Is "green" activism responsible for millions of deaths?

I'm saying that your preferred method of helping Africans would result in many, many more deaths than would otherwise occur.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh yes, obviously. We can garner that from the tremendous number of people starving in North America and Europe.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

~Raithere

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The climate is obviously much different there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And which part of Africa's climate prevents high-yield crops, pesticides, irrigation, or synthetic fertilizer from working?

~Raithere

 

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. You can't possibly be suggesting that that the Western model of high mass consumption is achievable on a global scale...?

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. Additionally, no amount of technology can solve an issue if that technology is monopolized by those unaffected by or even benefiting from the problem.

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.

 

The lack of water, tractors, crop dusters, and money for fertilizer.

 

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?

~Raithere

 

I would say it's a pretty major factor.

 

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.

Suffice to point to examples of failures of "green" activism to curb industrial agribusiness - the Aral Sea region, the country of Colombia where the issues are yet being fought out, Mexico likewise, India in places, and so forth.

Even Iowa topsoil - the richest and deepest and least vulnerable non-riparian on the planet http://www.public.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/2009/feb/veenstra.shtml - will last another couple of hundred years at most, and be degraded significantly for most of that time, under current farming practices. Once ruined, it will be very difficult to restore, and the stream of benefits from it will be lost in essential perpetuity. The most significant crop in this ongoing destruction is used to make automobile fuel and various other products, and basic chemicals for the manufacture of unhealthy "snack food". Is that a sensible trade?

 

Sorry if I was unclear. Perhaps it will help if I reiterate.

The adoption of “conventional” methods of agriculture (synthetic fertilizer, irrigation, GMO crops, mechanized cultivation, etc.) has saved hundreds of millions of people from starvation. Yet despite it success in the Americas, Europe, India, Asia, etcetera there has been strong opposition from environmental activists to implementing this successful technology in Africa. Such opposition has met with considerable success in stopping it since the 80s. Meanwhile, various organizations and governments have been attempting to foster less productive but more environmentally protective methods of production. These have obviously failed from the vantage of human suffering and death. How does one justify this? Particularly when one has no immanent personal stake in it?

I’m not talking about lifestyle, I’m talking about having enough food to eat so you don’t die.

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.

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?

~Raithere

 

I really thought when I started this thread that I’d see a more honest analysis of the issues involved. I was looking forward to being shown alternative methods, methods of development, various success stories that lend credence to the methods, and learning more about the issue even if I think it's more important to try to save lives.

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.

Thus far, all I’ve seen is the mantra of environmentalism and anti-corporatism for which apparently people are willing to sacrifice the lives of others.

I guess I have my answer from these two. Anyone else?

~Raithere

 

GM crops will foster dependence on a corporate seed supply.

Most GM seed manufacturing companies prohibit farmers from saving their on-farm produced seeds for the next season and from sharing them with their neighbours, relatives and friends. This is imposed through elaborate contracts, agreements, and conditions, which are imposed by the multinational GM seed companies. More than 80% of the small-scale farmers in Africa today save their on-farm produced seeds for the next season. Farmers sometimes do this because they do not have enough money to buy new seeds and sometimes because they value their own seed. Also, seed sharing (with neighbours, relatives and friends) is a cultural norm in many African communities. The introduction of GM seeds will jeopardise these traditional and vital practices.

‘Terminator' and ‘Traitor' technologies are two examples of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs). ‘Terminator' seeds are genetically modified so that the plants that they grow into produce sterile seeds (seeds that are infertile cannot germinate in the next season or any other time). ‘Traitor' technology produces GM crops that need to be sprayed with certain chemicals in order to grow properly. It is important to note that these technologies are targeted specifically at developing countries but offer no positive benefit to farmers at all. GURT technologies will cause African farmers to become wholly dependent on companies for their seed supply and for the costly chemicals that their seeds will not be able to grow without. The technologies promise rich rewards for the multinational companies, but they spell doom for small-scale farmers in Africa.

More than 70 % of all the GM crops currently grown in the world are genetically modified to resist certain herbicides. Farmers that grow these GM crops must use the herbicides sold by the very companies selling the GM seeds. Not surprisingly, studies show that these crops are increasing the use of herbicides, especially as certain weeds develop resistance to the herbicide.


GM crops favour industrial agriculture systems

They are designed for agricultural systems characterised by

· 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.

· 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. This is one of the main reasons for the failure of the green revolution in Africa

-----------------------

Cinderella fruit: Wild delicacies become cash crops

 

You don't understand them, and you have mistaken the sources of human misery, in Africa or anywhere.

You are advocating for industrial agricultural practices that have killed millions and destroyed huge areas of landscape (see the Irish potato famine, for one famous example of the early days of one-crop farming in defiance of "organic" principles) are killing now and destroying huge areas of landscape, and by all reasonable projections will kill in the future and destroy huge areas of landscape.

The millions of lives "saved" (enabled) in China and India were by organic-compatible breeding efforts involving one crop - rice. Nothing in "organic" agricultural approaches opposes the careful breeding of rice for maximum yield in local circumstances. Your attempts to set the successes of "traditional" plant breeding and all scientific sophistication on the side of the techno-bubble stuff are ignorant, frankly. You seem to be imagining some kind of upper class creche of counter-cultural types advocating that the poor eat macrame.

 

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.

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.

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.

"Its impact in the eight villages in which I worked was as stunning as it was immediate. The four villages that were accessible by road experienced dramatic improvements, both in terms of nutrition and the well being of the people. New IR-8 rice spread rapidly as peasant farmers with small plots were suddenly able to experience both increased yields and double crops. This in turn led to tangible improvements in the quality of life: child mortality dropped; malnutrition abated; and children, especially girls, stayed in school longer. "

http://www.worldfoodprize.org/borlaug/borlaug-history.htm

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.

~Raithere

 

I've spent a lot of time on this recently and it's late. I'll reply some more tomorrow. 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/ideas/commentary/data/green_africa

Just trying to cure my ignorance.

~Raithere

 

So what are the odds of obtaining "proper government regulation and support", with Monsanto et al putting their full weight behind quite another agenda?

We can't even get decent government regulation of GM herbicide resistance and pesticide incorporation, the basic and common uses of GM tech in the real world, in the US.

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.

 

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?

 

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.

~Raithere

 

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?

Sustainability is a long term goal... starvation is about tomorrow, next month, or next year. If you're alive and well fed then you have the luxury to worry about 10 or 20 years in the future or the next generation. You also have the time to do something about it.

It's also worth noting that in areas where crop yields have been increased by these method (by an estimated 800% according to one of Borlaug's statements I was listening to today) that local warfare has tended to drastically decrease. Political stability is a huge factor in being able to negotiate the social, agricultural, and technological changes that will be required in order to improve sustainability and minimize environmental impact.

I'm sorry but unless you can show either that implementation of conventional methods would lead to more rather than less deaths in the immediate future or that these environmentally friendly methods are as effective and can be implemented as quickly as conventional methods. I fail to see where you have a point.

~Raithere

 

"This isn't the only technique farmers are learning. They are also being trained how to clone superior trees by taking cuttings - one of the best ways of producing large numbers of genetically identical plants -"

This is called a monoculture which you railed against in the very same post you presented the article. The methods they describe in the article are some of the exact same methods I'm talking about; selecting local crops and improving the farming techniques used to raise them.

The article also seems to indicate that this effort is focusing on produce for export which can cause a variety of problems in addition to ignoring the central problem of insufficient local food production. Exporting plant oil for cash to import food is poor solution at best... and has a high environmental impact due to all the transportation effectively negating any benefits you won during growing.

Did you even read the article before you posted it?

~Raithere