What is the Green Evolution and why did it not help end Hungry in the world. Will advanced biotech, by the same multi-nationals now do the TRICK?

Date:   9/1/2005 7:36:53 PM ( 19 y ago)

What is the Green Revoution?

it looked at the problem of food supply
and aimed to end hunger in the world
by increasing production of seeds
through chemical means.
Now these same companies
are the biotech giants and have
even better ideas for the starving
of the world asthey unfold ideas
for Green Revolution 2.

The Green Revolution
was a short term measure.
It helped in the short run, but
not in the long run.

The GMO Modest Proposal
to end hungry
brngs to mind
Johnathan Swift who recommened
in a satire (1729)
that Thee Irish, the poor of his day, earn
an income from breeding their children
for food.

Rather than The Green Revolution,
as Your Enchanted Gardener
I recommend investing in growing
the Enchanted Garden--
You call this Green Evolution.

I will give my proposal soon
in light of the lessons we are being asked
to learn from events in New Orleans,
and impending California Earthquakes
that are showing up as I write this.
Earthquakes can be "downsized" with a bit
of human collaboration with Mother Earth.
She is not into hurting anyone. She is asking
for balance. Soul Growth will help.

Here are two paragraphs from JonathanSwift,
written as satire.

Below Shift is a description of
the Green Revolution from the
Food First site

Where Shift was being tongue-in-cheek
and writing satire, The GMO folks
are dead serious about the Green Revolution
and other plans that would kill off our heirloom
organic food supply.

My seed dream is that California become
the first state to outlaw entirely GMO's.

your eg
___

From Jonathan Swift::

"Some persons of a desponding spirit are in great concern about that vast number of poor people, who are aged, diseased, or maimed, and I have been desired to employ my thoughts what course may be taken to ease the nation of so grievous an encumbrance. But I am not in the least pain upon that matter, because it is very well known that they are every day dying and rotting by cold and famine, and filth and vermin, as fast as can be reasonably expected. And as to the young laborers, they are now in as hopeful a condition; they cannot get work, and consequently pine away for want of nourishment, to a degree that if at any time they are accidentally hired to common labor, they have not strength to perform it; and thus the country and themselves are happily delivered from the evils to come."

"A very worthy person, a true lover of his country, and whose virtues I highly esteem, was lately pleased in discoursing on this matter to offer a refinement upon my scheme. He said that many gentlemen of this kingdom, having of late destroyed their deer, he conceived that the want of venison might be well supplied by the bodies of young lads and maidens, not exceeding fourteen years of age nor under twelve; so great a number of both sexes in every country being now ready to starve for want of work and service; and these to be disposed of by their parents, if alive, or otherwise by their nearest relations. But with due deference to so excellent a friend and so deserving a patriot, I cannot be altogether in his sentiments; for as to the males, my American acquaintance assured me, from frequent experience, that their flesh was generally tough and lean, like that of our schoolboys by continual exercise, and their taste disagreeable; and to fatten them would not answer the charge. Then as to the females, it would, I think, with humble submission be a loss to the public, because they soon would become breeders themselves; and besides, it is not improbable that some scrupulous people might be apt to censure such a practice (although indeed very unjustly), as a little bordering upon cruelty; which, I confess, hath always been with me the strongest objection against any project, however so well intended."


Here are some quotes from
the Food First site about the Green Revolution:


"Even the World Bank concluded in a major 1986 study of world hunger that a rapid increase in food production does not necessarily result in food security-that is, less hunger. Current hunger can only be alleviated by "redistributing purchasing power and resources toward those who are undernourished," the study said. In a nutshell-if the poor don't have the money to buy food, increased production is not going to help them."

Read the whole story here:

http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/4-greenrev.html

"The poor pay more and get less. Poor farmers can't afford to buy fertilizer and other inputs in volume; big growers can get discounts for large purchases. Poor farmers can't hold out for the best price for their crops, as can larger farmers whose circumstances are far less desperate. In much of the world, water is the limiting factor in farming success, and irrigation is often out of the reach of the poor. Canal irrigation favors those near the top of the flow. Tubewells, often promoted by development agencies, favor the bigger operators, who can better afford the initial investment and have lower costs per unit. Credit is also critical. It is common for small farmers to depend on local moneylenders and pay interest rates several times as high as wealthier farmers. Government-subsidized credit overwhelmingly benefits the big farmers. Most of all, the poor lack clout. They can't command the subsidies and other government favors accruing to the rich.
With the Green Revolution, farming becomes petro-dependent. Some of the more recently developed seeds may produce higher yields even without manufactured inputs, but the best results require the right amounts of chemical fertilizer, pesticides, and water. So as the new seeds spread, petrochemicals become part of farming. In India, adoption of the new seeds has been accompanied by a sixfold rise in fertilizer use per acre. Yet the quantity of agricultural production per ton of fertilizer used in India dropped by two-thirds during the Green Revolution years. In fact, over the past thirty years the annual growth of fertilizer use on Asian rice has been from three to forty times faster than the growth of rice yields.
Because farming methods that depend heavily on chemical fertilizers do not maintain the soil's natural fertility and because pesticides generate resistant pests, farmers need ever more fertilizers and pesticides just to achieve the same results. At the same time, those who profit from the increased use of fertilizers and pesticides fear labor organizing and use their new wealth to buy tractors and other machines, even though they are not required by the new seeds. This incremental shift leads to the industrialization of farming.
Once on the path of industrial agriculture, farming costs more. It can be more profitable, of course, but only if the prices farmers get for their crops stay ahead of the costs of petrochemicals and machinery. Green Revolution proponents claim increases in net incomes from farms of all sizes once farmers adopt the more responsive seeds. But recent studies also show another trend: outlays for fertilizers and pesticides may be going up faster than yields, suggesting that Green Revolution farmers are now facing what U.S. farmers have experienced for decades-a cost-price squeeze."




 

Popularity:   message viewed 1249 times
URL:   http://www.curezone.org/blogs/fm.asp?i=970287

<< Return to the standard message view