The world today is increasingly becoming a globalized one, with borders becoming nothing more then nominal separation of labour, and goods. For the past 50 years the developed west has been giving large amounts of aid and loans to third world nations in the hopes that those nations would develop and repay these loans. But the empirical evidence suggests that aid is not working where it matters most. According to the United Nations “…Central Africa [is] worse off then 30 years ago [agriculturally].” This in lieu of the fact that billions of dollars have gone to feed these people. Without GMOs countries would depend on expensive and ill-suited machines and techniques to increase crop yields. GMOs would allow these farmers to invest less time, and money to take care of their crops while eventually increasing crop yields. Without GMO crops third world farmers would be dependant on high interest loans, and become totally dependant on the West for things like spare parts, gasoline, technology, fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides which will cost more not just in the short term, but in the long term as well. The latter three of which cause large environmental damage and can cause diseases if used incorrectly. A perfect example is the Aral Sea disaster in the former Soviet Union. “What was the fourth biggest inland sea is now mostly desert… All of this was done in the name of cotton - grown where it would not grow naturally… tuberculosis… Cancers, lung disease and infant mortality are 30 times higher than they used to be because the drinking water is heavily polluted with salt, cotton fertilizers and pesticides.” This is what could have been avoided if they had used GMOs which could have been better able to adapt to a semi-arid environment with less irrigation. The damage done by the methods advocated by our opponents are significantly worse then any ill effects brought about by GMOs, which has not been scientifically proven. What else is quickly becoming apparent is that water is a scarce commodity in Africa today, “The main conflicts in Africa during the next 25 years could be over… water… The report says that by 2025, 12 more African countries will join the 13 that already suffer from water stress or water scarcity… Fresh water is also becoming increasingly unusable because of pollution… Agriculture is by far the biggest user of water in Africa accounting for 88% of water use. It takes about 1,000 tonnes of water to produce every tonne of grain.” As shown the situation in Africa will only get worse and worse, with GMOs which have a much higher water tolerance less water will be needed to make one tonne of grain, and increase the amount of arable land for African farmers. But another disadvantage for our comrades is that soil degradation is largely caused by the same products they support. “Repeated cropping without sufficient fallow periods or replacement of nutrients…fertilizer can deplete soil nutrients. In addition, overapplication of agricultural chemicals can kill beneficial soil organisms.With some 10 to 15 percent of all irrigated land suffering some degree of waterlogging and salinization, these two problems alone represent a significant threat to the world’s productive capacity” because GMO crops are able to grow with no fertilizer and with less water, the amount of soil degradation will decrease significantly as well. “Crop yield growth is expected to continue to decline [due to] heavy use of agricultural chemicals… [they are] having an adverse impact on the environment”. Aid itself is not getting to where it should go, many nations use aid money to support their over bloated military, and much of the capital is lost to government inefficiency and corruption. We believe that NGO’s should deal directly with the farmer and bypass the government. We advocate a market system in which farmers become economically self-sufficient and then buy the improvements when they can afford to. We also advocate that Western nations decrease their subsidies on agricultural imports. With increasing demand in nations like China and India, third world nations stand to benefit like never before with capitalism, and GMOs. Agree or not? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Capitalism in China? I'm fairly sure that would result in the depletion of all natural resources in something like five years.
Capitalism in China? China's been capitalist since the mid-70's so no things are going quite well for the new and up incoming superpower. But the pretense of my argument was that with more food being grown in the 3rd world, they can export the food to China and India. Because their demand is so large prices will increase and the 3rd world might have a fighting chances.
Very true. I think brining capitalism to these nations would be the biggest challenge within itself. The only way to do so is by weeding out as many warlords as possible. It would be an interesting project, global capitalization.
Yes the biggest hurdle to feeding ppl in the 3rd world is not actually crop yields it’s political infighting. I think that aid has to be re-thought and instead of giving gov'ts money, western aid organizations and the World Bank/IMF should be giving money to the farmer proper, they know what they need and they should be given interest free loans so they have a fighting chance. The hope is that the amount of food made on the land will increase = less ppl working on that land= education for the young population = urbanization = industrialization = capitalism = increased trade = foreign investment = trade = realitive prosperity. That is the way it should work. Will it work like that? Chances are that there will be hiccups along the chain but we need a gov't who is stable, and wiling to implement reform. I am not talking about lassiez faire capitalism either, rather utilitarian capitalism. The West has to decrease her agri. subsides because that is the greatest impediment to economic growth in these countries.
I think the 3rd world countries need to invest in their farming infrastructure instead of their military however, alot of 3rd world countries are incapable of doing so due to revolutionary forces and/or poor government. Likewise instead of food handouts, farming machinery, training in modern farming techniques and seed would be preferable. Maybe the U.N. should use its funds to purchase several thousand tractors a year? I've always wondered why the U.S.'s big farm machinery companies never donated several thousand tractors a year. If 3rd world nations developed a preferece for a brand of Farming equipment it would give the U.S. an economic edge over the competition when the country became more economically powerful. Really though, who cares about preventing starvation and brand loyalty?
Maybe the U.N. should use its funds to purchase several thousand tractors a year? They should but no one is in a hurry to increase the UN's budget that's the problem. The UN has been doing quite a bit, but with limited resources. The UN can do so much, it's sad that it's not funded well enough to provide all it can. I've always wondered why the U.S.'s big farm machinery companies never donated several thousand tractors a year. Profit, profit, profit not only would John Deere lose millions of dollars by doing that, the farm community in the US and Europe would rather not see the 3rd world economies agricultural production increase. If the 3rd world was to dramatically increase her food production, prices would plummet, and markets for US and European agri. goods would disappear, they would probably even lose their own markets without even higher tariffs then now. If 3rd world nations developed a preferece for a brand of Farming equipment it would give the U.S. an economic edge over the competition when the country became more economically powerful. The thing is that we have to empower the 3rd world nation to invest into her agri. and into the public infrastructure instead of warfare (as you alluded too). Empowerment for the individual farmer, political and economic stabilization, debt relief, lowering of tariffs and the end of outrageous subsides are what is needed to bring the 3rd world up from its long undeserved sleep.
Undecided: Coincidence, conincidence! There is a bonfire going on in some thread called the "Anthropic Principle" http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=555943#post555943 In which I wrote: "The Aral Sea in Central Asia was once one of the largest- go look at it now. Its a diseased slab of dry crust cutting across the continent, you'd die just standing on the hot bed for too long. The fish industries have come to a standstill in some places. Why? Reason the first: Uzbekistan's cash crop just so happens to be cotton and it has this dirty habit for sucking up the all water resources around the factories where it is manufactured. Reason the second: New canals and channels have left dry riverbeds. Water use goes unchecked while arable land goes wasting. Tell me all of this is irrelevant like you did in your last post to me, Tess. I fucking dare you." There you will find a discussion of scarcity and whether or not it is mythological. You say this: How fucking true, I never quite realized until that thread. The Cuban agricultural industry was subsidized by Soviet Russia when it was communist, I'll save me the trouble and quote me again: " ........for example, in Cuba during the Soviet era all their farmland was subsidized by the Russian governmet. Farmers were made to use expensive pumps and combustible fuel in order to pump water for their soil. As soon as the government no longer funded it, these pumps sat around rusting and wasting and with no collateral to purchase those fuels the land sat around spoling and went "barren" since the farmers could ill-afford to irrigate their land with methods forced on them from above. Notice I put "barren" in quotes. What's the story like now years later? These farmers that once sat around watching their land fucking rot are now using traditional methods like small dams and windmills to bring their land back to life again, they use less demanding cattle from Africa to maintain their water supplies and no longer suffer from drought. My point: Even though Cuba by and large is a poor country the bounties are undeniable, the people are happier and the crops yield every season. Methodology is what screwed them- not scarcity, though it looked like it." - gendanken Its the misappropriation of funds and pig politics that could very well be making it seem as if thought Mother Earth were in dire straits. To wit- it is ignorance and lazyness that screams out as culprits as well, specifically in those 'barren' areas that come alive as soon as missionaries drop by with their school lessons and handouts but go back to NOTHING as soon as they leave. One cannot only blame it on bad politics is also what I am saying.
They need to do more with less, but I think they focus more on handouts for 3rd world nations then actual improvements. More likely short term investment planning from the manufacturers, Donating to a country full of starving people might mean those people worship your equipment(More logical than worshipping a carpenter thats been dead for 2000 years) but next quaters stocks will not show much of an improvement unless 3rd world farmers buy alot of stock over the internet. Most 3rd world nations have other natural resources besides crops I think its more likely the income from that, instead of going for American grain, would go for American computers or something else we can make due to our technology that they cannot. The U.N. should threaten despotic leaders with sanctions so they act more enlightened. Empowerment for the individual farmer, political and economic stabilization, should follow peace without much outside pressure. Tariffs and subsidies on American farm products will most likely remain in place as much as American subsidies increase the amount of farming other payments are handed out to farmers not to grow, If the U.S. farmed every piece of land possible we would flood the world markets and destroy the world economy. Third world governments should do the same; tarriff incoming farm products and use the influx to increase their own production.
They need to do more with less, but I think they focus more on handouts for 3rd world nations then actual improvements. They should be getting much more money, there isn't a cold war here; billions of dollars are floating around that didn't exist before. I think that instead of giving the countries aid themselves it should be diverted to the UN first. Also of course the UN should restructure so that rampant waste is eliminated. The UN is by far the most important institution in this world, ignoring it has dire consequences. More likely short term investment planning from the manufacturers, Donating to a country full of starving people might mean those people worship your equipment Firstly we assume that it's only going to take a tractor, we aren't factoring in gas, spare parts, and training. It's like having a computer but without electricity. It means very little in the long run you need to build the infrastructure first. It is going to take a long term sustained effort which will cost billions of dollars. It's great if the companies do that, but I don't suspect they will. Most 3rd world nations have other natural resources besides crops I think its more likely the income from that, instead of going for American grain, would go for American computers or something else we can make due to our technology that they cannot. Many 3rd world nations do not have the capital to extract that natural resource, so it's basically sitting there doing nothing. Agri. on the other hand is constant and employs around 50% of the world's pop. Every industrial economy has to have an agri. revo. before she can have a industrial one. Debt should be decreased, that is the single greatest obstacle to 3rd world growth. The U.N. should threaten despotic leaders with sanctions so they act more enlightened. You aren't serious are you? If you do that, you will most likely have a NK on your hands. If it is perceived that the world is against you, the population usually rallies behind that leader. That does not work, what works is enlightening the population and then getting rid of the oppressive leader. Alas, Gandhi. Tariffs and subsidies on American farm products will most likely remain in place as much as American subsidies increase the amount of farming other payments are handed out to farmers not to grow, If the U.S. farmed every piece of land possible we would flood the world markets and destroy the world economy. Third world governments should do the same; tarriff incoming farm products and use the influx to increase their own production/ This is horrible economic policy, anyone who has seen the effects of tariffs and import substitution tell you that are not only prices inflated, the industries that do business in that industry are woefully inefficient. Free trade increases production and quality in these countries and in the US. Tariffs are like populist STDS, stay away from it.
The U.N. should form a division to focus on the problem, the division should comunicate as directly as posible with regions that are getting the aid, local government leaders are probably going to spend the money on things that will actually improve the standard of living. Most likely some sort of "package deal" the same way the Soviets sold military equipment and training. I seriously doubt they will as well. In order for debt is forgiven the leaders of the nations need to find a way to assure the world that the next taxes they recieve are going to be used to increase the countries productivity, not military strength. So your suggesting the U.N. distribute propaganda to convince third world inhabitants to revolt? Sounds feasible. If the country was not threatening to its neighbors it would work, a third world arms race is what I'm in favor of preventing at any cost. The alternative is to wait and hope the countries inhabitants bring about democratic change, with the end of the cold war Communism is no longer a threat so this solution is much easier to support. It works for the U.S. I have no information on how it has worked outside the U.S.
It doesn't matter what kind of crops a people farm. If their government is so corrupt and uncaring that they won't allow the markets to function, the people will end up hungry. Fifteen years ago we were sending free food to Ethiopia, and the government was quietly loading it on trucks and selling it to the highest bidder instead of feeding their own poor people. GMOs, capitalism, charity, none of that stuff works in a country whose leaders don't give a damn about the lives of their own people. If President Bush believes his own bullshit (excuse me, the bullshit his daddy's speechwriters prepare for him) about how we owed it to the Iraqis to free them from Saddam... Well he should look around. There are dozens of countries whose people are being kept in far worse shape by their leaders than the Iraqis. Like, stick twelve pins at random into a map of Africa and you've probably got twelve countries where people are starving and dying from AIDS because of evil, despotic governments. Sure Saddam was an a-hole and killed a lot of his citizens and tortured a lot more. But some of these African leaders are killing off forty percent of their populations simply by not caring about them and spending all their time screwing around trying to act like aristocrats. By the logic that Bush used to justify invading Iraq, the U.S. Marines have a free pass to invade about half of the entire continent of Africa! Gee I wonder why we're not doing that? No petroleum there? The sad thing is that the Marines could probably actually succeed in delivering food to the African people. The Africans would probably not try to kill them if they drove in with trucks full of food. We'd get that "welcome with open arms" that Bush swore we would get in Baghdad. I don't know about the AIDS problem. I suppose if they delivered condoms too it would help.
