31–38 of 38 posts
Why didn't it work?
> It hasn't worked — but it has upped corporate agriculture’s profits Perhaps one conclusion to consider is not "it didn't work" but rather "the real objectives were different from the publicly stated ones."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I have said was that the measures taken are means of attracting direct investments from Western countries. As an example, I've given the Sakhalin-2 project, where the Russian state essentially raided away billions of Western investments to the benefits of their chosen oligarchs. What I have implied here, in case it is not clear, was that the Jacobin either willfully misinterprets facts or makes constant pleas to…
Ok, but which facts are wrong? If the outcome was a net 0 compared to the baseline those investments and surrounding legal changes didn't improve things.
If you are looking for concrete examples of how you are being manipulated by the article, then to name just a few example:
- The article drops analytical rigor just at the exact moment when it benefits their narrative. For example, the 2020 goal of the initiative was a projection based on certain assumptions. To say if the project has failed or not according to those projections, the assumptions must hold. Funnily enough the article doesn't list those assumptions anywhere or address whether those assumption still hold true, or even if they were valid to begin with.
- The article uses language to imply malice, where there is none. For example: "Moreover, freedom of choice is restricted: in AGRA projects in Kenya, small-scale farmers are not allowed to decide for themselves which corn seed they plant and which fertilizers and pesticides they use on their fields." Gasp, horror. An investor wants you to follow their rules. How dare they. Jacobin should be on the barricades that VCs don't allow you to spend their money on a new Porsche, because that limits your startups freedom of choice!
- The article talks about agroecology as if it's as of now a viable alternative. Unless there's tons of investor capital lined up behind it, it really isn't. In fact, these aren't even comparable things.
"The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation promised Africa a “Green Revolution” to fight hunger and poverty. It hasn't worked — but it has upped corporate agriculture’s profits." It's almost like it was always about the profit. Strange
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, but which facts are wrong? If the outcome was a net 0 compared to the baseline those investments and surrounding legal changes didn't improve things.
1. I didn't say they were wrong, I said facts are being misinterpreted. That means that even if we assume the facts in the article are true, the interpretation of those facts isn't being done objectively. 2. If you are going to talk quantitative, please start with a concrete definition of the KPI and how you calculate utility and cost. If you are looking for concrete examples of how you are being manipulated by the a…
The whole idea of introducing IP law for seeds to improve yields then show a 17% increase, just like the baseline, seems a monumental mistake.
The fertilizer situation is questionable too. If they put so many conditions then they should also guarantee some outputs. Otherwise there's no risk for them, only the farmers. But I grant you that whole section seems a bit shallow.
You set a pretty high bar to criticise such huge initiatives. They can fail based on the externalities they create, not only as a model that guarantees an output given some assumptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It hasn't worked — but it has upped corporate agriculture’s profits Perhaps one conclusion to consider is not "it didn't work" but rather "the real objectives were different from the publicly stated ones."
You act like the for-profit objectives were some secret Illuminati plot.
"The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation promised Africa a “Green Revolution” to fight hunger and poverty. It hasn't worked — but it has upped corporate agriculture’s profits." It's almost like it was always about the profit. Strange
In 2015 and 2019 the Gates foundation invested in Moderna and BioNTech and retargeted them towards vaccine development and production. This investment will pay off handsomely. Are you going to tell me that this was about the profit too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You act like the for-profit objectives were some secret Illuminati plot.
You brought up the Illuminati, not me. Nothing about "they said their objectives were A, B, and C when it was really just A" implies an esoteric occult order of some kind. There are dozens of documented examples of Gates doing that sort of thing while he was building Microsoft.
That is called a "hyperbole".
> There are dozens of documented examples of Gates doing that sort of thing
Unless you explain what you mean by "that sort of thing", then there really isn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. I didn't say they were wrong, I said facts are being misinterpreted. That means that even if we assume the facts in the article are true, the interpretation of those facts isn't being done objectively. 2. If you are going to talk quantitative, please start with a concrete definition of the KPI and how you calculate utility and cost. If you are looking for concrete examples of how you are being manipulated by the a…
I agree that the site might have an angle and I don't believe their alternative solution (agroecology) is any good. Still, the article seems to showcase some questionable points about the AGRA initiative. The whole idea of introducing IP law for seeds to improve yields then show a 17% increase, just like the baseline, seems a monumental mistake. The fertilizer situation is questionable too. If they put so many condit…
And that would be a fair criticism. The problem I see with the article like this is that if we are talking about problems that need immediate or at least short-timescale solutions, you often don't have an optimal choice. You might have a choice that's somewhat less shitty. All the hand wringing isn't productive in the best case, and is a deliberate political tactic in the worst.
Hence, I think that the "angle" situation is a serious one. There are a lot of right-wing and left-wing outlets that push an angle that often muscles out any objectivism out of a topic.
> The whole idea of introducing IP law for seeds to improve yields then show a 17% increase, just like the baseline, seems a monumental mistake.
IP laws for seeds are a mistake in general, in my opinion. The optimal solution would be to either soften or repeal IP laws for seeds. Can we attain that short to midterm? Probably not. Does that mean that nothing should be done? No. So we are left to work in a space with solutions of varying shittiness, which still worthwhile to engage.
> You set a pretty high bar to criticise such huge initiatives. They can fail based on the externalities they create, not only as a model that guarantees an output given some assumptions.
I don't think so, but that is more the result of how I understand the word "fail". I think it is fair to say that the initiative has failed to achieve the hoped for results due to reasons A, B, C, etc., one of which is that the initial assumptions have proven to be wrong. That way it is pretty transparent.