Welcome.
  Walk With Me
        As I Attempt To Shed Positive
                 (And Humorous) Light On Life's
                           Questions And The Challenges
                                    Humanity Must Face Everyday

Free Trade: Idea, Concept…Myth?

Tuesday, December 14th, 2010 at 9:27 pm  
Leave your comment

I have previously written an article on Fair Trade and some of the problems it poses for developing countries. I didn’t explore Free Trade then at least partly because because “Free Trade” is another one of those ideas, like human perfection, or Arsenal winning the Premier League; it is possible, but highly improbable. I also did not fully understand the practical difference between the two ideas. Real-world implementations of both seem to involve the usual uninspiring deal-making with an eye towards profit. Color me skeptic.

In any case, it’s come to the fore of my mind now because I have been reading about the potentially damaging effect it could have on affordable HIV treatment in the third world. “How?” you ask, a slightly perplexed look on your face. Once again, the devil is not in the idea; it’s in the execution…Free Trade Agreements. I shall return to this in a bit, so stay with me.

When I discovered this issue, I decided to really dig in and find out what I could about this Free Trade concept. I wanted to understand what it was all about, and how it could turn out to be negative. So, I put my excellent research skills to work (RE: Google) and came up trumps. Basically, Free Trade is a system that levels the playing field for anybody wanting to produce/trade a given product. At its core is the principle of making pricing a true reflection of supply and demand. This applies to domestic companies, international companies…everyone, regardless of country or location. Pretty simple.

It’s funny…I have always imagined this is how the world works, mostly. You put effort into producing something – time, money, etc – then you charge a certain price to reflect that. If said item is difficult to produce or rare, and in demand, you can charge more, within reason. I was right. This is how it does work…but only within a given bubble. A bubble, say, like the United States. Any given bubble will have rules in place to protect its “integrity”. The system functions to ensure that any external force that breaches it doesn’t easily cause harm to those inside. Usually, that means that if you are a producer in a given industry within, a producer in the same industry from outside cannot expect to come in and compete without some forced handicap (high taxes for them, tax cuts/subsidies for you etc).

The idea of Free Trade is to make the bubble irrelevant, or at least reduce it’s effectiveness drastically. No Government helping the locals out and making life more difficult for the outsiders. Like I said, a level playing field. It seems to have a whiff of fairness about it, afterall we all end up with a true reflection of prices, and the competition is fair. However, the world as we know it is way too complicated to allow such a principle be applied on a grand scale. Well, at least that’s what I think.

Most of the basis of Free Trade rests on the idea of Specialization, which is one I readily identify with, having run a business in the past (so what if it was a web development company when I was at University…it still counts). Basically, everybody is much more effective if they concentrate on things they are best at (even if you are capable of doing all things reasonably well) and leaving the other bits to people who are better suited. In an ideal scenario, a new web designer could hire a new accountant instead trying to do her taxes herself; and the new accountant could hire the new web designer to manage his website. They can both spend their time doing what they are best at. The system benefits from two people at their highest productivity level, who are also able to trade effectively with each other. Win-win.

The problem here is that societies today are not at a template level. They are filled with multiple examples of our web designer and accountant at multiple levels of complexity. Let’s say, for instance, that the land of Narnia is better at Wheat farming than Hogwarts. Let’s say that it is also cheaper to do it there than in Hogwarts. Now, let’s also say that the reverse is true for the manufacture of…I don’t know…Hawaiian shirts. The idea would be for Hogwarts to leave the wheat to Narnia, and stick with the shirts, and trade with the Narnians for wheat. Even though both Nations can do both, perhaps effectively, this is the optimum arrangement.

Now, in implementing this, the Narnian Government might remove protections in place for its local wheat growers…deregulation, really. These locals would quickly have to get creative in order to survive in this new landscape of “openness”. They would have to find a way to cut prices and compete with the potentially more effective foreign companies…or go out of business. There is more innovation, more co-operation between the nations; it’s all good…for consumers and the whole system at large. But there is a cost. A large chunk of locals who are in this industry will possibly be left without any livelihood. Also, any others who were working towards entering said industry would have to divert their efforts into something else.

