[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy



In <5784o3$fbg@news.inforamp.net> sync@inforamp.net (J McGinnis)
writes: 
>>1. The Chinese agriculture minister insisted that China was a net
>>exporter of food this year and denies that China will become a net
>>importer in the next century.
>
>I am familiar with the comments made by the Chinese minister in Rome
>and elsewhere, and the fact is they are 100% rhetoric. Only those who
>weren't concerned in the first place took them as fact. 

"Concern" as a criterion of what is "fact"?

And smug assertion as a criterion of who has "concern"?

The Chinese approach to boosting food production is
credible - even aside from the high-tech studies. 

What was lacking  was mostly the incentive
for the farmers to introduce well-known, 
well-proved improvements.
The lots they use are only temporarily theirs.
The solution is obviously to move towards full ownership
of land - at least towards much longer
lease terms and better guarantees for the farmer.
That in the first place, in the post-Mao
reforms since 1978.
Now further steps in the same direction are needed -
and some are being taken.
This is all that is necessary. 

Of course *further* technical progress is 
occurring - and it all adds up. 

Not that China *needs* to be a net exporter of food;
the same increase in food production can be achieved
elsewhere; and China is certainly generating the income
to buy the food.

>From  a global perspective, this is probably 
the *better* solution: China has less arable
land per capita than the world at large. It
would do better to specialize in industry.

For strategic reasons, she may prefer to be 
self-sufficient in food - that's her own concern; 
and if, as a result, her industry grows a little slower,
she can afford that. China is fortunate to
have the choice - but of course this "fortune"
is well-earned.

>I notice that McCarthy forgot about my call to admit he doesn't care
>that people are starving in our times of 'plenty'.

Once more, *concern* (or rather supposed unconcern by the 
less-holy others) used as a criterion of truth...

Whoever is *concerned* about the hungry must want more food
production. The way to do it is known and tested: 
free the markets, deregulate food prices, hoarding, 
profiteering; pesticides, herbicides, 
fertilizers, wetlands, wildlife -
and everything else.

Then step aside and watch the bottom line drive production up
and prices down. This is all that is needed: St. Market 
will do his habitual miracle and take care of the hungry. 

>>Perhaps McGinnis was just saying what would fit his moralistic pose.
>
>I'm ashamed.

Probably not... see above.




References: