Narz
keeping it real
Interesting article about the effects of pesticides, farming monoculture and genetic modification.
http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/Green-Revolution.htm
http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/Green-Revolution.htm
Thoughts on "The Green Revolution"
- Thread starter Narz
- Start date
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
The thing that made the green revolution so successful (and by its own goals, I beleive it was...) was its single-mindedness about its objectives: feed the growing populations of the developping world. People who worked on it pursued that objective whole-heartedly, and didn't worry so much about methods.
I agree with a lot of things said in the article posted, but overall I think its too cynical a view. New methods are always going to cause change and instability, but the alternative is just not advancing as a society at all.
I agree with a lot of things said in the article posted, but overall I think its too cynical a view. New methods are always going to cause change and instability, but the alternative is just not advancing as a society at all.
Abaddon
Deity
Privided excess food within developed countrys - crushing the less developed countrys markets.
Destroyed vast tracts of habitats.
Generally considered a bad thing.
Destroyed vast tracts of habitats.
Generally considered a bad thing.
Tank_Guy#3
Lion of Lehistan
Abaddon said:
A. You can't grow everything in the United States that you can grow elsewhere.
B. Not destroyed, reformed. They created a massive ecosystem within the farm itself, I grant you it isn't as biologically diverse, but it is still somewhat diverse. Cattle, horses, cats, dogs, bugs like mad....
Then we must also destroy all cities, towns, villages, building, etc. As those have definitely destroyed habitat, vast tracts of it.
C. That's right, stop eating American food, it hurts foreign economies. When the one that affects you most is the one this farming is helping.
Stop eating quick, the lesser developed countries economies are at stake!!! No, Don't Eat, STOP!!!
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
Abaddon said:
Thier goal was to increase yeilds to be able to feed the growing population, and they did it. Yes, I think it was a bit naive to think that there wouldn't be negative consequences of changing agricultural practices (if indeed that was the sentiment), but they did manage to stave off some imminent famines, too! All that the Rockefeller foundation did was export the concept of modern agricultural to the less developped nations of the world, no-one told them they had to use them....
Abaddon
Deity
B. Within the UK, actual land taken over by buildings is small in comparision to farming land. The Biodiversity of the countryside has taken a siginificant hit.
Increased use of pesticides has killed of bugs which otherwise would have been food for a whole host of birdlife, aswell as bugs among the trophic levels.
Herbicides deprive chics of food, as well as habitiats for many bugs.
Fertilizer abuse creates eutrophication within the waterways, and promotes the most dominant weed species to out compete all others - nettles within the UK.
Thousands upon thousands of miles of hedgerow have been removed. A developed hedge could provide niches for as many as 100 species per meter.
The outcompeteing of the LEDC's are more from the grant program admittedly.
Increased use of pesticides has killed of bugs which otherwise would have been food for a whole host of birdlife, aswell as bugs among the trophic levels.
Herbicides deprive chics of food, as well as habitiats for many bugs.
Fertilizer abuse creates eutrophication within the waterways, and promotes the most dominant weed species to out compete all others - nettles within the UK.
Thousands upon thousands of miles of hedgerow have been removed. A developed hedge could provide niches for as many as 100 species per meter.
The outcompeteing of the LEDC's are more from the grant program admittedly.
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
What would the alternative be?
Similar threads
