Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
#35749 08/13/10 03:04 PM
N
nightwalkery
Unregistered
nightwalkery
Unregistered
N
I know that cows emit methane through eructation and through their manure.

I also know that poultry contribute to global warming through the emissions of ammonia through their manure.

Does poultry manure also emit methane? Does cow manure also emit ammonia and nitrous oxide?

When researching how poultry contributes to global warming, I only find information about ammonia volatilization. However, nothing about how their manure also emits methane. I know that they dont eructate methane since they're not ruminant animals.

When researching how cows contribute to global warming, I find information about methane production in their stomach and from their manure. Nothing on ammonia or nitrous oxide.

So poultry emits more GHGs than cows because it isn't a ruminent animal. Manure emissions are same for both animals. Right?

.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Methane is largely produced through anerobic (oxygen-free) digestion of grasses, by methanogenic (methane-producing) bacteria in the guts of cows.

Chickens do not have a lot of methanogenic bacteria in their guts - those kinds of bacteria are mostly seen in animals which eat high-cellulose foods (grasses, trees, etc).

I don't recall where I saw the numbers, but GHG emissions from poultry is quite low - on par with vegetable/fruit production.

The worst agricultural polluter is rice farming. Rice farming releases a large amount of methane - ironically, the methane is a product of "organic" farming techs. Rice is gown in flooded fields, and are usually fertilized by adding plant matter to those fields - methanogenic bacteria break down the plants, releasing nutrients for the rice, along with a bunch-o-methane. Chemical fertilizers can be used to greatly reduce that methane production.

Methane from cows, unfortunately, is harder to reduce. There has been some suggestion that changing their diet, and possibly feeding them alternate bacteria may reduce emission. But AFAIK, none of these have been shown to actually work.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
You reckon most of the methane from cows comes from farting rather than bubbling out of their poos on the ground?

That's a pity because Nightwalkery's post gave the idea of doing something with the manuer to prevent the methane release.

Haha that rice production thing sticks it to the greenies wink Maybe it's just me but I seem to notice that environmentalists are always wanting to make changes that end up backfiring:

No nuclear - oh wait but now it might reduce global warming.

Biofuel - oops, many killed by 2008 food price problem.

Light a candle on Earth hour - even tho candles burn more fossil fuel than electric generators.

Don't buy imported food - but locally produced food can be worse for the environment due to unsuitable local climate.

Save the whales - even tho whales eat plankton, one of the major sources of oxygen in the air. Hehe well that's probably a neglible effect, but it's the principle!

Organic farming - except the world is running out of arable land and organic farming has lower yield than traditional farming.

Car emissions controls - reduce toxic emissions at the expense of more greenhouse gasses.

Stop clubbing baby seals - and save the polar bears too.



Heh, well I've been off the forum for 2 weeks so I think I deserve a good rant :P

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164

Originally Posted By: kallog
You reckon most of the methane from cows comes from farting rather than bubbling out of their poos on the ground?

That's a pity because Nightwalkery's post gave the idea of doing something with the manuer to prevent the methane release.
....
Heh, well I've been off the forum for 2 weeks so I think I deserve a good rant :P


Don't you think things would be a lot better if we managed the waste biomass that the planet produces each year? Several of the comments you make bring up that point about managing our biomass better. After all, that is a major part of the carbon cycle, with which we are increasingly having so many problems (resources, CO2, acidification).

You mentioned the whales eating plankton, but that is just the part of the carbon cycle that sequesters CO2 from the air. We need to grow more whales; to eat the plankton before the plankton can die, decompose, and return directly to the atmosphere as methane or carbon dioxide. Gigatonnes of whales equals gigatonnes of CO2 not in the air.

Originally Posted By: kallog
...
Haha that rice production thing sticks it to the greenies wink Maybe it's just me but I seem to notice that environmentalists are always wanting to make changes that end up backfiring:

In a similar way, rice production can be net carbon negative (sequestering) if you manage the biomass properly. The methane production is only one part of the yearly carbon cycle for rice and rice-growing soils.

Originally Posted By: kallog
...
No nuclear - oh wait but now it might reduce global warming.

I'm not too sure about nuclear because it costs sooo much money--it needs to be constantly subsidized--and the construction, support, and decommissioning activities generate almost as much CO2 as the plant is supposed to prevent.

Originally Posted By: kallog
...
Biofuel - oops, many killed by 2008 food price problem.

Now biofuels are a lot cheaper and employ a lot more people, but I agree that they shouldn't be made from food crops. That's why the focus on "waste" biomass is so critical to managing the carbon cycle more effectively.

Originally Posted By: kallog
...
Light a candle on Earth hour - even tho candles burn more fossil fuel than electric generators.

"Lighting a candle..." might not be the least fossil-fuel intensive way to light a room. But if that is accompanied by also turning off the computer/TV/etc. stuff, then a candle might represent a difference in behaviour. As with so many of your points, it depends more on context as to whether or not any given activity is carbon negative or wasteful of carbon.

Originally Posted By: kallog
...
Don't buy imported food - but locally produced food can be worse for the environment due to unsuitable local climate.

Well, growing food and climate problems are at the root of our sustainability issues, so that comment deserves its own topic/thread.... But let me point out that the more we are dependant on foreign-produced food and energy, the more we are less secure....

Originally Posted By: kallog
...
Save the whales - even tho whales eat plankton, one of the major sources of oxygen in the air. Hehe well that's probably a neglible effect, but it's the principle!

The whales--already mentioned--represent gigatonnes of CO2 that could be converted back into biomass, as they were once converted into whale oil to burn and decaying (CO2-producing) flesh.

Originally Posted By: kallog
...
Car emissions controls - reduce toxic emissions at the expense of more greenhouse gasses.

Automotive emission controls reduce gas milage? Is that your point? We should have electric cars for most short-range activities, so more toxic emissions wouldn't be a problem.... Emission controls should be at the point of generation (such as coal-fired power) for better control of the carbon cycle.

Originally Posted By: kallog
...Stop clubbing baby seals - and save the polar bears too.

...and baby seals and polar bears don't really matter in the big picture, except as benchmarks of all-critical biodiversity, and that their habitat needs to be preserved if we want to avoid a major climate-mode shift. The Arctic is the planet's air-conditioner (at least in our current climate mode) and if that function changes drastically, then our planet's current climate mode will also change to some other mode with its own drastically unfamiliar weather patterns.
===

Originally Posted By: kallog
...
Organic farming - except the world is running out of arable land and organic farming has lower yield than traditional farming.

But as to the myth that corporatized, industrial-scale agriculture is the only way to feed billions of people.... Well, we won't last for long as a civilization if it is... because that style of agriculture is causing unsustainable problems with the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the phosphorous cycle, and various socio-economic cycles, as well as our nutritional and health status as a species.

There are ways to make "organic farming" less resource intensive and also more productive, but your point about arable land is the most important. "Larding the Lean Earth" is a book describing how civilization's quest for arable lands has driven much of our history. The grass is always greener on the other side, eh? ...and now we've filled our niche as a species and we are rapidly destroying our remaining arable lands and productive waters. Problems abound with our resources... and these are even affecting the global climate and planetary homeostasis.

Restoring those waters, and regenerating our arable lands, would be the most significant control of the carbon cycle that we could hope to achieve. Suddenly the true, new value of arable land comes into focus, eh? Think of the new jobs and industries that will be generated by creating new arable lands and restoring our waters and old arable lands (managing the carbon cycle).
===

Biodiversity is here to feed and sustain us, not to profit individuals while making us poorer as a species.

Promoting biodiversity and more effective management of the carbon cycle means:

More education, less imported energy, more economic benefits, and less environmental problems. What could be better?


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: samwik

Don't you think things would be a lot better if we managed the waste biomass that the planet produces each year? Several of the comments you

Yea that'd be great. And I think it might work commercially too eventually. That means there'll be no need for education, changes in lifestyle and all the other 'religious' type ideas surrounding environmentalism.

Quote:

I'm not too sure about nuclear because it costs sooo much money--it needs

Part of the reason for the cost is the very slow growth of the industry - hindered by environmentalist and bomb fears. I think the world pretty much stopped building reactors a few decades ago. Now it's coming back with promises of lower costs and new technology. We'll see if it comes true or not.

Quote:

Now biofuels are a lot cheaper and employ a lot more people, but I agree

Isn't that a contradiction?? Who's being employed? Slaves? 3rd world people trapped in poverty? Currently in China they have a problem with a shortage of farm labour. The wages are too low so people move to the cities to work in other industries. There's a threat to food production if they don't change to less labour-intensive farming methods - or push up food prices, with the obvious problems that could lead to.


Quote:

"Lighting a candle..." might not be the least fossil-fuel intensive way to light a room. But if that is accompanied by also turning off the computer/TV/etc. stuff, then a candle might represent a difference in


To me it represents trying to feel good without bothering to understand if you're achieving your goals or not.

Better to turn on a small lamp instead of a whole-room light. Maybe one using an efficient LED, CFL or better yet, gas discharge bulb. Using these energy efficient technologies represents a progressive and sustainable attitude.


Quote:

But let me point out that the more we are dependant on foreign-produced food and energy, the more we are less secure....

Isn't that just an American political concept? International trade is the reason so much of the world is so successful today. As long as you have a diverse range of suppliers, no one country can cut you off.


Quote:

current climate mode will also change to some other mode with its own drastically unfamiliar weather patterns.

Sounds like fun. As long as we have energy we can manange pretty much any new weather patterns.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
You reckon most of the methane from cows comes from farting rather than bubbling out of their poos on the ground?


I believe that is the case, although that is my opinion, not a proven fact (AFAIK). That said, one of my uncles collects his cattle manure and ferments it to extract additional methane, which is stored and used to heat his barns in the winter. I don't think that would happen on the open fields as the manure would be exposed to O2.

Originally Posted By: kallog

That's a pity because Nightwalkery's post gave the idea of doing something with the manuer to prevent the methane release.


The idea isn't without merit, however a lot of cows methane is released as burps (not farts, which form in the intestine).

Originally Posted By: kallog
Haha that rice production thing sticks it to the greenies wink Maybe it's just me but I seem to notice that environmentalists are always wanting to make changes that end up backfiring:


Of course, because they often have other goals in mind and use enviro as cover. Pro-vegetarian groups, animal "rights" groups, anti-large business groups, etc, all hide under the guise of the environment.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Biofuel - oops, many killed by 2008 food price problem.


Biofuels not made from food = good idea. Biofuels made from food = stupid. Give me cellulose ethanol, gasified garbage and photosynthetic biodiesel. The only thing corn should be fermented into is sour-mash whiskey.

Originally Posted By: kallog

Don't buy imported food - but locally produced food can be worse for the environment due to unsuitable local climate.


I saw an interesting show on this topic - turns out in many cases less GHG's are released by putting large amounts of food on ships/planes and sending it around the planet, than is released by thousands of small trucks carrying small amounts of local foods to local markets.

That said, I like local foods, as it supports local farmers...

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Why would you want to support local farmers? That means hurting more distant farmers as well as encouraging inefficient production.

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Supporting local farmers means you buy what you can locally from the growers themselves. Fewer hands in the process means more money goes to the local community, to be spent locally and generate local sales taxes and boost the local community's economy. Less shipping and handling means fresher, more healthful foods on the table at less expense. It's a win-win situation for the local community.

It does no harm to distant growers, who are then able to sell their goods in their local community and get more money by eliminating the middleman and shipping costs.


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II

It does no harm to distant growers, who are then able to sell their goods in their local community and get more money by eliminating the middleman and shipping costs.


