4 ms·

I don't know, but I would be really surprised if moving millions of people is more efficient than moving sufficient amount of agricultural equipment & some farm

by ido 12y ago

I don't know, but I would be really surprised if moving millions of people is more efficient than moving sufficient amount of agricultural equipment & some farmers to get them started on using them correctly (remember that a lot of these people are already farmers, just not using modern tools/fertilizers). Not to mention it's at least slightly offensive & like treating people like cattle to move them around wholesale like that. Ultimately the problem is not the climate or soil it's the (mis)allocations of resources.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Ethiopia has periodic crippling drought. So it is the climate. Water is very precious there. That's the impetus behind the question which can be stated as "Move the people to water, or scavenge water where the people are". Again, the 'offensive' argument is political. Trying to just compare outcomes, to know what to shoot for in the political realm. Remember, these are already refugees, there against their will.
- ido 12y ago
  And yet Israel has less hospitable climate and it's doing just fine, due to resources invested in water reclamation/desalination and high(er) tech agriculture[1]. I think you really overestimate how harsh the climate in Ethiopia is - it's not like trying to colonize Mars or Arrakis. It's hardly the Sahara either. The climate is in fact less harsh than fairly extensive parts of the US (particularly the West). [1] Israel was also doing quite well even when it was a fairly poor country in the 50s/60s (although it was never as dirt poor as Ethiopia).
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Tigray is classed as 'hot, semi-arid'. So only semi-desert I guess. Israel is pretty much the poster child for western technological development of arid land, with high education and no cap on the budget. Not fair. To look at it another way, consider a village of 200 refugees. Instead of importing a tractor, mechanic, fuel supply route, parts, seed, education, engineering know-how etc. Consider moving those 200 people to where the parts store is not 10,000 miles away. Arguably cheaper. Most of America is uninhabited for instance. I heard once that everybody in China could fit in Montana easily. There're 100M acres in Montana, so maybe that's a stretch - 20 people supported by 1 acres is unlikely.
    - ido 12y ago
      Yes, moving 200 people (and probably also 2,000 or even 20,000) is easier than building the required infrastructure to grow food for them. But after a certain point moving more people grows costs approximately linearly where as growing food via modern farming does not. That's how modern rich countries like the USA can be net food exporters while employing less than 2% of the population (you will find similar figures in other developed countries). A village of 200 people in the middle of nowhere probably can't be fed by 4 farmers regardless of how much equipment they have.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Yet those people in Ethiopia were using hand labor and baskets to build dams. That doesn't look like scalable western farming. It looks a lot harder. So the argument "Move them to the West where modern farming techniques are available" now becomes very, very much more efficient that leaving them where they are.
    - ido 12y ago
      So the argument "Move them to the West where modern farming techniques are available" now becomes very, very much more efficient that leaving them where they are. But the argument wasn't for "just leaving them where they are" - it was for bringing them modern farming techniques. The reason that wasn't done has more to do with politics and economics (in the sense that there isn't as much money to be made by doing so - same reason why nobody is going to spend billions/trillions bringing them to Montana).
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Right, to be honest, nobody is going to bring them modern farm techniques either. It costs too much. They're going to remain in extreme poverty, building a few mud dams and raising corn with their muscles, for as long as they live. But if you Were to spend money on improving their lot, then I'd much rather transport a culturally significant number of them to a convenient location where their efforts could leverage modern resources.

by ido 12y ago

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

Ethiopia has periodic crippling drought. So it is the climate. Water is very precious there. That's the impetus behind the question which can be stated as "Move the people to water, or scavenge water where the people are". Again, the 'offensive' argument is political. Trying to just compare outcomes, to know what to shoot for in the political realm. Remember, these are already refugees, there against their will.

ido 12y ago
And yet Israel has less hospitable climate and it's doing just fine, due to resources invested in water reclamation/desalination and high(er) tech agriculture[1]. I think you really overestimate how harsh the climate in Ethiopia is - it's not like trying to colonize Mars or Arrakis. It's hardly the Sahara either. The climate is in fact less harsh than fairly extensive parts of the US (particularly the West). [1] Israel was also doing quite well even when it was a fairly poor country in the 50s/60s (although it was never as dirt poor as Ethiopia).
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Tigray is classed as 'hot, semi-arid'. So only semi-desert I guess. Israel is pretty much the poster child for western technological development of arid land, with high education and no cap on the budget. Not fair. To look at it another way, consider a village of 200 refugees. Instead of importing a tractor, mechanic, fuel supply route, parts, seed, education, engineering know-how etc. Consider moving those 200 people to where the parts store is not 10,000 miles away. Arguably cheaper. Most of America is uninhabited for instance. I heard once that everybody in China could fit in Montana easily. There're 100M acres in Montana, so maybe that's a stretch - 20 people supported by 1 acres is unlikely.
  - ido 12y ago
    Yes, moving 200 people (and probably also 2,000 or even 20,000) is easier than building the required infrastructure to grow food for them. But after a certain point moving more people grows costs approximately linearly where as growing food via modern farming does not. That's how modern rich countries like the USA can be net food exporters while employing less than 2% of the population (you will find similar figures in other developed countries). A village of 200 people in the middle of nowhere probably can't be fed by 4 farmers regardless of how much equipment they have.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      Yet those people in Ethiopia were using hand labor and baskets to build dams. That doesn't look like scalable western farming. It looks a lot harder. So the argument "Move them to the West where modern farming techniques are available" now becomes very, very much more efficient that leaving them where they are.
  - ido 12y ago
    So the argument "Move them to the West where modern farming techniques are available" now becomes very, very much more efficient that leaving them where they are. But the argument wasn't for "just leaving them where they are" - it was for bringing them modern farming techniques. The reason that wasn't done has more to do with politics and economics (in the sense that there isn't as much money to be made by doing so - same reason why nobody is going to spend billions/trillions bringing them to Montana).
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      Right, to be honest, nobody is going to bring them modern farm techniques either. It costs too much. They're going to remain in extreme poverty, building a few mud dams and raising corn with their muscles, for as long as they live. But if you Were to spend money on improving their lot, then I'd much rather transport a culturally significant number of them to a convenient location where their efforts could leverage modern resources.