Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:English of Global Economics. Учебное пособие
.pdf
70
That effort matters for Peru. The alpaca is a cultural symbol —
its much-prized cousin, the vicu
shield. It also holds the key to helping more than 150,000 of the
poorest Peruvian families.
Peru has some 3,5 million alpacas — 80% of the world’s total
and, you might think, a dominant market position. Yet the country’s
Association of Exporters, a business lobby, backed by several
congressmen, wants to ban export of live alpacas. As a result of
such exports, there are now herds of around 60,000 alpacas in
both Australia and the United States, with smaller ones elsewhere.
The association claims that thanks to its ability to carry out
genetic improvement, in 20 years Australia could overtake Peru
as a producer of alpaca fibre.
That is improbable. If true, it would be an indictment of the
mismanagement of the industry in Peru. Ms Vasquez’s grandmother
tended alpaca herds for a near-feudal absentee landowner. In the
1970s, a military government expropriated Peru’s large estates.
Her village formed part of a vast co-operative, appropriately called
La Gigante. That collapsed a decade ago, its herds and land split
up among families.
Dozens of official reports, plans and national strategies, and
promises of technical help, have failed to overcome a vicious circle:
most herders are poor, have too few animals, and cannot afford the
improvements in breeding, pasture management and shearing needed
to raise fibre quality and yield. The National Council of South
American Cameloids, a government body, claims that a herd of
around 300 is needed to cover a family’s basic needs. But the average
herd numbers just 21 animals, yielding only $600 per year in fibre.
No one is going to help them change this industry. If they
want things to be better, they need to do it themselves. So
Ms Vasquez’s extended family have gathered their animals into
a single, profitable herd. She is taking part in a government-backed
pilot project to improve breeding. Several of her animals have
produced wool as soft as that of the vicu
Her village has joined forces with others to sell in bulk to the
three wool processing firms in an effort to expand their bargaining
power. The firms, recognizing that they have done little to help
the herders, have set up an institute to deal directly with them,
cutting out middlemen. Rather than banning live exports, perhaps
Peru should work harder to make the most of its natural and
5
cultural heritage
.
ña, is on the country’s national
ña.
Unit Two
AGRICULTURE
alpaca [l!pkə] альпакá; pen загон; shaggy лохматый; mainstay опора;
vicu
ña [v(a)i!kju:nə] лама-вигонь, викунья; live [laiv] живой; indictment
[in!daitm
мельный собственник (проживающий за пределами страны и получа
ющий доход от своей собственности); shearing [!
to sell in bulk продавать оптом; to cut out middlemen устранять по
средников.
Ex. 11. Read the following text and try to analyze what is positive
ənt] обвинительный акт; absentee landowner отсутствующий зе
ʃiəriŋ] стрижка (овец);
and what is negative in genetic modification. Which position would
you support?
Scientists first discovered the technique of genetic modification
in the 1970s. It has great potential and is moving ahead very
rapidly. Some of them say that it is the beginning of an industry
transformation that in a few years will be looked at as greater
than the computer revolution. Others believe in the benefits that
genetic modification can bring to humanity, but say biotechnology
companies are introducing the new technology too quickly and
with insufficient research because its effects on the immune system
are not easily predictable.
The development of genetics and similar technologies has
revolutionized mankind’s understanding of the structure of the
gene. The cost of unravelling this structure today is just $150
compared to $2.5 million in the mid 1970s. As a result, researchers
have established the genetic map of many organisms and can
transfer genetic material from one organism to another relatively
easily.
It is now possible to breed, virtually overnight, plants and
animals with improved nutritional and health benefits to humans.
This compares to the thousands of years it has taken to breed
the familiar varieties we see today. Scientists can insert genes from
one organism into another to produce, for example, extra vitamins,
less fat and substances that are in short supply or difficult to
manufacture.
Biotechnology companies have rushed to produce characteristics
such as resistance to drought, disease and insects in food crops
that previously did not have them. Many new crops require less
processing in the factories and fewer additives. Because they have
genes that make them last longer, there is less wastage.
Another possible benefit is the reduced use of pesticides,
fertilizers and energy compared to conventional farming methods.
71
-
-
-
72
Farmers do not need to till the soil, lessening soil erosion and
reducing labour and machinery. Potato that is resistant to the
Colorado beetle could save tons of pesticides, a lot of containers
and a great amount of fuel.
Biotechnology is big business and enormous potential profits
are at stake. The global crop protection market is worth $20 billion.
Companies like Monsanto, Dupont and Novartis spend billions
on the research and production of genetically modified food. They
acquire new companies, form joint ventures, buy up seed businesses
and increase their processing capabilities. Research institutes have
become dependent on the financial support of these companies
because of government cuts. By the end of the century four to
five companies will dominate global seed supplies.
