UPSC Exam > UPSC Questions > Passage IIChemical pesticides lose their role...
Start Learning for Free
Passage II
Chemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population.
This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene.
If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, - if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable – then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent.
Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests – pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests.
Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests – pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests.
Q. Though the problems associated with the use of chemical pesticides is known for a long time, their widespread use has not waned. Why?
- a)Alternatives to chemical pesticides do not exist at all.
- b)New pesticides are not invented at all.
- c)Pesticides are biodegradable.
- d)None of the statements a), b) and c) given above is correct.
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
| FREE This question is part of | Download PDF Attempt this Test |
Verified Answer
Passage IIChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agricultu...
Solution: d) The actual answer is there in the last paragraph: “Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'.”So, none of the options are correct.
Most Upvoted Answer
Passage IIChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agricultu...
Reasons for the continued widespread use of chemical pesticides:
1. Lack of alternatives: One of the primary reasons for the continued use of chemical pesticides is the lack of effective alternatives. While efforts are being made to develop and promote alternative pest control methods, such as integrated pest management, organic farming practices, and biological control, these methods may not always be as effective or readily available as chemical pesticides.
2. Continuous development of new pesticides: Despite the known issues with pesticide resistance and environmental impact, the agricultural industry continues to invest in the development of new pesticides. This ongoing research and innovation in pesticide technology ensure that new, more effective pesticides are constantly being introduced to the market, maintaining the appeal of chemical pesticides for farmers.
3. Economic benefits: The cost-benefit ratio of using chemical pesticides often favors their use for individual agricultural producers. In countries like the USA, the economic benefits derived from using pesticides can outweigh the costs, making them a financially attractive option for farmers.
4. Emergency situations: In many cases, especially in poorer countries facing the threat of mass starvation or epidemic diseases, the immediate need to protect crops and ensure food security may outweigh the long-term concerns associated with pesticide use. In such situations, the social and health costs of not using pesticides may be considered too high to ignore.
In conclusion, while the problems associated with chemical pesticides are well-known, their widespread use persists due to the lack of viable alternatives, continuous development of new pesticides, economic benefits for farmers, and the necessity of ensuring food security in emergency situations.
1. Lack of alternatives: One of the primary reasons for the continued use of chemical pesticides is the lack of effective alternatives. While efforts are being made to develop and promote alternative pest control methods, such as integrated pest management, organic farming practices, and biological control, these methods may not always be as effective or readily available as chemical pesticides.
2. Continuous development of new pesticides: Despite the known issues with pesticide resistance and environmental impact, the agricultural industry continues to invest in the development of new pesticides. This ongoing research and innovation in pesticide technology ensure that new, more effective pesticides are constantly being introduced to the market, maintaining the appeal of chemical pesticides for farmers.
3. Economic benefits: The cost-benefit ratio of using chemical pesticides often favors their use for individual agricultural producers. In countries like the USA, the economic benefits derived from using pesticides can outweigh the costs, making them a financially attractive option for farmers.
4. Emergency situations: In many cases, especially in poorer countries facing the threat of mass starvation or epidemic diseases, the immediate need to protect crops and ensure food security may outweigh the long-term concerns associated with pesticide use. In such situations, the social and health costs of not using pesticides may be considered too high to ignore.
In conclusion, while the problems associated with chemical pesticides are well-known, their widespread use persists due to the lack of viable alternatives, continuous development of new pesticides, economic benefits for farmers, and the necessity of ensuring food security in emergency situations.
Attention UPSC Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed UPSC study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in UPSC.
|
Explore Courses for UPSC exam
|
|
Top Courses for UPSCView all
Passage IIChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population.This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene.If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, - if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable – then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent.Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests – pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests.Q. Though the problems associated with the use of chemical pesticides is known for a long time, their widespread use has not waned. Why?a)Alternatives to chemical pesticides do not exist at all.b)New pesticides are not invented at all.c)Pesticides are biodegradable.d)None of the statements a), b) and c) given above is correct.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Passage IIChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population.This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene.If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, - if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable – then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent.Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests – pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests.Q. Though the problems associated with the use of chemical pesticides is known for a long time, their widespread use has not waned. Why?a)Alternatives to chemical pesticides do not exist at all.b)New pesticides are not invented at all.c)Pesticides are biodegradable.d)None of the statements a), b) and c) given above is correct.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for UPSC 2024 is part of UPSC preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the UPSC exam syllabus. Information about Passage IIChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population.This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene.If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, - if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable – then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent.Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests – pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests.Q. Though the problems associated with the use of chemical pesticides is known for a long time, their widespread use has not waned. Why?a)Alternatives to chemical pesticides do not exist at all.b)New pesticides are not invented at all.c)Pesticides are biodegradable.d)None of the statements a), b) and c) given above is correct.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for UPSC 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Passage IIChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population.This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene.If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, - if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable – then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent.Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests – pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests.Q. Though the problems associated with the use of chemical pesticides is known for a long time, their widespread use has not waned. Why?a)Alternatives to chemical pesticides do not exist at all.b)New pesticides are not invented at all.c)Pesticides are biodegradable.d)None of the statements a), b) and c) given above is correct.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Passage IIChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population.This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene.If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, - if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable – then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent.Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests – pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests.Q. Though the problems associated with the use of chemical pesticides is known for a long time, their widespread use has not waned. Why?a)Alternatives to chemical pesticides do not exist at all.b)New pesticides are not invented at all.c)Pesticides are biodegradable.d)None of the statements a), b) and c) given above is correct.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for UPSC 2024 is part of UPSC preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the UPSC exam syllabus. Information about Passage IIChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population.This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene.If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, - if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable – then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent.Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests – pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests.Q. Though the problems associated with the use of chemical pesticides is known for a long time, their widespread use has not waned. Why?a)Alternatives to chemical pesticides do not exist at all.b)New pesticides are not invented at all.c)Pesticides are biodegradable.d)None of the statements a), b) and c) given above is correct.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for UPSC 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Passage IIChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population.This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene.If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, - if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable – then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent.Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests – pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests.Q. Though the problems associated with the use of chemical pesticides is known for a long time, their widespread use has not waned. Why?a)Alternatives to chemical pesticides do not exist at all.b)New pesticides are not invented at all.c)Pesticides are biodegradable.d)None of the statements a), b) and c) given above is correct.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Passage IIChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population.This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene.If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, - if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable – then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent.Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests – pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests.Q. Though the problems associated with the use of chemical pesticides is known for a long time, their widespread use has not waned. Why?a)Alternatives to chemical pesticides do not exist at all.b)New pesticides are not invented at all.c)Pesticides are biodegradable.d)None of the statements a), b) and c) given above is correct.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for UPSC.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for UPSC Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Passage IIChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population.This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene.If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, - if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable – then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent.Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests – pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests.Q. Though the problems associated with the use of chemical pesticides is known for a long time, their widespread use has not waned. Why?a)Alternatives to chemical pesticides do not exist at all.b)New pesticides are not invented at all.c)Pesticides are biodegradable.d)None of the statements a), b) and c) given above is correct.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of
Passage IIChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population.This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene.If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, - if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable – then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent.Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests – pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests.Q. Though the problems associated with the use of chemical pesticides is known for a long time, their widespread use has not waned. Why?a)Alternatives to chemical pesticides do not exist at all.b)New pesticides are not invented at all.c)Pesticides are biodegradable.d)None of the statements a), b) and c) given above is correct.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Passage IIChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population.This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene.If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, - if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable – then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent.Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests – pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests.Q. Though the problems associated with the use of chemical pesticides is known for a long time, their widespread use has not waned. Why?a)Alternatives to chemical pesticides do not exist at all.b)New pesticides are not invented at all.c)Pesticides are biodegradable.d)None of the statements a), b) and c) given above is correct.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Passage IIChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population.This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene.If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, - if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable – then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent.Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests – pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests.Q. Though the problems associated with the use of chemical pesticides is known for a long time, their widespread use has not waned. Why?a)Alternatives to chemical pesticides do not exist at all.b)New pesticides are not invented at all.c)Pesticides are biodegradable.d)None of the statements a), b) and c) given above is correct.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an
ample number of questions to practice Passage IIChemical pesticides lose their role in sustainable agriculture if the pests evolve resistance. The evolution of the pesticide resistance is simply natural selection in action. It is almost certain to occur when vast numbers of a genetically variable population are killed. One or a few individuals may be unusually resistant (perhaps because they possess an enzyme that can detoxify the pesticide). If the pesticide is applied repeatedly, each successive generation of the pest will contain a larger proportion of resistant individuals. Pests typically have a high intrinsic rate of reproduction, and so a few individuals in one generation may give rise to hundreds or thousands in the next, and resistance spreads very rapidly in a population.This problem was often ignored in the past, even though the first case of DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) resistance was reported as early as 1946. There is an exponential increase in the numbers of invertebrates that have evolved resistance and in the number pesticides against which resistance has evolved. Resistance has been recorded in every family of arthropod pests (including dipterans such as mosquitoes and house flies, as well as beetles, moths, wasps, fleas, lice and mites) as well as in weeds and plant pathogens. Take the Alabama leaf worm, a moth pest of cotton, as an example. It has developed resistance in one or more regions of the world to aldrin, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, lindane and toxaphene.If chemical pesticides brought nothing but problems, - if their use was intrinsically and acutely unsustainable – then they would already have fallen out of widespread use. This has not happened. Instead, their rate of production has increased rapidly. The ratio of cost to benefit for the individual agricultural producer has remained in favour of pesticide use. In the USA, insecticides have been estimated to benefit the agricultural products to the tune of around $5 for every $1 spent.Moreover, in many poorer countries, the prospect of imminent mass starvation, or of an epidemic disease, are so frightening that the social and health costs of using pesticides have to be ignored. In general the use of pesticides is justified by objective measures such as 'lives saved', 'economic efficiency of food production' and 'total food produced'. In these very fundamental senses, their use may be described as sustainable. In practice, sustainability depends on continually developing new pesticides that keep at least one step ahead of the pests – pesticides that are less persistent, biodegradable and more accurately targeted at the pests.Q. Though the problems associated with the use of chemical pesticides is known for a long time, their widespread use has not waned. Why?a)Alternatives to chemical pesticides do not exist at all.b)New pesticides are not invented at all.c)Pesticides are biodegradable.d)None of the statements a), b) and c) given above is correct.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice UPSC tests.
|
|
Explore Courses for UPSC exam
|
|
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
Follow Us
|
Signup to see your scores
go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup