You may have surpassed yourself. This is a brilliant essay. Not only are you so right about the food issue, and the interconnections with other issues; but this logic is so apparent in other issues as well, including climate change and even political stability.
Excellent article and many thanks for covering this. Please do updates!
Obvious, nature-positive solutions to food insecurity are overlooked and underfunded. Tech bros with their magical, carbon-sucking machines and gadgets will continue to receive the subsidies. A report condicted by Climate Focus states, "Despite family farmers producing a third of the world's food, only a mere 0.3% of the international climate finance has been directed to them."
Eric Jackson writes--"The seed industry has consolidated magnificently over the last 30 years. The top four firms now control over 60 percent of global seed sales, and three of them are foreign owned. By 2008, Monsanto’s (now part of the Bayer portfolio) patented genetics alone were planted on 80 percent of U.S. corn acres, 86 percent of cotton acres and 92 percent of soybean acres. Today, these percentages are even higher. As with the meat industry, this means that they get to dictate the terms of trade, set prices, hammer farmers with lawsuits and generally decide what American (and global) farmers can plant. This single industry — along with their co-owned ag chemical businesses — are mostly responsible for the biodiversity collapse across global ecosystems.
Those who want to try something new have to navigate the reality that those in power may not like it, certainly don’t want it, won’t pay you for your good work and will fight you at every chance to preserve their market power. "
"The absence of practices like agroecology from the agenda of the last UN food summit shows how deeply the private sector has consolidated power — these methods are highly promising, low-input and low-cost solutions for farmers to increase their yields while farming more sustainably. But they are mentioned only in passing. If you ever look at a situation and see something that looks like the most obvious, sensible solution and it’s not happening, ask who’s making money from it not happening,” explains Timothy Wise, senior IATP advisor. The answer here is clear: high-input agriculture makes many people extraordinarily wealthy. This power allows them to set the agenda for food systems change, at the expense of farmers, and at the expense of the environment.
Thank you for showing the context that’s missing from the “moonshot plea”, I find your piece extremely helpful to understand my own unease with that letter. Also, I admire the way you phrase things, like when you write you are „insufficiently worshipful of technological advances“.
Dear Thin
You may have surpassed yourself. This is a brilliant essay. Not only are you so right about the food issue, and the interconnections with other issues; but this logic is so apparent in other issues as well, including climate change and even political stability.
Thank you for putting it so well.
Ronan
Excellent article and many thanks for covering this. Please do updates!
Obvious, nature-positive solutions to food insecurity are overlooked and underfunded. Tech bros with their magical, carbon-sucking machines and gadgets will continue to receive the subsidies. A report condicted by Climate Focus states, "Despite family farmers producing a third of the world's food, only a mere 0.3% of the international climate finance has been directed to them."
Eric Jackson writes--"The seed industry has consolidated magnificently over the last 30 years. The top four firms now control over 60 percent of global seed sales, and three of them are foreign owned. By 2008, Monsanto’s (now part of the Bayer portfolio) patented genetics alone were planted on 80 percent of U.S. corn acres, 86 percent of cotton acres and 92 percent of soybean acres. Today, these percentages are even higher. As with the meat industry, this means that they get to dictate the terms of trade, set prices, hammer farmers with lawsuits and generally decide what American (and global) farmers can plant. This single industry — along with their co-owned ag chemical businesses — are mostly responsible for the biodiversity collapse across global ecosystems.
Those who want to try something new have to navigate the reality that those in power may not like it, certainly don’t want it, won’t pay you for your good work and will fight you at every chance to preserve their market power. "
"The absence of practices like agroecology from the agenda of the last UN food summit shows how deeply the private sector has consolidated power — these methods are highly promising, low-input and low-cost solutions for farmers to increase their yields while farming more sustainably. But they are mentioned only in passing. If you ever look at a situation and see something that looks like the most obvious, sensible solution and it’s not happening, ask who’s making money from it not happening,” explains Timothy Wise, senior IATP advisor. The answer here is clear: high-input agriculture makes many people extraordinarily wealthy. This power allows them to set the agenda for food systems change, at the expense of farmers, and at the expense of the environment.
Thin, great post...these are exactly my feelings about this 'moonshot' plea...it's misguided, myopic and actually quite strange!
Stuart, that is so kind of you and I'm relieved many people I respect, including yourself, feel the same!
Thank you for showing the context that’s missing from the “moonshot plea”, I find your piece extremely helpful to understand my own unease with that letter. Also, I admire the way you phrase things, like when you write you are „insufficiently worshipful of technological advances“.
Thank you!