People starving in Zambia and they won't accept US grain

Maybe It might feed the warlords again?

 

There are times you have to wonder.

Is it the price of science that is so high? Or is it the price of ignorance that is so high? How do you differentiate? And does it matter to the people who are starving?

I'm not offering an opinion on this one. I'm just posing the question.

While I'm at it, I might as well pose another question: What conditions did the genetically altered grain have attached to it? Was THAT the price that was too high to bear?

 

NPR did a very indepth story of this a few weeks ago, and there was no indication of a hidden price to pay. It appears Zambia simply is afraid of genetically-altered agriculture.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith110102.asp

 

Great. Here he goes with the NR again

The "precautionary principle"! Is this the Review's way of continuing the diatribe against EU expansion? Look, the industrialized north can afford to invoke security measures against the giant agro-companies like ADM, etc. Zambia is taking a bold, controversial step in not exposing its populace to potential hazards, period. Why should Zambia be the guinea pig of this corporate high-handedness (that's what is really is)?

The solution lies in providing bio-technology directly to poor nations so they can make a decision themselves whether to feed their populations Frankenfood.

 

I think moronic and half-witted is a better description.

You know, I'm trying to think of a situation more absurd than literally denying food to starving people because of hazards that have not been proven to exist to illustrate the ridiculousness of what is happening in Zambia, but I can't come up with anything.

 

Guinea pig? Most Americans are eating the same Frankenfood right now.

 

Guess what? Most of the food you buy is genetically altered. Genetic alteration of food (and animals) has been going on for 5 thousand years.

 

Guess what? I eat organic. Africans, unfortunately, don't have that choice. We're not talking about a little Mendel tampering here either. The strains being sold (given) to Africa have the potential to wipe out healthier indigenous varieties of rice, wheat and maize, mostly through the use of fertilizers and pesticides.
Sustainable and Renewable agriculture is more sensible.

 

You know what's even more sensible? Letting them all bloody starve to teach them a lesson. As I don't see how we have a moral obligation to fix mistakes made by wannabe-revolutionaries, petty tyrants and such, they should be happy we're giving them food at all, seeing how there are people on the streets of our own cities who'd be more than happy to be given free food.

Oh, but I'm sure these Zambian scientists know more about this food than all the EU, American and other scientists put together.

 

What lesson would that be? I mean, children usually starve first in these situations so maybe you're referring to a third world adaption of "time out"?

 

The lesson would be not to support political leaders that do sh!t like this to you. Ye gods, shouldn't the well being of your children be more important than some distant concept of national pride and what not?

 

It is a good way to get rid of the surplus population, and a lot cheaper than war.

 

Exactly.

 

They're taking the bold, controversial step in letting their people starve to death. Freaking brilliant....

 

Yeah, it's bold and controversial in the same vein as the Great Leap Forward or Stalin's 5 year economic plans.

 

Well, I'm sure some of the hippie 60's losers championed the former.

 

Welcome to Famine News & Analysis!

Where for overprotected First-World Cocksuckers, starvation is a means to an end.

 

It always has been.

But in this case, I think we're talking about Third World kock suckers keeping the grain out.

I fail to see how this is some step towards freeing themselves from EU and US corporate imperialism...the damage is done. That entire continent has been sold up the river since before 1914...

 

I don't suppose we could offer them non-genetically altered grain?

Metaphor time - the fire department tells someone trapped in a building to jump onto a cushion. The person would prefer putting a ladder up to the window so he could climb down. The fire department says "Cushion or nothing, sucker."

Wouldn't the arguments for or against genetically altered food be better made NOT under the shadow of blackmail and famine?

 

Actually, I was referring to those attempting to theorize about the causes and effects of famine. The whole issue is simple and there's no logical impetus behind it.

 

If trapped in a burning building, I for one, wouldn't waste anyone's time by making stupid requests. If they've already got the cushion set up, why not jump? It may be too late once they get the ladder.

 

> Actually, I was referring to those attempting to
> theorize about the causes and effects of famine.

It's just like the theorizing about terrorists issue - if you don't understand the root causes, you may very well end up with larger tragedies in the future.

 

> I don't suppose we could offer them non-genetically altered grain?

No because that would be too expensive. Curently there is low demand (and low prices) for GM grain, as it is less desirable among various companies and countries that buy it.