22 Nov 11
Originally posted by SakeFarmers in Maine, USA, are defying the FDA saying that food not sold outside of Maine isn't interstate commerce and isn't subject to Federal inspections.
It requires the guts to make descisions on your own. If you believe something is wrong, don't do it then. Now it's 'if I don't do it, somebody else will, so I must do it.' Such nonsense. A corporation should accept it can't be as big as it could be. So what? A clear conscience is more meaningful today than ever.
Waiting at global descisions............you know ...[text shortened]... mer, red cabbage in the winter. I know, not a very pleasant idea, but a necesarry one.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by SakeAccepting or soliciting bribes is cultural. Try bribing a Japanese. The Chinese are quite tuned in to bribery.
Truth is we don't care how they govern their nations, as long as we get what we want. Look at Shell and Nigeria for instance. If we are so damned righteous, why do we pay these gangsters?
The problem is that the locals remain dirt poor and hungry, besides a few landlords and trading companies.
And yes we ruined our country while we shouldn't. Doesn't mean that we are not partly responsible for what's happening somewhere else.
Sub Saharan Africa may someday resist corruption, but to this point it hasn't resisted the tendency probably developed during colonial times.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by TeinosukeActually everything you say here is factual. Find a land, where everything is as it was, and it is a third world death trap.
When I was last in the Netherlands, in the days when you had to fly to Eindhoven to get a cheap fare, the journey to Amsterdam passed through at least an hour's worth of very picturesque farmland. Ruined? Changed, I'd say. And the Netherlands is actually rather bigger than it would naturally have been due to the actions of people in reclaiming land. What w ...[text shortened]... ural landscape that I think as beautiful as... well, as the canals and gables of Amsterdam!
When I started selling Orange juice in the '60s, a frost in Florida made big news and prices go way up. Now it isn't a blip. No oranges in Florida, we get them from India, Israel, South Africa. Globalization stabilizes things, and not just in produce.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by TeinosukeInternet.
Most people are likely to agree that the rise of Hitler and the consequent Second World War were the worst things that happened during the twentieth century (and possibly in all history). But what was the greatest disaster that happened in world history since the end of World War II? By "greatest disaster", I mean the event or set of events that had the most negative consequences overall for human life, welfare and happiness.
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes, I agree. Unfortunately slogans are not solutions - the question is, given that there are corporations with an incentive to make money (given by
[b]It requires the guts to make descisions on your own. If you believe something is wrong, don't do it then.
Yes, I agree. Unfortunately slogans are not solutions - the question is, given that there are corporations with an incentive to make money (given by society), how do you turn that incentive into something that benefits society (on a global ...[text shortened]... at only Finnish produce, Finns aren't exactly renowned for their culinary expertise)[/b]
society), how do you turn that incentive into something that benefits society (on a global scale)? "Don't kill anyone" is not a "solution" to the problem of how to minimize homicide even though most people would agree with it.
The Netherlands were called a guiding nation a few yrs ago. That's hard to believe these days and the name is not backed by the 'third world', far from it, but what I see as a guiding nation, starts with being trustworthy, defined human rights in every segment of the society. This should be leading in the trade with other countries. You can't take what you want for a nickle and turn a blind eye what the chinese do to Tibet for example. You can't take the oil in S. Arabia and don't mind about the human rights there. That's not arrogant, that's about being honest, transparant. And if trading is not possible by such standards, a country should think about if it really needs the goods, or it should make alternatives possible, or simply skip the desire. A country can be a guiding light then, get respect and followers. A spark needs to start somewhere.
If a high standard of living is not a goal, then I am very curious as to what you think the goal of a government ought to be.
A standard of balance between human needs and nature. Human needs should not prevail over nature.
Back on your earlier note about the need to eat: I believe food should come as much as possible from ones own soil. That means we should eat more seasonbound food. Strawberries in the summer, red cabbage in the winter. I know, not a very pleasant idea, but a necesarry one.
Oh please. The world can very easily produce enough food to sustain 50 billion people, and we can do it sustainably. Do you have any idea how much potential is wasted through inefficient farming techniques, poor irrigation, poor fertilization, overuse/improper use of soil, ineffective government, etc. etc. etc.? Putting some food on a ship or lorry really doesn't take THAT much energy. (I also dread the thought of having to eat only Finnish produce, Finns aren't exactly renowned for their culinary expertise)
Perhaps we can feed 50 billion, but it's not happening, is it?
I know agriculture can be managed much better. But we don't invest in that in the third world, or at at least way to little.
No, it does cost a lot of energy. All that forrests chopped to the ground, fires seen by satelites, wood transported elsewhere, after cultivation again transports to far away habours, just to let our little piggies grow faster to make them ready for slaughter within 6 weeks after birth(in the case of soja). It's the attitude behind all this that is devastating for us humans in the end. Knowing this, but let it happen, is a crime in opinion.