The development of global planning and production of food
could be the means to eradicate poverty and hunger, but it will
not happen if left in the hands of the biotechnology companies.
The intense competition for markets and to realize a profit on
investments undermines the possibility of planning in a co-operative
and systematic way. The companies are now demanding the removal
of restrictions on their world-wide right to exploit the new
technology and beat their rivals.
The demand for deregulation have greatly increased concerns
about the safety of genetically modified food. When scientists
move genes between organisms of the same species and between
different species, entirely new problems are posed. It is difficult to
predict how the introduced genes will interact with existing ones,
or what the possible side effects on humans or the environment
will be. Testing on laboratory rats may not reveal possible effects
on humans or other species.
Besides the safety problems, the effects on agricultural practices
have been enormous as the biotechnology companies reach into
every corner of the world. In India farmers have grown certain
varieties of rice for thousands of years, but companies have
patented many of these strains and put them beyond the budgets
of small farmers. Other farmers find themselves increasingly tied
to the biotechnology companies. When they buy Monsanto’s
modified soya beans, for example, they have to spray with
Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide that kills all other plants. Only
Monsanto’s seeds and beans survive because they contain a gene
that makes them resistant to the herbicide. Farmers must sign
contracts that say they must not sow the seeds or beans produced
Unit Two
AGRICULTURE
by their crop the following year, and companies are developing
“terminator technology” to prevent new seeds germinating.
In the 1980s the seed producers said the introduction of high
yielding hybrid crops in the “Green Revolution” would end hunger
and help poor farmers. Instead, the result has been the increased
development of huge agribusinesses in the West overproducing
and creating “food mountains” whilst millions starve in the Third
World.
The World Trade Organization has stopped countries banning
modified food or crops, even when there have been referenda or
mass protests and petitions. The US government has threatened
trade war measures against Europe over import restrictions. Many
European governments have retaliated by delaying the planting
of modified crops, but European biotechnology companies believe
this plays into the hands of US and Japanese companies which
will dominate the market as a result.
The new biotechnology offers enormous opportunities but there
is a possibility that human beings will completely redesign themselves
in the next one thousand years. The redesigning of animals and
plants is just the first step on the way
to unravel разгадывать, объяснять; additives добавки; wastage потери;
to till the soil подготавливать почву к посеву; soil erosion эрозия поч-
âû; to eradicate poverty искоренять бедность; species [!spi:
менения) вид, разновидность; to interact взаимодействовать; side effects
побочные эффекты; herbicide гербицид; to patent патентовать; strains
усилия; to germinate прорастать; referendum (pl referenda) референдум;
to play into the hands of smb сыграть кому-либо на руку.
6
.
ʃi:z] (pl áåç èç-
73
Ex. 12. Read the following text and explain what is cloning. Can
cloning be one of the sources of food supply? What are the pros
and cons of the matter, as you see it?
Cloning is the creation of an identical animal from the DNA
of another animal. When the media report on cloning in the news,
they are usually talking about only one type called reproductive
cloning. Reproductive cloning is a technology used to generate
an animal that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently
or previously existing animal. Dolly’s success is truly remarkable
because it proved that the genetic material from a specialized
adult cell could be reconstructed to generate an entire new
organism.
74
Scientists have been cloning animals for many years. Since
Dolly, researchers have cloned a number of large and small animals
including sheep, goats, cows, mice, pigs, cats and rabbits. All these
clones were created using nuclear transfer technology. Hundreds
of cloned animals exist today, but the number of different
species is limited. Attempts at cloning certain species such as
monkeys, chickens, horses and dogs have been unsuccessful. Further
improvements in cloning technologies may be needed before many
species can be cloned successfully.
Reproductive cloning is expensive and highly inefficient. Many
cloned animals have not lived long enough to generate good
data about how clones age. Appearing healthy at a young age
unfortunately is not a good indicator of long term survival. Clones
have been known to die mysteriously. For example, Australia’s
first cloned sheep appeared healthy and energetic on the day she
died, and the results from her autopsy failed to determine a cause
of death. More than 90% of cloning attempts fail to produce
viable offspring.
Various arguments have been put forward in favour of using
cloning to preserve endangered species. Many rare animals are
reluctant to breed in captivity. In this case cloning would be an
alternative way of creating new individuals. There are two main
concerns about using cloning to conserve rare species: it might lead
people to think of extinction as a temporary state and it might
therefore detract from attempts to preserve rare habitats. Cloning
from just one individual means there would be very little genetic
diversity in any new group of animals.
Unit Two
***
Today scientists say that milk and meat from cloned cows and
bulls is likely to be safe for human consumption. A pilot study
found that both met industry standards, making a first step towards
the introduction of meat and dairy products from clones.
