Consider this quote from Albert Einstein, physicist, 1921 Nobel Prize recipient:
"Nothing will . . . increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
Respond to this quote, using information from the 12th chapter. Do you agree with Einstein or not? (Note: I didn't say "do you want to be vegetarian" --- I simply asked if you think Einstein is right or wrong in this statement). In your response, think about how, given the information in this chapter, restaurants and other food service industries could better respond to the food challenges involved in feeding 8 billion people. What changes do you think they should make?
Be careful to quote, paraphrase, and cite correctly. Paragraph well. Do not use any sources except the information available in this chapter. Provide a correct reference at the end. Be sure to also write a response to one other person's writing.
33 comments:
Basically, I do not agree with what Einstein said because we need to have a heavy diet to maintain our nutrition. Without a doubt, most of the vegetarians do not have enough protein. Also, we have limited area and natural resources on our Earth. Even if all the people in the world are vegetarian, we need to produce as much as vegetable and grain to feed them. And it is impossible because the supply of vegetable is not enough to feed all the people in the world. Therefore, we need to eat meat. I know some people might think that eating animals is not moral. My point is that food is our basic element to survive. We need to maintain our life before talking about morality.
In the 12th Chapter, a lot of countries have increased the food production because of the population growth. “Between the agricultural census of 2002 and that of 2007, the number of farms increased by nearly 80,000 to roughly 2.2 million” (Brown, 2011, p.175). It is no doubt that we need to feed the babies once the babies were born, and increasing population is the trend in the world now; therefore, increasing the number of farms is the only solution to feed that 8 billion people in the world. Again, we have limited resources, and many countries have a serious problem of soil erosion because of over-farming. It is impossible for us to keep increasing the farm areas. So, we need to find some alternatives to maintain our life. The best thing is meat, which can help us to have balance nutrition.
Food shortage is a serious problem nowadays. Restaurants are food providers and they have responsibility to manage the food well. One of the good solutions is cancelling all the buffet meal. At most time, buffet wastes a lot of food. Also, people are not necessary to eat that much in one meal. As a result, canceling the buffet is feasible and this can reduce the food demand.
Reference
Brown, L. R. (2011). World on the Edge. New York: W.W. Norton.
I think Einstein is wrong in this statement. Even people eat with vegetarian diet; the chances of survival of life could still decrease. Vegetarian gets insufficient nutrients from eating only vegetable and grain. From our knowledge about food pyramid, we still need to eat meat such as chicken and fish to maintain our life. Also, being a vegetarian means eating no meat. If all of us become vegetarians, the number of livestock will increase dramatically. These livestock will still eat up part of our resources. As a result, not eating livestock doesn’t mean that we are surviving and saving our resources.
“Further gains in yields from plant breeding, even including genetic modification, do not come easily. Expanding the irrigated area is difficult. Returns on the use of additional fertilizer are diminishing in many countries” (Brown, 2011, p.167). It shows that with the increasing population, food shortage will be more likely to occur in different countries. Also, increasing food productivity is an obstacle to most of the countries. What restaurants and other food services industries should do, is to provide clear descriptions about how many people can be served from one order of dishes; for example, a Chinese restaurant can state that one order of orange chicken can serve two people. So, customers can estimate how many orders of orange chicken they need and this can reduce the problem of food waste. Besides, restaurants and other food services industries should import proper amount of food resources. For instance, Japanese restaurants may import large amount of fish in order to get a discount from suppliers. Nevertheless, it might not be possible for them to sell all of the fish in a short period of time. They might then throw these extra food resources away, because they need fresh fish to make sashimi. This is a serious problem of food waste which restaurants and other food industries should pay more attention to.
Reference
Brown, L. R. (2011). World on the Edge. New York: W.W. Norton.
In response to Kaman Poon’s comment, I totally agree with all the points she mentioned. We need to eat meat in order to maintain our health. Food shortage is the main issue nowadays. The issue cannot be solved even if all the people are vegetarians.
The solution that Kaman provides for restaurants is very good. From my personal experience, when I went out to have dinner with my friends, we always order more food than enough. It is not that we want to waste plenty of food, is that we don’t know how much food we need to make us full. So, restaurants provide clear descriptions can give me some ideas about how much food I need to order.