It does harm to growers who can produce more than their local community needs. It also causes high food prices in places with less production capability.

And at the end of the day it's cheaper to buy imported food when the prices say it's cheaper. Middlemen or not, cheaper means less money being wasted - wherever it might be going.

That's the whole point of globalization. No more potato famines in Ireland. If there's a shortage somewhere, then it'll get filled up from somewhere else. If there's a glut somewhere then it gets spread around at a lower price instead of being dumped.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Like Kate said:

1) Supports my local community,

2) Supports my countries economy (non-local foods, at least here, are largely foreign imports),

3) Many of my family members are farmers, and I'd rather buy products that support them (directly, or indirectly through supporting production in their region)

So its a bit of familialism and patriotism

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

So its a bit of familialism and patriotism


Well that's not very nice to people in general.

Maybe I should steal from tourists because they're not part of my family, community or country.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog

Well that's not very nice to people in general.


How so?

Originally Posted By: kallog

Maybe I should steal from tourists because they're not part of my family, community or country.


I fail to see the similarity between theft vs. purchasing the same amount of goods from different vendors/producers.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
It's effectively boycotting businesses and people who you don't feel a personal connection to. It's not their fault you didn't want to make friends with them.

Imagine you were selling some amazing product that was cheaper and better than all the competition. But half the world refused to buy it because they don't like America's foreign policy so they want to hurt American companies. Wouldn't you feel a bit annoyed? You'd certainly lose a lot of money, and people everywhere would miss out on your superior product.

Buying local is a small stab in the side of free trade, economic growth and fairness. The overall effect is to make the world operate more wastefully. Nevermind the harm it causes poor farmers in the 3rd world who depend on selling you things to keep themselves alive.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
It's effectively boycotting businesses and people who you don't feel a personal connection to. It's not their fault you didn't want to make friends with them.


I wasn't aware I was under an obligation to make friends with everyone. I can, and do, boycott a whole range of businesses and products - businesses that engage in labor practices I find horrendous, corps with histories of poor environmental stewardship, any company that produces "pro-biotic" foods or any other pseudo-scientific crap products like them, and companies who make commercials that irritate/piss me off.

It's my money, and I'll spend it where and on whom I want. This idea I have some obligation to make nice with everyone is not something I would subscribe to.

Originally Posted By: kallog

Imagine you were selling some amazing product that was cheaper and better than all the competition. But half the world refused to buy it because they don't like America's foreign policy so they want to hurt American companies. Wouldn't you feel a bit annoyed? You'd certainly lose a lot of money, and people everywhere would miss out on your superior product.


And? It is my responsibility to sell my product - if I fail to do so that is my fault, not the fault of my potential customers.

PS: I'm not an American, not that its relevant...

Originally Posted By: kallog

Buying local is a small stab in the side of free trade, economic growth and fairness. The overall effect is to make the world operate more wastefully. Nevermind the harm it causes poor farmers in the 3rd world who depend on selling you things to keep themselves alive.


A few points here:
1) Free trade doesn't exist, especially in the area of food production - all western nations hugely subsidize their agricultural industry.

2) Those subsidies prevent 3rd world producers from competing with us - the only 3rd world products that can compete are ones which cannot be produced locally. Buying local doesn't prevent them from competing - paying farmers a subsidy so they can produce food below cost does.

3) Where is the evidence it makes the world work more wastefully? In the west, 40-50% of all food destined for the grocers is thrown away. The worst offenders are bannanas, of which ~60% that are harvested are thrown out. That alone would suggest that 3rd world food imports are more wasteful than domestic products.

4) Domestic farmers also depend on the sale of food products to make their living. Why don't you take their needs into account? Or does being in a 3rd world country magically make your welfare more important that someone in a developed nation?

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Sure you can choose to buy whatever you want. If a company decides it needs your business they might change their irritating ads or poor labour practices. Many companies are doing this for exactly that reason.

But those things have some purpose for overall good in your mind. Buying locally just because you feel some relationship with local people clearly doesn't do any good overall. It's like buying only from white-owned businesses. Maybe you do that too?

Throwing away bananas isn't wasteful if people are willing to pay for it to get what they want. I doubt there are banana farms which are specially made to be harvested, loaded onto dumptrucks and taken to the tip. Probably it's because people want a reliable supply so they need to have extras to make sure they don't run out of stock, or maybe people want unbruised bananas or whatever. Somehow people want something which can be achieved most cheaply by throwing lots of them away.

Yes I agree with you on subsidies. Subsidies are essentially the same idea as buying local, but they're more powerful, and thus more destructive.

If a farmer or any businessman can't compete then his business should be allowed to fail. That opens the door for competitors who can do the job better/cheaper. That failed farmer can they go and do something he's actually good at instead. The world doesn't exist to support businessmen, it exists to support people in general. Businesses are allowed to operate in most countries because they support people.

There's a particular society which has historically been strong supporters of the 'buy local' idea. They applied it so much, with such disregard for outsiders that they built up a strong resentment from others. Eventually the outsiders rebelled, with tragic consequences. Now they've mostly toned it down a bit. I wonder if you can guess who I'm referring to.

here's a question. If you visit another place, will you prefer to buy things made there? How do you choose which locality to have loyalty to? Is it the place that will give the most back to you? So the place you've got more future in? What if you know you'll permanently move to another country in 6 months. Will you get a head start by preferring goods imported from your future home while you're still living at your old place?

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Sure you can choose to buy whatever you want. If a company decides it needs your business they might change their irritating ads or poor labour practices. Many companies are doing this for exactly that reason.

But those things have some purpose for overall good in your mind. Buying locally just because you feel some relationship with local people clearly doesn't do any good overall.


Sure it does - if anything it does more good than the other practices I engage in. It, after all, supports individuals in the local economy. All the other practices simply take a tiny amount of money from one huge mega-corp and give it to another mega-corp. They're basically feel-good things on my part, with no discernible effect.

Originally Posted By: kallog
It's like buying only from white-owned businesses. Maybe you do that too?


If you need to resort to insults to make your point, you've already lost the argument...

Originally Posted By: kallog
Probably it's because people want a reliable supply so they need to have extras to make sure they don't run out of stock, or maybe people want unbruised bananas or whatever.


Nope. The most common reason bannanas (and other fruits/vegs) are thrown out is appearance - people want perfect-looking produce. Most grocers simply dump produce that is blemished.

Originally Posted By: kallog
If a farmer or any businessman can't compete then his business should be allowed to fail.


But the flip side is that a nation incapable of feeding itself is enslaved to those who provide their food. Food is the oldest, and most profound, national security issue.

Originally Posted By: kallog
here's a question. If you visit another place, will you prefer to buy things made there?


Yep, do it all the time. Many years ago I did some HIV research, and spent some time in Africa. While there, I made a point of buying everything I could from local vendors and producers. Even today, when I travel for fun or work, I try to buy what I can from the local community - even if that is as simply as eating at a mom&pop type restaurant instead of McDonalds.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Sure it does - if anything it does more good than the other practices I engage in. It, after all, supports individuals

It may do more good. But key word was 'overall'. Doesn't it do a similar amount of bad elsewhere?


Quote:

Originally Posted By: kallog
It's like buying only from white-owned businesses. Maybe you do that too?


If you need to resort to insults to make your point, you've
already lost the argument...

That's not an insult. I was pointing out what people might (and do) consider their 'local community'. Lets see what else:
Your country
Your state/province
Your town
Your religion
Your race
Your friends
Your family
Your planet

They're all different ways of grouping people into communities. I'm trying to understand what's the fundamental goal you're trying to achieve. So can you tell me which of those 'communities' do and don't count, and why?

Quote:

But the flip side is that a nation incapable of feeding itself is enslaved to those who provide their food. Food is the oldest, and most profound, national security issue.

So is this the real reason? Then your 'local' food would be food produced in your country, even a distant colony under the control of your country.


Quote:

research, and spent some time in Africa. While there, I made a point of buying everything I could from local

But why?? If you wanted to support their food industry, why only do it while you're there? Isn't that quite arbitrary? Wouldn't a better strategy be to identify countries with low production capacity and preferentially buy from them, thus improving national security for those countries at greatest risk.

One place you might consider is China, with a disproportionately small amount of farming for its population. America has plenty of farms and hardly any people, so nobody need make an extra effort to buy their food.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
This might help your buying decisions:

Food security risk index

I hope you don't live in a 'green' country, because buying their food is counter-productive to your goal of national security.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Sure it does - if anything it does more good than the other practices I engage in. It, after all, supports individuals

It may do more good. But key word was 'overall'. Doesn't it do a similar amount of bad elsewhere?


But by that rational, any sale is "evil". After all, unless you make sure to spread your money perfectly evenly throughout all suppliers of the product you are buying, you will deprive someone, somewhere.

Originally Posted By: kallog
I'm trying to understand what's the fundamental goal you're trying to achieve. So can you tell me which of those 'communities' do and don't count, and why?


My fundamental goal is to support those closest to me, where I am. Not one group, but rather a hierarchy:

Family > Friends > Region I am currently in > Country I am currently in > Everyone else

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:

But the flip side is that a nation incapable of feeding itself is enslaved to those who provide their food. Food is the oldest, and most profound, national security issue.

So is this the real reason? Then your 'local' food would be food produced in your country, even a distant colony under the control of your country.


Not my real reason - just a point worth making. A country that cannot feed itself is at the mercy of those who can.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:

research, and spent some time in Africa. While there, I made a point of buying everything I could from local

But why?? If you wanted to support their food industry, why only do it while you're there?


Actually its much simpler than you seem to realize. I don't buy local when I travel because I'm trying to save the world, but rather because I consider it a common courtesy. They don't have to let me into their country - the very least I can do in return for the privilege of visiting their country is to support the locals while I am there. It doesn't matter if I'm in the richest county in the world, or the poorest.

It's no different than bringing a bottle of wine to a dinner you've been invited to. You don't have to do it, but it is the right thing to do.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
This might help your buying decisions:

Food security risk index

I hope you don't live in a 'green' country, because buying their food is counter-productive to your goal of national security.



I think you got that backwards - green countries have excess growing capacity. If anything, buying from red (at-risk) countries would be a bad thing, as you would be reducing local stocks, thus reducing the local food supply.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Family > Friends > Region I am currently in > Country I am currently in > Everyone else


OK gotcha. I personally find that concept immoral. Applied to other areas it goes by names like "nepotism" and "cronyism", and is sometimes outlawed because of it's overall counter-productive effects.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

I think you got that backwards - green countries have excess growing capacity. If anything, buying from red (at-risk) countries would be a bad thing, as you would be reducing local stocks, thus reducing the local food supply.


Now it's you having it backwards. You say you're showing a courtesy to countries you're in by buying from them. At the same time you say you're depleting their scarce food supply. So it's not a courtesy, it's a disservice. I think actually it's not a disservice. Their low food production is probably often caused by low food prices (and low demand) rather than intensive, highly productive use of every bit of available land.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
courtesy. They don't have to let me into their country - the very least I can do in return for the privilege of visiting their country is to support the


That also goes against my feelings. The Earth isn't divided up by God to certain groups of special people. Somebody took it and persuaded people that it belongs to them, and they don't want to let just anybody into their private club.

What courtesy do you show to the people who had that land taken off them way back in history? It's an insult to respect the usually murderous thieves and forget the victims.

Would you show similar respect to a gang who controlled part of town at night for them giving you the priviledge of walking through their turf? Sure you might make a token gesture to keep yourself safe, but if it was me I certainly wouldn't respect them or do any more than I had to.


Last edited by kallog; 09/02/10 02:39 PM.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Family > Friends > Region I am currently in > Country I am currently in > Everyone else


OK gotcha. I personally find that concept immoral. Applied to other areas it goes by names like "nepotism" and "cronyism", and is sometimes outlawed because of it's overall counter-productive effects.


I don't buy into your morality. To not support your family and friends is immoral; its also a good way to not have any friends. That ranking is also a pretty good description of what evolution has molded for us - reciprocal altruism (the basis of conventional morality and human society) functions best when you exchange benefits with a set group, rather than "spreading the wealth".

And I hope you are at least consistent, and follow through with your "morality" in real life - making your kids, spouse, siblings, parents, etc, fight on equal terms with all other people in the world for your time, attention and support.

Somehow I doubt it though.

Bryan

Last edited by ImagingGeek; 09/02/10 06:23 PM.

UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
courtesy. They don't have to let me into their country - the very least I can do in return for the privilege of visiting their country is to support the


That also goes against my feelings. The Earth isn't divided up by God to certain groups of special people.


Three points:
1) There is no god, ergo the point's underlying assumption is faulty.

2) Home ranges are a well understood biological phenomena, and are common to most motile animals. It shouldn't be a surprise that humans have them too.

3) The gods of mythology most certainly divided people into groups and territories. Take the Israelis of the bible/torah. Gods special people, fighting with others for the land god granted to them (despite the fact that the others were there first...but I digress). God frequently extolled them to murder/rape/enslave the "others" and to take their land. You can find similar stories in most other religious texts.

Originally Posted By: kallog

What courtesy do you show to the people who had that land taken off them way back in history? It's an insult to respect the usually murderous thieves and forget the victims.


And how do you decide who is the "original inhabitants", and why do they deserve special treatment? The entirety of homo sapiens million-ish year history is one of successive waves of migration, invasion and replacement. To think this is somehow "immoral" is to ignore the biological history of each and every human on the planet. If it wasn't for that process you so readily discount as "evil", we as a species would not even exist.

Originally Posted By: kallog

Would you show similar respect to a gang who controlled part of town at night for them giving you the priviledge of walking through their turf? Sure you might make a token gesture to keep yourself safe, but if it was me I certainly wouldn't respect them or do any more than I had to.


But you just answered your own question - you (and I) would give them the token. Even you recognize the reality of the situation, although the comparison between a independent state and a criminal organization is vague at best.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
To not support your family and friends is immoral


Can you support that at all?

Please don't define morals as "whatever people have evolved to behave like" or "something which makes you freinds".

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

1) There is no god, ergo the point's underlying assumption is faulty.

If you remember me from other discussions you know I know there's no God, ergo God means something else. See if you can work it out.

Quote:

2) Home ranges are a well understood biological phenomena, and are common to most motile animals. It shouldn't be a surprise that humans have them too.

So what? Many animals kill each other. So do humans. Doesn't make it moral.

Quote:

3) The gods of mythology most certainly divided people into

Mythology is not reality.

Quote:

successive waves of migration, invasion and replacement.

I hope you would have supported the Nazis in their quest to create a wave of migration, invasion and replacement. Again just because something's natural, doesn't make it moral. You're frequently confusing the two.

Quote:

But you just answered your own question - you (and I) would give them the token. Even you recognize the reality of the

Yes a token because it was the easiest way to get what we wanted. You didn't have to buy local food in Africa, so it's a different case.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
And I hope you are at least consistent, and follow through with your "morality" in real life - making your kids, spouse, siblings, parents, etc, fight on equal terms with all other people in the world for your time, attention and support.


By your own standards, that's a personal insult. You havn't yet justified your view that it's moral to give your neighbors(also strangers) preferential treatment to the detriment of more distant people. This comment suggest you may never be able to justify it.


Last edited by kallog; 09/03/10 02:51 AM.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

1) There is no god, ergo the point's underlying assumption is faulty.

If you remember me from other discussions you know I know there's no God, ergo God means something else. See if you can work it out.


Work out what - that you're not self-consistent?

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:

2) Home ranges are a well understood biological phenomena, and are common to most motile animals. It shouldn't be a surprise that humans have them too.

So what? Many animals kill each other. So do humans. Doesn't make it moral.


Also doesn't make it immoral.

But in the cases of home ranges, it is generally a good thing for a species as a whole - it minimizes between-group competition for resources.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:

3) The gods of mythology most certainly divided people into

Mythology is not reality.


You invoked god, not I. I simply pointed out that the very attribute you stated god does not have is actually a defining characteristic.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:

successive waves of migration, invasion and replacement.

I hope you would have supported the Nazis in their quest to create a wave of migration, invasion and replacement. Again just because something's natural, doesn't make it moral. You're frequently confusing the two.


Godwins law, guess I win ;-)

As for the Nazi's , I wouldn't support them. What they did ran contrary to the best interests of our species - species thrive on diversity, the Nazi's wanted uniformity. They actually left a notable hole in the genetic diversity of the countries they ravaged.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:

But you just answered your own question - you (and I) would give them the token. Even you recognize the reality of the

Yes a token because it was the easiest way to get what we wanted. You didn't have to buy local food in Africa, so it's a different case.


Which makes me wonder why you brought up the gangs in the first place.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
And I hope you are at least consistent, and follow through with your "morality" in real life - making your kids, spouse, siblings, parents, etc, fight on equal terms with all other people in the world for your time, attention and support.


By your own standards, that's a personal insult.


How do you figure? I don't think I implied you were a white supremisist up there; which is what I found insulting about your prior comment.

Originally Posted By: kallog
You havn't yet justified your view that it's moral to give your neighbors(also strangers) preferential treatment to the detriment of more distant people.


But I did - keeping "charity" close to home maximizes reciprocal altruism; which is pretty much the entire basis of human (and animal) society.

I also disagree totally with your underlying premise - that by buying stuff from close to home harms others. Globalization - the purchasing of goods from around the world, rather than closer to home - has reduced the standard of living in many 3rd world nations. Once independent agrarian people, capable of sustaining and feeding their families, are now among the poorest ad most destitute people on earth. And they are poor because of foreigners wanting to buy their goods - goods they manufacture at slave wages.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
To not support your family and friends is immoral


Can you support that at all?

Please don't define morals as "whatever people have evolved to behave like" or "something which makes you freinds".


Morals = evolutionary derived behaviors that allow for a functioning and successful social species. If something benefits the species, it is moral. If it harms the species, it is immoral.

That's why we shouldn't murder, covet our neighbors wife and ox, and all that - it weakens our society, and thus weakens the benefits we receive from it. Its also why we respect our families and work with others - it strengthens our society, thus enhancing the benefits we get from it.

I'm off for a week at the cottage as of friday PM - if I don't reply to anything you write for a week, that is why. I may be able to write a bit tomorrow; depends on how many lectures I prep...

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Godwins law, guess I win ;-)


Doesn't matter if there's a name for it or not. You're saying invasion of other countries is moral if it causes more diversity, and immoral if it reduces it. I suppose if the invading soldiers rape the local women, and they have genetically diverse babies, that makes a war more moral.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Morals = evolutionary derived behaviors that allow for a functioning and successful social species. If something benefits the species, it is moral. If it harms the species, it is immoral.


OK that's the fundamental point we disagree on. To me something is moral if it doesn't hurt individuals. Of course it's hard to do anything that's totally moral, but that's why nobody can ever really agree on the morality of various grey-area actions.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: kallog
[quote=ImagingGeek]
of living in many 3rd world nations. Once independent agrarian people, capable of sustaining and feeding their families, are now among the poorest ad most destitute people on earth. And they are poor because of foreigners wanting to buy their goods - goods they manufacture at slave wages.


Something's missing there. How does somebody offering to buy your things make you poorer? You can always refuse to sell it.

You maybe have an unrealistically romantic view of unindustrialized societies.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: kallog
[quote=ImagingGeek]
of living in many 3rd world nations. Once independent agrarian people, capable of sustaining and feeding their families, are now among the poorest ad most destitute people on earth. And they are poor because of foreigners wanting to buy their goods - goods they manufacture at slave wages.


Something's missing there. How does somebody offering to buy your things make you poorer? You can always refuse to sell it.

You maybe have an unrealistically romantic view of unindustrialized societies.


No, I've spent a lot of time in them and have seen first hand the problems they face.

As for your first question, poverty isn't defined by money, but rather by your ability to meet your basic need.

Pre-globalization, most 3rd worlders lived on farms, and fed themselves/their families via their own farming. Clothing and shelter was also quite often supplied from their own land. They may not have had money, but they were generally able to meet their basic needs.

Fast forward to today - land has been lost to large-scale plantations. Many people have moved to the city, where they now produce goods. Many, despite working in factories, plantations, etc, don't make enough money to meet their basic needs - food, shelter and clothing.

Bryan

You


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Godwins law, guess I win ;-)


Doesn't matter if there's a name for it or not. You're saying invasion of other countries is moral if it causes more diversity, and immoral if it reduces it. I suppose if the invading soldiers rape the local women, and they have genetically diverse babies, that makes a war more moral.


More moral than genocide - of course it is. And peaceful migration is better still.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Morals = evolutionary derived behaviors that allow for a functioning and successful social species. If something benefits the species, it is moral. If it harms the species, it is immoral.


OK that's the fundamental point we disagree on. To me something is moral if it doesn't hurt individuals. Of course it's hard to do anything that's totally moral, but that's why nobody can ever really agree on the morality of various grey-area actions.


But the difference between what you see as moral and I do is quite small - things which benefit society/species as a whole are seldom detrimental to individuals. Murder and violence weaken members of the group, thus weakening society as a whole, and thus are immoral by socio-biological standards.

When you get down to it, a successful society is one that has healthy, long-living and generally happy population.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

plantations, etc, don't make enough money to meet their basic needs - food, shelter and clothing.


You still havn't explained why they can't go back to their farms and enjoy the same old lifestyle. Was their land taken by force?

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

But the difference between what you see as moral and I do is quite small - things which benefit society/species as a whole are seldom detrimental to individuals. Murder and violence


Absolutely not. In my home country there was a race of indigenous people living on an isolated island. They had a culture of pacifism. They didn't fight, they we happy, healthy and contented.

Then another group from the mainland sailed out there and murdered almost all of them.

That part of the gene pool has been pretty much obliterated because of too much peace leaving them vulnerable to invaders.

On the other side of the coin, Europe has been fighting for thousands of years, and all that fighting has partly led to industrialization and general betterment of the surviving people, as well as a strong defense against invaders from more peaceful places.

War is often good for future generations and survival of the species, but bad for individuals at the time. By my morals it's bad, by your morals it's good. So we don't agree.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
"If anything, buying from red (at-risk) countries would be a bad thing, as you would be reducing local stocks, thus reducing the local food supply." Bryan [/quote]
....thus forcing people in red countries to buy more from green countries, which they probably could not afford to do. Of course, people in green countries could donate their surplus food to red countries, in the hope that it found its way to those who really needed it, but even that is only a short term benefit because it undermines the ability of local producers to sell locally. Perhaps the only real answer would be a genuine international effort to help the red countries to improve their productivity and local sales; combined with short term support while that is made to work.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

would be a genuine international effort to help the red countries to improve their productivity and local sales; combined with short term support while that is made to work.


I think free trade is the answer. Agriculture is heavily subsidized and tariffed around the world. Without those distortions to the market, African farmers could have a competitive advantage selling to American consumers because of their low labor costs.

