Ecology and economics
Once again, we have a so-called expert talking from inside his expert bubble. In a single paragraph, Tyler Cowen dismisses all the achievements of organic and ecological farming (tinyurl.com/org-farm-3w) because organic production systems in some circumstances have lower food outputs than industrial agricultural systems (“World hunger is the problem left behind,” Sept. 21, page 9).
Cowen, who is tellingly a professor of economics, thus commits the cardinal sin of so many economists in that he disregards any external effects, the so-called “externalities,” one system has on another. To dismiss all these external effects, many detailed in literally thousands of scientific publications, in one paragraph is an extraordinary achievement of intellectual limitation.
However, due to a general lack of inter-disciplinary education, it is nowadays an almost universal ability among so-called experts to blind themselves to the effects one system has on another. Agricultural economists, often educated in only in economics and nothing else, therefore have no appreciation for the many harmful side effects of conventional, industrial farming and the many beneficial side effects of organic, ecological farming.
The detrimental effects of the industrial agricultural system on other interrelated systems are well-documented: climate change caused by carbon, methane and nitrous oxide emissions (tinyurl.com/cc-agricult); the exhaustion of water resources (tinyurl.com/agricu-water); water and soil pollution, soil erosion (tinyurl.com/c2yma7k), food poisoning (“Tests reveal pesticides on food: Greenpeace Taiwan,” Sept. 15, page 3); and, perhaps most worryingly, an extinction crisis endangering more than half of all species (Science, Vol. 307, p550). There are other, less well-established problems possibly linked to industrial agriculture: the collapse of pollinator populations vital to many branches of agriculture; decreasing fertility, not just in humans, but in many other species; and the obesity crisis, brought about by an overly cheap carbohydrate and meat-based diet. In addition, food prices are being driven upward because biofuels are replacing foods.
Ecological agriculture, on the other hand, attempts to limit detrimental effects on other systems by applying sustainability principles (for Asian examples, see the works of Masanobu Fukuoka and Franklin Hiram King listed in Wikipedia).
So, contrary to Cowen’s assertion, we will not avert world hunger by destroying all other environmental systems through unsustainable agriculture. Most experts agree that bringing together the best elements of ecological and industrial farming is the optimal, forward-thinking solution (tinyurl.com/cl5mprm), but this can only happen if the so-called experts are willing to learn a little bit of ecology.
It might therefore be a useful intellectual exercise for many of these so-called experts to occasionally crack open a scientific journal with a name other than Agricultural Economics or The Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization. How about broadening your horizons by reading Ecological Economics, The Journal of Sustainable Agriculture or Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment? The information is there — it can be read, or it can be ignored.
To ignore it is to block out large parts of reality and remain blissfully unaware of the interconnectedness of the world, so please do not be surprised if somebody calls you narrow-minded.
Flora Faun
Taipei
Taiwanese wake-up call
Former premier Frank Hsieh of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has decided to visit China.
Why? What does he need to find out? That every second word of the Chinese officials is a lie?
I have lived there, so he can come and ask me.
Is the DPP now trying to copy the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)? Why should people vote for the DPP next time?
It does not really matter, right? It is the difference between bitten by a cat or by a dog.
I hope people will vote wisely in future and vote for a party that is concerned about Taiwanese and not worried about what the Chinese government thinks.
Taiwan should treat China as its equal.
Why does the US not want to supply Taiwan with the new fighter jets it has requested?
Because Washington is afraid Taiwan will pass on the military technology to China.
If this continues, Taiwan will continue to fall further and further behind the other “Asian Tigers.”
Wake up, Taiwan.
Gerry Floor
Greater Taichung
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS