Here is something that may interest you
The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops
Is "green" activism responsible for millions of deaths?
- Thread starter Raithere
- Start date
Here is something that may interest you
The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops
Not really, I tend to find them elitist, alarmist, reactionary, and idealistic.
I'm in between the two. I'm a pragmatist and I loathe idealism. I fault both sides for letting idealism become more important than human life. But I feel that the environmentalists have a bigger blind spot in this case. No corporate executive who makes a decision to suppress information and send slick salesmen out to con illiterate farmers thinks he is making a moral decision, he might think it necessary to improve his bottom line but not moral. The environmentalist who believes stopping the use of fertilizer is more important than crop yield does feel he is making a moral decision.
To an extent I understand the behavior. Our system of government leaves little room for real compromise and creates a divisive environment of opposition. Rarely do we see any real solutions being fought for. Again and again, issue after issue it comes down to an all or nothing battle. Compromise, if it can be called that, comes in the form of offering concessions rather than finding a moderate, workable, path. Africa is just one, severe, example. We can look at the wars in the middle east and find the same behavior. The economic meltdown happened the same way. Healthcare. And the list keeps on growing.
~Raithere
I didn't say you'd like them, I said that when push comes to shove they are much more likely to be on your side.raithere said:
You might be surprised what an Ayn Rand acolyte considers a moral decision.raithere said:
But regardless: when you get ready to defend your smallholders against the depredations and miseries about to be inflicted upon them by IMF minions and Cargill reps, among the green folks is where you will find support - not on those corporate boards you seem to think are more honest somehow.
It's horrific but I'm not too trusting about the source. I'm trying to find a better investigation of the issue. Certainly Monsanto's involvement needs to be investigated and prosecuted where culpable. I also know, however, that much of Europe has refused to buy GM food on the unfounded belief that it is somehow unhealthy and farmers don't have a market for their food. The US and EU also subsidize the hell out of their agricultural industry undermining farmers in countries that can't afford to.
~Raithere
In my opinion, Third World countries make a good experimental lab for testing GM food crops. The seeds are distributed by the government and if the harvest fails, the farmers commit suicide. This is not an isolated incident. It has been happening for quite some time now. I remember the suicides in the cotton farms at Warangal while newspapers were telling us about the improved yield with GM cotton seeds.
I've some experience with large to global corporations and the way they operate. The problem doesn't typically lay with the morality of the executive board. We could start about 5 more threads to deal with the specifics but the simplest way to describe it is that the demands of the shareholders create a profit driven process. Metrics used to define success drives behavior that tends to minimize the identification of problems and negative externalities. At any one point the effect is negligible but most of these companys' corporate structures are so deep that by the time the data filters up to the decision making level the negative aspects are often completely invisible. Likewise for the people at the point sale, who hear nothing but the wonderful attributes of the product they're selling.
Of course, exceptions can be found all over the place, money is a powerful motivator. But very often it's simply the inertia of the thing that drives its behavior. I don't give much credence to conspiratorial conjecture.
There's also the theoretician's error to consider. "In theory, theory and practice are the same." In theory and laboratory practice these products probably work as described. The real world is somewhat different however. And why I would be against using experimental methods or products in such a delicate situation no matter where they came from. We can't blame the uneducated farmers, and I think it's horrible. But anyone observing the process should have been alarmed when they were being touted as "magic" seeds.
~Raithere
In what way is that belief "unfounded"?raithere said:
Unproven, maybe, but certainly not unreasonable as a suspicion. Would you, for example, bet your entire food supply on the long term safety of food crops genetically engineered to sequester toxins in chemical complexes throughout the plant, on the assurances of the people who gave you trans fats in everything and significant antibiotic residues in baby food?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
You have quite failed to demonstrate in any way that adopting the methodologies you advocate would save millions.
You have quite failed to demonstrate that millions are at risk from a failure of farming methods, rather than a failure of government and of distribution.
In short, you have failed.
Massively.
Thus far.
From the article
Whats the confusion?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
He killed himself over 10 GBP?
Uh no, thats the cost of the seeds. Which are distributed by the government. What it means is that the seeds are 10 times as expensive which meant he invested 10 times more. And his harvest failed several times, bankrupting him. You need more than 100 gms of seeds for a field of cotton. In a country where per capita income in farmers is less than a dollar a day, that is an expensive proposition.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I must be misreading it somehow.. though it clearly says: "We bought 100 grams of BT Cotton," which costs 10 GBP as the article specified..
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Yes, so I figured he was just trying the new seeds out.
Ok, so that's lets say two weeks (erm you switched to dollars. Ok, three weeks income) income.
Why don't they just switch back to regular crops?
Because the US and Europe condition their "aid" on these seeds being used. Normal seeds are not offered to the farmers. He doesn't "try out" the seeds, he is forced to buy them.
They are also destroying our rice economy, its very hard to get the traditional rice now, as compared to "hybrid" varieties which are much more expensive [100-200 rupees as compared to 30-40 rupees a kilo]
http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/mar/02comod4.htm
Its also happening in Iraq
http://www.wombles.org.uk/article2008102160.php
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
They are 'forced' to buy them each year because the GM seeds come with terminator technology. They are not forced to buy GM seeds in stead of regular seeds, right?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
What? I would assume a country keeps a stock of seeds?
Why is it hard for them to buy regular seeds?
Same reason why these governments cannot subsidise their farmers. The food aid contracts with the Europeans and Americans makes it illegal.
The governments implement these policies by tying them to bank loans which the farmers subsist on. These are all structural adjustment policies by which the first world helps the third world to become poor and hungry. Its all part of the democracy and freedom package.
Try this:
http://www.wombles.org.uk/article2008102160.php
The governments implement these policies by tying them to bank loans which the farmers subsist on. These are all structural adjustment policies by which the first world helps the third world to become poor and hungry. Its all part of the democracy and freedom package.
Try this:
http://www.wombles.org.uk/article2008102160.php
It may not be a surprise to you, but I have a feeling that most "organic" food proponents would be shocked to find out wild plants contain toxins. Often more than the domesticated varieties.
But regarding the GM crops, testing shows that they're safe, the FDA has approved them, and people eat them without any ill effect. Meanwhile there is no substantiating evidence that they are harmful to consume. I call that unfounded.
Could it be unsafe despite all this? Certainly there is a possibility. But we can say the same of everything. I'll roll with the odds here.
~Raithere