But no. Americans (and Canadians) like Bryan want to look after their own, and don't care about people in other countries because they're not in the rich boys club.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Kallog
African farmers could have a competitive advantage selling to American consumers because of their low labor costs.


This, of course, is true, American markets would undoubtedly be very attractive, but exporting takes food out of an already under supplied area, and, because the richer nations can afford to pay more, pushes up prices on the home market as well. Following your exchange with Bryan, I am left with the impression that you both have your own firmly entrenched ideas about solving global problems. I feel it is important to avoid falling into the trap of over simplifying a horrific humanitarian problem.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

This, of course, is true, American markets would undoubtedly be very attractive, but exporting takes food out of an already under supplied area,


OK, so exporting makes it harder for local non-farmers to feed themselves.

But the non-farmer population can be a very small minority. The farmers can export what they like at high prices, and eat the leftovers themselves.

Why are there so many non-farmers? Why did they leave their farms? It was an idyllic lifestyle with not a care in the world.




Quote:

falling into the trap of over simplifying a horrific humanitarian problem.

Nothing wrong with that. But when you find the simplification is too much, you dig a bit deeper. There is actually a reason that a lot of Africa is in trouble. It's easy to blame outsiders, but it's never been very successful at any time in history.

Last edited by kallog; 09/07/10 01:06 AM.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: kallog
It's easy to blame outsiders, but it's never been very successful at any time in history.
.

My son showed me how to put quotes into boxes, there'll be no stopping me now!

Seriously though, I think that outsiders have to acknowledge a share of the blame, historically, but raking over old injustices is rarely of real value. You seem to be saying that much of what troubles Africa is internal, I agree, which is why I believe that addressing these problems is a complex matter, but is essential. It is easy for well intentioned people, in the heat of discussion, to be carried away by the exuberance of their own verbosity, and to lose sight of the real issues.

Quote:
Why did they leave their farms? It was an idyllic lifestyle with not a care in the world.

This has to be sarcasm!


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
My son showed me how to put quotes into boxes, there'll be no stopping me now!

Uh oh, lock up your daughters and run for the hills everyone! :P

Quote:

Quote:
Why did they leave their farms? It was an idyllic lifestyle with not a care in the world.

This has to be sarcasm!


I think I know why. I think it's because they saw a better life doing other work. But many people say they got a worse life. So I actually don't know.

Maybe you can explain why a subsistence farmer would prefer to be paid in money instead of food and accommodation, even tho that money can hardly buy any food?


Last edited by kallog; 09/07/10 02:13 PM.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Maybe you can explain why a subsistence farmer would prefer to be paid in money instead of food and accommodation, even tho that money can hardly buy any food?


I can't explain it, but perhaps it has something to do with the intrinsic insecurity of subsistence farming, and the hope that the grass will be greener over there.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I can't explain it, but perhaps it has something to do with the intrinsic insecurity of subsistence farming, and the hope that the grass will be greener over there.


Yea I suspect it's that too. But not just false hope or millions of people wouldn't be doing it - have been doing it during many countries' transitions from subsistence farming to industrialization.

That means the low pay job in the city, made available by international trade, is better than life without international trade.

I'd really be suprised if someone said the solution for poor countries is to cut them off and let them go back to an even poorer state. But that's exactly what Bryan seemed to be saying. And it's what many lefties I've met say.

Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Kallog
That means the low pay job in the city, made available by international trade, is better than life without international trade.


People may no longer believe in streets paved with gold, but what you will believe when your crops have failed and your family has no food, could well be the same thing you regret having believed 12 months later when there is no way back.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
People may no longer believe in streets paved with gold, but what you will believe when your crops have failed and your family has no food, could well be the same thing you regret having believed 12 months later when there is no way back.


So education is the answer. I don't mean school, but knowledge about the workplace, and the risks. But I do find it hard to believe that so many people consistently don't realize those risks and always make the wrong decision.

I think most people are making the right decision and really do prefer the for-money work, so they do it. Then we see them in a bad way and blame the foreign companies, but forget that they're better off than they were before.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

plantations, etc, don't make enough money to meet their basic needs - food, shelter and clothing.


You still havn't explained why they can't go back to their farms and enjoy the same old lifestyle. Was their land taken by force?



Holiday's over, so I can finally reply...

The answer is obvious - when people leave their farms, and move to the city, they sell their farms. To go back they need to buy a new farm - a hard thing to do when you don't even have enough money to feed your family.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

But the difference between what you see as moral and I do is quite small - things which benefit society/species as a whole are seldom detrimental to individuals. Murder and violence


Absolutely not. In my home country there was a race of indigenous people living on an isolated island. They had a culture of pacifism. They didn't fight, they we happy, healthy and contented.

Then another group from the mainland sailed out there and murdered almost all of them.

That part of the gene pool has been pretty much obliterated because of too much peace leaving them vulnerable to invaders.


You may want to re-read what I wrote. Key work is "seldom". You found one example where this wasn't the case. Your Europe example is meaningless, as the timeframe of European advancement is both far too small to have a meaningful evolutionary advantage, and far too much outbreeding has occured to restrict those gains to europeans alone.

Originally Posted By: kallog
War is often good for future generations and survival of the species, but bad for individuals at the time. By my morals it's bad, by your morals it's good. So we don't agree.


You must not understand evolution very well to come to this conclusion. War tends to deplete gene pools. That is universally a bad thing - its taken us ~6 million years to develop the diversity we have. A war can remove a lot of that. The number of "future generations" you need to recover that is sufficient in number that they will most likely no longer be human.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

would be a genuine international effort to help the red countries to improve their productivity and local sales; combined with short term support while that is made to work.


I think free trade is the answer. Agriculture is heavily subsidized and tariffed around the world. Without those distortions to the market, African farmers could have a competitive advantage selling to American consumers because of their low labor costs.


But compounded with much lower productivity (due to a lack of mechanization) and increased transport costs. And lots of 3rd world countries make billions selling cash crops to the west - hasn't helped their over all economy much. The problems in 3rd world countries are far more profound than can be solved by removing trade barriers.

Originally Posted By: kallog
But no. Americans (and Canadians) like Bryan want to look after their own, and don't care about people in other countries because they're not in the rich boys club.


Insults again?

The reality is I've devoted my entire adult life to curing diseases of the 3rd world - HIV, malaria, etc. I've spent years in those countries helping locals develop everything from local industries to local research facilities. I suspect that in the average year I do more to help out these people than you have in your entire life.

I simply don't subscribe to your pie-in-the-sky view of the world. The problems - and fixes - to the 3rd world are far more complex than anything in your apparent imagination.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
The answer is obvious - when people leave their farms, and move to the city, they sell their farms. To go back they need to buy a new farm - a hard thing to do when you don't even have enough money to feed your family.


Welcome back.

So the problem isn't international trade, it's poor decision making on the part of the locals. And the solution would be more information availabilty, not economic isolation.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
conclusion. War tends to deplete gene pools. That is universally a bad thing - its taken us ~6 million years to develop the diversity we have. A war can


Humans have been fighting since forever. Surely that's all part of the fittest surviving. If you win your fight then more of the weaker individuals are killed and more of the stronger/smarter/etc ones survive.

That's exactly how animals work too. Weak babies are often killed while stronger ones aren't.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
The reality is I've devoted my entire adult life to curing diseases of the 3rd world - HIV,


That's just bragging. We all do work that benefits people. Not always so directly - where did that medical equipment come from? Who designed it? What tools did they use? Who worked on them? How were they transported? Who provided those services? Who supported the staff working at the shipping companies? Just being on the coalface doesn't mean you're more important than everybody else in the chain.

And it doesn't change what you said about preferring to look after your closer neighbors at the expense of more distant people.

Maybe your ideas contradict your actions. I'm only talking about your statements, not what you've done.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
The answer is obvious - when people leave their farms, and move to the city, they sell their farms. To go back they need to buy a new farm - a hard thing to do when you don't even have enough money to feed your family.


Welcome back.

So the problem isn't international trade, it's poor decision making on the part of the locals. And the solution would be more information availabilty, not economic isolation.


I wouldn't say poor decision making is the problem either. More often than not, families leave the farms during periods of difficulty - drought, etc. Or they are forced out by larger land owners. Or their land is lost to desertification (a very common problem in sub-saharan africa) or urbanization.

Farmers rarely leave their land by choice.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
conclusion. War tends to deplete gene pools. That is universally a bad thing - its taken us ~6 million years to develop the diversity we have. A war can


Humans have been fighting since forever. Surely that's all part of the fittest surviving. If you win your fight then more of the weaker individuals are killed and more of the stronger/smarter/etc ones survive.

That's exactly how animals work too. Weak babies are often killed while stronger ones aren't.


As I said, I suspect you knowledge of evolution is limited. You just proved that.

Selection is generally a bad thing. The vast majority of our evolution occurs through drift and mutation. Selection slows that process, and depletes the gene pool at the same time. Too much selection and you go extinct - something which historically has occurred to about 99.999% of all species, BTW.

Not only that, but war is one of the worst forms of selection imaginable - in fact, it probably wouldn't even count as selection because it is indiscriminate in terms of the genotypes it acts against. Wars are rarely won by the biologically superior group (if such a group even exists; which I doubt in most cases). Rather, they are won by those with the largest numbers and/or those with the better technology - neither being an evolutionarily-derived advantage.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
The reality is I've devoted my entire adult life to curing diseases of the 3rd world - HIV,


That's just bragging.


Nope, its a direct refutation of this insult you leveled directly at me:
Originally Posted By: kallog
But no. Americans (and Canadians) like Bryan want to look after their own, and don't care about people in other countries because they're not in the rich boys club.


I look after my own first. After that I expend my remaining resources looking after others. It makes both moral and evolutionary sense (not that the two are really all that separable).

You seem to claim we should look after others first - the most needy specifically. That's been tried, and it doesn't work. When you help the needy at the expense of the rest, everyone eventually becomes needy.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
You just made my point for me. Finally. You clearly said that subsistence farming without money is not a great life.


Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

leave the farms during periods of difficulty - drought, etc.

Would have happened with foreign trade or not.

Quote:

Or they are forced out by larger land owners.

You mean armed land owners right? Violence is not foreign trade, it existed long before that.

Quote:

Or their land is lost to desertification (a very common problem in sub-saharan africa)

Because of unsustainable farming practices perhaps?

Quote:

or urbanization.


I don't like my neighbor's garden. I'll deploy urbanization onto it and it'll be gone {{Poof}}.

You haven't demonstrated how poor countries would be better off without free foreign trade. Maybe they just wouldn't.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
As I said, I suspect you knowledge of evolution is limited. You just proved that.


No personal insults please.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
You seem to claim we should look after others first - the most needy specifically. That's been tried, and it doesn't work. When you help the needy at the expense of the rest, everyone eventually becomes needy.


You've lost track of the point. It was about free trade not charity. Are you saying trading with poor people makes more people poor?

How are we doing now? Are trade restrictions on poor countries too little, too much or about right?

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
You seem to claim we should look after others first - the most needy specifically. That's been tried, and it doesn't work. When you help the needy at the expense of the rest, everyone eventually becomes needy.


You've lost track of the point. It was about free trade not charity. Are you saying trading with poor people makes more people poor?


In many countries, that is exactly what has happened. Other events factor in too - population growth and decolonization for example. But there are many places in the world worse off today than they were in the 1960's - i.e. most of sub-Saharan Africa as an example.

Originally Posted By: kallog

How are we doing now? Are trade restrictions on poor countries too little, too much or about right?