In response to Kingsley Wong’s comment, I like the idea of cancelling buffet in restaurants. Sometimes, people may think that it is not worth to pay that much for a buffet if they don’t eat as much as they can. However, people might get sick when they either eat too much or less, and it is totally a waste of food. Besides, I want to add some of my ideas on cancelling buffet. If restaurants really want to run their business with buffet, they can “punish” their customers if they took too much food but didn’t finish them all. By paying more for the leftovers, customers will consider taking proper amount of food and it can reduce food-wasting.
In response to Kingsley's comment, I have to seriously disagree that vegetarians cannot obtain enough protein to have a healthy diet. Fruits and vegetables themselves will not always contain complete proteins. However, with proper knowledge and education of what type of proteins each vegetable provides, a person can live with sufficient protein to sustain health.
Furthermore, I believe Kingsley missed a very important part of the chapter when it says that over 30% of the world's grain is used to feed livestock that are way less efficient in delivering our dietary needs. This fundamental fact is the basis for people who advocate for a more vegetarian diet.
In general, I agree with Einstein’s statement of vegetarian diet can increase chances for life survives on Earth. Overfishing can be one of the examples. Demand of fish is high and this is the reason why overfishing occurs. Overfishing affects Ocean’s ecosystem seriously. If the amount of one species decreases, it will affect the whole food chain in an ecosystem. Overfishing will also lead one species to become endangered. That species are not only endangered, but also another species, which below or above its food chain, will also face the same problem. In the worst situation, the whole ecosystem will be destroyed.
Self-sufficiency is one of the best ways to solve food problems. “While people in developing countries are focusing on moving up the food chain, in many industrial countries there is a growing interest in fresh, locally produced foods”(Brown, 2011, p.175). Brown points out that if one country can produce enough food for itself, imports foods from other countries are not necessary.
Stop eating endangered spices is also the way to deal with food problems. Due to overfishing, many marine lifes become an endangered species, and it destroys the ocean’s ecosystem seriously. In China, many restaurants serve endangered species, especially shark fin. However, shark fin has no taste, but eating shark fin is one of the Chinese traditional cultures. I suggest that all restaurants should not put endangered species into their menu and stop serving them as a food. We also need to prevent eating endangered species.
Reference
Brown, L,R. (2011). World on the edge. New York : W.W. NORTON.
In response to Karman Poon’s comment, I have a problem about what you are saying in your comment. Can you explain why the chances of survival of life could still decrease; even people eat vegetarian diet? Are you talking about they are unrelated? As I know Japan is a pretty economize country. Their restaurant will not throw the extra food resources away. They will use extra food to make other things, such as soup, fired rice and some other cuisine. However, the food is not fresh, but it still eatable, they will donate them to Nursing Home or Retirement home.
Albert Einstein’s quote "Nothing will . . . increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet” is not an empty assumption, but is based on concrete scientific proof. The energy requirements to raise livestock for human consumption uses 35% of the grain produced in the world (Brown, 2011, p.172). Instead, humans could consume these grain products and extract the nutrients eight times more efficiently then eating meat. Food industries throughout the world must recognize that their current model for food production is unsustainable for a population that will quickly approach 8 billion people.
The food industry in North America is especially guilty for the promotion of a meat based diet over a vegetarian diet. Advertisements for major restaurant chains such as McDonalds and Burger King promote the consumption and enjoyment of meat over vegetarian options. Meat food items are glorified in their advertisements depicting the juiciness and tenderness of the product. Rarely are the advertisements showing how great their vegetarian options are, and this contributes to the preference of meat.
Therefore, I believe the change to a vegetarian diet must start with a conscious effort from the major players of the food industry to promote vegetarian options in their advertisements. As consumers become more aware that vegetarian options can be as delicious as meat alternative, a vegetarian based diet will be more attainable. Feeding 8 billion will require new direction, and the major players of the food industry can lead the way towards sustainable food choices.
Reference
Brown, L,R. (2011). World on the edge. New York : W.W. NORTON.
In general, I do not agree with Einstein’s statement about to be a vegetarian is an increase chance to survival of life on Earth. The fact is although people eat vegetarian diet everyday, the food scarcity problem still exist. The current situation is that food supply cannot feed every mouth on Earth. As the population growth is rapid, scientists use technology to increase the cropland productivity. However, after several decades, the land is becoming infertile and now is “more difficult to raise land productivity” (Brown, 2011, p. 166). Population is growing, but the land productivity is stopping or reducing.
To get sufficient nutrients for our body, we need eat both vegetarian and meat diets. Brown (2011) says to produce animal protein more efficiently; more land and water productivity will be got (p. 172). However, to solve the food challenges in the world, I think many people need to change their food habit and dietary concept. Do not just focus on few main species of food. Balance nutrition is very important for us. For instance, many Chinese people consider that the import vegetables and fruits are more nutritious than local food. Actually my mother always tells me that eating local food is healthier than imports. I believe one reason of food scarcity in some countries is that large parts of harvest are exported to other countries. As a result, the left parts of harvest cannot feed the whole population. One way to solve this problem is schools should educate people how to eat in a healthy way to survive longer. China need improve in this part, because I find many Chinese people resolutely believe all imports are better than local food. The government and food market should change their point to buy local food instead of imports. The local food is fresher and more nutritious. Therefore, reducing the requirement of import food can help more people in that export country have chance to eat their local food. The food scarcity problem will alleviate.
Reference
Brown, L. R. (2011). World on the Edge. New York: W.W. Norton.
I am personally not a vegetarian at this point but I somewhat agree with Einstein’s quote, “Nothing will... increase chance for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution o a vegetarian diet”(1921). According to a book I am reading, “world consumption of animal protein is everywhere on the rise”(Brown, 2011, p. 172). It basically means we grow more and more animals and kill them for our consumption. However, I believe that more people start consuming animal meat, more people will end up noticing the importance of animal right. Then those noticed the importance will start feeling some affinity for vegetarians who believe the importance of animal right.
In addition to that, I think people who have better understanding of animal right more likely to concern about themselves and others at the same time, compared to those who only care about themselves. I also think those accomplished people will end up addressing not only animal right but also other problem such as environmental, health, and food security concerns. Those problems are one of the most serious problems today. However, there are many who is refusing to solve those problems for their benefit. Thanks to them, our world is getting more and more serious condition. Perhaps, my reasoning could be translated in to Einstein’s quote. In order to avoid the worst case scenario of our life on earth, we need to spread the idea of vegetarian. To do so the collaboration with food industry must be necessary.
Reference
Brown, L. R. (2011). World on the Edge. New York: W.W. Norton.
In response to Ki Wong’s comment, I do not agree with his point of vegetarian diet can increase chances for life survives. However I agree with his idea about self-sufficiency is one of the best ways to solve food scarcity. The cropland productivity is difficult to raise now and home gardening is a way of self-sufficiency. The government could provide playgrounds and parks for community gardens. This can improve vegetables and fruits growing operations and the production of food will rise.
In response to Karman Poon’s comment, I slightly disagree with you. First of all, we Japanese do not always eat fresh sashimi. We can always refrigerate and use it later for something else but I agree with you the fact that Japan wastes so much food. Secondly, I think you might have misunderstood Einstein’s quote. It simply explaining the more vegetarians the more likely to increase chances for survival of life on Earth. He is not talking about the nutrition fact here and not even asking us to stop eating meat right away.
“Nothing will… increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet” (Einstein, 1921). Einstein is saying that expansion of vegetarian diet gives chances to people in the world to survive on earth. I think this is a wrong statement because all people in the world cannot be vegetarians, and variety of foods gives us healthy life. Moreover, we eat meats for our consumption. Also, if suppose that all people in the world eat vegetables, we also need huge agricultures and farmers. However, for example, my country, South Korea, the number of people employed in agriculture has fallen in the last decade. Moreover, according to Brown (2011), “The minister of agriculture alone, no matter how competent, can no longer be expected to secure food supplies” (p. 178). We should secure our food supplies to survive on earth. That’s why we eat variety of foods, vegetables, meats, sea foods, etc. Also, increasing vegetarian diet will cause shortage of water, land and famers, especially food supplies. In addition, even though all people in the world are not vegetarians, we need huge agricultures because of growing population these days. However, developing agriculture is limited because good lands’ condition for agriculture is limited. Therefore, I think vegetarian diet is not a good way to survive on earth for us.
Reference
Brown, L. R. (2011). World on the Edge. New York: W.W. Norton.
