That comic bit about sending U-Hauls and luggage instead of food comes to mind. It's meant to be funny but there is a small grain of truth. If you live in an area where you cannot grow enough food you need to move. Sand will be sand will be sand.
Maybe Western countries should just stop interfering in African countries' way of doing things.
Help is fine, using science is fine. But let Africans decide for themselves what help they need / accept, and how to apply what science.
If you read the article carefully, you might just suspect mr. Gates (through his foundation, using 'soft power' influence in African countries' politics) working to increase Africa's dependence on products of the likes of Monsanto (GM seeds), Bayer (agro chemicals), fertilizers, etc.
Not to increase Africa's self-reliance, but hook 'em into globalized commodity markets.
Noble goals? Double agenda as Monsanto & co's salesman? I tend to give mr. Gates a lot of slack considering his charity efforts & knowledge in such matters. But let Africans make that judgement, ok?
(and even mr. Gates gets things wrong sometimes :-)
Maybe Western countries should just stop interfering in African countries' way of doing things.
Precisely my point.
The African way of doing things tends to involve a lot of starvation and death --- but maybe it's time to accept this is just their way of doing things (as brutal as it is) and stop sending support. A century of support has proven it never solves the root problem and just facilitates repetition.
I'm not sure if you know your history, nor am I sure if you understand that the "Western way of doing things" is not the "American way of doing things", and that perhaps even "American way of doing things" is not "Gates' way of doing things" (given the number of American farmers who have had trouble with Monsanto and co.)?
I think, if I were to be charitable, you mean "scientific way of doing things" when comparing the "African way of doing things" vs. the implicit "Western/Non-African way of doing things". Then, I am not sure if you distinguish that the "scientific way of doing things (which is ) is also not the "commercial way of doing things", and that tensions and conflicts around this issue exist in the West itself.
For example, the article discusses the issues around the so-called "Green Revolution" in India, as the "Green Revolution" had multiple phases: some of the later ones were much more heavily reliant on corporate (closed-source) products, which exacerbated a variety of issues, e.g. soil sustainability (certain high yield methods come at the cost of depleting soil nutrients faster than they are replaced), birth defects in children, seed prices, and so on.
This is what AFSA wants to avoid. The AFSA isn't advocating for "traditional methods" (whatever that is), but for scientifically-driven approaches that go hand-in-hand with agricultural (and ultimately, economic) resiliency and independence.
(But why am I kidding myself? It's unlikely that you do not understand the points above, and more likely that your revulsion comes from prejudice.)
10 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 22.9 ms ] threadProblem solved and everyone can be happy now. If not, let's just wait for Africans to figure this out on their own as only they can.
Which is fine, although then it's hard to understand why you decided to say what you did regardless?
Help is fine, using science is fine. But let Africans decide for themselves what help they need / accept, and how to apply what science.
If you read the article carefully, you might just suspect mr. Gates (through his foundation, using 'soft power' influence in African countries' politics) working to increase Africa's dependence on products of the likes of Monsanto (GM seeds), Bayer (agro chemicals), fertilizers, etc.
Not to increase Africa's self-reliance, but hook 'em into globalized commodity markets.
Noble goals? Double agenda as Monsanto & co's salesman? I tend to give mr. Gates a lot of slack considering his charity efforts & knowledge in such matters. But let Africans make that judgement, ok?
(and even mr. Gates gets things wrong sometimes :-)
Precisely my point.
The African way of doing things tends to involve a lot of starvation and death --- but maybe it's time to accept this is just their way of doing things (as brutal as it is) and stop sending support. A century of support has proven it never solves the root problem and just facilitates repetition.
I think, if I were to be charitable, you mean "scientific way of doing things" when comparing the "African way of doing things" vs. the implicit "Western/Non-African way of doing things". Then, I am not sure if you distinguish that the "scientific way of doing things (which is ) is also not the "commercial way of doing things", and that tensions and conflicts around this issue exist in the West itself.
For example, the article discusses the issues around the so-called "Green Revolution" in India, as the "Green Revolution" had multiple phases: some of the later ones were much more heavily reliant on corporate (closed-source) products, which exacerbated a variety of issues, e.g. soil sustainability (certain high yield methods come at the cost of depleting soil nutrients faster than they are replaced), birth defects in children, seed prices, and so on.
This is what AFSA wants to avoid. The AFSA isn't advocating for "traditional methods" (whatever that is), but for scientifically-driven approaches that go hand-in-hand with agricultural (and ultimately, economic) resiliency and independence.
(But why am I kidding myself? It's unlikely that you do not understand the points above, and more likely that your revulsion comes from prejudice.)