We're doing the wrong things. Instead of helping build local businesses and economies, thus developing these nations, we're instead letting big multinationals who prey off of the low labour costs.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
We're doing the wrong things. Instead of helping build local businesses and economies, thus developing these nations, we're instead letting big multinationals who prey off of the low labour costs.


'prey'? An inappropriate word. Where I live we love it that big multinationals 'prey' off our low labour costs. We try to keep our currency low so we can be preyed on more. Oh and its making people steadily richer and richer! Sure there are local exporting companies too, which are a major part of it (and treat their workers even worse). But they can't do it all by themselves.

Wow, did you notice what I just said? Local companies treating their workers worse than big multinationals. I thought local business was a good thing?!! Why do poor people prefer to work for big multinationals? Oh yes, they can get paid more and treated better.

So you acknowledge that international trade hasn't _caused_ people to be worse off in poor countries. Sure that may have happened, but it was for other reasons.

That's quite an important step. It means blocking trade may not help people. Haha that sound almost funny - blocking trade is how countries try to punish each other. It's surely a bad thing in almost every case.

What's really bad is local political problems. But we probably shouldn't go there.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
We're doing the wrong things. Instead of helping build local businesses and economies, thus developing these nations, we're instead letting big multinationals who prey off of the low labour costs.


'prey'? An inappropriate word. Where I live we love it that big multinationals 'prey' off our low labour costs. We try to keep our currency low so we can be preyed on more. Oh and its making people steadily richer and richer! Sure there are local exporting companies too, which are a major part of it (and treat their workers even worse). But they can't do it all by themselves.


So you're basing your opinion on an n = 1? You may want to travel to a few other countries before deciding these companies are universally beneficial. My experience is the opposite - as is the opinion of the CETIM, UNDP and several other 3rd world development organizations.

Originally Posted By: kallog

So you acknowledge that international trade hasn't _caused_ people to be worse off in poor countries. Sure that may have happened, but it was for other reasons.


I never agreed to that. Both I, and several developmental organizations, make the claim that multinational corporations tend to impede the formation of local economies, pay poorly, and decrease the overall quality of life of local residents.

Total income is a meaningless measure of quality of life, which is probably why you concentrate on it. A more valid concern is the meeting of basic needs - something which has become worse over the past 50 years, and something which is partly due to MNC involvement in 3rd world economies.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

I never agreed to that. Both I, and several developmental organizations, make the claim that multinational corporations tend to impede the formation of local economies, pay poorly, and decrease the overall quality of life of local residents.


Byran I'm not going get dragged into your insult tactics. Instead just tell me the reason for the above. Tell me once and for all in one message. Don't use examples, don't appeal to authorities, don't mention me, just explain the reason.

I've been trying to find this out the entire conversation but you have never been able to say. I notice the rate of insults and bragging from you is increasing. Those are usually correlated with confusion about the topic.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

I never agreed to that. Both I, and several developmental organizations, make the claim that multinational corporations tend to impede the formation of local economies, pay poorly, and decrease the overall quality of life of local residents.


Byran I'm not going get dragged into your insult tactics. Instead just tell me the reason for the above. Tell me once and for all in one message. Don't use examples, don't appeal to authorities, don't mention me, just explain the reason.

Its what I described before. The ability to meet ones basic needs is not dependent strictly on income. Farmers, for example, can meet their needs on (in theory) no monetary income.

The trend in much of the 3rd world has been towards LMC-industrialization (i.e. large, foreign companies move in to utilize cheap labor). The end effect is that many loose their farms (due to forced relocations, buy outs, inability to compete with corporate farms, urbanization, etc) and are forced to move to the city for low-paying manufacturing jobs - jobs which frequently pay less than the cost of living. What this means is that as these countries move from an agrarian to industrialized economy, many people loose their ability to meet their needs.

This is hardly a new phenomena. The history of the west's industrialization followed a similar track - people forced to move to cities ended up working for wages which were insufficient to meet their basic needs. Its the whole entire basis of the union movement, labor laws, etc.

The exact same thing is happening today in the 3rd world, and given that some countries figured out how to largely avoid this issue (Brazil, as an example. Kenya is also doing a good job [relative to its neighbors]).

Its simple - development of local industries and companies allows for the formation of a self-sufficient middle class. This is why so much development effort is going into things like micro-loans and local infrastructure development.

Originally Posted By: kallog

I've been trying to find this out the entire conversation but you have never been able to say.

I've said it numerous times, largely in posts #35942, #36110, #36133, #36185 and again in this post.

Originally Posted By: kellog
don't appeal to authorities

So what you are saying is you don't want evidence? The "authorities" I quoted are the two largest NGO's overseeing 3rd world development. They know far more than you or I ever could about the issues these countries face.

They both oppose LMC involvement in 3rd world economies, and support actions to build and develop local industries. And I'm sure you're somehow going to construe this as an insult, but I'll take the words of the experts over a pseudonym on the internet any day.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

many loose their farms (due to forced relocations

OK, there's a potential reason. But who's forcing them? The foreign company? The government under pressure from the foreign company?

Quote:

, buy outs,

Personal choice. Maybe even for the better, if not, too bad.

Quote:

inability to compete with corporate farms,

No need to compete if you're self sufficient.

Quote:

urbanization

Again, who's forcing them to move?

It sounds to me like foreign companies building factories and offering to hire local workers is not the problem at all. What's really the problem is somebody - maybe those companies, maybe the government, maybe someone else - is taking people's land.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

many loose their farms (due to forced relocations

OK, there's a potential reason. But who's forcing them? The foreign company? The government under pressure from the foreign company?

a, b, sometimes both, sometimes neither.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:
buy outs,

Personal choice. Maybe even for the better, if not, too bad.

Buyouts are not always voluntary. For a while, in Uganda (while I was there) buyouts were often structured as "we (company X) have bought your debt from the bank. Pay it off today, or give us your land".

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:
inability to compete with corporate farms,

No need to compete if you're self sufficient.

Unless, of course, you want to purchase something made from another farm, or buy any sort of goods. Even in primitive agrarian societies trade existed - an inability to compete with corporate farms removes even that.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:
urbanization

Again, who's forcing them to move?

Depends on the strength of the government.

Originally Posted By: kallog
It sounds to me like foreign companies building factories and offering to hire local workers is not the problem at all. What's really the problem is somebody - maybe those companies, maybe the government, maybe someone else - is taking people's land.

You're good at looking at one small part of the problem, rather than the whole. We're not talking just about farmland, but rather the effects LMC's have on the industrialization of 3rd world nations. These nations will industrialize no matter who is involved - most of them actively try to promote industrialization. So no matter what, people will move from farms to cities - maybe because they are seeking work, or maybe because they were forced to, or maybe because their farms are rendered redundant/uncompetitive. But no matter what, this is the inevitable effect of industrialization.

So the issue isn't that they are moving - its what happens after.

LMC's often pay less than a subsistence wage in 3rd world countries. Its the very reason many operate there - weak and corruptible governments, few/no labor laws, all-but-free employees. LMC involvement has also associated with failures to develop local industries, for as local "mom & pop" type operations cannot compete with a LMC.

This is a old and well understood problem. I'd recommend reading up on the post-1960's industrialization of nations like Brazil, that managed to break the stranglehold LMC's had on their economy. It both clearly illustrates the damage these types of corporations can do, and ways this can be avoided. I had a good book on this (circa early 2000's) - I'll see if its still kicking around my library and post the title/author for you.

Bryan

Last edited by ImagingGeek; 09/21/10 05:36 PM.

UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
OK, so finally you got to the point. LMCs bribe powerful local people to do otherwise illegal or unethical things.

The fault is mostly with those corrupt local people. The message should be "down with the Nigerian generals", or "down with corruption", but not "down with free trade". Free trade in itself isn't a problem, which is what I expected all along, and now you've agreed to.

But those politicians and generals don't have a big name, they don't have a presence in the west, they're anonymous and faceless to outsiders, so it's easier to forget them and find an easier target.



Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
This is a old and well understood problem. I'd recommend reading up on the post-1960's


No. All your reading has left you lazily following the same rhetoric as all the drug-smoking spoiled rich-kids.

Last edited by kallog; 09/22/10 06:27 AM.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
OK, so finally you got to the point. LMCs bribe powerful local people to do otherwise illegal or unethical things.

Once again, you've concentrated on one of the many problems at hand. Bribery is but one issue, and hardly a universal one. Poor wages, an inability of local industries to compete with LMC's, little/no legislation protecting workers, weak or ineffective enforcement of the law, and many other things feed into this.

Saying "bribes are the only problem" is akin to blaming WWII on the Australians - sure, they were involved, but they're only one tiny part of the equation...

Originally Posted By: kallog

The fault is mostly with those corrupt local people.

Yeah, just like WWII was mostly the fault of the Jews frown

The "fault" lies in many places. Part if it lies here in the west - the demands for products at the lowest possible price drive some companies to prey on 3rd world nations to achieve that. Part of the fault lies in our western free trade agreements - as in the ones you so positively laud - because they both prevent us from using punitive tariffs to make that practice unprofitable, and are exclusionary to those who are non-signees.

Originally Posted By: kallog
The message should be "down with the Nigerian generals", or "down with corruption", but not "down with free trade". Free trade in itself isn't a problem, which is what I expected all along, and now you've agreed to.

Really, where did I agree to that? Oh wait, I didn't - you're simply twisting my words.

Free trade is not the answer to this issue. In the presence of free trade punitive tariffs against companies/countries that use/allow such practices cannot be implemented. In the presence of free trade, a developing country cannot protect its domestic economy from outside competition. In the presence of free trade, a country cannot take action to protect its currency, protect its workers, and protect its companies.

Free trade is great if you have a developed economy. But for a developing one, it is a recipe for disaster.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
This is a old and well understood problem. I'd recommend reading up on the post-1960's

No. All your reading has left you lazily following the same rhetoric as all the drug-smoking spoiled rich-kids.

Translation: kallog reject reality and substitute my own.

The book I am thinking of was written by Brazils minister of industry (or perhaps trade, its been a few years so I don't remember the specifics) during the 1960's. In it, he outlines the problems they faced (largely LMC's profiteering off of natural resources, at the expense of the local economy), and the actions they took to rectify that. Its an amazing read, and when you consider what has happened in Brazil over the past 60-ish years, is pretty much a how-to guide on how to industrialize an undeveloped nation.

But hey, I understand your point. Its much easier to be obstinate about an idea than it is to approach it with an open mind, and to learn from the very people who dealt successfully with the problem in the past.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Once again, you've concentrated on one of the many problems at hand. Bribery is but one issue,

I've asked you many times for you reasons and you've only slowly produced a couple of them. Now you're saying even those are only small parts of it. Why not simply explain your reasoning? Or maybe you're read too many books and gained a general impression without actually working it out yourself.

I'm really tired of people saying "low wages, poor working conditions". That's the standard rhetoric of anti-globalization people but it really isn't a problem without somebody enforcing it. If I knock on your door and say "Hey Bryan, I have a fantastic job opportunity for you. 15 hour shifts, $1/day, no medical insurance, hazardous work. Quit your job and come work for me." Will you? No. But if I come with an army and drag you there, then destroy your home, perhaps you will. That 2nd part is certainly bad, but nobody can quite explain how it's done, or by whom. You say corruption is a small part of how it happens. What's the big part?


Quote:
open mind, and to learn from the very people who dealt successfully with the problem in the past.

Sorry but Brazil is only a sample size of 1. It doesn't count by your standards. Reading a book which supports your preconceived opinion is also not open minded.