So, clearly, trying get this to work on a large scale is difficult. That is why there are Free Trade Agreements (e.g. NAFTA). They basically lay down rules that must be followed by all parties to the agreement. They make sure that everything is set up correctly so things are fair, so all parties are treated equal. It’s deal-making, and someone always loses, at least in the short term. For instance, to “facilitate” this process, subsidies might actually be given to the foreign companies instead of local ones. If these locals are unable or unwilling to deal in the new environment, then it’s often tough luck for them.

Around the Globe, the issues are plentiful. For instance, NAFTA has been blamed for the loss of the United State’s manufacturing credibility (Mexico has grown their ability), while also being blamed for the difficulties local farmers face in Mexico (America wins here). When it happens between Developed countries and Developing countries, we start to see more problems. How much should Governments in less developed countries be allowed to influence prices to encourage entrepreneurship in their own economies while dealing with the much more advanced Companies from the Developed Countries? There’s a very thin line they have to walk.

Locals in Europe tend to have protections in place governing how many hours they can be made to work, how much they must be paid etc. I once worked – I use that term loosely…there was quite a bit of sleeping – for 24 hours straight as a Security “Officer” while I studied in England because the guy for the night shift didn’t show. My manager was extremely worried about all kinds of penalties the company might have to pay if it ever came to light. All of these protections are laughable on the farms and manufacturing plants in Developing countries. So, even though such conditions might not be created as part of any trade agreement, they already exist and are a major reason why business might be significant more expensive in Europe. How do European Governments factor that in when considering Free Trade?

I think that is where things start to get a bit sinister. Now, I am not a big conspiracy theorist – everyone knows the U.S. Government is covering up details of an imminent alien invasion – but my last point underscores part of this idea of framing arguments and deals as existing between Nations for the benefit of their peoples. From what I can see, that’s not the case. The parties that gain from all of these deals are companies, particularly the big boys. A company that would have had trouble being competitive in farming in Europe can move into farming in Jamaica because of a Trade Agreement or an “opening-up” of the markets. They are free of the constraints that would have existed on employee practices back home. At the same time they possess the clout and wealth to completely bamboozle – for lack of a better word – most other local companies. This idea of specialization benefiting even traders in that industry changes because some multinational firm is suddenly able to muscle their way into the game. Locals lose on both sides…the big companies win. I am having trouble seeing how this is good for everyone.

Global producers are…like…evil.

Now, back to how all of this affects affordable HIV treatment. This Article on GlobalIssues.org covers it in more detail, but the general idea is that Indian Companies have been able to make consistently cheaper versions of HIV treatment drugs because they only have to get patents for the “process” by which the product is made, not the “product” itself. That is going away as International Free Trade Agreement rules come into place. This could mean that international companies, attempting to make more money off these drugs, can bring Intellectual Property suits against the Indian Government around this issue. To stay out of trouble, Indian drug manufacturers in this area will have to be more careful. The potential result is a reduction in these sorts of drugs, and a potential increase in costs where available…because of “Free Trade”. Where do we draw the line?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not saying all multinationals are bad, or that globalization is wrong…or even that all of these agreements are wrong. It’s just that Free Trade could actually do more harm than good, particularly when looking at developing countries who just can’t operate at the same level as their peers from developed countries. Fair Trade has risen up in recent years to try to address the inbalance that can arise in these situations, but that idea has also been mostly usurped for profit as well.

I was hoping to find a solution when I started out on this path, but I have come up with nothing. At the end of the day, there isn’t a one-size-fits-all package that can be flogged to all parties. So, maybe in that lies the answer…I don’t think we can hope to apply the same principles (i.e. free and open trade) to all situations. We should consider the uniqueness of every situation, of every party involved; maybe even consider the positives of some protectionism. We also need to watch these globe-trotting companies because this is their show, mostly.

The offshoot of all of this might be a more complicated and drawn-out process; but whoever said life is supposed to be easy all the time?

