4 ms·
It was also "Green" in terms of the environment, saving millions of acres of rain forest and wilderness from agricultural cultivation.
by ckinnan 17y ago
It was also "Green" in terms of the environment, saving millions of acres of rain forest and wilderness from agricultural cultivation.
- pmorici 17y agoHardly. Part of the Green revolution was the heavy use of chemical pesticides which is horrible for the environment. http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food?c=News-and-Information/Documentary-and-Biography http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-food?c=News-an...
- dougp 17y agoHe uses tons of chemical fertilizer not pesticides big difference.
- glymor 17y agoYou can't feed 6 billon people on organic farming. http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132479.html http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132479.html
- dagw 17y agoIs anybody arguing that you can? Is anybody championing organic farming because they think it will feed the world?
- robotrout 17y agoSure they are. Any progressive, liberal, green, whatever, person who corners you in a coffee shop and laments how evil farmers are for not doing organic farming. That guy, you know him. He better think it's going to feed the world. I'd rather believe he's stupid than believe he's genocidal.
- dagw 17y agoMaybe the progressive, liberal, green people I've met are more nuanced. Most realize that organic farming is inherently less efficient (in calories per acre farmable land) and aren't putting forward as a solution to world hunger.
- pmorici 17y agoThat wasn't the point the OP said that the Green revolution was great for the environment. That's not strictly true there are some good things but also bad.
- masomenos 17y agoPlenty of studies suggest that organic can be as or more productive than chemical intensive. A quick google produces the following from the University of Michigan: http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5936 http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5936
- asdlfj2sd33 17y agoBut it is also a high risk, high yield strategy. The high yield is great, the high risk not so much. It is heavily reliant on very few, very closely related varieties and pesticides. That's just a ticking clock until a fungus or something like it, attack these strains and the lack of genetic diversity leads to mass starvation. There's also the very long term damage from chemical fertilizer, things like hard-pan.