Is more technology the answer?

coberst

Well-Known Member
Messages
427
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Is more technology the answer?

Technology is a positive feed back system. When the output of the system increases the system goes at a higher rate. There is no equilibrium in a positive feedback system. Capitalism is such a system.

In a negative feed back system when the output increases the system goes at a slower pace or turns off completely, like the thermostatically controlled home heating furnace. Such a system seeks and maintains equilibrium. Our body is such a system.

As our world population continues to increase we (humanity) face a big question: How will we feed everybody? Until lately, India thought that they had found the answer for creating cheap food for their hundreds of millions.

“Farmers in the state of Punjab abandoned traditional farming methods in the 1960s and 1970s as part of the national program called the "Green Revolution," backed by advisers from the U.S. and other countries.

Indian farmers started growing crops the American way — with chemicals, high-yield seeds and irrigation.

Since then, India has gone from importing grain like a beggar, to often exporting it.

But studies show the Green Revolution is heading for collapse.”

When he Green Revolution was launched 40 years ago framers began to grow only high-yield crops instead of their traditional crops. The new crops required more water than the old crops so that farmers were required to create new wells. These new wells caused the ground water level to fall and the declining level caused the water to become more salty than before. These new wells required better and more expensive pumps, which led to indebtedness by the farmers.

This led to a problem similar to the problem we in the US have recently experienced, i.e. India’s Wall Street equivalent grew fat and happy and farmers accumulated debts that they could not pay. This created a financial “quicksand”.

The new crops demanded much more from the soil and the water wells pumped more salty water because of lowered ground water and the combination destroyed the soil.

During the good years the farmers increased their standard of living and built new homes for their families, thus adding more debt.

"It's like a disease that is catching on in the world," says Suba, "building a life that is like a house of cards."

"The state and farmers are now faced with a crisis…India's population is growing faster than any country on Earth, and domestic food production is vital.

But the commission's director, G.S. Kalkat, says Punjab's farmers are committing ecological and economic "suicide”… Kalkat says only one thing can save Punjab: India has to launch a brand new Green Revolution. But he says this one has to be sustainable.

The problem is, nobody has yet perfected a farming system that produces high yields, makes a good living for farm families, protects and enhances the environment — and still produces good, affordable food.”

India's Farming 'Revolution' Heading For Collapse
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102944731
 
Apart from the misleading title, Indian or global agriculture can benefit by technology - farming itself is a technology, you raise an interesting question.

India is in a unique place to harness natures ability to stay self fertile. Some soils in India are among the deepest in the world, especially down the Ganges basin and are annually fed millions of tons of monsoon dilute freshly ground nutrients from the glaciers of the Himalayas. The technological issues in learning to exploit and enhance natural fertility are those we must face. It is wrong to blame technology where your real gripe should be with corporate chemical giants selling the cheapest and easiest to transport ultra refined agents with a gross disregard for their toxicological impacts. Technology is the only way we are going to be able to support our enormous population growth. The question is therefore undoubtedly we need more technology. The real question should be "which technology is the answer"?
 
Technology is only benefitial to those who can afford it.

This is very true too. A good argument against allowing sustainability and health technologies to be in the hands of private profit-driven industry. So much technology is developed in our Universities by fresh young lateral thinking brains who have to pay to be there. Industrial theft of human knowledge is a crime against humanity.
 
Technology: just try to stop it.

It's an integral part of our behavior to look at existing conditions and ask, "How can I make this work better?"

You can't suppress it. To do so would be a crime against our very nature.
 
This is very true too. A good argument against allowing sustainability and health technologies to be in the hands of private profit-driven industry. So much technology is developed in our Universities by fresh young lateral thinking brains who have to pay to be there. Industrial theft of human knowledge is a crime against humanity.

Most knowledge starts out propriatary. And why not? If I invented something shouldn't I try to gain off my discovery. Scientists need to put food on the table as well.

On the other hand, there is a reason for limitations on patents:

Alchemy of Air
 
According to current population forecasts, population aging in the first half of this century should exceed that of the second half of the 20th century. For the world as a whole, the elderly will grow from 6.9% of the population in 2000 to a projected 19.3% in 2050 (Table 1). In other words, the world average should then be higher than the current world record

http://longevity-science.org/Population_Aging.htm
 
Back
Top