5 ms·

You should debate the facts not the motives. I had no clue about this situation but it doesn't look very well. Introducing continent-wide IP-law for seeds, get

You should debate the facts not the motives. I had no clue about this situation but it doesn't look very well. Introducing continent-wide IP-law for seeds, getting farmers into debt by having them used only approved fertilisers and then showing virtually no productivity increase against the baseline shows no redeeming quality to the program. But hey, Gates will be declared a saint in the next 10 years so who is this little mag site to comment?

jevgeni 6y ago
The program follows practices already common in the West. That means it makes it easier to convince Western companies to make long term investments there without fear of some arbitrary action to their assets (cough-Sakhalin-2-cough). But yeah, important thing is that the western upper-middleclass has a convenient boogeyman to vilify in a digestible form for day-time viewing.
- shard972 6y ago
  Oh who will think about the western investors!
- AndrewBissell 6y ago
  > The program follows practices already common in the West. Is this supposed to be some kind of defense?
  - jevgeni 6y ago
    It is as much of a defense as saying that software which needs to unzip files needs to implement at least the deflate algorithm.
  - hnracer 6y ago
    The sentence following the one that you quoted is the defense, perhaps you should argue against that instead?
    - AndrewBissell 6y ago
      That sentence is just more question begging. "Running things the way it is done in the West (i.e. encouraging 'investment' by Western firms) is good, therefore a program which furthers that end is a good one."
      - jevgeni 6y ago
        It is natural that questions arise, when you insist on not understanding what I've said.
        fierarul 6y ago
        What are you trying to say, exactly? The program is supposed to improve agricultural yields and they claim it did not. Is the program just about helping Western investments? So the investments result in unchanged yields?
        jevgeni 6y ago
        What I have said was that the measures taken are means of attracting direct investments from Western countries. As an example, I've given the Sakhalin-2 project, where the Russian state essentially raided away billions of Western investments to the benefits of their chosen oligarchs. What I have implied here, in case it is not clear, was that the Jacobin either willfully misinterprets facts or makes constant pleas to emotion of sheltered Westerners to sell their store-brand let-them-eat-cake progressivism.
        fierarul 6y ago
        Ok, but which facts are wrong? If the outcome was a net 0 compared to the baseline those investments and surrounding legal changes didn't improve things.
        jevgeni 6y ago
        1. I didn't say they were wrong, I said facts are being misinterpreted. That means that even if we assume the facts in the article are true, the interpretation of those facts isn't being done objectively. 2. If you are going to talk quantitative, please start with a concrete definition of the KPI and how you calculate utility and cost. If you are looking for concrete examples of how you are being manipulated by the article, then to name just a few example: - The article drops analytical rigor just at the exact moment when it benefits their narrative. For example, the 2020 goal of the initiative was a projection based on certain assumptions. To say if the project has failed or not according to those projections, the assumptions must hold. Funnily enough the article doesn't list those assumptions anywhere or address whether those assumption still hold true, or even if they were valid to begin with. - The article uses language to imply malice, where there is none. For example: "Moreover, freedom of choice is restricted: in AGRA projects in Kenya, small-scale farmers are not allowed to decide for themselves which corn seed they plant and which fertilizers and pesticides they use on their fields." Gasp, horror. An investor wants you to follow their rules. How dare they. Jacobin should be on the barricades that VCs don't allow you to spend their money on a new Porsche, because that limits your startups freedom of choice! - The article talks about agroecology as if it's as of now a viable alternative. Unless there's tons of investor capital lined up behind it, it really isn't. In fact, these aren't even comparable things.

jevgeni 6y ago

The program follows practices already common in the West. That means it makes it easier to convince Western companies to make long term investments there without fear of some arbitrary action to their assets (cough-Sakhalin-2-cough). But yeah, important thing is that the western upper-middleclass has a convenient boogeyman to vilify in a digestible form for day-time viewing.

shard972 6y ago
Oh who will think about the western investors!
AndrewBissell 6y ago
> The program follows practices already common in the West. Is this supposed to be some kind of defense?
- jevgeni 6y ago
  It is as much of a defense as saying that software which needs to unzip files needs to implement at least the deflate algorithm.
- hnracer 6y ago
  The sentence following the one that you quoted is the defense, perhaps you should argue against that instead?
  - AndrewBissell 6y ago
    That sentence is just more question begging. "Running things the way it is done in the West (i.e. encouraging 'investment' by Western firms) is good, therefore a program which furthers that end is a good one."
    - jevgeni 6y ago
      It is natural that questions arise, when you insist on not understanding what I've said.
      - fierarul 6y ago
        What are you trying to say, exactly? The program is supposed to improve agricultural yields and they claim it did not. Is the program just about helping Western investments? So the investments result in unchanged yields?
        jevgeni 6y ago
        What I have said was that the measures taken are means of attracting direct investments from Western countries. As an example, I've given the Sakhalin-2 project, where the Russian state essentially raided away billions of Western investments to the benefits of their chosen oligarchs. What I have implied here, in case it is not clear, was that the Jacobin either willfully misinterprets facts or makes constant pleas to emotion of sheltered Westerners to sell their store-brand let-them-eat-cake progressivism.
        fierarul 6y ago
        Ok, but which facts are wrong? If the outcome was a net 0 compared to the baseline those investments and surrounding legal changes didn't improve things.
        jevgeni 6y ago
        1. I didn't say they were wrong, I said facts are being misinterpreted. That means that even if we assume the facts in the article are true, the interpretation of those facts isn't being done objectively. 2. If you are going to talk quantitative, please start with a concrete definition of the KPI and how you calculate utility and cost. If you are looking for concrete examples of how you are being manipulated by the article, then to name just a few example: - The article drops analytical rigor just at the exact moment when it benefits their narrative. For example, the 2020 goal of the initiative was a projection based on certain assumptions. To say if the project has failed or not according to those projections, the assumptions must hold. Funnily enough the article doesn't list those assumptions anywhere or address whether those assumption still hold true, or even if they were valid to begin with. - The article uses language to imply malice, where there is none. For example: "Moreover, freedom of choice is restricted: in AGRA projects in Kenya, small-scale farmers are not allowed to decide for themselves which corn seed they plant and which fertilizers and pesticides they use on their fields." Gasp, horror. An investor wants you to follow their rules. How dare they. Jacobin should be on the barricades that VCs don't allow you to spend their money on a new Porsche, because that limits your startups freedom of choice! - The article talks about agroecology as if it's as of now a viable alternative. Unless there's tons of investor capital lined up behind it, it really isn't. In fact, these aren't even comparable things.