Scientists in the US and Japan cloned a bull and a cow using
the “Dolly” technique of transferring genetic material from an
adult cell to an egg. Two beef and four dairy clones were used in
the study. Meat and milk from the clones was compared with that
from normal animals of a similar age and breed.
The milk findings suggested that the genes of the cloned
animals were working normally. Analysis of protein, fat and other
AGRICULTURE
variables revealed no significant differences in milk from the
cloned dairy cows. More than 100 meat quality criteria were also
examined, and of these 90% also showed no significant variations
between normal and cloned beef. Levels of fat and fatty acids
in the cloned beef were higher than normal. However, these
fell within beef industry standards, and were viewed as desirable
qualities in the Japanese Black breed of bull chosen for cloning.
All the parameters examined in the study were within the normal
range of beef and dairy products approved for human consumption.
The scientists in Japan stressed that research was at an early
stage. All the clones used in the study were derived from a single
bull and dairy cow.
The US food and drug administration is due to rule soon on
whether to allow the sale of meat and milk for human consumption
from cloned livestock. A spokesman for the Food Standards
Agency in the UK said before any cloned produce could be sold
for human consumption in the country, it would need a “novelty
7
food” licence from European Union member states
DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) ДHК (дезоксирибонуклеиновая кислота);
nuclear transfer technology технология по пересадке ядра клетки; viable
offspring жизнеспособное потомство; endangered species виды живот-
ных, находящиеся под угрозой исчезновения; extinction вымирание;
pilot экспериментальный; egg çä. яйцеклетка; criteria [krai!ti
criterion) критерий; findings полученные данные.
.
əriə](singl
75
Ex. 13. The text tells what happens to people in the developing world
who get access to Western diets. Can you compare it with what
might happen to Western people who wouldn’t be able to have
a Western diet, for example, in a remote village in A frica?
For a long time people in the developing world have been
made ill from becoming partly westernized. Some of the cases
personify the greatest fear of well-meaning Western aid workers:
the fear of hoping to do some good and instead making a mess
of it. An example: A nomadic tribe perpetually wanders through
a howling desert, searching daily for water for their goats and
camels. A puddle of stagnant water here or there is all that saves
them and their livestock from destruction. Obvious solution: haul
in some drilling equipment and make these folks a well. Expected
outcome: no need to wander the desert anymore, plenty of water
in one convenient location. Unexpected additional outcome:
76
the animals eat every leaf and tuft of grass for miles around, and
the high density of animals and their owners now encamped
around the well enable communicable diseases to spread through
herds and human populations with great speed and virulence.
Result: desertification, pandemics. Moral: don’t encourage Western
centralization of resources until you have Western resistance to
diseases that arise in dense populations.
Sometimes people in the developing world become ill from
partial westernization because their bodies do not work the same
way westernized bodies do. Think about subsistence farmers eking
out a living on their few tropical acres, or nomadic pastoralists
wandering the equatorial grasslands or deserts with their herds.
Food and water are often scarce and unpredictable. Salt, essential
for life and found in low levels in most foods other than meat,
is something to trade riches for. In a few hundred generations
bodies become mighty efficient at making use of such treasures.
What happens when people in the developing world suddenly get
access to Western diets, when the newly emerging middle class of
the Third World gets to luxuriate in tap water and supermarkets
stocked with processed sugars, a chicken in every pot and a salt
shaker on every dinner table? Bodies that retain every bit of glucose
and salt now get into big trouble. The price of a Western lifestyle
is an increased risk of stomach ulcers.
Africa is a basket case, to the endless despair of those who
have lived there and love it and its people. Find its corners that
are still untouched by the maelstroms of this century, and the
villagers thrive with wondrous skill and inventiveness. But much
of the rest of the continent is a disaster — AIDS, malaria
and protein malnutrition; deforestation and desertification; fuel
shortages and power outages; intertribal clashes, numbing shuff les
of military dictatorships and corrupt officials. Western economic
manipulation, toxic pesticides dumped there because they are too
dangerous to be legal in the West; decades of homelands turned
into battlegrounds for proxy superpower wars.
Strong and pragmatic observations have been made about
the malaise of the developing world. The observers view the
economic problems of Africa as one of partial westernization.
They write: “We borrowed the profit motive of the West but not
the entrepreneurial spirit. We borrowed the acquisitive appetites
of capitalism but not the creative risk-taking. We are at home
with Western gadgets but are bewildered by Western workshops.
