11 "hunger is not just about food."

So, I think I know what I want my career/life-long title to be: The Mother of the Second Green Revolution. Yes, that will do. Maybe throw in a Nobel Prize or something. That's always been a goal of mine...

The following is a blog post by Brian Halwail of the Worldwatch Institute. Not extremely ground-breaking, but shows the importance of agricultural investment - my #1 in ending world hunger.

"Hunger is not just about food, according to two UN voices"

May 11, 2009

"This past week, two thoughtful voices from the United Nations suggested a new direction for global efforts to eliminate hunger. While both offered their own specific policy advice -- advocating the need to eliminate subsidies in wealthy nations and invest in agricultural research internationally -- they shared the opinion that producing more crops must go hand in hand with improving the incomes of those who are hungry.

Most of the world's poor, roughly a billion people worldwide, live in rural area and depend partly or entirely on agriculture for their livelihoods. So increasing food production can help to boost farmers incomes, but it's not the only thing that can.

"Increasing agricultural production must go hand in hand with increasing the incomes of the poorest, particularly small-scale farmers," said Olivier De Schutter, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food. According to UN Wire, he called a form of sustainable development that was "more about how to help the world feed itself" than "how to feed the world."

Earlier in the week, in remarks to open the 17th session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro pointed the delegations' attention to Africa and seconded earlier calls for what some have dubbed a Doubly Green Revolution -- raising yields and rebuilding agroecosystems. "In contrast to the original Green Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, which largely bypassed Africa, this must be a sustainable green revolution," Migiro said. She emphasized farming practices that use diverse cropping systems and ecological conditions to preserve biodiversity, while also raising yields.

Part of the revolution in thinking is that there isn't any one technology or quick fix that will worked in all cases. At least the world's farmers and agricultural researchers haven't found one yet. There are innovations that can be harnessed in some fields that won't work in other. And in some cases, an improved seed or crop rotation will only be most effective when farmers use it in conjunction with improvements in irrigation, or investment in processing crops for market, or changes in land ownership that make it easier for farmers to buy and invest in land.

In other words, the Doubly Green Revolution might benefit from the addition of an economic limb, including the need to guarantee Africa farmers equitable access to markets for their products. "Trade distortions that discourage agricultural investment in developing countries need to be phased out," Migiro said. "An African Green Revolution must empower farmers, particularly smallholders, both women and men.""

So you see folks, sustainable agriculture is where it's at. I knew I made a good decision somewhere in my life :)

10 "and on a more personal note..."

Well, I knew the day would come when I was so bogged down in grad school stuff that my blog post would have to be a little less academic. So here comes a personal update post, if you're interested :)

Who knew that my brain could fit this much information in such a short amount of time? Every day when I walk into my Environmental Politics class, the first thing that my professor says is that what we are learning in one class what usually takes a whole semester to learn and fully understand. But why hold fast to norms?! We're grad students! We're paying ungodly amounts of money to learn, so by gosh we shall learn!

Not saying that I'm not enjoying myself, because I sure am. I feel immensely more intelligent and can have a true debate in some of my classes, even if I end up playing Devil's Advocate. My scientific mind still can't grasp the lovey-dovey, mushy, utopianism that many of my fellow students believe so whole-heartedly in (nothing wrong with it, just not my style). Isn't it my job to share my experiences and knowledge so that others can learn as much as possible? I'm not going to sit by while she-who-shall-not-be-named (no, not Voldemort's wife) goes on about how terrible the Green Revolution was for our world and how hybrids cause soil erosion. Because that's just flat out wrong. But enough of my ranting, which is obviously aimed toward one individual in this case. I find myself meshing beautifully with the majority of my classmates and especially with my program-mates who are South-of-the-border bound with me. Which brings me to my next point.

This semester is such a tease. It's the beginning of October (aka three more months until January can start) and I'm already knee-deep in finding housing in Costa Rica, a one-way plane ticket, and registering for my first class ("Hunger, famine, and food security," perfect, I know). But every single day I have to think about the mounds of reading that's due in less than one week, in the policy brief that I haven't started, in the grant proposal that's not really real but it is at the same time. I can't focus on Costa Rica like I wish I could without losing focus on the things that I need to focus on. It's completely unfair and it's getting me down.

