Another conspiracist.
Vandana Shiva has made a lucrative business out of spreading conspiracy theories about agricultural technologies, sustainable farming, capitalism and industry. Her popularity has grown as she positions herself as a modern-day Gandhi, a social justice warrior, an ecological feminist and an agroecologist. The problem is that most everything that comes out of her much amplified mouth is complete nonsense: pure fabrications easily and often refuted.
Which leads to the question: How does Vandana consistently get away with such ridiculous falsehoods and oral assaults on intelligent thought? How can she weave the absurd into a web of allegations willingly consumed by her followers? How does she relentlessly fabricate conspiracy theories and package them for consumption among the Western liberal elite? This article will look at one web of lies she is presently spinning as an analysis of the germination of outrage.
RiskMonger - The Germination of Outrage: How Vandana Shiva Fabricates Conspiracy Theories
What’s her view on you guys “neoliberal conspiracy!”?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete“As long as Vandana controls the microphone, she can say what she wants, repeating it to her followers and making the outrageous a marketable outrage. Some of the claims she has repeatedly made, which would have destroyed the credibility of any mere mortal, include:
Shiva: Indian farmers are killing themselves in much larger numbers after being exposed to pesticides and GMOs.
Fact: Indian farmer suicide rates are lower than the national average.
Shiva: 75% of all diseases are caused by a “Poison Cartel” of three chemical companies.
Fact: This is too absurd to consider. We are living longer and healthier lives.
Shiva: The Green Revolution in the 1960s destroyed India’s way of life.
Fact: Until the Green Revolution, India was plagued with famines and chronic malnutrition.”
Well, her first point should probably be examined by looking at farmer suicide rates relative to national average before AND after exposure.
IOW just saying that the rates are below national average now is insufficient. Where were they before? Have we seen a rise in the numbers even if the numbers might stay below national averages? The fact that they didn’t cite those numbers can be used against her critics. Maybe she never said they are killing themselves above the national average now, only that their rate is rising.
Point #2 isn’t well refuted either. We have many chronic conditions that seem to be related to modern life, conditions that weren’t seen decades ago that while arguably not fatal, do keep people on some medication to control symptoms. Many have been tied to autoimmune but there is speculation even amongst credible scientists that many environmental chemicals are interacting with our immune system. Just saying we are living longer and healthier lives requires some breaking down. Healthier without the aid of powerful pharmaceuticals?
There are people everywhere, USA included, on all sides of political spectrum who lament the modern world and how it has destroyed their way of life. There certainly are trade offs with advancing civilization via technological advances. Not all “advances” really make our lives better and determining “better ”isn’t fixed. Over time it can be found that something is in fact harmful
Greg you can’t just bring science methodology into a dialogic methodology whenever it arbitrarily suits you... that’s not the way it works...
ReplyDeleteThere is no edict in the dialogic methodology that says you have to yield to science....
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIf someone is making an argument against a statement it in fact is imperative that I judge whether their argument holds water. They are arguing points she did t try to make, this isnt “yielding to science”
Fuck you and your “dialogic methodology” and “edict” hobby horse. Take that crap somewhere else. You and your pseudo analysis don’t mean shit I know you think it makes you sound smart. Stick to looking at CB balance sheets. It’s the only subject which have a scintilla of information to add
Greg, great (your first) comment; the attack on her didn't smell quite right to me either.
ReplyDeleteWhat do the other entries on that blog suggest?
ReplyDeletePP
ReplyDeleteI didn’t read any other blog entries and I wasn’t in any way shape or form advocating Ms Shivas position, although I do think it is very wise for us to look at whether or not corporate farming has a point of diminishing returns, I was simply poking holes in the argument the critic tried to make. If that’s all he’s got I’d say it’s a fail
I do think it is very wise for us to look at whether or not corporate farming has a point of diminishing returns, ... Greg
ReplyDeleteSo the fact that so many family farms were/are, in effect, legally stolen by what is a government-privileged private-credit-for-usury cartel is irrelevant if the result is more "efficient" farming?
Ends justify the means much?
I didn’t mean simply crop returns. I was being broader in my view suggesting that only looking at crop returns and ignoring affects on the human condition are short sighted. If we grow more crops but shorten the lives of people, or as you suggest put people in debt peonage I’m not sure we’ve advanced........actually I’m quite sure that is a worst result
ReplyDelete@Greg,
ReplyDeleteWell said and your remark implies a concern for the historic legal concept of "equity" which is more concerned with just end results than legal procedures, iirc.
So, to some extent, the ends DO justify or condemn the means.
ReplyDelete“Well said and your remark implies a concern for the historic legal concept of "equity" which is more concerned with just end results than legal procedures, iirc”
I’ll have to take your word on that cuz I am not familiar with historic legal concept of equity.. I am more concerned with efficacy than efficiency, at least the way most economists use efficiency, framing in monetary terms. It’s always interesting to me that pretty much the only efficient thing modern businesses can do is cut employees or cut wages. They’re not very creative.
You have your pantries all in a bind because she won’t look at the scientific data...
ReplyDeleteWho says she has to? She can think and say anything she wants...
As someone who lives in rural Minnesota, I have been listening to debate about how agriculture should be organized for almost 60 years. Both parents grew up on farms. Both were members of the Farmer-Labor Party when they married. I have about 1000 reasonably valid opinions on agriculture and how it is done.
ReplyDeleteThis is what I have to say to Ms. Shiva. "Mere critics are a waste of time. If you have ideas on how to improve on agricultural practice, show us how it is done. Growing food is a serious and difficult business—if you wish to effect change, the only serious method is demonstration!"
Cities and city dwellers should demonstrate how to grow food.
ReplyDelete