Why do you think China has such a huge internal population migration? Farmers who left the countryside to work in factories. They weren't pressured into it, in fact the government makes it difficult for them - they're often not entitled to the same rights and services as local people. Yet they do it, they're paid poorly, they work hard, but they're very upset if they lose their job and have to go home. This may be a sample of 1, but it's the biggest example in the world, it dwarfs any mines or factories in Africa.

I still think, and you still havn't shown otherwise, that farmers in poor countries often don't have a very good life. That they actually prefer factory work, because however bad that is, it's better than what they had before.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Once again, you've concentrated on one of the many problems at hand. Bribery is but one issue,

I've asked you many times for you reasons and you've only slowly produced a couple of them. Now you're saying even those are only small parts of it. Why not simply explain your reasoning? Or maybe you're read too many books and gained a general impression without actually working it out yourself.

No, you've asked a series of questions, to which I've tried to provide specific answers. Your continued insults vis-a-vis being educated about an issue is getting tiring - I'd remind you that I work in these countries. I see first hand what works, and what doesn't.

Nor would I consider myself anti-globalization - its fine, it even offers 3rd/developing world countries many opportunities - if implemented properly. I keep brining up the example of Brazil for a reason - while far from perfect, they have been able to develop their economy, become a regional power, and recently extended their reach well into international politics and the global economy. I.E. they are a poster child for industrialization and the benefits it can bring. The problem is, few are following their path - globalization remains largely what Brazil spent decades fighting against - LMC's from rich countries taking advantage of the poor living conditions and weak laws in these nations, while contributing little in terms of local economic development.

Originally Posted By: kallog

I'm really tired of people saying "low wages, poor working conditions". That's the standard rhetoric of anti-globalization people but it really isn't a problem without somebody enforcing it.

Not a problem? You may want to tell that to the ~100,000 people who die every day that their inability to buy adequate amounts of food isn't really a problem.

Its ironic that you claim I'm out of touch, while so clearly demonstrating you have no clue as to the magnitude or impact of the problem some of these countries face. What good is a job that pays $1/day, if that companies taken over all the local farms and thus you need to pay for imported food - at $2/day?

Originally Posted By: kallog

If I knock on your door and say "Hey Bryan, I have a fantastic job opportunity for you. 15 hour shifts, $1/day, no medical insurance, hazardous work. Quit your job and come work for me." Will you? No. But if I come with an army and drag you there, then destroy your home, perhaps you will. That 2nd part is certainly bad, but nobody can quite explain how it's done, or by whom. You say corruption is a small part of how it happens. What's the big part?

Your example is irrelevant - that is a pretty rare event. There is no big part; just thousands of small issues that add upto one huge problem. And its not the same country-to-country. In general terms, "sweatshop" labor practices, the loss of educated people to wealthier countries, failure to develop local industries, crime, corruption, poor governance, disease, low life expectancy, inability to compete with (often subsidized) foreign companies, lack of local capital/investors, inability to secure credit, outsourcing, child labor, dependence on aid, etc, all add up.

No, not all of them are globalization issues, but several of them are. And those countries which have successfully industrialized in the post-WWII era did so by directly targeting all of those factors.

Originally Posted By: kallog

Quote:
open mind, and to learn from the very people who dealt successfully with the problem in the past.

Sorry but Brazil is only a sample size of 1. It doesn't count by your standards. Reading a book which supports your preconceived opinion is also not open minded.

Actually, the book changed my mind, not the other way around. Its why I recommend it (although I seem to have lost it). Other examples include Korea, the Warsaw block nations, Mexico, China, India, Singapore (and several other SE Asian countries), and so on. Some of those have completed industrialization, others are still working at it, but they all have gone past what most of the 3rd world has achieved - largely by countering those factors I mention above.

Originally Posted By: kallog

Why do you think China has such a huge internal population migration? Farmers who left the countryside to work in factories. They weren't pressured into it, in fact the government makes it difficult for them - they're often not entitled to the same rights and services as local people. Yet they do it, they're paid poorly, they work hard, but they're very upset if they lose their job and have to go home. This may be a sample of 1, but it's the biggest example in the world, it dwarfs any mines or factories in Africa.

Could you have come up with a more irrelevent comparison?
1) China is not a 3rd world country
2) China successfully industrialized in the 1950's
3) China industrialized in the absence of globalization forces - until the 1980's they banned foreign companies from operating within their borders.
4) China hasn't been a primarily agrarianism society for the better part of the 1900's.
5) China industrialized as a communist nation, and thus had a highly regulated economy
6) China industrialized in the presence of a strong government which rigorously prosecuted corruption

So I'm not too sure how you compare that to on-going industrialization primarily agrigarian societies, with unregulated economies, weak governments, and in which LMC's and other "globalization" factors are involved.

Originally Posted By: kallog

I still think, and you still havn't shown otherwise, that farmers in poor countries often don't have a very good life. That they actually prefer factory work, because however bad that is, it's better than what they had before.

Firstly, I never made that claim. I simply pointed out the well accepted (by international developmental agencies, anyways) fact that people in countries currently making the transition from aggrigarian to industrialized societies have experienced a decrease in their quality of life, and that those decreases are attributable, in part, by the way globalization effects the industrialization process.

Secondly, when I provided examples of development organizations which studied (and thus identified) this fact, you whined about me providing outside sources. Now you're whining that I didn't provide it, even though I did.

A few more examples:
The impact of globalization on a country's quality of life: toward an integrated model. MJ Sirgy, DJ Lee, C Miller, JE Littlefield - Social Indicators Research, 2004

Sustainable wealth creation at the local level in an age of globalization. L Newby - Regional studies, 1998

Globalizations impact on onestate and local policy: The Rise of Regional Cluster-Based Economic Development Strategies. CL Felbinger, JE Rohey - Review of Policy Research, 2001

Does globalization affect human well-being? MC Tsai - Social Indicators Research, 2007

Throughout those you will read the exact same thing I have been saying here:
1) Industrialization can improve peoples quality of life, if it is done in a fashion which promotes the development of a local economy, and
2) The current "model" of globalization tends to harm, not help, the people of the nations currently undergoing industrialization.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Quote:

Globalization - the purchasing of goods from around the world, rather than closer to home - has reduced the standard of living in many 3rd world nations. Once independent agrarian people, capable of sustaining and feeding their families, are now among the poorest ad most destitute people on earth. And they are poor because of foreigners wanting to buy their goods - goods they manufacture at slave wages.


I think we've moved away from the statement that kicked this off, above. You're no longer trying to defend this, and are even going against it.

This is what I disagree with. You've mentioned some examples of why this is often wrong - Korea, China, India, Singapore, perhaps Brazil and Mexico, etc. These success stories clearly show that globalization can be a very good force. Sure there are cases where it's caused harm, but you can't blame free trade or globalization, you should blame unregulated economies and weak governments.

Again, offering somebody a choice is not wrong. Forcing them to take it can be wrong. Foreclosing on their loans can be wrong. Forcible evicting them from their land can be wrong. You need to separate these things.

I recently heard (perhaps unreliably) that in the past 30 years, China has lifted more people out of poverty than all western countries have since the industrial revolution. Nobody can doubt that the biggest factor causing such a spectacular improvement in people's quality of life is ta-da, globalization and buying foreign goods!

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:

Globalization - the purchasing of goods from around the world, rather than closer to home - has reduced the standard of living in many 3rd world nations. Once independent agrarian people, capable of sustaining and feeding their families, are now among the poorest ad most destitute people on earth. And they are poor because of foreigners wanting to buy their goods - goods they manufacture at slave wages.


I think we've moved away from the statement that kicked this off, above. You're no longer trying to defend this, and are even going against it.

Really? Where did I do that?

To the contrary, I provided citations which directly supported my original statement - that globalization as it exists today has greatly lowered the quality of life of people in 3rd world nations. That is exactly what I said above.

For the sake of brevity I cut the remainder of your statement, but I would remind you again about the pointlessness of using China as an example - they were industrialized long before globalization existed in the modern sense. Making the (true) statement that globalization has helped improve the quality of life of people in an industrialized nation is nothing but a red herring when talking about the effect of globalization on non-industrialized/currently industrializing nations.

Any ways, I provided the citations that support my position vis-a-vis globalization and its impact on 3rd world nations. You chose to ignore them, and "creatively interpreted" what I had clearly stated in my last post. Either read those citations, or take my comments at face value, but if you're going to continue to re-write my statements to make it seem as though I've said things I have not, then my involvement in this thread is over.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
If China was so industrialized, why do farmers still use oxen to plow their fields? Politically it's one country, but if you separate the rich areas from the poor, you find the poor are 3rd world.

Either way, you can't explain the mechanism by which globalization takes otherwise happy and well-off subsistence farmers, and converts them to unhappy factory workers barely able to survive.

Just saying that it happens is of no interest. Sure it happens sometimes. But how? You don't know. I want to know, you can't help, so goodbye.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: kallog
...offering somebody a choice is not wrong. Forcing them to take it can be wrong.

Hence, the problems with the World Bank and WMF...
...forcing economic and banking reforms....
frown

...
Perhaps this is unrelated, but....
http://www.kvnf.org/news.php
Thursday, Sep 23 2010 Headlines

....The head of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization has said that corporate influence is undermining sustainable development worldwide. Speaking at a farming summit in London, Dr. Samuel Jutzi said, "I have now been twenty years in a multilateral organization which tries to develop guidance and codes for good agricultural practice, but the real, true issues are not being addressed by the political process because of the influence of lobbyists, of the true powerful entities."
===

...and speaking of lobbyists....
Hey, did anyone see the House Oversight Hearings on the Salmonella problem. I couldn't believe that quote about "...not enough bodies in the street," as the reason Bush Admin. delayed the new (1999/2000) Clinton FDA rules for better monitoring of eggs... delayed for eight more years! But he was right... it was bad for egg sales to publicize the problem. It's nice, I guess, that Obama got those FDA rules started up again just 3 months after taking office. Too bad we didn't do this back when the economy was riding high and the egg industry could better afford to lose millions of dollars.


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: samwik
the problem. It's nice, I guess, that Obama got those FDA rules started up again just 3 months after taking office. Too bad we didn't do this back when the economy was riding high and the egg industry could better afford to lose millions of dollars.


Good on him. Recession or not, the egg farmers shouldn't have put salmonella in their eggs if they didn't want to lose millions of dollars!

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
If China was so industrialized, why do farmers still use oxen to plow their fields?

Because they are still in development. Even here, in the "highly developed" north america, total mechanization of agriculture took nearly a century from when the first mechanized instruments (steam-powered threshers) were introduced until nearly all famrming had converted to mechanized production (post-WWII). Given that China started industrializing in the 1950's, that would put an equivalent degree of mechanization (assuming the same course of mechanization) in about 30 years.


Originally Posted By: kallog
Politically it's one country, but if you separate the rich areas from the poor, you find the poor are 3rd world.

Kinda like detroit wink

Just because a country has destitute people, doesn't mean that the country itself is unindistrialized or 3rd world.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Either way, you can't explain the mechanism by which globalization takes otherwise happy and well-off subsistence farmers, and converts them to unhappy factory workers barely able to survive.

But I can and did - and provided outside sources which provide an in-depth analysis of those factors. You just didn't like the answers, so you ignored them. Long story short, concentrating on only the globalization factors:

1) Inability to develop local economies, due to their inability to compete with LMC's and imports,
2) "Predatory" LMC practices such as sweatshop-type labor practices, environmental damage, forced farm takeovers, etc
3) Removal of trade barriers which can otherwise be used to protect local companies & markets.