In response to Wong’s comment, I totally agree with Wong’s opinion that vegetable is not enough to feed all the people in the world. I also think that if all people in the world eat vegetables, we cannot secure our food supplies. Increasing vegetarian diet will cause food scarcity because land and water for agriculture is limited. Also, my country, South Korea, the number of people employed in agriculture has fallen in the last decade. Therefore, increasing vegetarian diet will not be a good way to survive on earth. Also, Wong said that the best thing for maintaining our life is meat, but I think meat is not the best. I think we should balance our food consumption to live healthier, and secure our food supplies.
In order to feed 8 billion people in the world, many countries use different method to boost the productivity of grain. There are several outstanding ways like soil moisture, breeding crops, corn-wheat double cropping and nitrogen fixing (Brown, 2011, p.168-169). Although all of these methods double and triple the grain productivity, these shows limit because of the water shortage. People have tried network canals that deliver water from dam but it shows low efficiency because of water runoff and evaporation (Brown, 2011, p.170). Furthermore, people lose their crops and land by soil erosion which usually cause by over farming. Although people afford of increasing grain productivity, these are not enough to feed 8 billion people. Only way to fulfill the increasing demands of food productivity was “meat consumption” (Brown, 2011, p.172). Fish, beef, pork, and egg are replenishment of grain.
I disagree with the Einstein statement because people are already starting to replace the grain shortage with meats. If the population and food demands are keep increasing, it is impossible to lead people to eat only vegetables. Since world is facing water shortage, producing animal proteins are efficient way to save large quantity of grain product (Brown, 2011, p.172).
Moreover, food industries need changed of serving. If people are share food required amount many people can be saved. Developed counties’ food demands of per person are higher than poor countries. It is because there are enough foods for cheap prices. If governments in developed countries increase the food price then the demand of food will be decreased and these remain foods can be exported to other countries. In this way, people can share the food globally.
Reference
Brown, L. R. (2011). World on the Edge. New York: W.W. Norton.
I disagree to the Kingsley Wong comment that meat is only protein. I believe that tofu which is originally from the bean has a lot of protein. However, I agree that people need the meat products to feed all the people in the world. I actually think that making penalties on wasting food is great idea to save food product but there will be issue people enjoy food and worry about penalty all the time.
PART A:
To sum up Einstein’s statement of evolution to a vegetarian diet will increase chances for survival of life on earth, I agree with him in some substances. However, I think the problem is not as critical as it sounds like, and the situation would only approach depends on the countries’ culture or eating habit. For example, for some religion countries that have depended on grains too much, the statement did not approach. But take a look at some countries such as United States with large variety of people who have a habit in eating meat; they also end up having the same issues with using too much grain, by using those to feed animals. Here, the statement approached.
As Brown (2011) states in the book, “world consumption of animal protein is everywhere on the rise” (p.172). There is an important point that for some countries, not many people can turns into a vegetarian and live without meat at all. In United States, it is fair to say we can see restaurants and fast foods are mostly using meat in their products. “An American living high on the food chain with a diet heavy in grain-intensive livestock products, including red meat, consumes twice as much grain as the average Italian and nearly four times as much as the average Indian. Adopting a Mediterranean diet can cut the grain foot-print of Americans roughly in half, reducing carbon emissions accordingly” (Brown, 2011, p.178). In this situation, evolution to a vegetarian diet can inversely increase the grains, which I think is a win-win situation with people getting healthier and less waste on grains; at least have better use of it.
PART B:
Although this evolution might bring advantages to some countries, it does not seem to apply in other countries that have special religions of not eating meats. It is hard to change people’s eating habit once it comes to religions, the only way we can solve the scarce of cropland problem is to focus on the fundamentals, which is to increase the land productivity. ”In summary, while grain production is falling in some countries, either because of unfolding water shortages or spreading soil erosion, the overwhelming majority of nations still have a substantial unrealized production potential. The challenge is for each country to fashion agricultural and economic policies to realize that potential” (Brown, 2011, pp. 171-72). I believe there are still many potentials exist in lots of countries, if they could discovered the right way to manage it, such as the use of water and animal protein, raising cropland production will not be hard for them.
In conclusion, to better manage the food security with challenges in feeding 8 billions of people, I would suggest restaurants and other food service industries in the United States to produce more vegetarian diet choices to people, instead of making more meaty products with grain-intensive livestock; farmers could try to develop something new to replace the grain while producing animal protein, or try to use crop residues; government should try to instill more knowledge to people about these kind of situation, and control the level of use of water and grain. For the countries that have problems with too many vegetarian diets, I think they should basically focus on the potential of rising land production. Perhaps, maybe they can also educate the new generation people about balancing the food security by changing eating habits.
Reference:
Brown, L,R. (2011). World on the edge. New York : W.W. NORTON.
In response to Shirley Lau's post, I strongly agree on her views and the point of restaurants' promotion on meat based diet. Media phenomenon has always creating a trend to society, advertisements do affect our society a lot these days, and it is talking about bringing people huge influences. The misleading messages can be easily brought to people, especially children. When food scarcity and cropland production are reducing, using huge amount of grain to produce animal protein is definitely wrong thing to do. Restaurants and food services got to react on some of these issues not only based on the waste on grain, but the health problem also since people are having more obesity problems nowadays.
I have to agree with this all-time stellar physicist on this matter. A vegetarian diet though sounds as awful as not eating at all to most people, is a savior to the environment and a resolution to our current food shortage issue. “With some 35 percent of the world grain harvest (760 million tons) used to produce animal protein, even modest reduction in meat consumption or gain in efficiency can save a large quantity of grain” (Brown, 2010, P. 172). In other words, because of our inefficiency of utilize the world grain harvest, we actually are risking our food security.
Although making changes scares people, the decreasing consumption of meat may be inevitable if the outcome of increasing food security is to be expected. The problem can be solved if the government takes its leading role in raising the tax on meat products. Despite initial reluctance to change, the difference to be made shall be seen.
Brown, L. R. (2011). World on the edge: How to prevent environmental and economic collapse. New York, NY: W W Norton & Co Inc.
In response to Shirley Lau, I agree with you that difference should be made though the change may seem somewhat ambiguous at this point. Whether or not people can survive with meat consumption, however, is something that is more subjective. Anyhow, I personally cannot imagine life with just veggies, and yet, feel the urge that the world is at the stage where if business stays as usual, sooner or later, our environment is not going to pull through the horrible situation. Therefore, I have to say I am somewhat skeptical if the idea of having an entire vegetarian diet is really a tasteful resolution to the issue but feel we should at least put some efforts by taking some little steps first.
Part 1
Einstein’s statement proves yet again, that he is ahead of his time. While I am an omnivore, I see the wisdom behind his attributing a vegetarian diet towards increasing the chances of survival on Earth. Moreover, in recognizing that Einstein’s comment was made in a context that is dramatically different from today’s world, it is important to consider how the information from chapter 12 works to validate Einstein’s comment and offers a piece of the solution to consider for moving forward.
There are several facts that we all know and readily accept. First, the world’s population is expected to inflate to a remarkable population size. Second, more people, means a greater need for food. And finally, if look at the food equation involving meat, feed, which requires valuable resources to grow, harvest, and transport to market, must be grown in order to feed livestock in order to feed humans. This food chain, regardless of your position on this subject, is more inefficient than growing vegetables for consumption, which only requires two major steps. Chapter 12 from our text verifies this in its explaining that worldwide meat consumption increased from 272 million tons in 1950 to nearly double that in 2009 (Brown, 2011, p.172). Naturally, the doubling livestock raised for consumption requires that enough food must be grown to raise livestock in demand. Land that could be cultivated to grow crops for human consumption is instead being used to grow feed for animals. Amazingly, as described in the text, it takes seven pounds of grain to grow one pound of beef (Brown, 2011, p.173). Though chicken, pork, and farm raised fish require a much smaller ratio, the collective world demand for these food sources, again it has nearly doubled within the last 60 years or so, means that an astounding amount of crops is being dedicated towards raising meat for consumers. In fact, Brown (2011) explains that 174 million tons of soybeans are grown to create a high protein feed for raising meat (p.175). It is clear that as the world’s population continues to increase as projected and without changing global diets, demand for meat and the subsequent use of water and land being converted over for yielding feed cannot be sustainable.
