This is a sad article about the result of the Green Revolution in parts of India. https://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9710 Looks like you can buy a village with thousands of acres for a couple of million dollars. Villagers and their body parts included - probably. Mike
Okay, my cynicism is once again rearing up... "All this happened at a time when high-chemical input based technology had already mined the soils and ultimately led to the lands gasping for breath, with the water-guzzling crops sucking the groundwater aquifer dry, and with the failure of the markets to rescue the farmers from a collapse of the farming systems." Do I understand this correctly? Just like farmers in America, they buy into the idea that they can't grow food crops unless they are from GM or other super seeds, they require chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, and tons of water, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE DOING FINE USING THE OLD METHODS OF THE PAST FEW THOUSAND YEARS. Now, their decision has turned around and is biting them in the butt, so they are looking for someone else to buy them out of it? They say that the farmers are still only getting the same prices for their food crops now that they were getting 20 years ago. I know that is the American way of thought: we make a bad decision, so you have to pay for it, but in a country as poor as India, what do they expect? "And yet, it doesn't shock the conscious of the world's biggest democracy." Am I wrong or does that mean the U.S.? Okay, they're poor and ignorant, poor and stupid, poor and gullible. So why do they think that someone else should pay for it? Personally, I am sick of paying high taxes to support the whole damned world, just so they can make bad decisions and then stick out their hands for compensation. Sue
I'm not quite sure, Sue, who your cynicism is directed at. The author, the messenger (that's me) or the villagers. They made a screwball decision (in retrospect at least) to buy into this Green Revolution thing. In some places the government (that's the people with the guns) directed them to do it that way. And they are paying the price. The same price (probably) that the rest of the world will pay, in time. It's no use fighting nature. No amount of market forces are going to fix this one. However, in pondering the question I posed in the first sentence, I reread the article and now see your point. I don't read the newspapers, or watch TV, and tend to read through the fluff and try to hone in on the facts. I will admit I completely missed the sensationalism and guilt that the author was communicating. Maybe my cynicism is now so natural I don't even notice it doing its job. Mike
Cynicism is all very well We can all be cynical on this site, in everyday life, doing everyday things, but it isn't particularly constructive nor a positive way of looking at life. It certainly is about as useless as tits on a bull on a permaculture forum website. It also doesn't auger well for members of the site to form a "picture" of other "cynical" members;- very few of us know to whom we are communicating with in real life, and as such all we have to go on to form an impression is what is written here. Impressions are really not much use on an internet site, (for the same reason, it being unlikely we will ever meet in R/L), but bad impressions do make people either disinclined to help or disinclined to visit the website. I certainly visit here far less often than I used to.
No offence intended Sue, but shouldn't at least as much of your taxes spent on warmongering be directed to helping poor farmers? I think it is worth remembering that our relatively comfortable lifestyles are all bound up in the poverty of most of the rest of the world. For sure, people who live in poverty have less choices.
Richard, personally, I think the U.S. has its fingers in waaaay too many pies. Where this government got the idea that it needs to get into every country, into every thousand-year-old war, and every country's problems is simply beyond my comprehension. I think we should butt out of EVERYONE'S business, stop trying to police the entire world, and stop trying to solve everyone's problems (IF that's what they're trying to do, which I doubt). From what I've seen, farmers are a pretty stupid breed, in my country and other countries. They always seem to think there's this magic method that's going to solve all their problems.... even when they didn't have many problems to begin with. And no, Mike, I'm not aiming at you. I'm simply tired of poor decisions from people who then stick their hand out for compensation. Sorry for the rant. Sue
I do like the idea if I had the money to buy the area and introduce permaculture on a grand scale, introduce a sustainable designed agriculture and become a training and resource centre for those other villages in real trouble, give hope and direction back to those poeple. Oh and kick all those low life money sharks out of the area. Sound like you would need to start with a few tons of black wattle seed to help remove all those chemicals. Now where did I put that spare million bucks?
Actually Sue, as a dollar figure per capita, or as a percentage of GDP, US citizens are behind almost all developed countries when it comes to providing overseas aid. That's before we get into what form the aid actually takes...https://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp The US is hardly alone in this attitude, but it is the worst offender IMO. As for how the US got itself into this mess, check out The End of Dollar Hegemony...these developments are all key to how the world has been shaped in the past and how it will be shaped in the future. The US has been bankrupt for nearly half a century...
Any idea which western country is one of the worst at providing overseas aid? no not the USA, nope not england... could it be Australia, yep thats right we are one of the worst or cheapest or tightest, what ever you want to call it. The USA is an easy target, Australia is only ever a small step behind the USA so we can't go throwing stones when our government and peoples are just as bad. Coming down the highway on the weekend in our little 1300cc car we had 9 4wds around us, not one other car, the finger is often pointed here at the USA and it's love of the SUV, me thinks it just as bad here, we are just as bad. I'm not not a big fan of either countries government but very few western counties do their part in bettering or protecting the environment of the worlds poor.
I have heard it said that it took about two hours a day to provide food and shelter for a foraging lifestyle. I am not quite sure whether that was per person or per family. Now have a look at the western lifestyle. We work (on average) 6 hours (?) per day. For all of the things that we have and do. Wow, only four more hours per day for all these things!! Do you think somebody (or something) else might just be paying - instead of us? Can you say "externalisation of costs"? Do you think these Indian villagers woke up one morning and said "we need to grow more vegetables so we can eat more"? Or do you think that the 'more' ended up in our lifestyles? By providing these people with aid money we would be mocking them. If they are truly to be compensated then the ones that mined their soil must keep these people and their descendants forever. Kind of like Nauru, I suppose. Except that $2.5m for 20 years is hardly forever. But, really, aren't we now finding that there isn't enough energy or money on the face of this planet to fix this problem in all the places that it occurs? If there is a way forward then it can only be as bazman suggested. $AU2m is $40k per person spread over 50 people. Add another 50 people to pay for the bit and pieces and we might be able to start. (The open source operating system LINUX started with an email just like this one - now the some of the world's computing community considers it the future of computing. Will 100 people say yes to this email and move to India to save the planet?) :?: Mike
from: https://www.ausaid.gov.au/makediff/whatis.cfm#how How much Australia spends In 2005-2006 Australia will provide $2.491 billion worth of official development assistance (aid). This is an increase of almost $358 million on the 2004-2005 budget figure of $2.133 billion. All Australians contribute to Australia's aid program. Every week, each of us puts in around $2.40 to pay for our aid program - about the cost of a loaf of bread a week. This amounts to around 1% of Federal Government expenditure compared to the 42% spent on social security and welfare. The ratio of Australia's aid to Gross National Income (GNI) is estimated at 0.28 per cent, placing Australia consistently above the international donor average.
Ok ok I have some of my figures mixed up, sorry, I think the figures I was thinking of was from a report on private donation and not based on what governments spent. To compare what governments spend I found this. https://www.devinit.org/dagfigs2004brief2.pdf From these figures Australia is not that hot in the aid dept, the G7 are worst. Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands have a 0.7% or more GNI aid budget, which is a UN target, Australia's is 0.25.
Didn't Australians contribute a huge amount, millions and millions, to the Tsunami appeal, and wasn't it the biggest outpouring of public generosityto a neighbouring country that this nation has seen in the last 20 years? I must be watching the wrong TV channel programs (hello Oprah) and donating my hard earned moola to the wrong charities... Goodness this thread really did get off topic!
That was me Baz, flashing my high beam in your rear vision mirror, edging closer and closer with my intimidating bullbar. I love my 4x4! 8)
OKay, statement made. Now to elaborate. We make judgements about people we have never met which are often way off base and unjustified. Baz, you might just have seen me in my big black Nissan Patrol with 2 children and a pram in the back visiting my sister in inner Melbourne and thought, 'what does SHE need that thing for?'. What you wouldn't have seen was the fact that it is our ONLY vehicle, it runs on gas, it's regularly serviced and only used when absolutely necessary. What you also wouldn't have seen was my husband walking 2 km to and 2km from the bus stop each day, ride the bus for 45 minutes and the train for 45 minutes, just to get to work each day. That's 20 minutes walking, 45 minutes bus and 45 minutes train, nearly 2 hours each way, just so we can get away with running one vehicle! The other thing you wouldn't have seen is us regularly using our vehicle to tow horse floats and stock crates, to use in place of the tractor we don't own to drag fallen logs and carry out basically tractor type crap on our small property. If I could do all of that with a 1300cc car, I sure as would save myself a heap in running costs, but I couldn't. I just wanted to set the record straight in defence of many 4x4 owners. Re charity, I believe charity begins at home. Plus, there's NO way I'm sending my money over seas when we've got children living beneath the poverty line here in Australia.
G'day all, My, what a lively discussion! This is living, hey? My *personal* opinion concerning 'foriegn aid' agencies: The only one's receiving the aid are the agencies themselves. Sure *some* material substance gets to the people who are starving/morbidly ill/homeless/whatever. But I think the question we should be asking of these agencies is: "Exactly what systems do you put into place to enable the misfortunate people of the world to become empowered and self-sustaining within their own cultural sphere?" Another one might be: "If we provide the support to enable the people of the world in the above situations to become self-sustaining through 'bottom up' programs, does this mean that you guys are out of a job?". If you drip-feed a plant it will die when you remove the support mechanism (and you will have to become detached from it one day). Why should a community (or certain individuals within that community) be any different? Who was it that said: "Feed a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a a man to fish, and you feed him for life"? For any human culture to be considered sustainable it must have the capacity (proven only with historical hindsight) to reproduce itself down the generations while providing human material needs without cataclysmic and long-term breakdown. (Holmgren 2003: p.xxx) Cheerio all, Mark.
I have no idea what the Australian government spends on overseas aid - but I'd be keen to know how that figure compares to what it spends on maintaining troops in Iraq - or what it gives to mulit-nationals to encourage their operating in Australia (eg Mitsibishi in Adelaide a few years ago etc). I don't know what citizens give either - but I wonder how it compares to what we spend on gambling, alcohol and cigarettes? I could be cynical - but my guess would be that what we spend on 'compensating' third world countries in the form of aid (for the social, cultural and environmental havoc generations of western exploitation is responsible for) is likely to be the smaller of the two figures. The other thing I wonder about, is how many of us are so concerned to make sure that our donations don't just support the aid agencies admin, that absolutely none of our money gets through to the people who desperately need it, because we just end up keeping it ourselves??? Ree
