4 ms·

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

by 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.
    - ido 12y ago
      I guess we can agree to disagree about what would be more desirable/effective.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Sure; but its not actually what WE think that matters. Ask them if they would LIKE to emigrate to America. What do you think? Would they want to stay in their semi-arid dust bowl? Or move to Northeast Iowa and farm with regular rain, fabulous soil and ready markets?

by ido 12y ago

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.
  - ido 12y ago
    I guess we can agree to disagree about what would be more desirable/effective.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      Sure; but its not actually what WE think that matters. Ask them if they would LIKE to emigrate to America. What do you think? Would they want to stay in their semi-arid dust bowl? Or move to Northeast Iowa and farm with regular rain, fabulous soil and ready markets?