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

On the unfairness of Fair Trade…

Monday, October 11th, 2010 at 6:31 pm  
Leave your comment

[THIS IS A REPUBLISHED ARTICLE...THE ORIGINAL WAS DELETED]

It turns out that fair trade isn’t necessarily fair after all.

In July of 2008, The representatives of the nation members of the World Trade Organization holed themselves up at the WTO’s Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. The objective was to try – once again – to resolve differences between two major camps (developing countries and developed countries). These negotiations were started as part of the Doha Development Agenda which commenced in 2001. The issue, when it really comes down to it, was a difference in opinion of what is “fair” as far as trade goes between the nations. That’s what the WTO is all about, you know…fairness. Negotiations broke down after 9 days over something called a “Special Safeguard Mechanism”, which would allow the developing countries more leeway to deviate from WTO guidelines to ensure that local farmers didn’t suffer too much in the event of a price crash…or something to that effect. The developed countries (including the US and EU) weren’t keen on that then; they still aren’t now.

The idea of fair trade, grand in its inception, just hasn’t worked in practice. That’s often the way with great ideas. Once they truly come into play, they can be interpreted, adjusted and twisted to suit the needs of the people in control. Organizations like the WTO and IMF, particularly in their approach to dealing with trade and development in the developing world, have not been able to produce the results once imagined for their schemes. Some of the key principles of the IMF include transparency, non-discrimination and “special and differential” treatment for developing countries. These goals are really important-sounding…high, lofty and other adjectives like that. On closer examination though, one can’t help but see the cracks.

Transparency is fair enough; everybody has equal rights etc, etc, etc. With the idea of non-discrimination one can start to see problems emerge. It basically means that no favoritism would be shown to any party in trade e.g. a domestic company over a foreign one, or a one nation over another. This should apply no matter what coalitions, relationships, deals etc. already exist. Do you see any problems there? Well, me too. However, special treatment was the one that really caused – is still causing – all that uproar at the WTO negotiations. Just what is fair in regard to the treatment of developing countries? This is trade, not charity (see Bob Geldoff for help with that). This is about profit. And since we are talking about international trade here, we are therefore talking about Multi-National firms, some of which have been reaping huge rewards off these deals for decades. Their model of “trade” has helped the economies of the US and EU to get to the strong position they are in – or were in before the global recession set in. Trying to merge this world where competition, exploitation and underhand practices are the norm with the feel-good, equality for all, fair-trade dream-world is asking for trouble.

Just look at the Banana Trade, for instance. Bananas are one of the most consumed fruit on the planet. They are also among the biggest profit-makers for supermarkets. So, we can all agree that they are big business; so big, in fact, that companies have been involved in exploitation, bribery and even the overthrow of governments since the early 20th century…all that good stuff just to keep business going; not to mention the Banana Wars between Europe and the USA in 1999. During this “conflict”, America actually levied duties on European products (completely unrelated to the Banana), whilst the EU stopped importing American beef. They eventually sorted this out once they had worked out a way to ensure all parties could reap their fair share in the bounty, except of course the poor sods from whose countries they got it.

The search for competitive advantage causes players to find ways, understandably, to reduce costs where possible. As I indicated previously, you cannot ask them not to do this. It’s the only way they can stay in the game. So, if there’s a way find the product for cheaper from another supplier, they will go for it. If there’s a way to pay less to workers and take short-cuts, they’ll also do that. It is what it is. Now add in developing countries with IMF Programs as suppliers and you have the potential of a tragedy in the making. Here’s how: A developing country gets some more money off the big boys (the EU, for instance) to invest in their countries. In return, said developing country has to implement IMF Structural Adjustment Programs. Essentially, they are given some “direction” on how to spend the money loaned, amongst other things. Usually, this involves growing of cash crops i.e. stuff they can export to the developed countries for money e.g. Banana. The country then concentrates primarily on this industry (often to the detriment of others – seems to happen all the time). Now, imagine a multi-national company involved in farming in the developed country. Do you think the government can adequately dictate practices to them? Do you think the treatment of workers will be of paramount importance? As for the EU that is importing the bananas…what happens when something goes wrong…like a disease outbreak that makes banana production more expensive? They can abandon ship…go somewhere else where it’s cheaper (this is precisely what happened to Jamaica).

What we end up with is an unhealthy dependence on the cash crop by the country. There just isn’t room for them to do much else because of the programs in place. It’s kind of like credit companies insisting on dictating what you spend the money on before they lend. It’s a great way to ensure they get their investment back. It’s not a great way to help provide sustainable development to an economy. This, apparently, is at least part of the goal of the IMF program in question. It fails. When the crap hits the fan, these countries have to do all kinds of things to make their exports attractive e.g. devalue their own currencies to keep the prices low. Majority of the land is devoted to growing cash crops to raise money, while people starve because other food crops and industries are neglected. These countries actually import food from the US and EU. It’s a sweet deal for developed countries. They get the raw materials for cheap, then process it and export back to the original source, ensuring they make more profit. They are in a position of power (those of us who have owed money to someone might better understand the helplessness in this situation). Finally, if anything happens that causes prices to go up, they can apply pressure to keep it lower for them (their loans, remember?). Heck, they can even change to another cheaper source who is equally under similar pressure. It’s a crappy system:

- Country has a crop which they produce for export
- They are provided with money to grow this industry…with limits
- More and more competition amongst companies (and other nations exporting the same) mean that prices invariably fall. It’s a race to the bottom. Everyone wants stuff for cheap.
- More effort and resources have to be put into the industry to ensure that the debt is paid, and to generate money
- Substantial mismanagement, corruption and dodgy practices ensue (individuals are greedy, and thinking of one’s fellow countrymen really won’t do when you can get rich)
- And on and on it goes

It doesn’t really matter what was intended. In this case, it isn’t the thought that counts. It’s the results. The results here suck…big time. So we see that:

- Overall trade increases (yay!)
- Multinational companies and the developed countries rake in profits (yay!)
- More people in the developing countries starve, as they export so much of their food (not so yay)
- They actually have to IMPORT food from the US and Europe (sigh)
- There is little room to expand any other industries as all the resources are devoted to producing cash crops…education etc. suffer (bummer)
- Rinse and repeat…because the idea is sound; it’s just mismanagement etc. that has caused it to fall flat on it’s face in this case…blah, blah, blah – further nonsense like this continues

So, the safeguard mechanism is supposed to help protect the poorer parties. It’s a way to say that if it goes to hell they won’t be forced to drop prices so they don’t sink further – along with other provisions of similar nature. This isn’t entirely crazy. It’s how the world works, right? Costs in general get transferred to the buyers. Why sell something for less than it costs to produce it? However, when you have buyers controlling the market, then you have a problem. They can say “I simply won’t buy”. Then you are buggered. The problem is the system. It’s one that works quite well for some, and not so well for others. Everyone has to look out for themselves. After all, who is to say that the America and the EU will remain at the top of the food chain forever? There is already change in the air as China, Brazil and others step up their game. It’s okay to do favors for others…as long as there is potential for gain. It’s just best not to call it fair trade.

The idea of these organizations as benevolent entities going around spreading goodness and cheer is obviously flawed. What is the IMF? Where does the WTO get its funding from? Even bodies like these are subject to the pressures of powerful members. The idea of equality for all is fine; however we all know that some are more equal than others. In this game, the developing countries don’t stand a chance…until the rules change.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

Climate Change in Africa: a ticking time-bomb

Friday, December 4th, 2009 at 12:02 am  
Comments (1)

“It’s called climate change and has only been exacerbated by the country’s state of unpreparedness…Do not tell us you didn’t know!” – Kenyan Nobel Peace laureate Wangari Maathai appeals to world leaders at the UN summit on climate change in New York.

