i'm bombarded with propagandic advertisements the other 99% of my life. i don't need them here.
Re:The Amount of Food is Not The Issue
on
Golden Rice
·
· Score: 1
Yes, it's true, "Higher yield implies less land required". I was acknowledging that, but my point is that this is not the issue at all. We can already produce enough food for these people. And while a smaller plot does become more viable, bigger agribusinesses also become more viable. Corporations see this and force the farmers off of their land (this usually works doubly to their advantage, because they will then be forced to live in urban slums and work in sweatshops making our Nike[TM] Airs[TM]). Add to that the fact that most of these people don't own their own land to begin with, and are forced to sell their labor to the corporations who do own the land and we can see who really stands to gain.
I'm no luddite; I would be all for this if the economic system were set up so that it benefitted starving people, unfortunately, that is not the case.
i'm sorry but this doesn't absolve us of responsibility either. i.e. it's still our fault. it's not as if poor people are saying to themselves "I'm going to starve to death, but I still can't be bothered to reduce corruption and get priorities straight." They want desperately to get their priorities straight; unfortunately, the good ol' U.S. of A. has interests in having corrupt governments in place in poor countries. it supplies them with an enormous supply of cheap labour: starving farmers will work cheaply (they have to in order to survive), the world bank and the international monetary fund force export oriented economies onto them and PRESTO- tons of cheap food. when poor people do make attempts at overthrowing their corrupt, brutal governments, uncle sam sends guns to the regime to make sure that the threat to profit is kept at bay. please read this article in the U.K. press which announces the U.S. admitting to these types of activities in Latin America. You would be hard-pressed to ever find an article like this in the U.S. press.
I'm also weary of GE as a solution (see my top-level comment), but I find your argument somewhat disturbing. I agree that we need to avoid "polishing symptoms, giving people a pseudo good conscience while everybody is making money fast." However, saying that it's ok for us to let millions of non-white people starve is very sketchy. If really want to look at the "root" of the problem, look at North Americans (and Western Europeans). Our consumption levels are ridiculously higher than those of people in most parts of the world. Educate us! Not that I don't agree that population levels in more exploited countries don't need to come down. The problem is that what appears to have the strongest correlation with small families is affluence. In other words, if we want to reduce world population we need: (1) some education; (2) a whole lot of wealth re-distribution.
All that to say that it's not ok for us to view this as a problem of poor countries that we can solve by starving colored people, this is our problem and we need to start taking responsibility.
The Amount of Food is Not The Issue
on
Golden Rice
·
· Score: 3
Arguments like this are so far off base and it's scary how easily they are believed. No one is starving because there is some scarcity of food. We've had the technology to feed the world for decades. The problem is one of distribution. Who is going to buy land, buy seeds, grow food, and then pay to have it shipped to those who can't afford it? Even when people are "benevolent" and would like to do this, it's just not financially possible because of the way the market works. Being able to grow food more efficiently is/not/ going to benefit the hungry. Who it/will/ benefit is agribusiness, which is why they're pushing so hard for it and arguing "how can you be against this when it will solve world hunger?"
What also usually ends up happening is that through the increased use of monocultures, pesticides, etc. it is a major blow to the environment. So let's tally that all up:
hungry people: lose.
the environment: loses.
(already)rich agribusiness CEO's: win!
this looks like it has about the same result as anything else large corporations are pushing for.
"Blade Runner was not one of my favorite films. I tangled with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."
It sounds to me like all of the holywood types (basically everyone involved in the film but Ridley Scott) didn't want Deckard to be a replicant so that the movie woule be more palatable to Hollywood audiences (and profitable). Scott wanted him to be a replicant cause that is what makes it a truly good story. It's the old battle of art vs. commerce. unfortunately, in the original version, commerce won out, but art finally got its say in the director's cut!
Slashdot Mirror
i'm bombarded with propagandic advertisements the other 99% of my life. i don't need them here.
Yes, it's true, "Higher yield implies less land required". I was acknowledging that, but my point is that this is not the issue at all. We can already produce enough food for these people. And while a smaller plot does become more viable, bigger agribusinesses also become more viable. Corporations see this and force the farmers off of their land (this usually works doubly to their advantage, because they will then be forced to live in urban slums and work in sweatshops making our Nike[TM] Airs[TM]). Add to that the fact that most of these people don't own their own land to begin with, and are forced to sell their labor to the corporations who do own the land and we can see who really stands to gain.
I'm no luddite; I would be all for this if the economic system were set up so that it benefitted starving people, unfortunately, that is not the case.
i'm sorry but this doesn't absolve us of responsibility either. i.e. it's still our fault. it's not as if poor people are saying to themselves "I'm going to starve to death, but I still can't be bothered to reduce corruption and get priorities straight." They want desperately to get their priorities straight; unfortunately, the good ol' U.S. of A. has interests in having corrupt governments in place in poor countries. it supplies them with an enormous supply of cheap labour: starving farmers will work cheaply (they have to in order to survive), the world bank and the international monetary fund force export oriented economies onto them and PRESTO- tons of cheap food. when poor people do make attempts at overthrowing their corrupt, brutal governments, uncle sam sends guns to the regime to make sure that the threat to profit is kept at bay. please read this article in the U.K. press which announces the U.S. admitting to these types of activities in Latin America. You would be hard-pressed to ever find an article like this in the U.S. press.
I'm also weary of GE as a solution (see my top-level comment), but I find your argument somewhat disturbing. I agree that we need to avoid "polishing symptoms, giving people a pseudo good conscience while everybody is making money fast." However, saying that it's ok for us to let millions of non-white people starve is very sketchy. If really want to look at the "root" of the problem, look at North Americans (and Western Europeans). Our consumption levels are ridiculously higher than those of people in most parts of the world. Educate us! Not that I don't agree that population levels in more exploited countries don't need to come down. The problem is that what appears to have the strongest correlation with small families is affluence. In other words, if we want to reduce world population we need: (1) some education; (2) a whole lot of wealth re-distribution.
All that to say that it's not ok for us to view this as a problem of poor countries that we can solve by starving colored people, this is our problem and we need to start taking responsibility.
Arguments like this are so far off base and it's scary how easily they are believed. No one is starving because there is some scarcity of food. We've had the technology to feed the world for decades. The problem is one of distribution. Who is going to buy land, buy seeds, grow food, and then pay to have it shipped to those who can't afford it? Even when people are "benevolent" and would like to do this, it's just not financially possible because of the way the market works. Being able to grow food more efficiently is /not/ going to benefit the hungry. Who it /will/ benefit is agribusiness, which is why they're pushing so hard for it and arguing "how can you be against this when it will solve world hunger?"
What also usually ends up happening is that through the increased use of monocultures, pesticides, etc. it is a major blow to the environment. So let's tally that all up:
hungry people: lose.
the environment: loses.
(already)rich agribusiness CEO's: win!
this looks like it has about the same result as anything else large corporations are pushing for.
From what I read in the Bladerunner faq Harrison Ford says:
"Blade Runner was not one of my favorite films. I tangled with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."
It sounds to me like all of the holywood types (basically everyone involved in the film but Ridley Scott) didn't want Deckard to be a replicant so that the movie woule be more palatable to Hollywood audiences (and profitable). Scott wanted him to be a replicant cause that is what makes it a truly good story. It's the old battle of art vs. commerce. unfortunately, in the original version, commerce won out, but art finally got its say in the director's cut!