Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Population control in India

Robert Zubrin in The New Atlantis on the population control holocaust in India, with my commentary:


India
Since the time of Malthus, India has always been a prime target in the eyes of would-be population controllers. Both the British colonial administrators and the high-caste Brahmins who succeeded them in power following independence in 1947 looked upon the “teeming masses” of that nation’s lower classes with fear and disdain. Jawaharlal Nehru’s Congress Party (which controlled India’s national government for its first three decades without interruption) had been significantly influenced by pre-independence contacts with the pro-Malthusian British Fabian Society. Notable members of the native elite, such as the influential and formidable Lady Rama Rau, had been attracted to the ideas of eugenicist and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger. Thus during the 1950s and early 1960s, the Indian government allowed organizations like the Population Council, the Ford Foundation, and the International Planned Parenthood Federation to set up shop within the country’s borders, where they could set about curbing the reproduction of the nation’s Dalits, or “untouchables.” The government did not, however, allocate public funds to these organizations, so their programs remained relatively small.
Zubin points out that private population control organizations-- the Population Council (packed with ideological refugees from the post-Nazi eugenics movement), the Ford Foundation, and Planned Parenthood-- blazed the trail for the massive government programs of genocide and deprivation of basic human rights.

Things changed radically in 1965, when war with Pakistan threw the country’s economy into disarray, causing harvest failure and loss of revenue. When Prime Minister Indira Gandhi — Nehru’s daughter — assumed office in January 1966, India was short twenty million tons of grain and lacked money to buy replacement stock on the world market. She was left with no choice but to go to the United States, hat in hand, to beg for food aid.
There was a lot that the United States could have asked for in return from India, such as support for the Western side in the Cold War (India was non-aligned), and particularly for the war effort in nearby Vietnam, which was heating up rapidly. One of President Lyndon Johnson’s aides, Joseph Califano, suggested in a memo to the president that the United States move rapidly to commit food aid in order to secure such a pro-American tilt. In reply he got a call from Johnson that very afternoon. “Are you out of your f***ing mind?” the president exploded. He declared in no uncertain terms that he was not going to “piss away foreign aid in nations where they refuse to deal with their own population problems.”
President Johnson decided to blackmail starving people to force them to fall in line with "population control science", or starve to death.
Indira Gandhi arrived in Washington in late March and met first with Secretary of State Dean Rusk, who handed her a memo requiring “a massive effort to control population growth” as a condition for food aid. Then, on March 28, 1966, she met privately with the president. There is no record of their conversation, but it is evident that she capitulated completely. Two days later, President Johnson sent a message to Congress requesting food aid for India, noting with approval: “The Indian government believes that there can be no effective solution of the Indian food problem that does not include population control.”
The Indian government believed (correctly) that the United States government would withhold food so tens of millions of Indians would soon starve to death if they did not succumb to population control.
In accordance with the agreement, sterilization and IUD-insertion quotas were set for each Indian state, and then within each state for each local administrative district. Every hospital in the country had a large portion of its facilities commandeered for sterilization and IUD-insertion activities. (The IUDs, which were provided to the Indian government by the Population Council, were non-sterile. In Maharashtra province, 58 percent of women surveyed who received them experienced pain, 24 percent severe pain, and 43 percent severe and excessive bleeding.) But hospitals alone did not have the capacity to meet the quotas, so hundreds of sterilization camps were set up in rural areas, manned and operated by paramedical personnel who had as little as two days of training. Minimum quotas were set for the state-salaried camp medics — they had to perform 150 vasectomies or 300 IUD insertions per month each, or their pay would be docked. Private practitioners were also recruited to assist, with pay via piecework: 10 rupees per vasectomy and 5 rupees per IUD insertion.
"Sterilization camps"...
To acquire subjects for these ministrations, the Indian government provided each province with 11 rupees for every IUD insertion, 30 per vasectomy, and 40 per tubectomy. These funds could be divided according to the particular population control plan of each provincial government, with some going to program personnel, some spent as commission money to freelance “motivators,” some paid as incentives to the “acceptors,” and some grafted for other governmental or private use by the administrators. Typical incentives for subjects ranged from 3 to 7 rupees for an IUD insertion and 12 to 25 rupees for a sterilization. These sums may seem trivial — a 1966 rupee is equivalent to 65 cents today — but at that time, 2 to 3 rupees was a day’s pay for an Indian laborer.
Population controllers, to dirt-poor people on the brink of starvation: "You wanna eat? Lay on the table."
When these pittances did not induce enough subjects to meet the quotas, some states adopted additional “incentives”: Madhya Pradesh, for example, denied irrigation water to villages that failed to meet their quotas. Faced with starvation, millions of impoverished people had no alternative but to submit to sterilization. As the forms of coercion employed worked most effectively on the poorest, the system also provided the eugenic bonus of doing away preferentially with untouchables.
Population control has always been about the suppression of specific populations. There were no sterilization camps in Hollywood or Cambridge or Georgetown. Planned Parenthood sites their abortion clinics in poor black neighborhoods. Black children in the United States are aborted at three times the rate of white children.

Purveyors of population control: wealthy white European elites.

Targets of population control: The poor. The Wealthy. Blacks Whites. Chinese Europeans. Indians. elites.

See a pattern?
The results were impressive. In 1961, the total number of sterilizations (vasectomies and tubectomies combined) performed in India was 105,000. In 1966-67, the yearly total shot up to 887,000, growing further to more than 1.8 million in 1967-68. No doubt LBJ was proud.
Blackmailing starving people works!
But while ruining the lives of millions of people, the steep rise in sterilization figures had little impact on the overall trajectory of India’s population growth. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich wrote in The Population Bomb, “I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self sufficient in food by 1971, if ever,” thus justifying his explicitly antihuman call that “we must allow [India] to slip down the drain.”
I have to catch my breath.

Please understand what Ehrlich said--  “we must allow [India] to slip down the drain.”

“we must allow [India] to slip down the drain.”

He means that despite the fact that we have the means to feed them 'we should let them starve'.

As in so many other things, Ehrlich was wrong; India did achieve self-sufficiency in food in 1971 — not through population control, but through the improved agricultural techniques of the Green Revolution.
The Green Revolution was led by one of the great heroes of the 20th century-- Norman Borlaug.

Borlaug was a plant scientist who developed and taught new methods of increasing crop yield. For decades in the mid-20th century he traveled the Third World, teaching local officials and scientists and farmers how to markedly increase crop yields.

He worked especially hard in India. Instead of organizing sterilization camps, he brought the Green Revolution to Indian farmers. Within a few years, India was self-sufficient in food production.

It has been observed that Borlaug's travelogue through the Third World is a record of the end of famine. Where Borlaug went, famine ended. If the rate of famine prior to Borlaug's work had continued, there would be one billion (with a "b") fewer people in the world.

One billion people are alive today because of Borlaug's work. He probably saved more lives than any man in history.

But enough of moral goodness and superb science. Let's get back to to the topic of population control.
[The Green Revolution] did not matter. The holders of the purse-strings at USAID demanded even higher quotas. They got them. By 1972-73, the number of sterilizations in India reached three million per year.
Then, in the fall of 1973, OPEC launched its oil embargo, quintupling petroleum prices virtually overnight. For rich nations like the United States, the resulting financial blow was severe. For poor countries like India, it was devastating.
But India was sterilizing everything that moved... why didn't it help... ?
In 1975, conditions in India became so bad that Prime Minister Gandhi declared a state of national emergency and assumed dictatorial power. Driven once again to desperation, she found herself at the mercy of the World Bank, led by arch-Malthusian Robert S. McNamara. McNamara made it clear: if India wanted more loans, Gandhi needed to use her powers to deal more definitively with India’s supposed population problem. She agreed. Instead of incentives, force would now be used to obtain compliance. “Some personal rights have to be kept in abeyance,” she said, “for the human rights of the nation, the right to live, the right to progress.”
The West held a gun to Gandhi's head: "sterilize your people, or we'll let them starve".

Well, when you put it like that...
Gandhi put her son Sanjay personally in charge of the new population offensive. He took to his job with gusto. Overt coercion became the rule: sterilization was a condition for land allotments, water, electricity, ration cards, medical care, pay raises, and rickshaw licenses. Policemen were given quotas to nab individuals for sterilization. Demolition squads were sent into slums to bulldoze houses — sometimes whole neighborhoods — so that armed police platoons could drag off their flushed-out occupants to forced-sterilization camps. In Delhi alone, 700,000 people were driven from their homes. Many of those who escaped the immediate roundup were denied new housing until they accepted sterilization.
These attacks provoked resistance, with thousands being killed in battles with the police, who used live ammunition to deal with protesters. When it became clear that Muslim villages were also being selectively targeted, the level of violence increased still further. The village of Pipli was only brought into submission when government officials threatened locals with aerial bombardment. As the director of family planning in Maharashtra explained, “You must consider it something like a war.... Whether you like it or not, there will be a few dead people.”
Population control advocates insist that there is no coercion. It's all voluntary, you see...
The measures served their purpose. During 1976, eight million Indians were sterilized. Far from being dismayed by the massive violation of human rights committed by the campaign, its foreign sponsors expressed full support. Sweden increased its funding for Indian population control by $17 million. Reimert Ravenholt ordered 64 advanced laparoscope machines — altogether sufficient to sterilize 12,800 people per day — rushed to India to help the effort. World Bank president McNamara was absolutely delighted. In November 1976, he traveled to India to congratulate Indira Gandhi’s government for its excellent work. “At long last,” he said, “India is moving effectively to address its population problem.”
Unfortunately, the West has not addressed its "we blackmailed and sterilized starving people" problem.
Prime Minister Gandhi got her loans. She also got the boot in 1977, when, in the largest democratic election in history, the people of India defied three decades of precedent and voted her Congress Party out of power in a landslide.
Maybe if Prime Minister Gandhi had promised free Gandiphones...
Unfortunately, in most Third World countries, people lack such an option to protect themselves against population control. Equally unfortunately, despite the fall of the Gandhi government, the financial pressure on India from the World Bank and USAID to implement population control continued. By the early 1980s, four million sterilizations were being performed every year on India’s underclasses as part of a coercive two-children-per-family policy.
It's all voluntary, of course.
Since in rural India sons are considered essential to continue the family line and provide support for parents in their old age, this limit caused many families to seek means of disposing of infant daughters, frequently through drowning, asphyxiation, abandonment in sewers or garbage dumps, or incineration on funeral pyres. More recently the primary means of eliminating the less-desirable sex has become sex-selective abortion, skewing the ratio of the sexes so that 112 boys are born for every hundred girls in India (far beyond the natural ratio of 103 to 106), with the ratio even more skewed in some locations. A sense of the scale on which these murders were and are practiced, even just in the aspect of gendercide, can be gleaned from the fact that in India today there are 37 million more men than women.
There are 37 million men in India without hope for a wife or a family, and little girls are often disposed of like human waste.

Coincidently, India is experiencing an epidemic of rape.

Malthusian ideology. Junk science. Totalitarian control of the most intimate aspects of family life. Genocidal blackmail targeted at defenceless starving people. Femicide in the tens of millions. Men without hope or families. Endemic rape. Self-evident crimes against humanity.

Population control.

32 comments:

  1. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthApril 9, 2014 at 7:08 AM

    Daily Truth™:

    Egnor, you should be ashamed. Of course the populations of backward countries like India must be decimated. As Daily, Ehrlich, and Ehrlich noted, "To us it seems reasonable to assume that, until cultures and technology change radically, the optimum number of people to exist simultaneously km in the vicinity of 1.5 to 2 billion people." That means 4 billion people must go, and trust me, tovarisch, that number does not include the Ehrlichs and the Gores. They are among the Indispensables.

    According to the UN, by 2010, there will be 50 million climate refugees. Time is running out.

    You can see from this map that India will be plagued with desertification, and the East Coast of the US will be ripped and torn by a plague of gigantic hurricanes.

    There's very little time left until 2010. We must prepare. We must control human beings. As Al Gore, father of four, owner of several mansions and a small fleet of private jets noted, "fertility management" is critical.

    A child unborn or fed to hospital furnaces is a carbon footprint untrodden upon the face of Gaia, tovarisch.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Egnor, it wasn't just wealthy white Europeans who caused this, although they're certainly complicit in this genocidal population-reduction scheme.

    Remind me, who owns the banks?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What’s the matter Michael, afraid to say it yourself?

      -KW

      Delete
    2. Who are you referring to?