I can say this with some confidence…conditions in our world are changing; weather is getting more erratic; more rain in some places, less in others; more and more cases of extreme weather. Global Warming is happening and we all have to deal with it, one way or the other. It’s not a question of belief when there is talk of all the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro vanishing within 20 years. That’s the sort of knowledge you can sink your teeth into; the sort of knowledge that makes belief obsolete.

Sooner or later, it will catch up with everyone. Right now, for me here in New Jersey, it’s more of a minor inconvenience. Heck, the longer it takes for Winter to set in, the better. For folks in California, dealing with more fires sucks a bit more. Miami residents might also have some moaning to do with more storms to run way from. But, at least here in America, we are well equipped to handle these “spurts” of badly-behaved weather because of the infrastructure and the general better wellbeing of a relatively high amount of the citizens.

Not so for the third world. There, this Global Warming thingy takes on epic proportions. Of the top 20 impacted countries, 16 are African. The continent is 0.5 Celsius hotter than 100 years ago. Kenya alone is 3.5 Celsius hotter than just 20 years ago (hence the emotional appeal at the start of this article). 80% of Lake Chad in West Africa has gone up in smoke in the last 20 years. My personal favorite is River Semliki, which essentially serves as the line separating Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Melting polar ice caps have caused this river to alter it’s course several times since 1960, causing all kinds of confusion about the border between the countries.

The toll of this has been enormous. More disease (e.g. malaria) in the Rwandan highlands, starvation everywhere, whole habitats wiped out, extinction of animal/plant species. Most of the African economy is based on Agriculture, so one can imagine how much this sets everything back. Even when countries are able to sidestep some of the primary issues, there are other problems to contend with. For instance, during the Kenyan drought (Kenya is getting hit pretty hard) of the late 90′s, most of the GDP losses came because of reduced hydro-electric power. For a continent that is supposed to be taking confident economic strides – or working on it – into the future, this spells big trouble because the real fireworks haven’t even started yet.

So, whose fault is it? Well, this can be looked at from a couple of angles. The earth is changing. Like I said, weather will become more and more extreme until…well, let’s just say that we only have limited time here before conditions make it impossible for us to survive; or maybe we’ll all go to heaven or…gulp…hell. In any case, we are somewhat helpless in preventing the outcome. Humanity alone cannot create the conditions that will destroy this planet. That said, we contribute to it. How much we actually contribute is a subject of much argument (although most voices seem to lean to the “it’s mostly our fault” side).

The bottom line is that we must adjust our behavior to suit the circumstances so we can address our own contributions before it is too late.

This is where the unfairness that is sometime inherent in life comes in. You see, Africa and the rest of the third world…their contribution towards the “Green-House” gases that feed Global Warming is negligent. However, the consequences of Global Warming are felt the most in these places. The big boys who are responsible for most of it are much better able to handle the potential negative effects of climate change. We are just not all on equal footing.

The offshoot of this is that Africa can’t do much to fix the grand problem. What Africa can do is deal with the effects with innovation. More diverse cropping techniques, for instance to allow mangrove plants survive in salt-water. What Africa can do is ensure that, as it ramps up economic development, it initiates more “green” methods to ensure that the continent doesn’t fall in line with those who have gone before. There must be more awareness, and more education on the subject of Climate Change. The Victoria Institute of Science and Technology in Kisumu, Kenya is doing quite a bit to advance “green technology” for economic growth. More initiatives like these are needed. One can’t seem to talk about Africa without bringing up corruption, greed, war etc. The fight goes on against these problems.

As for the developed world, they must do more…both in reducing emissions and in helping the third world to weather the coming storm. They can help to build the green economies, help in providing technological know-how, in addition to aid. The developed countries have to commit to the required targets that have been established by “Kyoto” and others like that. The consequences are too great if they fail.

This problem, though not of the highest importance to them yet, will spread soon enough, so it must be addressed. This will not be easy. There just isn’t enough pain associated with Global Warming to force the drastic steps that have to be taken. It’s almost like something massive has to happen to really get people going…like Manhattan sinking (if it was somewhere in Jersey no one would care).

For others, “Green” practices would only slow them down. China and India are well on the way to becoming global powerhouses…

WORLD: “You need to slow down your industrial development and make your economy greener”

CHINA: “Why?”

WORLD: “Because of emissions and global warming and…stuff”

CHINA: “Why now…why not when others were on the way to the top?”

WORLD: “Er…er…because we didn’t know then. We know now”

CHINA: “Yeah…that’ll happen”

You get the picture. Sigh. There will be challenges. Everyone will have to take a hit, one way or the other. Better now than later though.

And for you and me…what can we do? I won’t pretend that I am particularly proactive about this in my daily life. Like most others, I have trouble seeing how li’l ol’ me can possibly impact the whole. It’s much easier to expect Governments and rich folks to chip in first. Still, I am working on it. Small things first, turning off lights, watching my fuel consumption, cutting down on waste in general etc. Small things. However, they add up.

And we can all help raise more awareness around this issue. After all, this planet is home to us all.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

Genetic Engineering…is it worth it?

Sunday, August 16th, 2009 at 5:34 pm  
Leave your comment

There are times when we as human beings are forced to confront our feelings regarding major issues e.g. if Chelsea FC and Arsenal FC are to meet in the FA Cup Final, and I stand to make a reasonable amount of money on a Chelsea win; does my predisposition towards a Chelsea loss (which I believe should always happen…infact, I think this is a form of natural justice) trump my lust for money, which is considerable? This is indeed a conundrum. I’d have to seriously consider whether indulging my hatred of Chelsea would be worth missing out on a possible trip to Vegas, assuming my missus would approve. No easy answers to be found here, friends.

On a much grander scale, humanity is still coming to terms with the fact that the resources we have are running out, and attempting to address the situation has left us between a rock and a hard place. I read this article on the BBC News website which highlights the crisis in food supply that is brewing. The article also helpfully presents a possible solution to the would-be problem: Genetically Modified (GM) Foods, or certainly the technology behind it. GM Foods have been around for a while. You can read this Wikipedia page for stats, but I think it’s safe to say that if you live in the US or Europe today, there’s a good chance you have consumed something with GM tech in it. Basically, the idea here is that those who are against GM will have to compromise at some point to ensure that a larger proportion of humanity is fed.

GM is a controversial term, but the idea of genetic engineering is in keeping with humanity’s need to improve on God’s work for purposes of self-preservation, or for cosmetic reasons. This is in some way related to the issue of cloning stem cells…or the possibility of choosing traits in our children before they are born. It’s inteferring with nature, any way you put it. This is not always problematic, as most would agree that at least a few of our triumphs in the field of medicine can be argued as doing just that. This is a question of lines, and where they should be drawn; heck, if they should be drawn at all. The motives in some cases for “making changes” are clearly understandable (“Superman” Christopher Reeves was a big proponent of Stem Cell research. I can’t say I could challenge that, seeing what he had to live through being paralysed from the neck down). In others, they are a bit iffy (Mother tells doctor to only preserve fetuses that have green eyes, instead of regular brown). In addition to these, in the case of GM you have issues like Intellectual Property, Financial Profitability (big warning signs here for both of these), and Health and Safety. The companies that push this…they stand to make a mint. We’ve all seen what the search for profit can do. How can we be sure that all of this “tampering” is safe? Do we NEED to do this?

It’s funny how perspectives can change with time and experience. I worked in the Produce department at a Super Market in London years ago, and I can honestly say I wasn’t the least bit bothered about all the GM brouhaha. They said it made crops cheaper to grow; more resistant to weeds and viruses and stuff; plus the end-product looked good. I spent a considerable amount of time stacking apples, courgettes and potatoes. I never saw fruits and veggies that looked so appealing. We had a bunch of fruit trees in our compound when I was growing up in Nigeria. There was mango, orange, tangerine, oil palm, avocado, paw paw, sugar cane, plantain, guava, banana…and another species of banana. There were more, but I think I’ve made my point – I know fruit. Fruit never looked sexy till I got to England. I actually wanted to eat fruit there, rather than just pluck them because they were available (ironically, I only now truly appreciate the benefits of consuming all of that as a child). Also, If you didn’t want to purchase GM foods in the store you could avoid them e.g. by paying for that Organic stuff – if you were rich. No harm, no foul. I never really thought about the far-reaching implications until fairly recently.

