“Families weren’t related so much to the absence of food as the inability to buy it.” - Raj Patel from Stuffed and Starved
Wouldn’t you have thought that hunger around the world is due to the lack of food rather than the cost of food? I would have.
The facts are though, as economist Amartya Sen concluded, there’s enough food, plenty of it in fact, but the prices that are set by those who own it, are too high.
ABSURD. Don’t you think so? Well, I do.
Does the U.S always think that it knows/ is the solution to a problem? Or does it interfere for its owns benefit? I do understand that it works both ways, however, I do not believe it is always for the best. America was scared of India falling to communism during the cold war, so it took a step and provided a program of food and monetary aid; which of course, due to competition, decreased the production of wheat in India. By interfering, America somewhat won political control. Nonetheless, America also provided technology. Here, one would think it is an advantage for India- however, it made the land unsuitable for the crops, which of course, led farmers into significant debt. Also, let us not forget that the technology that was introduced, was indeed expensive for the farmers (and with the competition that was going, the farmers were not able to make money for the equipment).
On the other hand, the region of Kerala in India gave people welfare, health care, and education. The people here had the highest life expectancy and literacy rates. Instead of it being unsuccessful as the regions around Kerala, this actually helped the people. The unsuccessful regions around Kerala ended up getting cheap food from the Government program (PDS)-- as the population increased, the distribution of food decreased. This doesn’t make sense, does it? Nope, not to me- that’s for sure.
Furthermore, take a look at the video posted below:
India’s farmers, compared to Monsanto, a company that produces genetically modified crops, do not have enough water, because of the use of Monsanto’s seeds, and cannot move to new land when and if they need to. Even though Monsanto seeds have no won it big in India’s market, they sure did corrupt many of the farmer’s farms, business, and lives.
Why is it okay for Monsanto to have protection legally, not only in the US, but also in India? Legal monopoly? I personally do not get it. Even if in some areas, it succeeded and did indeed help, will it be helping in the long run?
Perhaps countries should inform farmers how to grow their crops without the use of expensive technology, use pesticides less. For this, I do believe the possibility of farmers falling into debt will decrease.
Being so, I will leave you with two questions:
Are people trying to make the world a better or a worse place?
Have people become so selfish and ignorant to let people starve to death, because of profit (even with all the knowledge and education they have)?
~Crazy world, ey?
No comments:
Post a Comment