The 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).

Economically, the Agricultural Revolution majorly impacted the way of life in the Europe, through new technological farming advancements and improved land efficiency, ultimately leading to a greater abundance of food. Compared to feudal society when people depended on small individual crop yields, many fields were combined in order to produce much larger harvests, increasing the bounty of food overall. Improved land efficiency came with new innovative ideas, including crop rotation. Allowing nutrients such as nitrogen to return to the soil, crop rotation along with fodder crops rotated the fields of crops every few years, leading to more successful yields of crops. Additional advancements in farming technology, such as the seed drill, helped

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

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.

The only green America has ever really cared about is cold hard cash. If we look at the history of the United States it was a country that started out with little more than rural land that people would seek to protect to ensure a happy life. After a century of independence there began an exposition where “machinery was the focus” (Divine, Breen and Fredrickson) setting off the United States into a feverous need for industrial development and economic growth. We added a railroad as the nations first big business and industrial empires were built on steel and oil and soon Henry Ford joined the picture with the mass production of cars in factories. What the world had begun creating was what they believed to the foundation of a more leisure filled

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.

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.

During the 1960s, there was a “sharp increase” in crop production which came to be known as the Green Revolution. This increase in crop yields was due to the advancements in plant breeding and the use of modern agricultural techniques. The Green Revolution intended to increase the food supply in order to reduce the risk of famine (intended outcome 1), and with the surplus they were able to export the excess (intended outcome 2). However, there were also some unintended outcomes. Two of these were salinization, and the artificial fertilizers that were used harmed the

Meanwhile, agricultural reformers advised farmers to rotate their crops, conserve the soil, use fertilizers, adopt new crops, improve livestock breeds, and use the latest machinery. Although a few farmers practiced soil conservation by rotating crops or growing legumes, they just simply plowed up new lands when the fertility of their fields declined. Of the three main components of production—land, labor, and capital—land was the cheapest, so it made economic sense in the short run to exploit the soil to the fullest (Fite 28).

The green revolution is generally used to explain the application of modern, western-type farming techniques to less economically developed countries. The Green Revolution = == ==

     Agriculture has changed dramatically, especially since the end of World War II. Food and fibre productivity rose due to new technologies, mechanization, increased chemical use, specialization and government policies that favoured maximizing production. These changes allowed fewer farmers with reduced labour demands to produce the majority of the food and fibre.