The U.N. should form a division to focus on the problem, the division should comunicate as directly as posible with regions that are getting the aid, local government leaders are probably going to spend the money on things that will actually improve the standard of living. I think that the UN should work independently of the gov't and focus on the individual. The problem in most of the third world is not the empowerment of the gov't, it's the empowerment of the individual. If the individual has a stake in the success of the gov't, society, and economy they will become politically active and slowly degrade the power of the ruling classes. It's going to be painful for some, but its necessary. When the economy improves as does the populations expectations of the gov't. In order for debt is forgiven the leaders of the nations need to find a way to assure the world that the next taxes they recieve are going to be used to increase the countries productivity, not military strength. Of course they should, but we should also try to solve the militaristic problems in their regions as well. Also debt is a cycle, these countries are never going to pay these debts back, and debt that was uncured under dictators should be nullified. Through a strong UN that can be accomplished, with a weak UN nothing will work. The UN has to become the body that enforces the powers will, but benevolently. It doesn't only have to be the UN, it could be the G8 working in co-ordination with the G-77 for instance. This current international relationship among states is not working. So your suggesting the U.N. distribute propaganda to convince third world inhabitants to revolt? Sounds feasible. You mean education? You mean literacy? Yes then I do, if that's what you think propaganda is. Literacy is stronger then any gun, and ideas are stronger then any gov't. If you noticed I said the word "enlightened" meaning higher education and equality for the population, the rule of law, and peace. What you endorse, sanctions strengthens the hands of dictators not weakens it, because they can effectively thwart all criticism and blame it on the West. Sanctions are counter productive. The alternative is to wait and hope the countries inhabitants bring about democratic change, with the end of the cold war Communism is no longer a threat so this solution is much easier to support. That's en par with letting a baby fend for itself, what we should do is show them the positive aspects of capitalism, try to reduce corruption, work with those who want change in those countries, not accepting corrupted money, etc. Not invading nations, but working with the people of those nations to change their societies. We have to make it important to them. It works for the U.S. I have no information on how it has worked outside the U.S. Does it? You are paying inflated prices for food, and you are not helping Globalization. Tariffs never work...
I have a plan on how to end all hunger in africa - genocide Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! -- ok, and now to unfortunately a more politically correct solution. don't give them money, give them advanced agricultural technologies we use
I tend to think working with a portion of the existing government (local)would keep the government on a whole from reacting negatively to the influx of new idea's that come with literacy and enlightenment. If the Government, dictorship or not, feels threatened by the changes it will label the education, propaganda and try to smash it. If a country does attempt to destroy the education of its people, I'm for any action that punishes the leaders of the country. The military problems should be the main focus of the U.N. The U.N. could easily act as a "peace broker" to the third world with its superpower backing. The debt should be nullified however its unlikely that will happen without global attention to the plight of the undeveloped country. The alternative is to wait and hope the countries inhabitants bring about democratic change, with the end of the cold war Communism is no longer a threat so this solution is much easier to support. Yes, but how much can we force feed them? I believe some countries will be completely resistant to democracy. How much can we change their culture and what other course of action do we have if we fail? It works for the U.S. I have no information on how it has worked outside the U.S. With the incredible amount of obesity in the U.S. I doubt were paying to much for food. Keeping are farming in the U.S. also means that if some disaster strikes a different country we wont go hungry. We probably are not helping globilization though.
I tend to think working with a portion of the existing government (local)would keep the government on a whole from reacting negatively to the influx of new idea's that come with literacy and enlightenment. If the Government, dictorship or not, feels threatened by the changes it will label the education, propaganda and try to smash it. That’s true, nor do I expect ideological dictatorships to endorse this plan. I am not forcing this program on states, they can decide by themselves. Literacy will bring social change to weak democracies by making them stronger. If a dictator tries to cease power it would be harder to do. Most nations in Africa are now fledging democracies; we should be exploiting this opportunity. The military problems should be the main focus of the U.N. The U.N. could easily act as a "peace broker" to the third world with its superpower backing. The superpowers have to then increase the amount of funds that the UN gets. The UN has many roles, and they are vital to the security of this world. Many states in Africa don't have military problems, thus we need other aspects of the UN to deal with it. The debt should be nullified however its unlikely that will happen without global attention to the plight of the undeveloped country. We know the plight of the underdeveloped nation; the problem is no one cares. Thankfully we have Bono's in this world... The alternative is to wait and hope the countries inhabitants bring about democratic change, with the end of the cold war Communism is no longer a threat so this solution is much easier to support. This is not true; there are dangers to democracy around the world. Islamist ideologies threaten many states, and fascism could be on the rise as a reaction. Democracies are not doing well in Africa, if we want to bring democracy to the region we have to economic prosperity with it. Democracy depends on the individual not the collective, and without empowerment democracy can never work. Yes, but how much can we force feed them? I believe some countries will be completely resistant to democracy. How much can we change their culture and what other course of action do we have if we fail? With the incredible amount of obesity in the U.S. I doubt were paying to much for food. Keeping are farming in the U.S. also means that if some disaster strikes a different country we wont go hungry. We probably are not helping globilization though. You are still paying inflated prices for food; you are not helping anyone at all. The US will still maintain the most agriculturally productive land in the world regardless of tariffs, so no need to worry about "food crises".
