The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Perpetual hunger > Comments

Perpetual hunger : Comments

By Evaggelos Vallianatos, published 17/7/2008

High food prices and hunger are the inevitable consequences of an imperial food system.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Which studies, SJF? I'd be interested in reading some of them.
Posted by Passy, Friday, 18 July 2008 7:20:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passy:
"....by forcing small farmers into a global market or off the land the ability to feed the poor diminishes. This is highlighted by the fact the gains in bringing people out of malnourishment or starvation made in the last twenty years through market forces and a form of market imposed collectivisation have been wiped out by the rising price of staples around the world in less than twelve months."

Forcing farmers off their land is clearly a bad idea, or forcing them to grow crops they don't want to is also a bad idea. All governments, Marxists or otherwise, should get off the farmers' backs.

The current food problems are largely caused by govt interventions such as the criminally insanse biofuel subsidies and the equally insane agricultural subsidies in the USA and Europe. But some of the poorer countries have also implemented bad policies such as export bans.

SJF:
I don't know whether big is better in relation to agriculture, but I suspect that in some cases it is, and in others it isn't. Ultimately, it is through the experimentation of the market that the right balance can be found, not through bureaucratic decree.

"The 'big farms are better’ paradigm is just the modern incarnation of feudalism, which assumed that peasants could only be ‘productive’ if a lord and master owned their land, ruled their lives, told them what to produce and regularly extracted the fruits of their labours."

I agree, if the 'big farms are better' is forced by govt. However, if farmers are voluntarily leaving their land because they cannot compete with more efficient agricultural methods, then this process should be allowed to happen. This has happened in the past in many other countries, starting with the UK, and to some extent continues to happen everywhere. Its called progress.
Posted by bro, Friday, 18 July 2008 7:27:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passy, I didn’t describe the countries as Marxist (that is a strawman), just the philosophy.

Secondly, Passy I fully noted the point of the article and described it as “silly”. The efficiency of agriculture over the past century has patently not resulted in a decreased ability to feed the poor. Our ability to feed the poor has hardly ever been better than it is today, despite the massive population increases that have occurred. Greater efficiency in agriculture has allowed this to occur.

The current hiccup in prices is partly the result of poor policy implementation in the EU and USA, but also has other drivers including poor policy decisions in poor countries.

SJF, when did you last work on a farm? Most small farms do none of the things you describe. Because small farms are unable to appropriately reimburse family members for their labour, they consign families to poverty. You see this throughout the Third World and even in the First World. Try making a living farming 10 acres in South Dakota. Because they have fewer funds, they are unable to invest in better equipment and the quality of the operation deteriorates. Have a look at intensively cultivated small farms across much of the third world and you will see declining fertility and soil erosion – hardly an advertisement for lower ecological impact.

I am not particularly against small farms, some I know are run very well, but most small farmers I meet want to get bigger, so they can be more efficient with labour, more productive and make a better life for their families.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 18 July 2008 5:21:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Passy

‘Which studies, SJF?’

This article by George Monbiot has a very comprehensive reference list at the bottom: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/06/10/small-is-bountiful

And this provides a good overview of small-farm research:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/smallfarmsbetter.cfm

I also found this article helpful, especially the quote below: http://www.noble.org/Ag/Horticulture/SmallFarms/Index.htm

‘The higher returns to management from intensively managed farms come from the efficiency with which the various methods and enterprises on the farm are integrated, not necessarily from the efficiency of each method or enterprise.’

Bro

I agree with some of what you say. And Passy has already addressed many of the points you’ve made that I don’t agree with. However …

‘… if farmers are voluntarily leaving their land because they cannot compete with more efficient agricultural methods, then this process should be allowed to happen […] Its called progress.’

It may be called ‘progress’, but that doesn’t mean it IS progress. Also, if farmers are leaving their land because they cannot compete, then it’s not ‘voluntary’. And ‘efficiency’, in terms of unit costs per farm, is not a very adequate measure of wholistic social benefits.
Posted by SJF, Friday, 18 July 2008 5:43:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SJF:
"if farmers are leaving their land because they cannot compete, then it’s not ‘voluntary’."

Fair point. What I meant was that being forced off their land by force is different from leaving land because of an inability to compete in the market place. The former is clearly not acceptable, but the latter is.

"And ‘efficiency’, in terms of unit costs per farm, is not a very adequate measure of wholistic social benefits."

I'm not sure what you mean here.
Posted by bro, Friday, 18 July 2008 8:46:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seems that many of you are concerned about the conditions we see worldwide. Many are hoping for something better. Some even hope that the election of new government officials will change things. But, who really is to blame for the suffering we all experience? Mankind in general is responsible...wars are fought by men, it is humans that commit crimes, pollute the environment, often carry on business in a manner motivated by greed rather than concern for their fellow man. They sometimes indulge in habits that they know can be harmful to their health. When they do these things they hurt not only themselves but others as well. Should it be expected that humans would be immune to the consequences of what they do? In the Bible, God tells us how we can avoid much suffering. If we ignore his help, is it fair to blame God for the trouble that we bring upon ourselves and others? We can have a happy and successful life but we must take advantage of the provision God has made possible for the human family through his Son, Jesus. It is through his administration that lasting changes will take place....no more war, crime, sickness , hunger, housing problems, natural disasters and even death itself will be eliminated. And just think....we've all prayed for it to come-Matthew 6:9,10.
Posted by texasgirl, Saturday, 19 July 2008 11:17:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy