Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Borlaug discussion update

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Borlaug discussion update
  • Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:52:08 -0600


Another reply to that organic list I mentioned earlier. John D'hondt is in
Ireland.
------------------

Yes, and of course there's more. Others have stressed the unsustainability of
those crops needing more fossil fuel fertilizers and pesticides when Peak Oil
is upon us, and needing more water where water sources for people are
declining already. Freshwater scarcity in many growing climates is becoming
critical for hundreds of millions.That and the depletion of soil and
biodiversity are the facts on the ground, and no amount of food industry
denial can stop the train wreck ahead. The known facts and numbers are beyond
alarming. If that's not enough, consider the increasing consolidation and
concentration of agribusiness in fewer and fewer corporate hands. I think it
was Kissinger who said control oil and you control nations, control food and
you control the people. This centralization of control over food can't be
fought; it can only be bled to death by promoting a hundred thousandfold
increase in local production for local consumption. Which also happens to be
the most efficient route to reducing fossil fuel dependence, soil depletion,
and freshwater waste. A win-win approach. Did I mention also reducing the
cost of health care with safer, more nutritious food?

paul tradingpost@lobo.net

The only way to win is not to play the game
-- the WOPR computer in movie "War Games"


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 9/15/2009 at 9:31 PM John D'hondt wrote:

>You are right Paul, Borlaug's legacy is fast reducing food value of
>crops,
>natural fertility of agricultural land, soil itself and thousands of
>breeds
>adapted to local conditions. It is fundamentally unsustainable and
>reducing
>carrying capacity of the planet. But I am still often surprized how far
>his
>massive influense has spread.
>john
>
>Disagree. Referring to what Kathryn mentioned, Notwithstanding his values
>on
>socioeconomic issues, his "Green Revolution" turned out to be a monstrous
>hoax on the hungry of the world. It contributed nothing to organic growing
>or sustainability (isn't that what this list is for?), and I'm surprised
>anybody here doesn't know how his "Green Revolution" turned out. Many
>observers now tell us that the realistic solution to world hunger lies in
>the direction of local food independence and returning production to small
>growers on land taken by corporate agribusiness.
>
>paul tradingpost@lobo.net
>
>
>following excerpts from:
>http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/4-greenrev.html
>
>
>"Much of the reason why these "modern varieties"
>produced more than traditional varieties was that they were more
>responsive to controlled irrigation and to petrochemical fertilizers,
>allowing for much more efficient conversion of industrial inputs into
>food. With a big boost from the International Agricultural Research
>Centers created by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, the "miracle"
>seeds quickly spread to Asia, and soon new strains of rice and corn were
>developed as well."
>
>"By the 1970s, the term "revolution" was well deserved, for the new
>seeds-accompanied by chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and, for the most
>part, irrigation-had replaced the traditional farming practices of
>millions of Third World farmers. "
>
>"Clearly, the production advances of the Green Revolution are no myth.
>Thanks to the new seeds, tens of millions of extra tons of grain a year
>are being harvested. But has the Green Revolution actually proven itself
>a successful strategy for ending hunger? Not really."
>
>"Narrowly focusing on increasing production-as the Green Revolution
>does-cannot alleviate hunger because it fails to alter the tightly
>concentrated distribution of economic power, especially access to land
>and purchasing power. Even the World Bank concluded in a major 1986 study
>of world hunger that a rapid increase in food production does not
>necessarily result in food security-that is, less hunger. Current hunger
>can only be alleviated by "redistributing purchasing power and resources
>toward those who are undernourished," the study said. In a nutshell-if
>the poor don't have the money to buy food, increased production is not
>going to help them."
>
>"The remarkable difference in China, where the number of hungry dropped
>from 406 million to 189 million, almost begs the question: which has been
>more effective at reducing hunger-the Green Revolution or the Chinese
>Revolution, where broad-based changes in access to land paved the way for
>rising living standards?"
>
>"If agriculture can play
>any role in alleviating hunger, it will only be to the extent that the
>bias toward wealthier and larger farmers is reversed through pro-poor
>alternatives like land reform and sustainable agriculture, which reduce
>inequality and make small farmers the center of an economically vibrant
>rural economy."
>




  • [Livingontheland] Borlaug discussion update, Tradingpost, 09/16/2009

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page