What a damning film. Certainly provides food for thought about Vandana Shiva but seems to give a free pass to GMOs as if GMOs were developed (in good faith) as mankind's answer to food scarcity. Let's not forget that GMOs were brought to us by the same globalists who are directly behind the "climate crisis" and all the other crises and wars intended to depopulate the planet. Clearly the fertilizer ban in Sri Lanka was not designed to create a better alternative to BigAgra business -- it was designed to do exactly what it did -- throw that country into food scarcity and political turmoil. Why are there only two possibilities, both of which achieve the globalists goals of depopultion? We have to choose between poisoning by BigAgra or famine and poverty imposed by regulation? Shame on Vandana Shiva. She knew that Sri Lanka would not be able to transition with a fertilizer ban. I have no words for "King Charles".... We can do better than this....
It is surprising to see Matt Ehret heralding this film, his work is usually defined by excellence in research, references and carefully constructed arguments. Whilst there may well be room to pause for some thought around a celebrated 'eco-activist' such as Vandana Shiva the work falls short of providing an effective interrogation of the subject. Some of the points raised are glaring in omission - such as the presentation of DDT as "safe and effective" and the 'guilt by association' regarding Jorian Jenks is weak, whilst the crop circle image juxtaposed with Rudolf Steiner is simply poor filmmaking. There is a formidable point regarding agriculture in India and Vandana Shiva's role in purporting to stand for the rights of local farmers against the impositions of global agriculture - this is a complex subject which has been very much alive within contemporary Indian politics - this neglects to examine significant details regarding GMO seed farming.
I watched this misleading propagandistic pro Monsanto chemical agriculture video. The main mistake Sri Lanka made is not bringing in organic agriculture gradually with mirrored land reform and tax reform to get the incentives right. Shae on you for supporting GMOs and Monsanto!
Not very impressive. No doubt, though Shiva does and promotes some good, she definitely merits investigation and scrutiny, not least because of her her alliances. Overall though, this film is narrowly one sided and not very deep or well argued.
Putin has banned use of GMO’s in Russia, yet the country still produces, uses, and delivers much needed fertilizer at affordable cost to other developing countries, in particular in Africa. Along with industrial machinery and emerging technologies…in the interests of what is good and prosperous for the people yet also in consideration of eco-environment.
To me this is a reasonable approach to the “two sides” needing to come together in tackling mistakes and adapting and adjusting as research and application gives evidence for the actual cooperative good of both humanity and Mother Nature in partnership with each other.
I would also note that China’s example plays a leading innovative role in practically adapting “both sides” in order to bring about prosperity for its people as well as developing clean environmental practices serving the ecology of the country.
I agree with the Kenyan and Indian farmers who concur with Russia and China and many other sensible leaderships regarding the need for fossil fuels for developing countries— to get out of human poverty first.
You do not deserve to be on any platform at all if you are promoting the agenda to produce food with only chemicals. Chemicals are the very reason for the problems on the earth today.
Your video is less than clear and succinct. It is, if anything, confusing and obliterate. If you are going to produce a video promoting a viewpoint then STATE THAT VIEWPOINT CLEARLY.
If you are presenting a W5 with many sides of a sitution then do so. The title with the term 'the ugly truth of Vanadana Shiva' says to me that you do not agree with her and her concepts.
Therefore. I am Unsubscribing. I do not need idiots who are trying to build an opinion that will KILL PEOPLE. We have enough of those types already with King Charlie and the WEF, the WHO and the UN.
Straighten up or get out of town.
It is unfortunate that you seem to be an intelligent person, unfortunately you have gotten off on the wrong track and you are not building humanity but rather destroying it.
I majored in agriculture in college 50 years ago. I have forgotten most of what I have learned, but maintained my interest and own several books on permaculture, regenerative agriculture and so on. I decided not even to watch this film, as I have seen similar attacks before. The fact is that chemistry-based monoculture is not sustainable, meaning that it CANNOT continue more than a couple centuries or so because it destroys the soil. What CANNOT continue WILL not continue. But fear not! We are learning new (to us) farming and silviculture methods that will result in food abundance with less labor. We are just beginning to restore the deserts that tillage-based farming have created over most of the arable world. In the long run, we will have more to eat, not less, with fewer poisons and more nutrients and abundance of wildlife and natural beauty.
A nice easy-to-read book on some of this is Judith Curry's Cows Save The Planet from Chelsea Green, or her subsequent book Water in Plain Sight. A more comprehensive one is Restoration Agriculture, by Mark Shepard, from Acres USA. Farmers need a how-to written by a farmer, such as Gabe Brown's Dirt to Soil.
