[lbo-talk] Alex Cockburn on India: wrong? (was, U.N. seeks aid...)

[ravi]

Doug Henwood wrote:
> 
> In which this graf appears:
> 
>> It is equally clear that we would not have been in a position to take 
>> an independent stand on important foreign policy issues, such as the 
>> decision not to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), if we 
>> had to depend on industrialised countries for our food needs. I am 
>> mentioning this because there are environmental and social scientists 
>> who criticise India's recent progress in achieving food 
>> self-sufficiency based on yield-enhancing techniques on grounds of 
>> ecology and equity. Ecological problems must be addressed through 
>> education, through technologies, such as integrated nutrient supply 
>> and integrated pest management, and through regulations relating to 
>> land and water use. Equity issues will have to be addressed through 
>> appropriate public policy measures. However, it will be suicidal just 
>> to recommend going back to old methods of cultivation, ignoring the 
>> fact that recurrent famine was the dominant feature of the farm 
>> scenario in the past. Our environmental movement should not only 
>> oppose unsustainable development but should propose sustainable options.
> 
> 
> The unnamed critics of "yield-enhancing techniques" would seem to 
> include Cockburn's guide and the likes of Vandana Shiva. But is there 
> any popular support for that reactionary kind of approach?
> 

reactionary towards/against whom? monsanto?

listening to a scientist suggesting that "blah must be addressed through 
technologies" is like listening to bushco talking about solving the iraq 
problem with more violence (not their word of choice, of course).

	--ravi