Saturday, April 30, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
The Next Food Crisis
Feeding The World With Technology?
Though the support behind their new innovations is valid and legitimate, this Monsanto innovation is not likely to completely feed the world. It is quite clear that hunger is not something that can be fixed with a simple one step cure. There are so many factors contributing to the growing hunger epidemic that a simple cure is simply impossible. Although the Monsanto company has a great proposal, it is very unlikely that their new products, seeds and advertisements will bring a complete solution to world hunger. It is actually more likely that this will do the opposite and bring down local farming support and practices resulting in an increase of the poverty levels. "Corporate control of food and globalization of agriculture are robbing millions of their livelihoods and their right to food" (Shiva, pg. 7). Large corporations like these intend to halt hunger but result in poverty and hunger for those countries to whom they sell their products. Instead of helping, it deeply hurts local farming and farmers, as well as dropping prices so low that third world countries can no longer compete to sell their export crops, quickly leading to market imperialism and the demise of such countries. 'Food First: 12 Myths About Hunger' the author makes a comment that I agree with claiming, "It is not our job to set things right for others. Our responsibility is to remove the obstacles in their path, obstacles often created by large corporations and U.S. government, World Bank and IMF policies" (pg. 3).
These technologies are likely to most benefit the large corporations for the most part, with some beneficial factors for farmers. The farmers can benefit from this because they will be the ones who are using the corn seed products, producing cash crops and are being informed on farming families affected by hardships. Along with keeping farmers informed and supplied, companies such as Monsanto teach farmers how to use these products for maximum output, what tools to use, and how to conserve. The Monsanto GMO corn seeds are a more efficient way of farming, easy to use, and produce more while conserving more. While these seed products and advertisement displays are directly used and impacting farmers and their families, the large farming corporations are the ones who get the maximum benefit from the new innovations. In the end, the corporations benefit the most and make all of the money, but at the same time are not responsible for the problems that may result.
The reading of the 12 Myths About Hunger presents the idea that most of the things people would typically deem as the cause or source of the hunger epidemic across the globe, actually are not. Ideas such as free trade, U.S. aid, overpopulation and nature are not to blame for the worlds hunger issue. In an attempt to control hunger, Monsanto takes steps that seem to be helping farmers, but are they really? In my opinion, the company operates with an innovative perspective and worldview. The Monsanto company wants to create new original ideas that will soon be responsible for feeding the world. I do not deny that they intend for their new products to be beneficial and helpful to the farming communities and families across the country, but while doing this, these new innovations can perhaps land more on the destructive side of things once everything is said and done. It is likely that these products will end up doing the antithesis of what they are originally intended to do. The result of innovations like these is countries relying solely on imports from other countries rather than supporting their local farming businesses.
It is extremely hard to tell or decide whether companies and innovations such as these will do a great deal of harm or help starving countries to flourish. These products create a very bitter-sweet deal for the worlds farmers. They are produced with feeding the world close in mind, but the intentions of the company is not what matters. What matters is the end result, and in many circumstances like this the end result is not good, beneficial or feeding the world. The end result is typically destruction, poverty and increase in hunger rates globally.
"Food if our most basic need, the very stuff of life." (Shiva, pg. 5)
-Allison Williams
Thursday, April 28, 2011
A Dehumanizing Culture
People often resort to dehumanization as a result of preconceived hatred and prejudice toward others that deviate from their perception of a master narrative. Dehumanizing an individual or a group of individuals can be based on perceived racial or ethnic groups, nationalities, religious groups, genders, minorities of various sexual orientations, disabled people as a class, social groups, and economic classes, such as the homeless. A prime example of this is the story of Steven Green, a former 101st airborne soldier. On March 12, 2006, Green carried out an attack on a family near Mahmoudiya, Iraq, that left him serving five consecutive life sentences. According to dailymail.co.uk, Green allegedly for raped and killed a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and in addition to killing her parents and sister. Green claimed that he didn't think of Iraqi civilians as humans after being exposed to extreme warzone violence.
The news article reported that upon arriving in Iraq, Green said his training to kill, the rampant violence, and derogatory comments by other soldiers against Iraqis served to dehumanize that country's civilian population. After spending considerable time in Iraq a turning point came for Green on December 10, 2005, when a previously friendly Iraqi approached a traffic checkpoint and opened fire.
The shots killed Staff Sgt. Travis L. Nelson, 41, instantly. Sgt. Kenith Casica, 32, was hit in the throat. Casica died as soldiers raced him aboard a Humvee to a field hospital. Green said those deaths, “messed me up real bad.” The deaths intensified Green's feelings toward all Iraqis, whom soldiers often referred to by a derogatory term. “There's not a word that would describe how much I hated these people,” Green said. “I wasn't thinking these people were humans.” This occurrence suggests that some individuals believe that dehumanizing someone to a level lower than human justifies violence toward them.
Dehumanization is such a cross-culturally effective tool because cultural and religious groups are prime targets for dehumanization. When one particular ethnic or cultural group holds a hostile sentiment toward another group, it becomes a norm of social construction and is accepted by that society. A prime example of this is Ibrahim Mudayris, a Hamas religious official, who addressed Jews as monkeys and pigs at a press conference (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrj5yGnAwnc). Prejudice toward Jews had become socially acceptable to such an extent within the Palestinian community that it was seemingly politically correct for Mudayris to slander the Jewish class in public. This idea is further supported by Robert R, Higgins when he writes, “Race, gender, and class dynamics are intimately and inextricably interwoven in the fabric of environmental crisis. As a result, the environmental crisis is inherently a social justice crisis as well.” Clearly, social groups will adapt to dehumanization and grow to accept it if it becomes widespread. It is apparent that elements of dehumanization will always be present in society because it is human nature to judge others.
- Alex Wann