Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution, dies
green | 13.09.2009 20:37 | Bio-technology | Ecology
green
A network of individuals, independent and alternative media activists and organisations, offering grassroots, non-corporate, non-commercial coverage of important social and political issues.
green | 13.09.2009 20:37 | Bio-technology | Ecology
green
www.indymedia.org
Projects
print
radio
satellite tv
video
Africa
Europe
antwerpen
armenia
athens
austria
barcelona
belarus
belgium
belgrade
brussels
bulgaria
calabria
croatia
cyprus
emilia-romagna
estrecho / madiaq
galiza
germany
grenoble
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
liege
liguria
lille
linksunten
lombardia
madrid
malta
marseille
nantes
napoli
netherlands
northern england
nottingham imc
paris/île-de-france
patras
piemonte
poland
portugal
roma
romania
russia
sardegna
scotland
sverige
switzerland
torun
toscana
ukraine
united kingdom
valencia
Latin America
argentina
bolivia
chiapas
chile
chile sur
cmi brasil
cmi sucre
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
santiago
tijuana
uruguay
valparaiso
venezuela
Oceania
aotearoa
brisbane
burma
darwin
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney
South Asia
india
United States
arizona
arkansas
asheville
atlanta
Austin
binghamton
boston
buffalo
chicago
cleveland
colorado
columbus
dc
hawaii
houston
hudson mohawk
kansas city
la
madison
maine
miami
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
saint louis
san diego
san francisco
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
sarasota
seattle
tampa bay
united states
urbana-champaign
vermont
western mass
worcester
West Asia
Armenia
Beirut
Israel
Palestine
Topics
biotech
Process
fbi/legal updates
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech
Comments
Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments
Norman Borlaug
13.09.2009 21:47
His name was Norman Borlaug.
He was an uncritical proponent of GM crops, herbicides and pesticides.
The "green revolution" began in 1945, not to feed the world, but because the arms industry turned its chemical production system away from making explosives and into making chemical fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides.
Before 1945 virtually all agriculture was organic. Now, we are returning to organic agriculture because we realise the madness of pouring tons of poisons onto the land!
He is hailed by some as a "hero" but only because he advocated methods of production which required expensive inputs (hybrid seeds, herbicides, pesticides, fertilisers) which benefitted large corporations. Small farmers, as usual, got very little out of the so-called "green revolution"...
organico
it was dreadful
13.09.2009 22:03
1. mechanisation of food producion leading to reliance on fossil fuels and increased abstraction of water from unreplaceable sources.
2. massive increase in alienation of people from food production.
3. de-emphasising the importance of eco-systems in food production and thus devaluation of the environment (eg. ripping out of hedgerows)
4. placing huge amounts of power in a few companies which controllled the tools of "productivity" (Cargill/Monsanto/ADM/Syngetia/Ford/CNH)
5. break down of rural society in all parts of the globe where it infected.
6. increased government oversight of rural affairs, red tape and a subsidy culture.
7. factory farming and increased commodification of animals
8. pesticides and chemicals as the answers for all problems, so leading to denuded land relying on outside aids for productions.
and so on.
Basically there was nothing "green" about it.
dysophia
Can an admin correct my typo of his name?
13.09.2009 23:25
green
and it missed the point
14.09.2009 09:09
mi
Know you scientists?
14.09.2009 11:25
This might come as a shock to you, but going back a hundred years and seeing the human population of the planet fed without the "green revolution" does NOT mean that we could feed the CURRENT population -- which is SEVERAL TIMES larger!
There is a simple choice. We do NOT need the "green revolution" to feed us provided we are willing to see the human population reduced to say a quarter of its current size. On the other hand, if we want to insist on the current or an even greater human population, can't be done, however much our "religious dogma" (pseudo scientific economic ideologies) insist that we can. In other words, you should not conclude that I am FOR the "green revolution" --- but that doesn't mean that I am on "your side" of the debate.
MDN
@MDN
14.09.2009 20:28
I don't quite understand what you mean by this - in what way are you not on the side of the previous posters?
I don't think anyone denies that the Green Revolution did increase crop yields per acre significantly, the point is that the side effects mentioned above are very bad. It's a Big Business / Big Government technofix, which always tend to end badly for everyone except those at the very top. And with populations continuing to rise, it just postpones the inevitable crash, which now has the potential to involve far more people starving to death.
If it was just breeding of more hardy varieties of crops, then fine, but it came with all the baggage of chemical fertilisers and pesticides as well.
green
Hide 1 hidden comment or hide all comments