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by normbenignWhat I've read corruption in Africa is a colonial sediment.
Accepting or soliciting bribes is cultural. Try bribing a Japanese. The Chinese are quite tuned in to bribery.
Sub Saharan Africa may someday resist corruption, but to this point it hasn't resisted the tendency probably developed during colonial times.
Corruption occurs only when one has more than the other. When there's balance between the two, there's fair trade.
But cultural or not, I think we should not be part of it anymore. The money saved from that could be used to pay a fair price to the producers.
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by normbenignI did not say everything should stay as it was. Change is inevitable and a good thing, but not at all cost. Governments should not have the right to disperse the locals from their homelands, who have lived there since who knows when, without an acceptable compensation/alternative. And when they are pushed aside to feed rich people like us 10.000 miles away, I think it is a disaster.
Actually everything you say here is factual. Find a land, where everything is as it was, and it is a third world death trap.
When I started selling Orange juice in the '60s, a frost in Florida made big news and prices go way up. Now it isn't a blip. No oranges in Florida, we get them from India, Israel, South Africa. Globalization stabilizes things, and not just in produce.
Miles and miles of mangrove coastlines in the Philipines have made the local fishermen jobless, for their habitat and the fishing grounds were destroyed by the shrimpindustry. Just one man and his family became filthy rich. The 1000's locals poor. Not a change for the good if you ask me.
23 Nov 11
Originally posted by SakeHow would you define and measure the needs of nature?
Yes, I agree. Unfortunately slogans are not solutions - the question is, given that there are corporations with an incentive to make money (given by
society), how do you turn that incentive into something that benefits society (on a global scale)? "Don't kill anyone" is not a "solution" to the problem of how to minimize homicide even though most people would ...[text shortened]... us humans in the end. Knowing this, but let it happen, is a crime in opinion.
Farming practises are unsustainable in some parts of the world. This is largely because of poor education and local corruption. Both can be fixed by, and are the responsibility of, local governments. How will not trading with the Chinese help human rights there? Are they suddenly going to implement democracy when they can't dump their cheap T-shirts? Get real.
24 Nov 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorrafind it hard to answer that question. Let's turn it around; what do we need from nature? Clean air, clean water, clean soil, animals, plants, fish, variety. Then I reckon it's about the same nature needs, for we belong together.
How would you define and measure the needs of nature?
Farming practises are unsustainable in some parts of the world. This is largely because of poor education and local corruption. Both can be fixed by, and are the responsibility of, local governments. How will not trading with the Chinese help human rights there? Are they suddenly going to implement democracy when they can't dump their cheap T-shirts? Get real.
You are absolutely right about bad farming and corruption. But again, we should not take part at such practises and while the situation is as it is, we should not take their water to get our daily green beans in the winter. It's not only not fair, it shows an I-don't-give-a-damn-about-you-attitude towards the local people and life in general.
I have not stated that the human rights in China will get a boost when we don't buy their Nikes. Just like you I have no illusions that would change a bit in Shanghai. But if we want to have a clear conscience, just for our own sake, we shouldn't. That's all. I don't care if that's realistic. The kind of realism what we see today, is not the kind that makes me happy.
24 Nov 11
Originally posted by SakeWell, what we need from nature is quite a bit more easy to define. Do I want clean air, clean water, etc.? Do I want to be able to eat tuna in 20 years? Of course!
find it hard to answer that question. Let's turn it around; what do we need from nature? Clean air, clean water, clean soil, animals, plants, fish, variety. Then I reckon it's about the same nature needs, for we belong together.
You are absolutely right about bad farming and corruption. But again, we should not take part at such practises and while the situa ...[text shortened]... realistic. The kind of realism what we see today, is not the kind that makes me happy.
My "clear conscience" does not help anyone in Africa or China. The best I can do is vote for a party that wants to do something to make a difference (e.g. D66 wants to abolish agricultural subsidies).
24 Nov 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDoesn't nature need the same?
Well, what we need from nature is quite a bit more easy to define. Do I want clean air, clean water, etc.? Do I want to be able to eat tuna in 20 years? Of course!
My "clear conscience" does not help anyone in Africa or China. The best I can do is vote for a party that wants to do something to make a difference (e.g. D66 wants to abolish agricultural subsidies).
Tuna after 20 years? And you call me unrealistic? But if you want your tuna in 2031, you need to act by stop eating them now to start with.
You yourself is ofcourse no match against the whole of Africa/China, nor is any individual. But you can be the drop in the pond in your own enviroment. All these individuals can make a mense.
If that's the best you can do, fine, it's a step I can appreciate 😉