The Latest from Ric Romero
September 9th, 2008 | by Craig |Green activists ‘are keeping Africa poor’.
Speaking before a keynote lecture tonight to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, of which he is president, Sir David said that the slow pace of African development was linked directly to Western influence. “I’m going to suggest, and I believe this very strongly, that a big part has been played in the impoverishment of that continent by the focus on nontechnological agricultural techniques, on techniques of farming that pertain to the history of that continent rather than techniques that pertain to modern technological capability. Why has that continent not joined Asia in the big green revolutions that have taken place over the past few decades? The suffering within that continent, I believe, is largely driven by attitudes developed in the West which are somewhat anti-science, anti-technology - attitudes that lead towards organic farming, for example, attitudes that lead against the use of genetic technology for crops that could deal with increased salinity in the water, that can deal with flooding for rice crops, that can deal with drought resistance.”
It doesn’t matter, y’know. As long as it’s “green,” and it’s someone else, then consequences be damned. There’s your modern environmental movement in a nutshell.
2 Responses to “The Latest from Ric Romero”
By Teresa on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply
Yes, this has been pointed out for years, yet it never seems to gain any traction. The last time there was a big push to make the world acknowledge that the greenies might just be wrong was back when genetically modified crops were in all the newspapers.
As I recall, Monsanto and other companies were accused of trying to kill everyone in the world with these “abominations” because they were going to cause some sort of cancer or death a few years down the line and at the same time contaminate all the other food supplies as well.
Naturally the greenies won out - the EU kept the modified seeds from getting to the poorest countries. One assumes it is better to die of starvation than to get some sort of cancer in about 30 years or so…
By DMerriman on Sep 11, 2008 | Reply
I think the other part of the deal is that all the European countries that had bits and pieces of Africa as colonies didn’t do them any favors by 1) failing to teach them to administer themselves, 2) tolerating the corruption, and 3) failing to educate them (rid them of their tribal conflicts, necessity of infrastructure, etc).
How many of the really troubled countries in Africa are former colonies where the ‘owner’ essentially said “I had it, you’ve got it - adios” when colonialism finally died?