Bhutan to become world first & only wholly organic state

Post Reply New Topic

And the greenie obsessives are loving it:

Which as Tim Worstall of course points out, will leave the ordinary citizens of Bhutan [url=http://timworstall.com/2013/02/12/the-greenies-wet-dream-in-bhutan/[/url]essentially consigned to a life of poor peasant-living[/url]. It's well worth noting that the sort of a***holes who promote these lifestyles tend to be smug middle-class far-left pricks living in Western countries who generally want for nothing.

As is said in the article: all this will lead to is a mass migration by ambitious people who want to improve their lot and have a little of what the outside world has to other, less insane countries for a better standard of living. I'm sorry, but if I were living on £1 a day or something similar, I'd want a better standard of living than that. I'd want a TV, radio, a car, to be able to read and write, to enjoy a better standard of living. I'd want what everyone else had, and I'd scorn any government that tried to keep me in poverty like Bhutan is meant to be doing.

The sort of middle class left-wing pricks living in wealthy Western countries who advocate this sort of 'romantic poverty' are disgusting hypocrites who should be ashamed of themselves - the sort of lifestyle where if the crop doesn't come in, they starve, where there are no supermarkets that they can afford to buy food from, where there are no creature comforts, where work is back-breaking and dangerous. They would never want that kind of lifestyle for themselves, so why try to foist this permanent peasanthood onto the world's poorest people?

What western country forced this on Bhutan?

From what you posted, it looks like they chose to do this themselves.

Pesticides do create problems for local ecosystems in the long term, and chemical fertilizes are going to run out with fossil fuel. And when they do, farmers who haven't been rotating their crops are going to be very, very sorry.

However organic farming isn't easy, and I question wether a poor country in as harsh a climate as the Himalayas is the best place to experiment.

I hope they know what they are doing.

However let's wait until we see how this works out before we start calling people names.

No one forced this on them. They came up with this themselves. Environmentalists and pro-organic folk aren't exactly known for their large pockets full of lobbyists.

They're being smart. They see that "going green" is the future. They're capitalizing on it while it's still young and while China is fighting its air pollution. This just might prove to be a valuable income source and also might improve tourism. Only time will tell.

I won't argue that this won't bite them in the ass, because it might. However that's a gamble they're willing to take.

I watched a really good vid on Bhutan but I can't remember the name,sorry.
But they also have it where so much of the forested regions can not be cut and other environmental ideas that I like.
The statement I do remember was that they are more concerned with gross National happiness rather than gross National Product.

I'm not sure this is completely true, considering that even the Guardian's article says that many people will want to flee the country for a better life.

They're just on top of things. Petroleum will eventually run out, and the global economy will eventually collapse, While everyone else is killing each other off over the remaining pieces of aerable land, Bhutan will be ahead of the curve.

Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth (that name is so misleading) have fairly good lobbying strategies. I mean, that the organic market and the anti-GM lobby even exist is testament to that.

No, the future is maximising yields so as to feed everyone. Organic farming must die out. The alternatives are massive population control or allowing widespread starvation.

Agreed. All Bhutan is doing is consigning its people to poverty, backwardness, needless misery, starvation and death.

So the future is mass pollution and widespread cancer and endochrinian problems led by it, as well as progressive lost of soil fertility and bee dyings which will lead to mass starvation.


Propably not as organic food is selling rather well and with the money earned they could buy surplus of food they need. (If they need any.)

Wait until the bugs eat their crops.

I am going to put a sign up in my garden for the bugs to read: Go to Bhutan, a Pesticide Free Zone.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 13 Feb 2013, 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This isn't the West. These are people that are living off £1 a day and their little measly bits of land.

False dichotomy. It is true that pesticide use has often been excessive in the past, but the reaction to that must not be "stop using pesticides and fertilisers". If we only apply sensible levels of these chemicals, we will avoid or minimise the problems that the Green lobby attribute to them. If we find that certain pesticides have very disastrous effects on wildlife (like DDT had) then we can ban those specific pesticides.

It is impossible to get around the simple fact that organic farming produces half the food per unit land that conventional farming does. If we are to use organic farming, we will need to either destroy many habitats, or allow people to starve.

This is from the folks who brought us the National Happiness Index. When your country sucks at so many levels you rank at the bottom countries in the Human Development Index, GDP, education etc you need to take another puff from the crackpipe and create your own league. Bhutan will be the Most Happiest Country and the Most Organic Country.... in your face, wealthy fat First World People!

The strategy of Bhutan is not so easily dismissed, since the king gave up almost all his powers to form a constitutional democracy (unfortunately he didn't give up all his powers and formed a republic, wich would be more democratic, but still, I don't see many people doing what he did). I think they have good intentions, but I'm not so confident that their policies will lead to a good place.

That's speculation. It's also speculation to assume that going organic is the cause of people fleeing with so many different issues at play.



Yes, they do have lobbyists. Monsanto has more. Way more. They also have a lot more money. And also waaaaaaaaaaaay more lawyers. It's still David vs Goliath.



There is an overabundance of food in this world. We have enough food to feed everyone many times over. Just look at how OBESE (not just fat, not just overweight but OBESE) the western world is becoming and how much food we throw out on a daily basis. The issue was never "We don't have enough food". The issue has been politics and corrupt governments preventing food from reaching their people. That's why no matter how much food and money you throw Africa, nothing sticks.

They're being business smart. They tapping into a market they can easily start controlling and exploiting. They're creating an income. Not only will going organic bring in trading revenue, but it'll also tap into the ecotourism market which will also help the overall economy. These are markets that are only going to get bigger, whether you like it or not. If you don't believe me, look into the investments of the worlds richest men. They're putting their money into "Going Green".

Since they're the first ones to go completely organic, they've also created publicity for their products. People will purchase their products to appear progressive.

Those are your alternatives no matter what you do. The question is only when: http://cluborlov.blogspot.no/2013/02/book-excerpt-wrong-math.html
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqwd_u6HkMo[/youtube]
"massive population control" doesn't have to mean an authoritarian policy like China's. Hans Rosling says the most successful policy was Iran's, which was voluntary. In India, the most successful population control policy was found to be female education. There's a time lag of 20 years, so better start early.


Do you assert that only for monoculture as usual, just either with or without synthetic fertiliser and pesticides? Or for all possible farming techniques? If all, we are in for a world of hurt, because phosphorus deposits that can be mined at the scale you need for synthetic fertilisers are running out in a few decades. Any country that hasn't worked out how to farm without the rate of phosphorus application that is now conventional will be in trouble. Perhaps Bhutan just wants to develop the techniques early.