Originally Posted By: kallog
Just saying that it happens is of no interest. Sure it happens sometimes. But how? You don't know. I want to know, you can't help, so goodbye.

Why not read the citations I provided - they provide an in-depth analysis of the very factors by which globalization harms 3rd world nations.

Not that they don't say anything I haven't said here.

Bryan

PS: Since you're so sure that globalization helps the 3rd world, why don't you provide some outside evidence that is the case. So far, I've been the only one to provide such citations.


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

1) Inability to develop local economies, due to their inability to compete with LMC's and imports,
2) "Predatory" LMC practices such as sweatshop-type labor practices, environmental damage, forced farm takeovers, etc
3) Removal of trade barriers which can otherwise be used to protect local companies & markets.

1) Not developing a local economy isn't a reason to stop farming. Losing an existing economy might be. But that's different.
2) Forced labor and farm takeovers sound like fantastic answers, but you said they're only a small part of it, which I don't doubt.
3) Maybe this is the biggie. But it's not the LMC, it's other imports. Or are you talking about exports driving up local prices? Either way, your family can live on your own supplies of chickens, pigs, goats and grain and just not participate in the market.




Quote:

PS: Since you're so sure that globalization helps the 3rd world, why don't you provide some outside evidence that is the case.

I'm not so sure, but this is a puzzle I've never been able to solve. Plenty of people say "globalization bad" but nobody can explain why. I've tried Googling it on and off, but the field is so full of emotions that nobody bothers with the logic. You've at least made a good effort, but it still leaves some gaping holes.

All that has led me to the tentative conclusion that pre-globalization life was even worse for many of these people. I know it's not a very romantic view, but I certainly wouldn't want to be a subsistence farmer unable to buy anything except local goods and services. What if I get sick? What if I want to do something more interesting than laboring all my life? Sounds terrible.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
1) Not developing a local economy isn't a reason to stop farming. Losing an existing economy might be. But that's different.

I think you're missing a pretty important part of the picture - these countries are actively trying to industrialize. So its not a choice between stay on the farm verses leave, but rather of the quality of life of those people who leave, and what happens on the road to industrialization.

Generally speaking, globalization impairs both the beginnings of industrialization, as well as undermines quality of life.

Originally Posted By: kallog
3) Maybe this is the biggie. But it's not the LMC, it's other imports. Or are you talking about exports driving up local prices?

Other way around. Predatory practices (i.e. sweatshops) allow LMC's to produce goods below the cost of what a local (i.e. smaller and/or better paying) business can produce. This means local producers either cannot form, or are driven out of business. For much the same reason, imports can also impair local growth, as cheaper foreign imports prevent the development of local production. Its easy to deal with these issues if you restrict the accessibility of local markets to products produced by LMC's and foreign imports - i.e. act in an anti-globalization fashion.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Either way, your family can live on your own supplies of chickens, pigs, goats and grain and just not participate in the market.

So you're saying that people shouldn't strive for a better life?

Originally Posted By: kallog

Quote:

PS: Since you're so sure that globalization helps the 3rd world, why don't you provide some outside evidence that is the case.

I'm not so sure, but this is a puzzle I've never been able to solve. Plenty of people say "globalization bad" but nobody can explain why.

I provided several achedemic papers that analyze that very question, and come up with empirical answers to it. Maybe start with those, instead of google. As you say, google is full of anti-globalization, anti-big business, anti-everything claptrap. But go to the right source and you can find the odd gem on the ol intertubes...

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Globalization [...] has reduced the standard of living in many 3rd world nations. Once independent agrarian people, capable of sustaining and feeding their families, are now among the poorest ad most destitute people on earth.


Notice you didn't say "Once destitute agrarian people slowly developing their economies, are still among the most unindustrialized and poorest people on earth."

If you had said that then we wouldn't have got into this argument. My whole disagreement is with the idea that quality of life had decreased because of globalization. Decreased from what it was before, not from what it might have been if nurtured with all the right kinds of aid.


Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
picture - these countries are actively trying to industrialize. So its not a choice between stay

I'm missing it on purpose because it's not part of this discussion which is based on the first paragraph above. Such people don't particularly need to be industrialized, they were fine the way they were (so you imply). What aspect of globalization caused 'independent agrarian people' to become 'destitute'? Still no answer to that. Urbanization isn't an answer unless it comes with 'forced eviction', but that's a minor one.


The simple solution is if you're so poor and overworked, quit your job in the sweatshop and go support yourself on your family farm. That's the fundamental problem I can never solve. You can't solve it either.

I have a suspicion that 'support yourself on your family farm' is not an idyllic romp in the countryside, but more like 'be subject to risk of death whenever the crops don't grow, and be unable to buy anything from outside, also risking death by lack of medical services, etc. and being overworked while having to care for your elderly relatives and share the small amount of available food with your unsustainably growing family.'

Which means a sweatshop can be better for the individual. Why else would he choose to go there?



Quote:

I provided several achedemic papers that analyze that very

They didn't help you understand it, so I'm not going to spend my time probably getting just as nowhere.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
My whole disagreement is with the idea that quality of life had decreased because of globalization.

But it has - if you measure the pre-industrialization quality of life of countries beginning industrialization post ~1990, they are generally lower than what these countries had pre-industrialization.

If you look at countries that had begun industrialization before the 1990s, they generally saw a continued increase in their quality of life as they industrialized.

The difference between then and now is largely ascribed to the effects of globalization - other factors have remained largely the same.


Originally Posted By: kallog
Decreased from what it was before, not from what it might have been if nurtured with all the right kinds of aid.

Ironically, aid is one of the biggest problems in this situation. Food provided by aid agencies is free - hard for farmers and companies to compete with that. Clothes provided by aid agencies is free - hard for tailors, weavers and the like to compete with that. Housing provided by aid agencies is generally free - hard for carpenters, construction workers, sawmills, etc, to compete for that.

Aid is a very good thing in times of distress. But if carried on too long, or given away in an inappropriate environment, it can do far more harm than good.

Its the ol' "give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for life" issue.

Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
picture - these countries are actively trying to industrialize. So its not a choice between stay

I'm missing it on purpose because it's not part of this discussion which is based on the first paragraph above. Such people don't particularly need to be industrialized, they were fine the way they were (so you imply).[/quote]
I don't think I ever implied that. Industrialization will occur no matter what we do - governments want the income it brings, people want the goods its brings, etc. So pretending it isn't going to happen (or doesn't "need" to happen) is just a way of avoiding reality.

Originally Posted By: kallog
What aspect of globalization caused 'independent agrarian people' to become 'destitute'? Still no answer to that. Urbanization isn't an answer unless it comes with 'forced eviction', but that's a minor one.

I gave several answers, all of which you ignored. I will direct you to my post #36288 for the list. I also provided several academic papers that analyzed these factors in depth.

Originally Posted By: kallog

The simple solution is if you're so poor and overworked, quit your job in the sweatshop and go support yourself on your family farm. That's the fundamental problem I can never solve. You can't solve it either.

It's easy to solve, and I have described the solution previously. Farms are not free - you need to buy land, tool, etc. So if you live in a city, are destitute, and have a job which provides less $$$ than it takes to meet your basic needs, you'll never be able to buy a farm.

Originally Posted By: kallog

I have a suspicion that 'support yourself on your family farm' is not an idyllic romp in the countryside

Nor did I ever say it was. The measure here is quality of life, which has fairly well accepted definitions in the aid and academic "worlds". While the risks of things like crop failure is an obvious "drag" on a quality of life index, the "urban option" is a continual inability to meet your basic needs. So the comparison is basically:

farm: risk of transitory failures, but usually able to meet basic needs

urban: lesser risk of transitory failing's, but at the cost of a continued inability to meet basic needs

Originally Posted By: kallog
Which means a sweatshop can be better for the individual. Why else would he choose to go there?

Sweatshops are only better if they provide a higher quality of life - which, as those papers I provided earlier show, is rarely the case.

You continue to confuse the difference between income and quality of life - the former is not a measure of the latter. The latter is what matters.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:
I provided several achedemic papers that analyze that very

They didn't help you understand it, so I'm not going to spend my time probably getting just as nowhere.

So basically you're saying that because you don't like my opinion, you are going to refuse to look at the factual base upon which that opinion is based.

Gotta love the ostrich approach - put your head in the sand and ignore the world around you!

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Ironically, aid is one of the biggest problems in this


I was simply confirming what you'd just said. If you read my carefully chosen words without the blinkers of arrogance and assumption of an argument then you'd have noticed that.

Quote:

Originally Posted By: kallog
What aspect of globalization caused 'independent agrarian people' to become 'destitute'? Still no answer to that. Urbanization isn't an answer unless it comes with 'forced eviction', but that's a minor one.

I gave several answers, all of which you ignored. I will direct you to my post #36288 for the list. I also provided several academic papers that analyzed these factors in depth.

There you said it was caused by cheap goods undercutting local producers. That's not a problem for independent agrarian people who can use their own produce to support themselves without money. Farms are free if you inherited them off your parents, and them from their parents.

They're not free if the population is growing so people need to buy new ones. But population growth will occur anyway.

You're confusing "the way things were before" with "the way things should be". That's not the point. I agree industrialization is very good for people over the long term.


Quote:

You continue to confuse the difference between income and quality of life - the former is not a measure of the

No I don't. Blinkers.



Quote:

So basically you're saying that because you don't like my opinion, you are going to refuse to look at the factual base upon which that opinion is based.

They probably support your new argument that industrialization is better than not. I want something that supports your original point that subsistence farming is better than what's happened, and that it's because of selling goods overseas. Not because of any factors that would have happened anyway, or decolonization, or using the money to buy weapons, or anything that's the fault of the local people.

I just want a plausable chain of reasoning from "international trade" to "self-sufficient farmers can no longer operate".

Not from "international trade" to "local economic growth is impeded".

Last edited by kallog; 09/28/10 01:12 AM.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted By: kallog
What aspect of globalization caused 'independent agrarian people' to become 'destitute'? Still no answer to that. Urbanization isn't an answer unless it comes with 'forced eviction', but that's a minor one.

I gave several answers, all of which you ignored. I will direct you to my post #36288 for the list. I also provided several academic papers that analyzed these factors in depth.

There you said it was caused by cheap goods undercutting local producers. That's not a problem for independent agrarian people who can use their own produce to support themselves without money. Farms are free if you inherited them off your parents, and them from their parents.

LOL, you've obviously never worked on a farm. A dose of reality:
1) It is extremely rare for a single farmer to be able to provide everything his/her family needs,
2) Even 10,000 years ago, it is well established that farmers traded for the goods they needed, ergo
3) Todays farmers, even in pre-industrialized nations will be dependent on trade with others to make ends meet (i.e. trading for food goods they cannot produce themselves, for clothing, farm instruments, breeding stock,etc)

How the issues with globalization I've brought up fit into that should be self-evident. If external producers are present, and producing for a lesser cost that the farmers, the farmers loose their ability to trade, and thus loose their ability to meet their basic needs.

Once again, all of those kinds of details were provided, in depth, in those papers I cited.

Originally Posted By: kellog

You're confusing "the way things were before" with "the way things should be". That's not the point. I agree industrialization is very good for people over the long term.

But that is exactly the point. Historically, industrialization was conducted in a fashion which befitted local industries, and local individuals. The net effect was that over time the quality of life of the majority of individuals went up.

In the modern era this is no longer the case - countries no longer industrialize, but instead are used by already-industrialized nations as a source of cheap labor, cheap materials, etc. As such this industrialization is done for the benefit of others, often at the expense of the indigenous population and their economic development.

The solution to the later problem is simple - remove/reduce the aspects of globalization that are responsible for this change. Make it unprofitable for LMC's to profit off of behaviors that damage local economies - i.e. through tariffs, allowing developing nations to control trade in their regions, etc.

Quote:
Quote:

So basically you're saying that because you don't like my opinion, you are going to refuse to look at the factual base upon which that opinion is based.

They probably support your new argument that industrialization is better than not.

Still looking for reasons to ignore the factual base to my opinions I see - cannot say I'm surprized by this...

And, as stated before, they directly support the statement that I've been making from day 1 - that globalization has impacted 3rd world nations in a negative fashion, that globalization is a major factor in their decreasing quality of life, and that globalization is largely responsible for their inability to form independent, and stable local economies.

Originally Posted By: kellog
I want something that supports your original point that subsistence farming is better than what's happened, and that it's because of selling goods overseas.

And since I never made this claim, why would I have to provide a citation supporting it?

To make it simple, my original claim was/is:
1)the quality of life of these nations is lower now than it was in their pre-industrialized (i.e. agrigarian) era,
2) a drop in the QOL during industrialization is a new phenomena, unique to a globalized economy, and
3) globalization "forces" are what has caused that loss in QOL

Once again, all of those claims are supported in those citations I provided, which you clearly haven't even bothered to read the abstracts of.

Quote:

I just want a plausable chain of reasoning from "international trade" to "self-sufficient farmers can no longer operate".

Once again, since I never made that specific claim, why would I have to support it? As I've been hammering on since the first time this point came up, the reason people leave farms is multifactorial, and is only partially due to globalization forces. It is what happens to them after they leave the farms where globalization causes the largest issues, and where it has reduced their quality of life.

But hey, continue to ignore my citations, twist my words, and fail to support your own claims. Its obvious that you cannot find one iota of evidence to support your own claims, ergo the only options left to you are to whine and lie about the things I've written.

Bryan

Last edited by ImagingGeek; 09/28/10 01:17 PM.

UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Quote:

I just want a plausable chain of reasoning from "international trade" to "self-sufficient farmers can no longer operate".

Once again, since I never made that specific claim, why

Finally, you noticed. How many times have I said "self-sufficient" and "subsistence"? Now you see why I refuse to read your references? Because I really don't expect them to explain the answer to that. Now you surely agree they don't.

If you'd read some of my posts a long time ago you'd have been able to make that clarification back then instead of banging on about all this irrelivant rubbish.

Notice that I've been making an effort to understand what you say, but you haven't been doing the same. You're more interested in regurgitating facts to make yourself feel proud. I'm more interested in understanding. I've seen from other threads that you often act as a memorizer, not a thinker.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Quote:

I just want a plausable chain of reasoning from "international trade" to "self-sufficient farmers can no longer operate".

Once again, since I never made that specific claim, why

Finally, you noticed. How many times have I said "self-sufficient" and "subsistence"? Now you see why I refuse to read your references? Because I really don't expect them to explain the answer to that. Now you surely agree they don't.

I fail to see why it matters.

You disagree with my claim that globalization has had a negative effect on the quality of life of people in the 3rd world. Mu citations support that claim.

You continue to ignore those citation, and continue to refuse to provide evidence your claims are correct. Instead you pick apart paragraphs and use sophistry to avoid dealing with the root issue - that I can support my claims and you cannot.

Originally Posted By: kallog
If you'd read some of my posts a long time ago you'd have been able to make that clarification back then instead of banging on about all this irrelivant rubbish.

All that "irrelivant rubbish" was in reply to points you made. The fact you continuously ignore the context in which those statements were made doesn't change that fact one bit.

BTW, "irrelivant" is spelled "irrelevant".

Originally Posted By: kellog

Notice that I've been making an effort to understand what you say, but you haven't been doing the same. You're more interested in regurgitating facts to make yourself feel proud. I'm more interested in understanding.

How can you have understanding in the absence of fact?

More to the point, how do you come to an understanding by actively avoiding facts?

I reiterate again - I've provided outside evidence that my opinions are based on fact. You have not. Until you can either show my evidence to be wrong, or provide evidence in support of yours, I can only continue to assume that posts like these are simply red herrings to try and hide the fact that you have an unsupported position.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

You continue to ignore those citation, and continue to refuse to provide evidence your claims are correct.


You call it sophistry but it's all directly related to the one problem I want to solve, which is also what you're circling but never confronting. I'm not actually making claims. I came to this discussion with a question along the lines of:

"How does the presence of a foreign company cause a person to quit his other occupation and go to work for them?"

I suspected it was because it provided a better life or future than his other occupation would have, even in the absence of that company.

You seem to be saying it's because that factory also sells goods to the local market, which drives him out of business, and/or the other locals he depends on for business. That doesn't make sense to me at this stage. I'm not interested in any evidence until I can actually understand the mechanism by which it might work.

That last sentence might sound strange. I don't want any evidence! Imagine you were wondering why the sky was blue. You have plenty of evidence by looking upwards. But that's not interesting, you'd rather understand reasons why it might be blue. Later you can check those reasons with more evidence.

Don't correct spelling errors. You know very well that serves no purpose except to irritate people.

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

You continue to ignore those citation, and continue to refuse to provide evidence your claims are correct.

You call it sophistry but it's all directly related to the one problem I want to solve, which is also what you're circling but never confronting.

LOL, if you look back at your last 4 posts, the list of "one problems" you have changes every time. Heck, in your last post you asked me to defend 3 or 4 claims I never made.

And, looking at your "question" below, I see things have haven't changed...

Originally Posted By: kallog
"How does the presence of a foreign company cause a person to quit his other occupation and go to work for them?"

Once again, I never made this claim, so why would I explain/defend it?

The reality is what I have been saying all along - the presence of LMCs in unindustrialized/newly industrializing countries harms the development of a local economy and reduces the over all quality of life.

Part of the problem is that LMC's undermine the ability of local industries to survive, thus damaging the local economy and leaving few employment options outside of the LMC's themselves.

Globalization makes this possible - the absence of trade barriers, absence of punitive tariffs, etc, creates the environment in which LMC's can act in this manner without consequence in their home countries, and in which local governments are unable to prevent it because they are bound by freetrade agreements, etc.

Once again, all covered in those papers you ignored.

Originally Posted By: kellog
I suspected it was because it provided a better life or future than his other occupation would have, even in the absence of that company.

What you (or I) suspect is meaningless, what can be proven is all that matters.

Those papers you insist on ignoring go into these kinds of issues in great depth - I'd recommend you read them. It is, after all, why I provided them.

Originally Posted By: kellog
You seem to be saying it's because that factory also sells goods to the local market, which drives him out of business, and/or the other locals he depends on for business.

That is one mechanism. Cheap foreign imports have a simular impact (undercutting of local producers), as does trade agreements that prevent the governments from imposing laws that protect domestic producers, etc.

Originally Posted By: kellog
That doesn't make sense to me at this stage. I'm not interested in any evidence until I can actually understand the mechanism by which it might work.

How can you understand mechanism without facts? That is ass backwards from the way science, and reason in general, function:

Step 1: observe reality,
Step 2: generate a hypothesis to explain reality,
Step 3: test hypothesis,
Step 4: modify hypothesis to fit new observations, then go backto step 1 and repeat...

You want to jump to step 2, whilst completely ignoring the very thing you need to even consider a mechanism - data.

Originally Posted By: kellog
That last sentence might sound strange. I don't want any evidence! Imagine you were wondering why the sky was blue. You have plenty of evidence by looking upwards. But that's not interesting, you'd rather understand reasons why it might be blue. Later you can check those reasons with more evidence.

And here is a prefect example of why your reasoning is faulty. There is no reason to determine the mechanism by which there is a blue sky until you've established the sky is, in fact, blue.

Otherwise you're just wasting time - if you found a mechanism to explain a blue sky, only to later observe it is green, you'd have wasted a lot of time chasing a false assumption.

I.E. one of my favorite sayings - start with a false assumption, come to a false conclusion.

Originally Posted By: kellog
Don't correct spelling errors. You know very well that serves no purpose except to irritate people.

My bad - I mixed you up with another posted. Sarcasm only works when the other person knows what you are talking about...

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
This is going nowhere. You can't answer my question yourself. You keep changing it to things like "reducing growth that might have happened" or "non-agrarian people".

"A farmer walks off his family farm and goes to work in a factory" What reasons did he have for doing that? He's not concerned with theory, he just has some pressure directly encouraging him to do it. Why? Is it really the fault of the foreign companies? Is it because he can no longer buy equipment to operate his farm? Or is it because it's a really bad life, LMC or no LMC.

All you had to say, right from the start was "I don't fully understand how it works, but here are some papers that describe it.". You excessive spew of off-track information adds nothing but just shows how arrogant you are and you inability to understand other people.

Last edited by kallog; 10/01/10 04:32 AM.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
This is going nowhere. You can't answer my question yourself.

You keep changing your question. And, as pointed out in my last post, this new one isn't even vaguely related to anything I've ever said. You're asking me to defend something I never stated.

Originally Posted By: kallog
"A farmer walks off his family farm and goes to work in a factory" What reasons did he have for doing that?

I've listed several - inability to compete, foreclosure, simple desire. Just because you ignore what I write, doesn't mean it wasn't written.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

I've listed several - inability to compete, foreclosure, simple desire. Just because you ignore what I write, doesn't mean it wasn't written.


Forclosure is a minor one, so you say.

Inability to compete. OK, but only for a commercial farmer who cannot revert to subsistence living. And only if there are imported farmed goods which are even cheaper than the super-cheap local ones. Where could they be coming from? The 4th world?

Simple desire suggests he's improving his life, so it's a good thing. If it's a misjudgement then it's an information/education problem.


Ultimately I don't think the presence of a foreign factory in a 3rd world country causes a problem. Other things that commonly (but not necessarily) go along with it may be, such as foreclosures, cheap imports, reduced local economic growth, etc.

While you were on holiday recently, Bill S immediately worked out what I was trying to know, and offered some suggestions. But they only supported what I suspected anyway. Maybe I am right, maybe people should stop bagging sweat-shops since they're not doing any harm.


Last edited by kallog; 10/03/10 02:40 AM.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
Forclosure is a minor one, so you say.

Death by a thousand small wounds is still death.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Inability to compete. OK, but only for a commercial farmer who cannot revert to subsistence living.

Ignoring reality again, I see. "Substance" farmers have been involved in trade since humans developed agriculture. In reality, ALL farmers require some degree of trade - inability to compete means no trade, means your farm fails - commercial or substance.

Originally Posted By: kallog
And only if there are imported farmed goods which are even cheaper than the super-cheap local ones. Where could they be coming from? The 4th world?

Some from farms in industrialized nations, where the work is largely mechanized, and where production is highly subsidized. But it can also come from other 3rd/developing nations, where large mechanized farms already exist and there are low wage costs.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Simple desire suggests he's improving his life, so it's a good thing.

Or that he hates farming. Its not exactly an easy career path.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Ultimately I don't think the presence of a foreign factory in a 3rd world country causes a problem.

The preponderance of data demonstrates otherwise. ou insist on ignoring that data - doesn't mean it does not exist.

Since you're seem intent on ignoring the bulk of what I write, and the evidence I've presented, plus are completely unwilling/unable to support your own position with anything other than your gut feeling, I think this tread is done.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5