Bill,
The only way that starving Africans will cease to starve is by
producing their own food. The trouble is that some of their
governments are an absolute shower - as Terry Thomas was wont to
remark.
I've already mentioned Kenya with some of the best agricultural
land in Africa, lots of water, yet with poverty and starvation (and
their corollary "AIDS"). Yet, there were once great prospects ahead for
the country.
Meantime, the "Green Revolution" simply made mass production of food
possible. If the farmer wanted to continue with the old ways, he could.
How could he be "pushed out of business". Didn't he and his neighbors
still want the non-GR food?
One notes the Oregon Trail and the other paths to land in the
west. All that the settlers had were seed, perhaps a few animals, and some
food to tide them over the winter. Then everything depended on getting the
harvest in next year before they starved. Are Africans in such a parlous
position that they cannot turn things around? Before rinderpest hit and
wiped out the herds, there were millions of cattle in Africa on pasture
more than rivaling the American prairie.
Suggesting that Africans must produce for themselves evoked some
laughter on the list, and a reaction from Joe that Africans didn't need
advice (particularly from a Californian)!
This, I suspect, because we have a tendency to think
big. Neo-Classical economics must take the blame for this. I've
complained often of the unnecessary complication that makes thinking about
things either impossible - or incompetent.
It's hard for the "big picture" fans to appreciate that food is
produced by the exertion of a person working with the soil. The
laborer can produce food with a hand implement (much of the food
grown in California relies on the hoe) or he can use a combine harvester.
Either way, it is still a laborer and the land. However, our American and
European intellectuals cannot appreciate the dirty hands that accompany
the growing of food. They think big - but in Africa small is
beautiful.
However, Kenya isn't so small - as I mentioned while comparing it
with Texas. It is twice the size of the UK with half the population. Would
it not be possible for Kenya to feed itself?
I'll mention Taiwan again. Kenya has not quite 50% more people
than Taiwan - but is about 16 times as big. The Economist in its Special
Report on Taiwan said: "Based on a highly successful land reform
. . . . . . " thereby obscuring
with those 7 words the reason for the "Miracle of Taiwan".
The "highly successful land reform" allowed Taiwanese small farmers
(on 5 hectares) to produce so much food that at one point they achieved a
net export of food in a country with a population density of more than
1,300 to the square mile. (Kenya is 138, Canada is 9.)
It was all done with family farms that were not taxed more when
they produced more.
That's one important necessity. Another is training, where necessary.
Third, is an appreciation and acceptance of private property (a real
problem in parts of the third world.
When nutrition is improved, and well-being enhanced, we can
expect that "AIDS" will diminish and in due course no longer be a
problem.
Science has a lot that is useful to the small farmer. I remember
writing that when the cow patties are being used for fuel rather than
fertility, there's a point of no return. Steve Kurtz pointed out that
there is a way to have your cake and eat it, oops! Not a good way to
express it! But, there is a way to extract the fertility from the cow
patties before using them to keep warm.
I hate to put it this way, but I suspect that shit will do more for
the people of Africa than all the international organizations and top
level conferences that talk about what cannot be done.
Harry
-------------------------------------------------------------
*****************************
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of Los Angeles
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042 USA
Tel: 818 352-4141
Fax: 818 353-2242
*****************************
-------Original
Message-------
