Pros And Cons Of The Green Revolution

The Green Revolution a period of time that genetically modified crops were engineered, pesticides and fertilizer were created starting in the 1940s ending in the 1960s. This period caused a lot of debate on the Green Revolution some stating it positively affected the world and some stating that it negatively affected the world. The positives of the Green Revolution include increasing yields, increasing profit for farmers, lowering prices for foods which then allows the poor afford the food, and crops can be genetically modified to contain specific vitamin. The Green revolution is negative because it caused an increase in global pollution, chemical pollution, and health risks due to the exposure to the chemical produced during the Green Revolution.

Greenpeace started in 1969 when a group of Vancouver -area environmentalists gathered in establishing the “Don’t Make a Wave Committee” (Rex Weyler, 2004). “This committee was founded in response by the frustrated Sierra Club members, because the organization they felt an affinity with, refused to protest against nuclear weapons testing” (Lee, 1995: 8).

The connection The Good Food Revolution tries to also make is between ecology and human development. Ecology is about dealing with relations of organisms to one another

The revolution is surrounded by many inventions including fertilizers and pesticides. It is through these innovations that developed countries were able to feed their people (Standage, 199). As Standage refers to it, feeding the world. Standage's descriptions of this revolution clearly indicate that developed countries achieved what they have by feeding their people first. As such, food can be used for the betterment of the nation. Through the book, the writer focuses on the impacts of agriculture on various aspects of a human's life. The main audience seems to be the people (leaders) who have the role in making and implementing food

What is the central theme of “The first green revolution” section in Chapter 3.1 of your text?

He points out facts about how the Green Revolution originally was laughed, then proves that these original thoughts untrue: “the Green Revolution has brought nothing to India except “indebted and discontented farmers,”… India, for instance, doubled its wheat production between 1964 and 1970 and was able to terminate all dependence on international food aid by 1975.”(143-144) This fact introduce and support the idea that Paarlberg has done his research around the world probing that the Green Revolution is the seeding of the future. Grose continues with many facts: “In Asia these new seeds lifted tens of millions of small farmers out of desperate poverty…India’s poverty rate fell from 60 percent to just 27 percent… the Green Revolution was good for both agriculture and social justice.” These facts are a few of many that logically support his claim that it is a substantial and real problem that world hunger is bigger than anyone ever thought. This helps his audience understand that the Green Revolution could be the answer to help end world hunger. The details and numbers build an appeal to logos and impress upon the reader that this is a solution worth looking

The Green Revolution had a positive, negative, or possibly both consequences on the way human beings have evolutionized through out the years. Each of these documents specifically proves that whether good or bad the different societies have been able to incorporate a little from what the Green Revolution has left them into their daily lives. The Green Revolution on one-side has ignited the revolution for new ideas and traditions. On the other side the Green Revolution has become a form of destructing the true and only roots for most farmers.

Many support agricultural modernization, as a solution Africa’s, and many other impoverished nations hunger problems. This would include the industrialization of their agricultural industry, using modern, genetically enhanced seeds, and fertilizer. Yet, some of the same groups that are promoting the organic movement in the United States are advocating against the globalization of modern industrial agricultural practices (Paarlberg 179). Those who support modernization of such nations argue that the current process in inefficient, and inadequate. They believe that globalization of the highly capitalized, science-intensive, agricultural system that has been developed in the West, is the answer to the worlds hunger problems. They also warn that if the West abandons its current practices, it may fall victim to famine due to inadequate production (Paarlberg 179). However, supporters of organic production point to the fact that each year, approximately ten million tons of chemical fertilizer are poured onto our corn

Since the beginning of the Human Race, gathering a sufficient amount of food has always proved to be a challenge. The Green Revolution attempted to solve this problem by creating and applying new techniques and technologies. The Green Revolution was created out of necessity and caused social changes, discontent with some of the effects, and the overall quality of living to be improved but the improvement of living quality had the greatest effect because this led to higher overall populations which in turn created the need to feed an even greater population.

Brilliant farming ideas came out of the Agricultural Revolution, but there were also negative effects. One negative effect would have to be that farmers would need larger amounts of raw goods in order to maintain their increasing outputs.

In fact, it is also necessary for governmental bodies to become involved in promoting localized food such as policies and labelling laws that encourage healthier eating and food re-localization. In addition, regulations to foster sustainable food production are essential. Moreover, in the movie Cuban, the Accidental Revolution, David Suzuki, introduces how the government’s vision becomes one with the farmers, that there is a possibility for the industrial food system to work together. For example, Cuban agronomists describe the benefits of crop rotation for soil health, while Cuban farmers express pleasure with the relative productivity and profitability of their ecological and somehow newly industrialized farming systems. By inventing a new way to create food and working with nature, profit is gained and diversity is generated leading the country to possess the largest national program in sustainable agriculture. With the government’s assistance, farmers learn to do more with less and growing food as a community becomes more a passion that profits. In his article, Wes Jackson also supports the idea of finding a new way to create food without technology and science. Instead of focusing mainly on the local food systems, he emphasizes that by using all the knowledge acquired from the pioneers and their cleverness, we can build domestic prairies that have high-yielding fields that are planted only once every twenty years. It is not the entire answer to the total agriculture problems, but breeding new crops from native plants selected from nature’s abundance and simulating the resettlement botanical complexity of a region should make it easier to solve many agricultural problems (40). The share to work side by side with nature may be one of the solution to establish a new sea of perennial prairie

The green revolution allowed for a rapid increase in high yield crops through the use of genetically modified seeds that allowed developing nations to survive in the face of famine.

In the book The Man Who Feed The World by Leon Hesser it talked about Norman Borlaug’s life. Borlaug helped millions of people in his efforts to the Green Revolution. The Green Revolution is a big boom in the increase of crop production in developing countries. Dr. Borlaug did this by using fertilizers and high yield crop varieties. To this day there still are countries in poverty that can’t support their source of food. As years go by there will be more mouths to feed like in 2050 there is supposed to be 9 billion people on earth. I think that we should keep using modern agricultural technologies to help feed the world.

The Brundtland report defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” From early times, philosophers, such as Thomas Malthus, believed humanity could not be sustained. Malthus believed mankind would reach their carrying capacity, specifically with regards to food. Yet, this notion changed in subsequent years, thanks in part to the green revolution. This revolution helped increase crop yields due to new fertilizers, pesticides, etc. While there became more food available, sustainability, with regards to producing food in an environmentally friendly way, ran into some difficulties. While the Brundtland commission defined sustainability, there are three components that must be integrated for the well-being of all—social, environmental, and economic. Each component of sustainability must be looked at critically when considering the sustainable use of any resource. While many simply worried about having enough food available in the world, one must think of food sustainability with regards to environmental, economic, and social implications. As follows, the importance of food sustainability will be discussed, along with the attempts to measure food sustainability.

The Green Revolutionbegan in Mexico, when after world war two the country had major problems with food shortages. New hybrids of wheat and maize were developed, these new varieties were dwarf plants capable of withstanding strong wind, heavy rain and disease, which had been the major cause of the food shortages. When this project started they had no intention of trying to transform the agriculture of other third world countries but, when the yields of wheat and maize increased by three and two times respectively, the seeds were taken to the Indian subcontinent. In 1964, farmers in India were short of food, lacked a balanced diet and had an extremely low standard of living.