The sudden wrenching, such as the attack on Holland is just BigEverything Cabal wickedness to destroy and kill. The Great Shift Of the Ages, as I call the transition, involves mistakes and a learning curve. We have time for those.
No need to kill these ‘sacred cows’, nor make a war between different ideologies. In introducing new technologies to cope with totally new global crises, mistakes are bound to be made. There is truth in the stance of both sides, and sincerity in deeply held diverse opinions. Let’s not take sides, but appreciate the work and efforts many have contributed to our understanding of how to live in peace on this earth.
That’s honourable and virtuous Anna, but did you miss the whole Malthusian, global-depopulation aspect? It’s “out there” and very powerful. Of course we have to take sides.
The trouble with taking sides is we demonise the opposition. Protesting certain aspects of another’s position, like depopulation, does not mean taking sides. I have certainly been through that journey of enthusiasm for a particular approach, and then realising the setbacks that arise when we shut our eyes to what dissidents might be saying. Open debate, and remaining open, even while having to take decisions based upon where you are, is the most fruitful way for knowledge to grow
I think that’s why we don’t have capital punishment in this country any more, because we recognise that human judgement is fallible. What we thought yesterday may be very different or be completely reversed tomorrow. To maintain that our beliefs should never shift, or be open to revision, belies a rigidity which might be called bigotry.
Are you OK with Malthusian global depopulation? At a certain point, you absolutely have to pick sides. Read about the elites building luxury bunkers in Hawaii. Do you really think they care about humanity?
No, I agree with you Tony, I don’t think overpopulation is a real problem. If we had more cooperation and sharing instead of competition, there is plenty to go round.
Oh man…. Ok I’m gonna need an abattoir soon - so far I’m catching up on randomness like Waldorf (and the schools), Conan Doyle… and now Vandana Shiva… Lordy Lordy I guess it really is everyone has an agenda and much history.
I have no idea of Vandana's mates but I have read at least two of her books and agree with commenters, probably all who garden themselves. Vandana has been outspoken about saving seeds, protecting biodiversity, championing the rights of indian farmers. Ecological issues Vandana champions are real and important.
What a damning film. Certainly provides food for thought about Vandana Shiva but seems to give a free pass to GMOs as if GMOs were developed (in good faith) as mankind's answer to food scarcity. Let's not forget that GMOs were brought to us by the same globalists who are directly behind the "climate crisis" and all the other crises and wars intended to depopulate the planet. Clearly the fertilizer ban in Sri Lanka was not designed to create a better alternative to BigAgra business -- it was designed to do exactly what it did -- throw that country into food scarcity and political turmoil. Why are there only two possibilities, both of which achieve the globalists goals of depopultion? We have to choose between poisoning by BigAgra or famine and poverty imposed by regulation? Shame on Vandana Shiva. She knew that Sri Lanka would not be able to transition with a fertilizer ban. I have no words for "King Charles".... We can do better than this....
It is surprising to see Matt Ehret heralding this film, his work is usually defined by excellence in research, references and carefully constructed arguments. Whilst there may well be room to pause for some thought around a celebrated 'eco-activist' such as Vandana Shiva the work falls short of providing an effective interrogation of the subject. Some of the points raised are glaring in omission - such as the presentation of DDT as "safe and effective" and the 'guilt by association' regarding Jorian Jenks is weak, whilst the crop circle image juxtaposed with Rudolf Steiner is simply poor filmmaking. There is a formidable point regarding agriculture in India and Vandana Shiva's role in purporting to stand for the rights of local farmers against the impositions of global agriculture - this is a complex subject which has been very much alive within contemporary Indian politics - this neglects to examine significant details regarding GMO seed farming.
I thought there might be more to it. There was.
https://news.mongabay.com/2022/08/drawing-the-wrong-lessons-from-sri-lankas-organic-farming-experience-commentary/
And everything Vandana Shiva said made sense to me.
I watched this misleading propagandistic pro Monsanto chemical agriculture video. The main mistake Sri Lanka made is not bringing in organic agriculture gradually with mirrored land reform and tax reform to get the incentives right. Shae on you for supporting GMOs and Monsanto!
Not very impressive. No doubt, though Shiva does and promotes some good, she definitely merits investigation and scrutiny, not least because of her her alliances. Overall though, this film is narrowly one sided and not very deep or well argued.
Putin has banned use of GMO’s in Russia, yet the country still produces, uses, and delivers much needed fertilizer at affordable cost to other developing countries, in particular in Africa. Along with industrial machinery and emerging technologies…in the interests of what is good and prosperous for the people yet also in consideration of eco-environment.