      Delete
    3. KW, afraid to say what, Marxist Jews? No more than Egnor is to single out wealthy white Europeans (who are Marxist-Freemasons). Massive population reduction and one world government is the end goal. Follow the money.

      Delete
    4. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthApril 9, 2014 at 10:46 AM

      Ya gotta watch out for those Freemasons.

      Delete
    5. That's a wonderful picture

      Curio

      Delete
    6. I detest Marxists, and I have no love for Freemasons.

      I also detest anti-Semitism.

      Judaism is a religion, not a race. "Marxist Jews" aren't Jews in any meaningful sense. Jews believe in God and worship Him according to Jewish law and tradition, which is the antithesis of Marxism.

      "Marxist Jews" are atheists with a Jewish cultural background, and there are indeed quite a few of them, and they are quite toxic. But they are not Jews in any sense that matters, and to identify them as such is anti-Semitism, which I dislike as intensely as I dislike Marxism and atheism.

      Delete
    7. You can joke about it but Freemasonry is a real society, one with a very direct purpose: to politically undermine and ultimately eliminate Christianity from western culture. To a large extent they're succeeding in England, AKA their headquarters, where the population has become increasingly secular-atheist (and therefore more openly hostile towards Christians). Saint Padre Pio warned against this evil fraternity. The US fought a war with England, prevented them from taking over our country during the Revolutionary War ...only to become political allies with them. Now why do you supposed that is? Freemasonry, the order of the brotherhood. They're Satanic.

      Delete
    8. mregnor, no, it's not anti-Semitism to identify the ethnicity of the Marxist Jews who control most of the world's finances, just as it isn't racist for you to identify the political leadership as being predominantly European or Anglo-saxon. Racism would be blaming all the rest of the Jews for the actions of the small handful of bankers. Either way you slice it, both sides are complicit in the NWO scheme, like peas in a pod.

      Delete
    9. I agree with your assessment of Freemasonry. But as I said, I have no truck with anti-Semitism in any form. "Jewish" Marxists are evil because they are Marxists, not because they were born into a Jewish family. "Jewish" atheists are fools because they are atheists, not because they were born into a Jewish family.

      Anti-Semitism is one of the most odious and deadly curses of humanity. It is easy to slip into, as the Germans found out. Jews are easy targets.

      We need to keep our promise of "Never Again" after the Holocaust. I mean to do my small part. I fight anti-Semitism anywhere I find it, or smell it.

      Delete
    10. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthApril 9, 2014 at 11:58 AM

      Michael, your paranoid rantings about Freemasons are ridiculous. Freemasonry in America is largely populated by Protestant Christians, and many of them are among the nicest and most patriotic people I know. George Washington was a Mason. John Paul Jones was a Mason. Alexander Fleming was a Mason. Buzz Aldrin was a Mason.

      In fact, Freemasonry is a dying fraternity (much like the Elks and Eagles), falling from a peak of approximately 4 million in the mid-fifties to just over a million today. They have moved from impressive limestone buildings to cheap steel structures because they are broke. The lodge in my town can't even gin up enough money to fix the roof, let alone take over the world. They have reduced what was once a difficult and time-consuming course of degree memorization down to listening to a lecture and being inducted immediately as a 32nd degree Mason, just to save the fraternity from extinction.

      You need to wise up, kid, and stop worrying about your neighbors. And lay off the YouTube Illuminati bullshit for a few days.

      Delete
    11. Michael:

      I take issue with the concept of Jewish "ethnicity". Judaism is a religion, certainly not a race, and while there are certainly cultural aspects of being Jewish, I don't consider Jewish Marxists "Jews" in any way that matters. They are atheists and leftists, which accounts for their evil just fine. That they were born into Jewish families is tangential to the real issues.

      Now whether there is an association between the traditional religious Jewish concern for social justice and its perversion in Marxism is another question, and an interesting one.

      I am not aware the "Jews" control the world's banks. Jews are probably overrepresented in financial profession to some extent, largely because Jewish history is loaded with pograms and forced relocations and Jews often had to engage in financial professions because it was the only way they could attain security by having fungible assets.

      I grew up with Jewish friends, went to college and med school with Jews, my best friends now are Jews, and my wife's family is half Jewish. I love the Jewish people-- they are a blessing to America and to humanity.

