World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
What about when rice prices crash and local small scale farmers go out of business?
Why would I keep following the moving goalposts if you won't even admit the previous point was reasonably addressed?
I don't follow. What goal posts have I shifted? I don't deny that rice is easy. My point is that it's a shortcut that could have other negative consequences that more funding could avoid.
The question was about why we can't provide direct support to these countries, and I explained to you why targeting rice makes sense...and then you completely shifted gears to driving farmers out of business with no recognition of this point.
Direct would be doing the farming for them, or handing over food directly. Or sending in workers to train local farmers to grid Vitamin A rich crops.
Rice is a shortcut, and sure it might "work", but there are other potential long-term externalities at play here, that golden rice alone is insufficient to account for. It would be a plaster covering a surface wound when there is internal bleeding to worry about.
You're saying to do the work for them, right after saying that giving them different rice to grow will put them out of business. Lol
And, yes, rice is a short cut. It's unobtrusive as it doesn't require anyone to change their diet or learn how to grow new things.
You want to go in there, drive farmers out of business by doing the work for them, and then expect everyone to just change their diets based on what you want them to eat.
I just said what "directly" would actually look like after you said to help then directly. I didn't endorse this approach necessarily. My point is that getting them to grow our GM crop is not "direct".
I feel that you're intentionally trying to one up me instead actually have a proper discussion here. Why not assume my intention here is to change my mind because together we might actually figure something out? This back and forth is all a waste of time otherwise.
My actual opinion is that we give them monetary aid conditioner on certain outcomes, and send in experienced people to support transitions to more sustainable and productive food production. The money can upgrade housing, farming and transport infrastructure, and help boost Vitamin A rich crop yields and sale prices. Also subsidize imports if Vitamin A rich foods to make up the difference if local yields are insufficient.
Expensive, hard work, job creating activities, instead of shortcuts.
Projection of the day, my friend. I'm sorry that the only example you actually floated immediately contradicted your previous position of not driving farmers out of business.
Except there are kids whose lives and health we can save, right now, if we just start growing golden rice. Why this insistence on letting children die while you come up with a concrete solution that will take years to implement?
I don't mean this as an insult, just a statement of fact: you are very ignorant about this whole thing. You don't think people have considered bringing in and growing high beta-carotene foods before? It's not so simple. We are talking about extremely poor people and areas here, where there is little or no infrastructure to support this as a long-term solution. However, they know how to grow rice, they eat rice, it requires them buying nothing else, it requires them setting up nothing new, it's a great solution that fits seamlessly into the current framework, and it's relatively cheap.
What you are suggesting requires drastic change and a lot of upfront money, and continued on-going long-term support and financial assistance. Not only that, but it requires touching so much that the change of unintended consequences is extremely high. You worry about driving farmers out of business by giving them license free access to rice. . .but you are all sticking your fingers in most everything about their food logistical chain? It's not consistent.
How does supporting local farmers drive local farmers about of business?
"Right now" would be mass sustained imports of Vitamin A supplements. Golden Rice still has some ways to go to be establish on existing rice farms, and then enjoy a successful growing season, even if it had been approved to proceed. If we want to "think of the children" seriously, money shouldn't be an object and we'd be looking at multiple strategies all at once, and not relying solely on an experimental product like this.
Sure, but that's part of the problem isn't it? Why don't we also go in and fix that right now?
Indeed. Don't get me wrong, I know it's never going to happen. Given that fact, perhaps we need cheap and nasty shortcuts like golden rice in order to help poor people save themselves with minimal outside resources. Potential patent issues aside if the gene mixes in with local rice varients, and other risks to the environment, it would be great if there was more Vitamin A available in their poverty diets. But, I can see why there is opposition to this. It makes sense, and it's not just "ignorant" people like me who think this, clearly.