The first time it registered as anything more than just “advanced cropping techniques” was when I saw a square watermelon on TV. I am not sure why I thought it was GM, but it doesn’t really matter. What matters is that this square watermelon scared me…big time. Have you ever seen a square watermelon? It just seems so…wrong; at least that’s what I thought at the time. I paid more attention to GM after that; plus I vowed not to eat any more watermelons until they had been put through an extremely stringent identity verification process. It turns out I needn’t have worried; square watermelons are not GM products, and they cost a fortune!

In any case, the issue is coming to a head as time moves on. It’s one thing to say that food is expensive, or not, as the case may be; but it is something else entirely to say it is unavailable, even for those who would be able to afford it. This brings up a question. Is this really an issue of food scarcity, or is there more to it? The UN released numbers showing that, as of December 2008, almost a billion people are registered members of the “starving class”. As you can imagine, most of those are in poor or developing countries. It would seem that the key problem might not be over-population or a lack of food as some would think, but poverty and food distribution (further complicated by corruption and other factors). It is not that population is not an issue, but that the problem still exists in the absence of the population issue. For instance, Bangladesh suffers from over-population and a lot of people are starving. This is true. However, Nigeria and Brazil (while densely populated) have substantial food available and people are still starving. There are systems in place that govern how crops are cultivated and distributed e.g. countries that owe money to the West have a certain amount of “Cash-Crops” they must produce to pay off their debt, seemingly without much regard for the state of its inhabitants. Will producing more GM Foods in the world address this? The simple answer is “No”.

Then, we have waste. Americans apparently do not consume a good 40% of the food harvested here. That’s a shame (Shame on me too, I suppose. My contributions towards excessive consumption in the US were truly phenomenal until recently, since I have a soft spot for steak. I am not much for waste though. My mother thought me to always clear up my plate :-) ). It might help if some structure were put into place – along with good, old-fashioned responsibility from regular citizens – to help mitigate this and redirect resources to where they are needed more. It might also help if those massive multi-national farming companies didn’t encourage their workers to toss out fruits that have been harvested because they don’t look “pretty” enough for the stores. Once again, the sheer quantity of waste here is appalling. That said, we all contribute to this by automatically homing in on the nicer-looking fruits at Walmart or Asda. A change in attitude is perhaps needed…from everyone.

So, should we really be having the GM debate when more “holistic” solutions are available? GM is an interesting proposition, but it won’t address the underlying problem. We have to fix the system first. Many agree that there is enough food, at least for now. The GM debate will be necessary at some point, but we shouldn’t have to do it now. Maybe humanity will run out of food at some point (Lord knows what we might have to do at that point…maybe old folks will be…gulp…recycled). However, as long as there are other solutions to address the problem of hungry people, it will just not be palatable to a lot of people. Controversial change – particularly change with potential risk for all – always has a better chance of success and more powerful impact when there is NECESSITY driving it. You don’t start planning to have an operation on your leg before you break it. You first try to avoid breaking it e.g. take calcium pills (non GM, of course), avoid playing in football matches with Martin Taylor, etc. There are other ways you should try first. Invasive surgery should be a last resort.

There is much more to explore here, so I’ll be back with this some other time.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

Charity begins at home (Do your part)

Monday, August 3rd, 2009 at 12:20 am  
Comments (2)

Recently, I have found my thoughts unconsciously drifting to a subject that I have consciously avoided for most of my adult life…the suffering of others. I mean poverty in the third-world, poverty in Africa, since that’s where I’m from.

I have realized that, up until now, my attitude towards this has been to ignore it where possible. Of course it has never seemed that way to me when it occurs, but I can see now that that is what it was…is. I don’t want it to be there; I don’t wish it on anyone; however, I can’t be arsed to do anything about it, so I change the channel after a customary sigh of sadness and yada, yada, yada…wonder what’s on TV today?

I was raised around poverty. There were poor folks everywhere. That was the way it was…is. We weren’t though, as with most of my friends. The deprived people around…well, they were just a fact of life, you know? I was sure they were fine. Not really my problem. I had my own life to live. It’s funny how life can be. I remember hearing on CNN in my mid-teens that 70% of Nigerians were below the poverty line. I was genuinely shocked. Things couldn’t really be that bad, could they? Foreigners were mistaken. They were looking at things from one perspective. There were clearly large amounts of wealth in Nigeria. What were they going on about?

Over the years that view of my home country has pretty much been the same. Everytime I watch some news or documentary highlighting Nigeria, it always seems to highlight so much negativity (forget the emails…that’s not what I am talking about here. Focus!). I want to say “That’s not the way it is. That’s not the way it is. That’s just not the way it is…”. It’s almost like if I say it enough times, people will realize that I am speaking the truth. However, that is false. The truth is that things ARE bad. If 70% of a the population of a country live under the poverty line (if the statistics still apply…though I can’t imagine them being much different from that), then that reflects the state of the country. That is what matters. It’s no use harping on about the other 30% who are doing well if so many have sucky lives. That means the country is failing. Now that’s something that we who are in a better position in some way, form or manner have to take some responsibility for.

The view that my country is a craphole, true or false, has a number of knock-on effects on my life. There is an instant impulse to disprove any preconceptions people may have about me, because…”not all of us are like that!”. No matter where I go in the world, I will have to answer in some way for being Nigerian. There’s the other problem as well; the voice in my head that whispers to me when I go to sleep at night in the privacy of my home (or hotel room, or in-law’s sofa…don’t ask). The voice says “what have you done about it?”. Up until now I have been fine answering that. I try to live my life to fairly high standards…ish. I try to to do the…right thing. You know what I mean, living a good life and all of that. I could always say “I have done right, so sod off”.

The problem now (aside, of course, for the voices in my head, which I should clearly get therapy for) is that I can now see how selfish that perspective is. It’s always been about me, first. While fixing yourself is fair, there comes a time when extending that sphere around yourself to include others becomes paramount. The idea is that after you are done addressing yourself, you try to contribute to the greater good. You give something of yourself; time, money etc. You do it because you can see more of the bigger picture. You can see that you are part of a whole. You can no longer separate yourself completely. If everything goes to hell, it’s only a matter of time before your little cocoon is punctured as well. So, you try to help out in some way…to do your part, to fix the situation so you can stop defending yourself repeatedly in public! Or you do it to allay your guilt for moving on to better things and abandoning others to face a crap fate; the guilt for not trying to do anything about it. You do it because you are now in the position to. At least that’s the idea.

So, where does one start now that one has been unfortunate enough to be have a conscience suddenly bestowed upon them? What can one do? The body and soul are now ready (sort of) to do something. However, the mind has no clue what direction to head. Well, I don’t think it’s necessary to quit your job and go off with the Red Cross to a warzone to help victims, though you can if that’s your cup of tea. It’s just that lack of sleep bothers me, as do flies, and long periods in tropical climates; plus my missus would kill me. I am joking about these (aside from my wife, she really would kill me), but there is a point. Our lives are full of stuff. Too much to sacrifice to do the big things, so we do nothing. The answer, perhaps, is to start small. Find a cause that you can identify with, then find someone who is doing something with it and join them. For someone like me, that’s easy. There is much to fix in my home country. I can do something about that, and I can start now.

I met up with one of the guys who started this: PovertyStopsHere.org. These are people who are ACTUALLY doing something. No rhetoric, just good, old-fashioned action. I have always thought I was a reasonable person. I imagined that when it came down to it, I could look out for others when required. Well, after this week, I know now that I have much to do if I am to live up to this vision of myself.

So act! Find your cause today. You’ll feel better for it.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)