      Anti-Semitism is ugly business, and it has killed millions of innocent people. I detest it.

      Delete
    12. mcregor, here's my question to you. Why is it ok to emphasize the "wealthy white Europeans" with regards to the agenda to control population in India yet ignore the involvement of the Jewish bankers? Not the whole of Europeans nor the whole of Jews, but as you said, the Marxists with an agenda. At any rate, stating a fact isn't racism. Example: crime in the US is disproportionately black, even though the crimes aren't the result of their 'being black' but rather brought on by various social conditions, be it environment, poverty, upbringing, or whatever. Just the same, I don't think there's a reason to believe that if all the bankers were, say, Russian that they'd be any less corrupt, nor that European politicians are any more/less suspect than anywhere else. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely," as the saying goes.

      I'd like to see the Marxist aspect explored more in-depth, which if I'm not mistaken is rooted in atheism. Clearly it has significant influence within political bodies, corporate and financial institutions.

      Boggs, say what you will about Freemasonry. Whether or not it's losing membership is irrelevant. What's relevant is the agenda of the society -- to destroy Christianity.

      Delete
    13. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthApril 9, 2014 at 7:06 PM

      Yeah right, Michael. George Washington and Norman VIncent Peale were out to destroy Christianity.

      :-D

      I tell you what son, if they're out to "destroy Christianity", they're doing a pretty shitty job.

      Delete
    14. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthApril 9, 2014 at 7:35 PM

      Dude! I'm sorry! I take it all back!

      POPE EMERITUS BENEDICT XVI IS A FREEMASON!!!

      Here's proof! Proof!!!

      Delete
    15. They'd never succeed if they were transparent about it. It's done incrementally, like a frog in boiling water. One law here (HHS mandating coverage of abortions, sterilization and contraceptives), another there (anti-discrimination laws forcing Catholic adoption agencies to close doors), activist judges overriding popular referendum (in order to give SS'M legal recognition w/ benefits), private business owners being sued for conscientious objection to homosexual events, corporate witch hunts to purge the ranks of supporters of traditional marriage, propagation of LGBT and other immoral material in public schools and in the MSM, overturning a ban on bestiality in Massachusetts, etc. Step by step. Even if Freemasonry's ranks are smaller, since their agenda is ultimately one-and-the-same as Marxism, they don't even need numbers within the fraternity -- they've poisoned the well and it's spilling into society. Atheists and pagans are given prominent roles of authority and influence, while Christians are marginalized, ridiculed and ostracized. I'll bet the early colonists enjoyed more freedoms than we currently do.

      Delete
  3. Why Borlaug doesn't have a National Holiday in his honor is beyond me. What a champ.

    Curio

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthApril 9, 2014 at 10:52 AM

      I agree with you completely, he should have a holiday in his honor. In fact, the UN building should be named after him. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that Borlaug saved more lives than any other human being in world history.

      Except Barack Obama, of course.

      Delete
    2. I agree. It is a depressing commentary on our culture that all manner of jerks are celebrated and famous, and a man like him is unknown to 99% of Americans.

      Delete
  4. "Malthusian ideology. Junk science. Totalitarian control of the most intimate aspects of family life. Genocidal blackmail targeted at defenceless starving people. Femicide in the tens of millions. Men without hope or families. Endemic rape. Self-evident crimes against humanity.

    Population control.
    "

    And, of course, the response will never be "OK, that was a(n immoral) mistake" ... but rather, "Well, clearly, we need to double-down!"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Don't discount the possibility that Michael is actually a sock-puppet of one of the leftist God-haters who infest this blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ilion,

      No, Michael is one of yours. An extreme example of one, so far out there that's it's astounding, but still one of yours.

      I tried to discuss with him the idea that science is the only method of knowing with certainty. He seems to be an ID proponent, insisting that solar systems are incredibly complex and can only be formed by an intelligence.

      Delete
    2. some irrational(*) leftist(*) atheist(*): "No, Michael is one of yours. An extreme example of one, so far out there that's it's astounding, but still one of yours."

      I have no reason at all to believe that he's one of ours. And I know for a fact that some of yours get a kick out of flying a false flag and acting-out your (plural) dishonest prejudices (and lies) about us.

      (*) but I repeat myself.


      some Science! fetishist: "I tried to discuss with him the idea that science is the only method of knowing with certainty."

      Not only is modern science *not* “the only method of knowing with certainty”, it’s not even *a* “method of knowing with certainty”.

      some dishonest Darwin! fetishist: "He seems to be an ID proponent, insisting that solar systems are incredibly complex and can only be formed by an intelligence."

      IDists don’t say that. That right there is reason enough to strongly suspect that he’s an atheist sock-puppet.

      Delete
    3. Ilion,

      Well, go and look at the discussion I had with Michael in the thread '24 Thomistic theses. Thesis 2' and decide for yourself whether he's one of yours or one of ours. I can't decide whether he's an ID creationist or a Young Earth Creationist - he refuses to state how he thinks solar systems form.

      You're relying on the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy in asserting that no real ID proponent would claim that solar systems are incredibly complex and must be formed by an intelligence.

      Delete
    4. llion, I'm a Catholic, not a progressive (or leftist, whatever). Why would I endorse a political ideology which is in conflict with my faith? I don't belong to anyone except God.

      bachfiend, you say "creationist" as if it were supposed to be insulting. Like I really care what you think. I do believe in God and that He created everything. You got a beef with that? For someone who supposedly follows the scientific method so vigorously, you have yet to prove any of your assumptions about the birth of the universe, where everything came from and how life got started here. Do you believe that the universe is all one huge, random, magical cosmic accident?

      Delete
    5. Michael,

      It's impossible to 'prove' anything in the limited number of words allowed in this blog. I suggested that you cracked open a few science textbooks for the answers to the questions you posed, and I still do.

      Ilion,

      Do you agree now that Michael is one of yours, not one of ours?

      Delete
    6. Hold on a second bachfiend. You say "crack open a few science textbooks," as if everything written in them is the unvarnished truth, yet your (atheist) side will turn around and criticize us religious people for believing what's written in the Bible. You're the one positing a scientific basis for your assertions about life and the universe, not me, therefore the onus should be on you to prove something. I can fabricate stories about how gases floating through space condense and explode, magically resulting in stars and planets, but saying it and proving it are two different things.

      Delete
    7. Michael,

      We know who wrote the textbooks. We don't know who wrote the books in the Bible. If the textbooks are wrong, they're changed. The Bible?

      I'd never ask you to prove Christianity in this forum. I've read books attempting to do so and found them unconvincing.

      Delete
    8. Again, you claimed that your views were rooted in the scientific method, so all I did was ask you to prove your assertions, but clearly you cannot so this discussion is closed.

      Delete
  6. My superannuation fund always issues a declaimer that past returns don't guarantee future performance.

    The Green Revolution allowed food production to increase enormously and to feed and keep alive many people who would have starved to death in past centuries.

    It allowed India to undergo a population explosion. Despite India's recent rapid development with its new middle class (who are starting to develop western diseases of affluence), India remains largely a desperately poor country with one of the world's largest incidence of child malnutrition.

    Desperately poor multitudes in slums without infrastructure such as running water and electricity live cheek to jowl next to communities of the new rich, which provide infrastructure services themselves, because the state is incapable of doing so.

    A while back there was an electricity blackout resulting in no electricity being supplied to 500 million Indians. The trouble is that around 200 million don't have electricity at any time.

    Modern agriculture is a method of converting fossil fuel to food. It takes around 10 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of food. All the insecticides, pesticides and fertilisers are manufactured from fossil fuels - oil and natural gas. And that's not even considering the oil used to power agricultural machinery, and transport and processing of the food.

    To continue the Green Revolution (and to increase it, because if we're lucky the global population might stabilise at 9 billion in 2050), we need increasing supplies of oil and natural gas. And their cost must increase, just because we've already recovered the easy reserves and are now going after the difficult reserves with fracking.

    Which means that the cost of food must also increase too, which is going to impact most seriously on the poor, as usual.

    Even if fracking provides significant quantities of oil and gas, it requires large amounts of water, which then can't be used for agriculture. Catch 22.

    We need to be thinking about questions such as these. China certainly is worried about its food security because it's buying agricultural land abroad. In Africa. And in Australia.

    ReplyDelete