Unit Two
AGRICULTURE
We wear the wristwatch but refuse to watch it for the culture of
punctuality. We have learnt to parade in display, but not to drill
in discipline. The West’s consumption patterns have arrived, but
not necessarily the West’s technique of production.” So the people
are very often lost between the new world they have not quite yet
8
joined and the traditional one they can never return to
a tuft of grass пучок травы; virulence [!virjuləns] сила, ожесточ¸нность;
pandemics повальные эпидемические заболевания; to eke [i:k] out a
living перебиваться кое-как; a pastoralist [!p
[!glu:kous] глюкоза; ulcer [!
рот (жизни); protein [!prouti:n] белок; deforestation обесл
рубка леса; power outage [!autid
a basket case трудноизлечимый случай; malaise [m
gadget техническая новинка.
lsə] ÿçâà; maelstrom [!meilstroum] водово
‚] перебой в подаче электроэнергии;
ɑ:stərəlist] скотовод; glucose
.
Jсение, вы
!leiz] болезнь;
Ex. 14. Debate on the following topics. Keep the conversation going
in a round table framework.
1. Farming in different countries (speak on any country you like).
2. Irrigation and water problems in dry areas of the world.
3. Soil fertility and the ways to maintain it.
4. Basic food in different parts of the world.
5. Food security and food crises. The reasons and ways out of
the situation.
6. Genetic modification and cloning.
77
-
-
Unit Three
TRADE AND INVESTMENT
I. At the turn of the 20th century, agriculture and manufacturing
were the two most important sectors almost everywhere. Together,
they accounted for about 70% of total output in Germany, Italy
and France, and 40—50% in America, Britain and Japan.
International commerce was therefore dominated by raw materials,
such as wheat, wood and iron ore, or processed commodities,
such as meat and steel. In 1900 “crude materials ” and “crude
food” made up 41% of America’s exports, by value, and 45%
of its imports. The story in Britain was similar. Basic materials
and foodstuffs, both processed and unprocessed, accounted for
75% of imports and 20% of exports. Over time, however, world
output has shifted into more valuable finished manufactured
goods, and now they, not raw commodities, dominate the f low
of trade.
Measured by the volume of imports and exports, the world
economy has become increasingly integrated in the years since
the Second World War. A fall in barriers to trade has helped
stimulate this growth. The volume of world merchandise trade is
now about 16 times what it was in 1950, while the world’s total
output is only five-and-a-half times as big. The ratio of world
exports to GDP has climbed from 7% to 15%.
National economies are undoubtedly becoming steadily more
integrated as cross-border f lows of trade, investment and financial
capital increase. Consumers are buying more foreign goods, a
growing number of firms now operate across national borders,
and savers are investing more than ever before in far-f lung
places.
International trade has been growing at a startling pace. While
the global economy has been expanding at a bit over 3% a year,
the volume of trade has been rising at a compound annual rate
of about twice that. In 1997 some $5.2 trillion of goods was sent
from one country to another, up from $2 trillion a decade earlier.
Foreign products, from meat to machinery, play a more important
TRADE AND INVESTMENT
role in almost every economy in the world, and foreign markets
now tempt businesses that never much worried about sales beyond
their nation’s borders.
II. To economists, the real benefits of trade lie in importing
rather than in exporting. Politicians frequently urge consumers
to favour domestically made goods, and portray a widening trade
deficit as a bad thing. But economists know that the only reason
for exporting is to earn the wherewithal to import. They say that
the benefit which is derived from exchanging one commodity
for another, arises, in all cases, from the commodity received,
not the commodity given. This benefit arises even if one country
can make everything better and more cheaply than all others.
The basic theory that explains this is the principle of comparative
advantage.
According to this theory countries should specialize in making
the products that they are particularly good at making, and should
buy import products that other countries are better at making.
The principle of comparative advantage also says that total
output will be greatest when each good is produced by that nation
which has the lower cost. Japan, for example, has a large and
well-educated labour force; skilled labour is abundant and therefore
cheap. Hence, Japan can produce efficiently (at low cost ) a variety
of labour-intensive goods whose production requires much skilled
labour. In contrast, Australia has vast amounts of land in
comparison with its human and capital resources and hence can
cheaply produce such land-intensive commodities as wheat, wool,
and meat. Brazil possesses the soil, tropical climate, rainfall, and
ample supplies of unskilled labour requisite to the efficient low-cost
production of coffee. Industrially advanced nations can produce
cheaply a variety of capital-intensive goods, for example automobiles,
agricultural equipment, machinery, and chemicals. So Japan has
a comparative advantage in labour-intensive goods, and it should
specialize in the production of cameras, video recorders, and
consumer electronics. Australia should specialize in wheat, wool
and meat production, Brazil — in coffee production and industrially
advanced nations — in capital-intensive goods.
At first blush, real-world trade patterns would seem to challenge
the theory of comparative advantage. Most trade occurs between
countries which do not have huge cost differences. America’s biggest
trading partner is Canada. Well over half the exports from France,
79
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]