To me this is a reasonable approach to the “two sides” needing to come together in tackling mistakes and adapting and adjusting as research and application gives evidence for the actual cooperative good of both humanity and Mother Nature in partnership with each other.
I would also note that China’s example plays a leading innovative role in practically adapting “both sides” in order to bring about prosperity for its people as well as developing clean environmental practices serving the ecology of the country.
I agree with the Kenyan and Indian farmers who concur with Russia and China and many other sensible leaderships regarding the need for fossil fuels for developing countries— to get out of human poverty first.
You do not deserve to be on any platform at all if you are promoting the agenda to produce food with only chemicals. Chemicals are the very reason for the problems on the earth today.
Your video is less than clear and succinct. It is, if anything, confusing and obliterate. If you are going to produce a video promoting a viewpoint then STATE THAT VIEWPOINT CLEARLY.
If you are presenting a W5 with many sides of a sitution then do so. The title with the term 'the ugly truth of Vanadana Shiva' says to me that you do not agree with her and her concepts.
Therefore. I am Unsubscribing. I do not need idiots who are trying to build an opinion that will KILL PEOPLE. We have enough of those types already with King Charlie and the WEF, the WHO and the UN.
Straighten up or get out of town.
It is unfortunate that you seem to be an intelligent person, unfortunately you have gotten off on the wrong track and you are not building humanity but rather destroying it.
I majored in agriculture in college 50 years ago. I have forgotten most of what I have learned, but maintained my interest and own several books on permaculture, regenerative agriculture and so on. I decided not even to watch this film, as I have seen similar attacks before. The fact is that chemistry-based monoculture is not sustainable, meaning that it CANNOT continue more than a couple centuries or so because it destroys the soil. What CANNOT continue WILL not continue. But fear not! We are learning new (to us) farming and silviculture methods that will result in food abundance with less labor. We are just beginning to restore the deserts that tillage-based farming have created over most of the arable world. In the long run, we will have more to eat, not less, with fewer poisons and more nutrients and abundance of wildlife and natural beauty.
A nice easy-to-read book on some of this is Judith Curry's Cows Save The Planet from Chelsea Green, or her subsequent book Water in Plain Sight. A more comprehensive one is Restoration Agriculture, by Mark Shepard, from Acres USA. Farmers need a how-to written by a farmer, such as Gabe Brown's Dirt to Soil.
The sudden wrenching, such as the attack on Holland is just BigEverything Cabal wickedness to destroy and kill. The Great Shift Of the Ages, as I call the transition, involves mistakes and a learning curve. We have time for those.
No need to kill these ‘sacred cows’, nor make a war between different ideologies. In introducing new technologies to cope with totally new global crises, mistakes are bound to be made. There is truth in the stance of both sides, and sincerity in deeply held diverse opinions. Let’s not take sides, but appreciate the work and efforts many have contributed to our understanding of how to live in peace on this earth.
That’s honourable and virtuous Anna, but did you miss the whole Malthusian, global-depopulation aspect? It’s “out there” and very powerful. Of course we have to take sides.
The trouble with taking sides is we demonise the opposition. Protesting certain aspects of another’s position, like depopulation, does not mean taking sides. I have certainly been through that journey of enthusiasm for a particular approach, and then realising the setbacks that arise when we shut our eyes to what dissidents might be saying. Open debate, and remaining open, even while having to take decisions based upon where you are, is the most fruitful way for knowledge to grow
Excellent answer: “demonize the opposition”. What about when the opposition is “demonic”?
That's pretty funny
Please explain.
I think that’s why we don’t have capital punishment in this country any more, because we recognise that human judgement is fallible. What we thought yesterday may be very different or be completely reversed tomorrow. To maintain that our beliefs should never shift, or be open to revision, belies a rigidity which might be called bigotry.
Are you OK with Malthusian global depopulation? At a certain point, you absolutely have to pick sides. Read about the elites building luxury bunkers in Hawaii. Do you really think they care about humanity?
No, I agree with you Tony, I don’t think overpopulation is a real problem. If we had more cooperation and sharing instead of competition, there is plenty to go round.
Oh man…. Ok I’m gonna need an abattoir soon - so far I’m catching up on randomness like Waldorf (and the schools), Conan Doyle… and now Vandana Shiva… Lordy Lordy I guess it really is everyone has an agenda and much history.
I have no idea of Vandana's mates but I have read at least two of her books and agree with commenters, probably all who garden themselves. Vandana has been outspoken about saving seeds, protecting biodiversity, championing the rights of indian farmers. Ecological issues Vandana champions are real and important.