I'm saying that your preferred method of helping Africans would result in many, many more deaths than would otherwise occur.
Oh yes, obviously. We can garner that from the tremendous number of people starving in North America and Europe.I'm saying that your preferred method of helping Africans would result in many, many more deaths than would otherwise occur.
And which part of Africa's climate prevents high-yield crops, pesticides, irrigation, or synthetic fertilizer from working?The climate is obviously much different there.
I'm saying that your preferred method of helping Africans would result in many, many more deaths than would otherwise occur.
Oh yes, obviously. We can garner that from the tremendous number of people starving in North America and Europe.
And which part of Africa's climate prevents high-yield crops, pesticides, irrigation, or synthetic fertilizer from working?
~Raithere
So water is the only environmental factor? This differs from the situations as found in Latin America, India, China, and other locations in the in what way?The lack of water, tractors, crop dusters, and money for fertilizer.
I would accuse you of justifying the enslavement and starvation of millions for the profit of the few, and the destruction of the landscape upon which even their future hope depends, if I thought you had a clue here.raithere said:Regardless if your motivation is anti-corporatism, environmentalism, global warming, or long term sustainability both of you merely seem to be making justifications for letting millions of other people die while taking no personal risk.
Sorry if I was unclear. Perhaps it will help if I reiterate.I'm not entirely sure where you're headed with this, Raithere. Throughout the thread it's been difficult to discern what exactly your "preferred method of helping" is.
I’m not talking about lifestyle, I’m talking about having enough food to eat so you don’t die.You can't possibly be suggesting that that the Western model of high mass consumption is achievable on a global scale...?
Globally, no. Locally, yes. I do realize that production is only part of the problem but increasing local crop yields has saved hundreds of millions of people in China and India so if you’re going to state that it won’t work in Africa you’ll have to demonstrate why.I may have missed it, but has anyone yet pointed out that there is not currently a global food shortage? Increasing crop yield has not and will not solve the issue of global hunger because it doesn't address the underlying cause.
That’s not really what I’m talking about (which should be obvious now). However, it does actually exacerbate the problem. Organic farming costs more and produces less, increasing the profits of the producers. This means that more and more arable land will move towards organic methods of production, further raising the cost of food and further reducing the amount of food available driving up prices even further. Guess who can’t buy expensive food?I'm not under the impression that buying some organic produce is going to help impoverished Africans--but it's obviously not exacerbating the problem any more so than purchasing high-yield or genetically modified varieties. I think you've misdirected blame here, Raithere.
You don't understand them, and you have mistaken the sources of human misery, in Africa or anywhere.raithere said:I’ve given you the environmental, sustainability, and global warming arguments as given. I’d even give you the corporatization argument if I thought it would make a difference. For the record, I agree in part to all of them, I just don’t find them more convincing than a human life.
I understand and agree that this is a problem. However, this is merely an argument about whose seeds are used not against using GM. To reject GM outright is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.GM crops will foster dependence on a corporate seed supply.
Only because they are the primary ones investing in their development . There is nothing to prevent other organizations or governments from funding their own programs or from purchasing rights to crop strains.GM crops favour industrial agriculture systems
This does not mandate corporatization, one can organize large communal farms for instance. Implementation can also be carried out in support of smallholders with the proper government regulation and support. The last method is probably the best as it would inflict the least amount of job displacement.Large farms: In Africa, 80% of the population are small-scale farmers with 0.5–3 acres of land. Appropriate agricultural technologies should help small-scale farmers to diversify and intensify their on-farm enterprises.
Monocropping: Due to the small size of farms and challenging environmental conditions, monocropping is not favourable to African agriculture.
These all come down to money. Money is being spent on less productive methods. This money could instead be spent towards purchasing these things and getting an economically sustainable agricultural industry developed.Subsidies: While the farmers in the west are highly subsidised, African farmers do not get any subsidies and cannot even recoup the cost of their crops production.
Mechanisation: While farming in the developed countries is highly mechanised, most African farmers depend on human and animal power.
Reliance on external inputs: African farmers cannot afford the high cost of inputs that accompany the growing of transgenic crops.
So what are the odds of obtaining "proper government regulation and support", with Monsanto et al putting their full weight behind quite another agenda?raithere said:This does not mandate corporatization, one can organize large communal farms for instance. Implementation can also be carried out in support of smallholders with the proper government regulation and support
Note the political aspects. Borlaug did not form a corporation, patent his wheat and demand royalties for the rice developed by others with his methods and with his constant advice, and use international financial or military muscle to enforce his property rights worldwide - or even force the building of roads, a key factor on all his efforts. If he had, a billion lives would not have been saved. People who do are not going to save a billion lives. They are instead going to remove the rural population from the land and house it starving in diseased slums, convert local food production fields into investor-owned cash crop for export plantations, and make a ton of money for themselves. If along the way they wreck the local waterways and the fishing etc that depend on them, degrade the soil sufficiently that after they have made their money the land cannot be easily restored to local food production, and so forth, that is just externalized costs - we are accustomed to ignoring them.raithere said:In the meantime here is an article that I found useful and which appears to be fairly neutral. Let me know what you think.
http://www.policyinnovations.org/ide...a/green_africa
These all come down to money. Money is being spent on less productive methods. This money could instead be spent towards purchasing these things and getting an economically sustainable agricultural industry developed.
You seem to have made the assumption that somehow I am advocating industrialized farming. I'm not. Borlaug's efforts were aimed at getting technology into the hands of the smallholders and convincing the governments to support the smallholders. I'm not advocating anything different here so your arguments are misplaced.So what are the odds of obtaining "proper government regulation and support", with Monsanto et al putting their full weight behind quite another agenda?
Have you missed the point about people starving to death? We're not just talking about other people in the same region or country but the farmers themselves. The question you need to ask is what's the point of saving the environment if you and your family may very well be dead next year?There is nothing sustainable about our own agriculture industry. It would be cruel to impose such a model on Africa. What's going to happen when peak oil hits? Purchasing tractors and diesel fuel for every poor African farmer is not a realistic or sustainable proposition. They sell these crops for money, so what's the point of selling your crops for a few dollars when you have a fuel bill larger that the entire gross income of your village for a year?