I came across this headline in “Science News” recently: “Farm Life Turns Male Toads Female.” Here’s the skinny. Scientists at the University of Florida have found that toads living near agricultural sites–ranging from small farms to major agro-industrial complexes–tend to exhibit signs of intersexuality, as in having both male and female genitalia. Check out the article here.
To be sure, toads not living near farms aren’t faring particularly well. Scientists have known for a while that frog and toad populations are under huge pressure from urbanization, agriculture and many other forces. Entire frog and toad populations have disappeared. Others have manifested bizarre malformations like extra and/or missing limbs.
It’s not clear exactly what’s brining such misery upon our hopping and croaking cousins. But at least in the case of the farm toads, a likely culprit is atrazine–a weed killer used in abundance by Florida sugar cane farmers.
Now, a big part of the problem of male toads turning partly female is that the transformation renders the sterile, putting the kibosh on future toad generations.
But there’s another, larger angle here. The ways in which chemical runoff from farms can alter the very DNA of toads and possibly other species is another example of how human activity can affect the natural world, usually not for the better. We now know that huge tracts of ocean have been polluted by human waste. Air pollution in big cities like Olympic host Beijing is legion. Forest clearing and over-farming leads directly to soil erosion.
I bring this up because in the past few weeks I’ve gotten into several intense arguments about global warming and the role that humans play in heating the globe. Faced with the accusation that global warming is a “hoax” or that planetary warming is merely part of a natural cycle, I admit that I often get too angry and flummoxed to mount a convincing and reasonable defense. It doesn’t help that while many scientists agree that human activity plays a significant role in global warming, it’s not so clear what the consequences of the warming may be. It also doesn’t help that, at least so far, we haven’t observed or experienced firsthand many (or any) of these possible consequences.
But reading about the poor, gender confused toads has helped clarify the issue for me. We’re surrounded on all sides by evidence of how human activity alters the planet. So why is it so implausible that the burning of fossil fuels has changed the composition of the atmosphere in such a way as to increase temperatures on the ground? And is it really so far-fetched to surmise that such warming could have dire consequences?
There’s a large faction of people out there–several of whom I’ve had run-ins with in the past few weeks) that seem to want to deny or ignore human responsibility when it comes to stewardship of the planet. Global climate is a complex thing, and it’s certainly difficult to predict how CO2 or any other emission will affect things in the long term. But for those who, for whatever reasons, have closed their minds to the possibility that we play a role in global warming and that it poses a threat, please reconsider. At the very least, keep an open mind. At the very, very least, consider those unfortunate toads that had the misfortune to rub shoulders with human agriculture.
Interesting link between pesticides and birth defects among creatures who live in the dirt. What about the water supply beneath the fields (runoff)? I live next to a field and have well water. I am getting it tested for chemicals from pesticides after seeing double=headed dandelions, and giant weeds… we are responsible for hurting others by our actions, and government guarantees each of us life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others to the same.
The same trouble is brewing now over phalates. Hopefully Congress will ignore Mobil Exxon’s pleas for its continued use, and ban the stuff before many people’s right to life, liberty et al are taken away by the irresponsible use of toxins in the environment.
Thank you for your summary of the study - I thought at first it was going to be a pro-gay commentary!
Sincerely,
Kristen
Jeremy
I’m glad to hear that you believe, apparently, that we have stewardship over our planet - but WHO do you believe assigned us such a role? If we’re just a cosmic ‘accident’, and have no purpose or reason for existence, then how come we have ‘evolved’ such things as conscience, guilt, compassion, joy, sorrow, and all the many attributes that come under the heading of ‘feelings’? What ‘advantages’ does such evolution bestow upon us in the ‘fight for survival’? Survival is surely more efficiently achieved by the ‘conscience-free’. All who accept this philosophy of Naturalism have no basis on which to call for us to ‘take care of’ this amazing world that has come to ‘be’ purely by chance - if such be true, why on earth (pun intended) should we ‘worry’ what happens to it (and us, for that matter)? We are stewards because the Creator gave that responsibility to our original progenitors - He placed Adam in the garden of Eden “to dress it and to keep it” - in other words, look after it (after the ‘fall’, both he and Eve “tilled the ground”). If anyone can give me a better reason for our stewardship, I would certainly take notice. We are clearly in agreement that we have a duty to take care of planet Earth, but maybe we have differing motivations!
Keith Allen.