[lbo-talk] GM rice - top of the crops

[Jim Devine]

I don't think that one can separate the political economy from the
technology, even for a moment. But I'm all in favor of new[*]
technologies _in the abstract_. The question concerns the specific
costs vs. their benefits of specific new technologies, where we can't
forget external costs or benefits. (The devil is in the details.)  And
the nature of these costs and benefits depend on the nature of the
political economy. The latter also has a big effect on which
technologies are developed and introduced.

[*] one word that should be dropped is "modern." It's either
propaganda (everything new is good) or an object of derision. It's
often mixed up with capitalist modernity (or Soviet-style modernity).
"New" is much simpler and doesn't imply "good" or "bad."

On 8/24/05, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> Could we please, just for argument's sake,
> separate the political economy from the
> technology for a moment? There's no doubt - is
> there? - that India is producing far more food
> than it did 30 or 50 years ago. Agrotech is
> responsible for a lot of that. Yes, of course the
> distribution leaves a lot to be desired. But
> could any humane regime ever dump modern
> techniques and go back to the old ways without
> forcing scores of millions to go hungry? Could
> India ever develop without freeing up a lot of
> agricultural labor for industrial pursuits? The
> country's population is still 72% rural, down
> from 82% in 1960. (China, over the same period,
> went from 84% to 61%.)

-- 
Jim Devine
"living a life of quiet desperation -- but always with style!"