Greener/Organic lead to world econmic collaspe???

si1503

Very interesting debate guys. Thanks.

So what is the answer?

caroline1973lefty

cardew, you say that at the turn of the 20th century, ie at the height of the british empire, the average life expectancy in india was 23, and now (60 years after independence) it is much longer. that is exactly the point i was making. india's life expectancy increased dramatically after independence, and not through reliance on the west but through following a relatively socialist, relatively protectionist economic path (which is now changing, with unknown consequences).

there are no easy answers, though coming back to the environmental issue raised in the OP, 'contraction and convergence' (a policy on development and economic growth that allows countries a FAIR share of the worlds fossil fuel use) is a very interesting idea and one that deserves to be more widely known.

IMO part of the problem is that we are still taught a version of history that majors on the 'white man's burden' theory of empire, which is just nonsense. the point you make about AIDS illustrates this really well. Many poorer countries such as South Africa, India and Brazil, who suffer much higher rates of HIV than we do here, have developed their own anti-AIDS drugs using their own well-trained scientists, but the western drugs companies shameful response to this has been to get these drugs banned by imposing longer patent restrictions (whilst at the same time seeking to steal native wisdom about medical propoerties of plants, and even to 'patent' those same plants, a disgraceful and highly dangerous practice).

Cardew

Caroline,
I assume ‘lefty’ in part of your screen name is there by design? I say that not as a criticism, as indeed in the circles in which I moved I was considered a ‘dangerous Red’ I wonder also if the ‘1973’ element would be your YOB?

You have this preoccupation with blaming ‘the developed nations’ for the plight of the Third world; which IMO cannot stand up to any sensible analysis; in short you are just spouting leftish propaganda which is as inaccurate as it is depressing.

To consider some points in your latest post:

cardew, you say that at the turn of the 20th century, ie at the height of the british empire, the average life expectancy in india was 23, and now (60 years after independence) it is much longer. that is exactly the point i was making. india's life expectancy increased dramatically after independence, and not through reliance on the west but through following a relatively socialist, relatively protectionist economic path

The increased life expectancy is due largely to the advances in Medicine(chiefly anti-biotics) that eradicated or curtailed the killer diseases – almost without exception these medicines were developed and supplied by the West.

Another factor was the ability to move huge quantities of food quickly around the country when famine threatened. This food was moved on a rail network, (developed by ?? – you guessed)that was in place well before Independence.

The extension of your argument must be that India(and other countries) do not need any aid or assistance from the outside world. In fact India was and is almost totally reliable on the West for aid and technology.

I am glad you used the term ‘relatively socialist’. I would not define a regime as socialist that has some of the richest people on earth and yet tolerates a system where it is commonplace to see bodies on the streets of cities; and is still based on a caste system that allows, indeed encourages, the disgraceful discrimination against the ‘Untouchables’.

Many poorer countries such as South Africa, India and Brazil, who suffer much higher rates of HIV than we do here, have developed their own anti-AIDS drugs using their own well-trained scientists, but the western drugs companies shameful response to this has been to get these drugs banned by imposing longer patent restrictions

If they have developed their own anti-aids drugs, as you state, how do patents apply?

Anyway you are way out of date with your information. Whilst the Western Drug Companies would not drastically reduce the prices of their drugs, these restrictions have largely been lifted – do some research on the Internet.

IMO part of the problem is that we are still taught a version of history that majors on the 'white man's burden' theory of empire, which is just nonsense.

OK, let us consider Zimbabwe; a country rich in natural resources.

This country typified the old British colonial style. Dominated by the white minority who undoubtedly exploited the black majority( I define them that way as both races are African and have been for generations)

However despite the obvious inequality, the black majority enjoyed the highest standard of living in sub-Sahara Africa.

It has taken a decade of Robert Mugabe and his henchmen to set up a ‘socialist’ dictatorship, ruin the country’s economy with one of the most corrupt and evil regime’s in Africa and reduce much of the population to starvation.

The problems of Zimbabwe could be solved virtually overnight. The West could depose Mugabe and restore the farms to their rightful owners; the(white) farmers and the economy would flourish.

Paternalistic – agreed. Politically unacceptable – agreed. However everyone knows it would work; and work quickly. What’s more everyone knows the vast majority of the black majority would vote to return to the previous situation if they had the chance.

IvanOpinion

I remember zimbabwe being referred to as 'the larder of Africa' .. and it was. Unfortunately Mugabe kicked out the white farmers and gave the land to black 'veterans' who knew nothing about farming. Black farm workers went from being well paid to being slave labour often forced to work at the end of a gun. Many areas that were profitable and lush farm lands have now been reclaimed by the desert due to bad land management and zimbabwe is now failing to feed a significant proportion of its population.

This was 100% avoidable. I am not convinced that some of this can be repaired though since in some areas it will be impossible to reclaim the land back fro the desert .. the damage has been done.

Ivan

caroline1973lefty

not sure why my age is relevant! does slightly bug me that the younger generations are accused of political apathy, but if we express a political viewpoint there's the implicit criticism that we don't really understand because we don't remember the spirit of 68, or the winter of discontent, or whatever. think the point for the younger generatinos (not that i'm that young- 33!) is very much about looking forward to the kind of world we want to live in the future, anyway.

i have the feeling we could argue these points forever, so i'll just come back on one of them - on the aids debate, i'm sorry but my info is not out of date, the fact is the drugs companies have only pretended to be generous, and now the truth is coming out- see this story from last month, for example
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1946998,00.html

i'd recommend anyone who wants to get into this a bit more to look at https://www.waronwant.org and https://www.oxfam.org.uk and https://www.corporatewatch.org.uk

must try and put this in my signature:
"the world has enough for every man's need, but not enough for every man's greed"
Ghandi

gotta go, take it easy folks!

cazrobinson

i can't believe that someone posted on here that, in third world countires it's their fault for having large families!

omg

the reason we have small families in the west is because we have used all available land for housing, recreation, farming, building industries etc and have to have small families. we can't support our families from the land that we live on!! we are the ones who are poorly resourced and have to import most of our food, clothing and basic needs. And to provide them cheaply we rob the third world of it's treasures. we exploit the third world to suit our lifestyle and then we complain about them having large families (who all work hard - even children) to support our way of life.

well all i can say, is that the west is only interested in helping the third world fight against aids, because it means there are less workers to provide for us. millions of children are dying, have lost parents and are the head of the household and we worry about their morals! soon the oppressed will be disperate and too few to support our industries etc. what will we do then? there is no way that we can forage and farm on our small isle to feed our population.

we are slowly killing ourselves - how many people know how to grow carrots for instance?

we all should be concerned about the third world not because we should feel guilty, but because we are all dependant on them!

tr3mor

caroline1973lefty wrote:

not sure why my age is relevant! does slightly bug me that the younger generations are accused of political apathy, but if we express a political viewpoint there's the implicit criticism that we don't really understand because we don't remember the spirit of 68, or the winter of discontent, or whatever. think the point for the younger generatinos (not that i'm that young- 33!) is very much about looking forward to the kind of world we want to live in the future, anyway.

Well, I'm 22, go me!

caroline1973lefty wrote:

i have the feeling we could argue these points forever, so i'll just come back on one of them - on the aids debate, i'm sorry but my info is not out of date, the fact is the drugs companies have only pretended to be generous, and now the truth is coming out- see this story from last month, for example
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1946998,00.html

Drug companies only do research because of the huge financial gains to be made. If you take away the protection there is no incentive to invest heavily in researching new drugs.

We wouldn't have the medicine we have today if its development was left to a handful of altruistic scientists!

tr3mor

cazrobinson wrote:

i can't believe that someone posted on here that, in third world countires it's their fault for having large families!

E.G. Ethiopia's population has risen from 5million to 65million in 100 years. What else can be blamed for this aside from people having large families?

Its population is predicted to rise to 145 million over the next 40 years. Whose fault is that?

cazrobinson wrote:

the reason we have small families in the west is because we have used all available land for housing, recreation, farming, building industries etc and have to have small families. we can't support our families from the land that we live on!!

You're right, we have small families because we realise this country cannot support many more of us. We struggle to meet our needs in this green and pleasant land, how can sub-Saharan Africa expect to support its booming population?

cazrobinson wrote:

we are the ones who are poorly resourced and have to import most of our food, clothing and basic needs. And to provide them cheaply we rob the third world of it's treasures. we exploit the third world to suit our lifestyle and then we complain about them having large families (who all work hard - even children) to support our way of life.

