[p2p-research] controversy: GM foods and organic agriculture

[Ryan Lanham]

It is interesting that GM foods are designed so as to minimize production
loss risk--another string in this same list.

I don't worry about their (GM foods') safety; in my opinion grains in
general aren't that good as human foods, but if you are hungry, grains fill
you up.  A real challenge is to get people productive enough so that they
can earn some money to buy things--thereby creating demand for
infrastructure that will lead to roads, shops, etc. where people can buy
things.

Productivity requires education, capital and enough political stability so
that investments can work.  I've seen guys borrow 200 Euros on MyC4 in Kenya
to get a few more goats.  They pay off the loan (sometimes at 17%+ interest)
and hugely increase their livelihood within a couple of years.  Very few
actually fail--less than 3-5%.  That will lead to more food, lower costs,
etc.

I've lent money to guys who buy and then rent out tractors in Uganda and who
repair shoes or sell cellphone batteries in Ghana and Tanzania.  It always
seems to work.  These people (many are women) know their demand and can
gauge their appropriate investment to increase supply, and then build a
small business that earns funds to get stuff...like appropriate food.  If GM
is a bad idea, they won't buy it for long.  If it is a good idea, they'll be
sending orders to Monsanto right and left.

What will not work is shipping excess food from Texas to Ghana and then
passing it out of the back of a truck.  That may keep people alive, but it
isn't going to build stable farms, towns, etc.  GM crops might though if
they are more drought resistent, bug resistent, etc.  Only time will tell.
Nothing stops people from competing with Monsanto or starting a foundation
to assure that organic seed is subsidized at competitive prices.

Ryan



On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com>wrote:

> Pamela Ronald <
> http://Boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/16/the_new_organic<http://boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/16/the_new_organic>
> > wrote:
>
> > To meet the appetites of the world's population
>
> What a dangerous load of cruft.
>
> If higher production were the goal we could
> simply discontinue the insane practice of
> paying farmers to *not* grow.
>
> But our corporate operated governments will
> never stop paying for scarcity as long as profit
> is being treated as a reward for the current owners
> instead of being treated as an investment from the
> consumer who paid it.
>
> Profit *only* occurs during scarcity and is most
> meaningfully interpreted as a payer's plea for growth.
>
> Profit proves there is an imbalance in the ownership
> of the Means of Production, yet tapers toward zero as
> the payer approaches sufficient ownership in the
> Means required to provide him with his own needs
> and wants, for then production can safely occur "at-cost".
>
> Moving toward 'perfect' distribution of ownership
> would be easily attained and even self-correcting if
> price above cost were invested for the one who paid,
> and then eventually *vested* back to that same actor.
>
> But this fact will continue to be resisted for many more decades
> because our brains have been washed into believing product
> is not nearly as important as keeping price above cost.
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090521/c272612d/attachment.html>