However, my luck is looking up. My mom and brother are coming to visit in one week, and we have tours of the Pentagon and the White House arranged. On top of them coming into town, the Park class of 2013 has their Learning Lab II trip as well. I get to do Marrakesh Part Deux, which won't disappoint I'm sure. And then on top of all of that, I'm 99% sure that my mom and I are going to Portugal for a week in November. So maybe even if I have to kill myself this semester, there are things that keep me going. Especially the thought of a year in Costa Rica. I can taste the chicharron and Imperial now...

9 "kicking away the ladder."

I had a very "interesting" guest lecturer yesterday in my International Development class who talked us through, or tried to at least, the idea of institutions, organizations, markets, hierarchies, accountability, comparative advantage, etc etc, the list goes on. His obvious frustration with people not having read the readings, or in my case not having understood a word of it, only pushed people to try to impress him which in the end worked in some cases, but in mine, failed. But! There was one idea that I rest on that had some meaning - the idea of developed nations "kicking away the ladder" of economic development. In the book so titled "Kicking Away the Ladder" by Ha-Joon Chang, we read the first two chapters which offered historical accounts of the NDCs (now-developed countries) on their road to initial development. The issue: presently, countries are claiming (or in some cases, are forcing) developing countries to begin/continue economic development with low tariffs, which the author describes as completely opposite to the way that which the NDCs became developed in the first place. Britain, the US (especially us!), and other countries that are now considered wealthy and industrialized, all started with high tariffs and infant industry protection ideals, something that they now preach to developing countries NOT to do. This historical look seems to claim that developed nations are essentially pulling away the ladder and increasing the gap between wealthy and poor nations. But WHY?

While we were only required to read the first two chapters (which I chugged right on through), the author never really answered the Why question. Maybe he does further on in the book, but I'd like to postulate a bit on the topic. Are "we" (I say we because I do belong to a developed nation) doing this on purpose? Is this a conscious effort by the world's superpowers to always stay superpowers? I'm not one to believe in conspiracy theories, so this may just be something that we do sub-consciously. (I hope.) Obviously major contenders are popping up here and there, China being one example, India being another. But poverty and hunger are still rampant in these countries, not to mention the millions upon millions of babies that are born every second (I exaggerate a tad).

So then the question becomes this: Which is more important - economic development/growth or human development/growth? I personally know my opinion, but what about the governments of these nations? And what about the advisors from NDCs giving false hope in low tariffs? This doesn't have to be a zero-sum world, in my opinion. There can be a win-win-win-win... situation. So why can't we look out for everyone? Why can't we look back into our own history, one with record high tariffs, and say, gee whiz. Maybe we're giving the wrong advice. We sure should rethink this. If only, right?

8 "i'm just trying to get people to think."

I apologize again for not being able to write an original post. Grad school has taken over my life! I promise that this is the last non-me post for a while. This story is a bit old, but very relevant to what I am studying. Some questions: how will this man's story influence the perception of environmental activists? Do you have any sympathy towards this man and his cause? Is my favorite book dead because of him?

Discovery Channel HQ hostages freed as gunman shot dead

BBC News

1 September 2010

"Police chief Thomas Manger: "There are other suspected devices in the building"

A gunman who took three hostages at the Discovery Communications headquarters in the US has been shot dead by police and his captives have been set free.

The man had canisters strapped to his chest and a handgun when he entered the building near Washington DC, police said.

Officers opened fire because they thought the gunman was about to detonate his explosives, they added.

The police had held several hours of talks with the man.

Discovery employees were evacuated from the building shortly after the incident began at about 1700 GMT.

The area around the building in Silver Spring, Maryland, was sealed off as police negotiated with the man. After several hours, police began to fear for the safety of the hostages, said Montgomery County Police Chief J Thomas Manger.

He said a man had entered the Discovery headquarters through the main entrance wearing what appeared to be "metallic canisters" on his clothes.

The man then pulled out a handgun and told everyone to remain still.

Unnamed police officials quoted by the US media named the gunman as James Jay Lee, a man in his 40s known for protesting outside the building.

The US broadcaster NBC reported that one of their producers had a brief telephone conversation with the gunman while he was holding the hostages.

The man came on the line unexpectedly when the journalist called the Discovery Communications building to find out what was going on.

NBC reported that the gunman identified himself as James J Lee and said: "I have a gun and I have a bomb. I have several bombs strapped to my body ready to go off."

Demands

A man called James Lee of San Diego, California, was arrested outside Discovery's headquarters in 2008 after throwing thousands of dollars into the air in protest against the network, according to The Gazette, a local newspaper.

Mr Lee said he threw the money because Discovery's programming had little to do with saving the planet.

He reportedly was also the author of the website savetheplanetprotest.com, where he demanded that the Discovery Channel broadcast programmes that would help "to save the planet".

A spokesman for Discovery Communications said the company had known the gunman before this incident but "not taken his threats or demands seriously".

Discovery Communications reaches 1.5bn subscribers in 180 countries through networks like Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, and the Science Channel."

Author denies Discovery gunman James Lee's interpretation of 'My Ishmael'

Washington Post
Wednesday, September 1, 2010

"The gunman who took hostages at Discovery Communications' headquarters in Silver Spring was apparently inspired by the author of a popular series about a telepathic ape who tries to save humankind from problems such as overpopulation, but the writer said Wednesday that he is baffled by James J. Lee's interpretation of his book.

Daniel Quinn, 75, wrote a four-book series including "My Ishmael," the 1997 novel Lee mentioned as the first in his list of 11 demands. In an online manifesto, Lee said the Discovery Channel "must" run daily, prime-time shows "based on" a six-page passage of the novel in which Ishmael and his 12-year-old apprentice discuss the Industrial Revolution and why humans were so creative and resourceful during that period.

The shows, Lee wrote, would focus on "solutions to save the planet . . . done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done, by people building on each other's inventive ideas. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution."

Quinn, who worked in publishing before a literary career that included more than a dozen books, sounded stunned as he spoke from his home in Houston. As calls from reporters came in, he re-read the pages of his book. He said he was in the middle of a physical therapy session when he heard of the hostage-taking and Lee's reference to "My Ishmael."

Quinn's books are extremely popular, if difficult to categorize. They have been translated into 25 languages and are taught in courses ranging from English to philosophy to anthropology. Quinn said the series aims to "teach" readers to question what they've been told about human history and human nature.

He criticized the typical school system that "sends children to a prison and isolates them from their parents, as though before that, children didn't have educations. They had perfect educations by . . . being with their parents all the time."

Hesitant to characterize his own goals, Quinn said, "I'm just trying to get people to think."

Although Quinn does write about the "race between food production and population growth," he said Lee "had become a fanatic" and warped his beliefs and words. Quinn said, "I've never said anything remotely like" what Lee said about preventing the birth of children.

"He's exaggerated what I've said," Quinn said. "I've seen many people take off in odd directions from things they've seen in my books, but nothing so catastrophic as someone arming himself with bombs and guns. . . . I know this will have a big effect on my books themselves. Sales might zoom up, but that doesn't mean approval of it will zoom up. It might zoom down."

In the passage Lee mentions, Ishmael explains to 12-year-old Julie how people can draw inspiration from the basic creativity that human beings have shown throughout history. Ishmael praises "the wealth of human inventiveness that was generated by the Industrial Revolution." "I'm not recommending its goals or its shameful features - its relentless materialism, its appalling wastefulness, its enormous appetite for irreplaceable resources," he says. "I'm recommending only its mode of operation, which released the greatest and most democratic outpouring of human creativity in human history."

The biggest obstacle to this explosion of creativity, the two agree, is "the government."

"That's what governments are there for, to keep good things from happening," Ishmael says. "But if you can't even manage to force your own presumably democratic governments to allow you to do good things for yourselves, then you probably deserve to become extinct."

Asked about the current status of the species, Quinn worried about the planet's growing population. "We're obviously in deep trouble," he said.

A minute later, someone came into the room in his house and fixed the author's television, just as the news announced that Lee had been shot. Quinn let out what sounded like a laugh of relief. "So it's all over?""