In general we were referring to Africans having large, unsustainable families. They generally produce nothing for western consumers.

You're thinking of China, a country which definitely doesn't encourage large families! The fact that couples in China are generally limited to having one child is very likely contributing to the country's success.

cazrobinson wrote:

well all i can say, is that the west is only interested in helping the third world fight against aids, because it means there are less workers to provide for us. millions of children are dying, have lost parents and are the head of the household and we worry about their morals! soon the oppressed will be disperate and too few to support our industries etc. what will we do then? there is no way that we can forage and farm on our small isle to feed our population.

Don't be stupid. If it were in our interest to fight the AIDS epidemic don't you think we might have actually done something constructive by now?

They make a big song and dance about what their aims simply to win a populist vote. Tony even signed Bob's petition

Behind the scenes they don't give a toss.

cazrobinson wrote:

we are slowly killing ourselves - how many people know how to grow carrots for instance?

If it came to it I'm sure an emergency pamphlet would be issued on the intricacies

cazrobinson wrote:

we all should be concerned about the third world not because we should feel guilty, but because we are all dependant on them!

Sigh.

Cardew

cazrobinson wrote:

i can't believe that someone posted on here that, in third world countires it's their fault for having large families!

omg

the reason we have small families in the west is because we have used all available land for housing, recreation, farming, building industries etc and have to have small families. we can't support our families from the land that we live on!! we are the ones who are poorly resourced and have to import most of our food, clothing and basic needs. And to provide them cheaply we rob the third world of it's treasures. we exploit the third world to suit our lifestyle and then we complain about them having large families (who all work hard - even children) to support our way of life.

well all i can say, is that the west is only interested in helping the third world fight against aids, because it means there are less workers to provide for us. millions of children are dying, have lost parents and are the head of the household and we worry about their morals! soon the oppressed will be disperate and too few to support our industries etc. what will we do then? there is no way that we can forage and farm on our small isle to feed our population.

we are slowly killing ourselves - how many people know how to grow carrots for instance?

we all should be concerned about the third world not because we should feel guilty, but because we are all dependant on them!

I think that comes close to being the silliest post on this forum.

We are not dependant on the Third World for any essential produce or services. To base any argument on that premise is just a nonsense.

On the contrary many of those countries are totally dependant on the West for aid, medicine and technology.

If all trade between the West and the Third World stopped we wouldn’t starve, but many of them would! For certain we wouldn’t get our exotic fruit and vegetables and many other luxuries, but we have the ability to be self-sufficient and they haven’t - with their current population.

cazrobinson

okay - look at your supermarket purchases a little closer:

cotton shirts come from cotton made in the USA, shipped to India/China to be made and then shipped back to the west.

all electronics come from China for domestic goods and computers and cars etc

rainforests in Africa and South America - lungs of the world - are being chopped down for coffee and other mass produced foods.

Bananas/Coconuts/Palm Oil (in most products food and medicine) in the Carribean.

Beef farming from cutdown rainforests.

Cheap beef from America.

Cheap steel from South America and Africa.

Petrolium Oil from the Middle East to run your car, make your shampoo, make most plastics.

Gas from Russia to heat our homes and cook our food.

lots of Western people in need of a transplant are now exploring china as a cheap resource of HUMAN BODY PARTS!! because of their fiercesome approach to justice and the death penalty, thus lots of cheap body parts! yuck!

we employ hundreds of cheap medical staff from abroad, becuase we don't have to train them. imagine if they all went home - who would look after your poorly aunt when she's in hospital?

I laugh when you say we don't rely on the third world for anything - we rely on the third world for EVERYTHING! and to protect our own home industries, we enforce trade conditions on imports, to make the foriegn impports seem more expensive than they actually are.

The only silly posts on here are those which are knee-jeck reactions to the times et al propoganda. I'm not a intellectual - I just listen, read widely.

expand your horizons and you'll see how dependant we are on international trade and co-operation.

getting back to the original question about size of families - aids has more or less made big families in Africa and beyond much less of a 'problem'. Man, Woman and Child are dying in droves, without painrelief and age expectancy is now for most 28 years. Many children are now heads of the household.

Since we depend on them heavily, do you not think that their problem is our problem?

good books to read:
the politics of breastfeeding
There's No Such Thing as a Free Lunch
Fast Food Nation: What the All-American Meal Is Doing to the World
No logo