There’s another reason that Einstein’s comments support some of the arguments made in chapter 12. Food scientists and engineers have been able to modify staple crops, such as wheat and corn, so that their yields are much greater and more efficient. Brown (2011) explains that this is achieved with crops are engineered so that they are much smaller than original strains of the same crop, which means that the plant uses less energy on the stock and leafy parts of the plant and instead, delivers more energy to the desired parts that we consume (p.165). Because vegetable and fruit strains can be manipulates to create more resource efficient crops, such as Kansas’ wheat strains, while also delivering greater yields for farmers, vegetables and fruit are an important link towards feeding the current and future global population. The same increased efficiency cannot be said for meat sources. Livestock need food to grow and to grow larger, they must eat more food. When livestock eat food that has been tampered or contains chemicals, they can become sick, which creates a health hazard for humans. While crops can be grown in a set space and their yields can vary, only a limited number of livestock can be raised in a certain amount of space and when these limits are pushed, the health of the livestock suffers creating inhumane conditions and significant health risks for livestock and humans. In short, because fruits and vegetables can be grown effectively in limited space and strains can be developed to improve yields, these valuable plants are an important solution to the future food dilemma.
In summary, Einstein’s statement is simple and hard to argue against, upon further consideration. Meat requires feed which requires its own resources to be grow. While meat requires more steps before it ends up on our plates, plants are cheaper and more resource friendly to grow and deliver to consumers.
Resources
Brown, L.R. (2011). World on the edge. Norton, NY: Earth Policy Institute.
In response to Kingsley Wong’s post and with all due respect, I think that some of your counter opinions are just that, opinions, and are not factual statements. For example, you mentioned that most vegetarians do not get enough protein in their diet, but how do you know this? Are there multiple research articles that support your opinion? More importantly, do you know if there are plants that are high in protein? I currently know of several vegetables and beans that are excellent sources of protein and more importantly, our bodies can metabolize these sources of protein more efficiently than many meat sources. One of the other arguments that you present in your post is that if all the people in the world were vegetarians, then we still could not be able to produce enough to feed them. Yet, under this same line of thinking, if everyone around the world were to eat meat on a regular basis, would not there be much less food available? Remember, meat requires feed to grow. More land must be converted into farming protein rich feed sources in order to grow meat, which means that more resources are converted into raising livestock than into raising vegetables and fruit. Hypothetically, what if all of the land that was dedicated to growing feed for livestock was converted into growing vegetables, legumes, and fruit? Would not there be a lot more food? Remember, it takes seven pounds of grain to grow one pound of beef (Brown, 2011, p.173). One pound of apples or oranges ends up being one pound at market. I am an omnivore just like you. I think that if we were to cut out sources of meat that required a lot of gain to grow, then it could make a significant impact.
I do understand Einstein’s comment since food security is one of our serious problems due to soil erosion, losing land productivity, and water shortage as time goes on. However, I would not agree with him that there will be no changes to solve this problem unless we eat only vegetables. As Brown mentioned, many countries are putting a lot of efforts to develop or invent our agriculture technologies for food production. There are many ways we can do if we really care about this issue such as simultaneous planting of grain and nitrogen-fixing leguminous tress, breeding drought/cold-tolerant crops, or building dams to deliver water to farmers. Personally, I think farmer’s role is very important. Many people tend to live in urban areas and disregard farmers. They simply do not know how farmers are important them, however, we all can’t live without having farmers. This general tendency and difficult conditions to live as a farmer made people to think about urban life. To feed 8 billion people, food service industries need to really care about our agriculture technologies along with life in farm. We also need our government’s attention to make better living condition for farmers. Brown (2011) says, “We all have a role to play as individuals. Whether we decide to bike, bus, or drive to work will affect carbon emissions, climate change, and food security” (p. 180). I strongly agree with this comment since these problems are all connected, and we could improve all these problems simply from our littler concerns and efforts.
References
Brown, L. R. (2011). World on the Edge. New York: W.W. Norton.
In response to Suyoeng Chung’s comment, I do agree with her that all of us can’t be vegetarian, and we certainly need various foods for our health. However, as she said, I do not think Einstein is saying that we should be vegetarian. I think the point of his comment is about it will be hard to survive as time goes on due to food shortage unless we would be vegetarian. So, I do not really think Einstein pointed out this issue wrong and just disagree with him for now since we can still develop our technologies to solve this problem.
Post a Comment