates the effects of growth; little change in the form is required” (p.50) also doesn’t make sense;  and to be completely honest, I’m not sure what it was supposed to say either.  I suppose that since this was translated from the original French text, it makes sense that there would be some difficulties in the translation process; however, this is a published book, and I have very minimal respect for published works that have mistakes in them (or that are not written well). 

Another annoyance that I found was not expanding upon analogies and explaining them.  I admit that I’m not fully understanding the concept of form, and what the author is mentioning and discussing about it;  however, I don’t like that Halle didn’t expand upon and explain the analogy with the truffles under the oak (“The reader who is interested in birth, growth, and death will find them here associated with form, like truffles beneath an oak.” (p. 42)) as I don’t understand what this analogy has to do with “form [as] the product of growth” (p.42). 

I disliked the randomness of the sentence:  “Ribald zoological metaphors often make fun of such organs:  the eggplant, the obvious sexual anatomical associations of the double coconut (Lodoicea maldivica), nuts as slang for testicles, acorns (gland is French for acorn and the word has a sexual connotation), etc” (p.46).  I do not understand why this was included, was the author trying to add humour into the subject of some plants having special structures under protective sheathes?  To me it just seemed to be an inappropriate topic to include.  And to state after this that plants are smart – “Not too stupid” (p.46) – for doing this?   First of all, plants do not have brains, and secondly there is no reason for plants to make “evocations of animal form” (p. 46), it’s just human’s ‘dirty’ minds that come up with such associations.  And, are we really that vain as to think that way of plants;  that they would make such evocations? 

The randomness of “Thus, when you encounter a loudmouth, tell him that anyone who produces an anus before a mouth, and thus farts before being able to speak, should be more modest.  Yes, animals are strange” (p. 88), is a little more humorous, and thus a little more appreciated (from my point of view).  However, the stories of Oldeman’s (1974) nightmare of his fingers and feet forming colonies (p. 110) and Szent-György’s fishing trips (“… he always used a big hook, because although he knew he would catch nothing, he found it much more interesting not to catch the big fish than not to catch only the little ones” (p. 103)), proved to be much more entertaining. 

I have always found it interesting how when exceptions occur that contradict a previously thought idea, that people still find ways around them to keep the same idea (scientists can’t be wrong, can they?).  For example, Halle stated, with regards to forms with one polarity and radial symmetry, that “There are also a few exceptions among the mobile animals … [which] also have this form, but they are ancestral to sessile groups” and “Some sessile animals … do not have this form, but they are related to mobile groups” (p. 69).  I, myself, am a Christian – who doesn’t believe in evolution – and I just love learning about “exceptions” that God created to rules that scientists have come up with and how scientists then try to explain their way out of things so that their theories still hold true.  For me, it is extremely annoying how evolution is assumed to be truth in the scientific world; however occurrences like these are very entertaining. 

I found part of the author’s quotes of Michel Luneau concerning trees – “Our internal organization recognizes neither God nor a master” (p. 99); “It is a Jacobin God who has created humans, a ponderous God, jealous, authoritarian, cop-like, fierce, holding tightly onto his power, zealously intervening in his omnipotence” (p. 100) – and the author’s insistence that “Biological evolution is a reality to which all living beings are subject, and no serious biologist would dream of questioning it” (p. 173) offensive.  How can (and why do) scientists assume that everyone involved in the realm of science believes in evolution and does not believe in the existence of a God.  It’s quite irksome!  Though I can see how using those first phrases of Michel Luneau do emphasize what the author was trying to say about the differing structures of plants and animals. 

I found the discussion of the germ being potentially immortal and the soma being “condemned to disappear” (p. 183) quite strange.  Just because the germ becomes the sexual organs does not mean that they are “immortal”;  they would not be able to survive without the soma.  It is, however, interesting that the environment only influences the soma, thus characteristics acquired from this are not inheritable. 

This reading argues that form (being qualitative) is more important than quantitative studies.  Due to being a chemist, my thinking process disagrees with this as to properly compare and discuss forms there must be quantitative ways of comparing this information.  However, I view qualitative and quantitative information to be two sides of the same story, where neither side provides all the information;  thus these two types are both essential in order to fully understand concepts. 

This reading was very informative on the forms of plants and animals – their similarities and their differences – though it was a bit extensive in some areas (as already discussed).  I think that the larger story of this piece it to just understand how living beings function.