You might have heard of the Green Revolution – presented as the pure and disinterested application of plant-breeding science – in the context of it helping countries to dodge catastrophic hunger in the 1960s and 1970s. But the reality is rather different: it was a US imperial strategy that was counter-revolutionary and ecologically disastrous.
The term was first coined in 1968 in a speech by William Gaud, the head of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). ‘Developments in the field of agriculture contain the makings of a new revolution,’ he said. ‘It is not a violent Red Revolution like that of the Soviets, nor is it a White Revolution like that of the Shah of Iran. I call it the Green Revolution.’
This was always a capitalist political project at heart. It opposed the land reforms that communists in the Global South had advocated. Instead, the Green Revolution spoke to the fevered Malthusian nightmares that troubled Western policy elites. They believed that populations would inevitably swell and outstrip their food supply. In the 1960s, the foreign policy establishment projected the moment when populations would expand beyond the food supply, and then spiral into starvation and social collapse would arrive in 1985. This biological fear was coupled with a political one: after a fecund proletarian population in the Global South exhausted their food supply, the poor would riot, take to the streets in the capital city and become communist. The Green Revolution – whose supporters included the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations – was a mix of government policy, subsidy, fertilizers, pesticides, hybrid seeds, birth control and philanthropy to ensure that more cheap food would postpone the inevitable communist dawn.
Every Local Government in the United States.
by Neil Freeman
>you will never be Prince-Mayor of that giant empty borough in Alaska as big as most countries
Homelessness, hunger and shame: poverty is rampant in the richest country in the world. Over 40 million people in the United States live below the poverty line, twice as many as it was fifty years ago. It can happen very quickly.
Many people in the United States fall through the social safety net. In the structurally weak mining region of the Appalachians, it has become almost normal for people to go shopping with food stamps. And those who lose their home often have no choice but to live in a car. There are so many homeless people in Los Angeles that relief organizations have started to build small wooden huts to provide them with a roof over their heads. The number of homeless children has also risen dramatically, reaching 1.5 million, three times more than during the Great Depression the 1930s. A documentary about the fate of the poor in the United States today.
This is funny, but I can tell you why right now without a study
Glasses give you an immediate and blinding indication if your mask is not worn properly. If you wear glasses you are more likely to secure the mask tightly to ensure you dont fog up your glasses.
And 2, no one can sneeze or cough on ur eyeballs
I know the study hypothesized that it’s because glasses wearers don’t touch their face as much. But as a glasses wearer, I think Fatsexybitch is onto something with #1.
I was thinking the glasses reduce the chances of ocular transmission or some shit but truly Fatsexybitch cracked the case
