Amazon.com Widgets

« Destroyer of Worlds | Main | Northern Flickers »

Hans Rosling on global population growth

Related: How do you help people who live on less than a dollar a day?

Gates points out that "the global effort to help small farmers is endangered by an ideological wedge that threatens to split the movement in two.

On one side is a technological approach that increases productivity.

On the other side is an environmental approach that promotes sustainability.

Productivity or sustainability - they say you have to choose.

It's a false choice, and it's dangerous for the field. It blocks important advances. It breeds hostility among people who need to work together. And it makes it hard to launch a comprehensive program to help poor farmers."

His conclusion?

"The fact is, we need both productivity and sustainability - and there is no reason we can't have both."


 

Comments

It breeds hostility among people who need to work together.

that sounds totally "big brother" to me, gave me the creeps. hell, hostility among people who "need" (there's an americanism i could do without) to work together is the foundation of all great economies!

i couldn't even read the rest of the article, that line creeped me out too much.

Okay, so nevermind the word "need". But shouldn't, say, farmers and environmentalist work together? Is it not in the best interest of both parties to cooperate? And perhaps in this way of looking at it, they "need" to work together in order for both of them to gain any progress towards mutual goals?

neither "farmers" nor "environmentalists" are anymore what they used to be only a few short decades ago (ok, maybe 100 years tops). but we still get all warm and fuzzy thinking about the "farmer" dedicated to something akin to gardening, and the "environmentalist" dedicated to, you know, saving the planet.

the farmers and environmentalists in this argument- meaning the modern ones who have climbed the merciless darwinian ladder to attain their positions- are not who you think they are, rather they are cutthroat businessmen/women only concerned about the bottom line, and so are those charged with overseeing their activities. i'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't referring to, say, monsanto when you use the word "environmentalist". i know libertarians think that this kind of unholy alliance will bring "peace and plenty forever" but i didn't figure you for one of those.

as for 3rd world subsistence farmers, who could theoretically benifit from this state of affairs- i'm afraid that the internet, with it's promises of (and warped definitions of) the "good life" will destroy them, and they will be replaced with good obediant little robots like their western peers. but hey, it's all about getting the most food to the most people, right? that may very well happen, but what kind of people will be eating it?

sorry, feeling a little doom 'n gloomy.

Damn, I meant ranchers, not farmers.. I blame the beer.

Anyway, here in southern New Mexico the ranchers and the hikers/environmentalists used to be add odds with one another. Eventually we all figured out that we both enjoy is the great outdoors. This is a rather cursory explanation of how of this evolved, but i hope that it gets the point across.

Although I do still long for the days when one particularly beautiful part of the Organ Mountains wasn't polluted with the manure of free-range cattle. But in the end, we all have to learn how to get along with one another.

The Mansanto debate is one that I've been following, but feel woefully ignorant about on both sides of the debate.

Feeling woeful and gloomy eh... ? Well, just a spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down, the... Sorry, couldn't resist

hostility among people who "need" (there's an americanism i could do without) to work together is the foundation of all great economies!

not spending much time on the kabbutz, are we?

the kibbutz. right. no, not for many years. but the kibbutzim were a pretty good example of a pretty good economic model- unfortunately limited by size (after they got beyond a certain size they didn't work so good. there's studies on it.) and you wanna talk about hostility between people who need to work together! never seen anything like it. feirce. very tough people.

The Palestinians and the Israelis need to work together..

oh...

no wonder this creeps you out

the palestinians and israelis "need" to work together only if you think they "need" to survive. unfortunately a huge chunk of westerners and non-israeli jews really couldn't care less about israelis and their remarkable history and achievements and would prefer the whole situation would just disappear, and a huge chunk of the arab/muslim world think the palestinians are little better than dogs, or small rodents, and support their cause for their own nefarious ends (justifying their endless wars and attacks on just about everyone, especially their own people) and couldn't care less about the virtually subhuman (in their eyes) palestinian people.

oh, life sucks, very hard. yes it does.

Yes, I do hope that they both survive and prosper. You may say I'm a dreamer..

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace...

What creeps me out is this attitude I've seen more times that I care for, that because life/the world/the universe inherently sucks and it's "unfair", that it implies we shouldn't do anything to go against "nature".

Screw that. Evolution is about the most horrible way to live by, but it's a fact. Sucks for the weak, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't make it easier for them especially when we know we can.

"more times than I care for"

the palestinians and israelis

Imagine if they worked together instead of for and against those that think they are dogs and/or should be driven into the sea.

If ever there were two people that needed each other more, I don't think I could name them.

I guess I could see the arguement that you aren't really even two people. Isreal and palestine are two names for the same piece of land. Its like all the residents of constantinople being out to slaughter the residents of istanbul.

Its like all the residents of constantinople being out to slaughter the residents of istanbul.

i don't see how that could happen, since the people of istanbul (muslim turks) already slaughtered the people of constantinople (byzantine christians). that's why it's istanbul, you see. :)

but i see what you mean. thats, um, an interesting way of looking at it. i can see how it's true. can you see how it isn't?

since the people of istanbul (muslim turks) already slaughtered the people of constantinople (byzantine christians)

I was thinking in a more modern day sense rather than the historic. How about the people of New Amsterdam, planning to off the people of New York.

i can see how it's true. can you see how it isn't?

I can see how people choose to define themselves by geography and religion and so much more, But I do think that is a choice.

But I do think that is a choice.

fair enough. sure it's a choice for you and me and people with educations and life choices in general. but i hope you know that we are in the minority, globally speaking, and certainly in regards to the arab/israeli conflict.

No doubt. I think you could win the arguement that Palestinian and isreali people were one people and still not change one thing about the situation.

As we know from all religious debates, a well reasoned arguement only get one so far.

Rogers and Hammerstein 1943: "Oh, the (farmer) and the (cowman) should be friends"

Substitute your own nouns, as appropriate.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives