4 ms·
So the argument "Move them to the West where modern farming techniques are available" now becomes very, very much more efficient that leaving them wher
by 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 agoRight, 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 agoI guess we can agree to disagree about what would be more desirable/effective.
- JoeAltmaier 12y agoSure; 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?