First Place: David Tshimba’s “By Trying to Solve a Problem, Human Beings Have Now Created a New Issue”

By David Tshimba, posted on March 30th, 2009 in Agriculture, Articles, Essay Contest 2009

David Ngendo Tshimba
Uganda Martyrs University
Kampala, Uganda

e-nvironment: A sustainable future for our planet

Sustainability per se is a broad and crucial subject. All basic aspects that underlie sustainable development seek to find a way to fulfill the required needs while minimising environmental damage and misuse of resources.

Agriculture is among the primary driving forces behind our planet, which constitutes the major concern in this context. Therefore, the involvement of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides to enhance agricultural production has ironically led to its downfall. While many countries have adopted these mechanisms, the consequences have either not been extensively thought about or simply ignored. From the time of the ‘Green revolution’ when these scientific mechanisms were widely promoted, developing countries were not immediately involved in these plans. Thus, with the coming of Western revolutionary ideas, the agricultural mechanisation ideals were forcibly implemented without the consent of the locals. Development in context seeks to address the needs of the people in question, considering their capabilities, requirements, their participation, and future consequences. The synthetic chemicals do not necessarily apply in this context and their implementation in developing countries only brought more harm than good.

Ultimately, for agricultural enhancement to be achieved, principal concerns of the persons in question need to be the fundamental aspects considered.

The Concept of development is so extensive that it touches all facets of life. Our analysis focuses on the environmental aspect. But one cannot focus on one aspect to the detriment of others, because such an approach will fail to be holistic, and so fail to address that particular developmental issue.

As far as the environment is concerned, greater understanding of the role that agriculture can play in improving economic and nutritional well-being will be required. Actually, agriculture, the study and practice of farming, constitutes the core source of human basic needs.

Some fifty years ago, the world faced a number of serious problems, including malnutrition for those who could at least get some food, as well as famine for others who are deprived. Therefore, it is up to us to learn how to address these issues in a way that we will survive after all. This paper addresses the ways that humanity, in the name of development, is dealing with its environment as far as agriculture is concerned.

As populations grow, environmental problems become more and more severe. The effects of environmental degradation and inadequate natural resource management are increasingly evident throughout the world. Moreover, the fact is many environmental problems are interconnected, as George W. Norton et al. (2008) have noted. Deforestation, soil erosion, overgrazing, energy depletion, climate change, desertification, silting of rivers and reservoirs are inextricably linked.

Sound environmental management is generally recognized to be essential for sustainable agricultural and economic development. To my mind, sustainable agriculture is the ability of a productive system to maintain its productivity over time, without severe or permanent degradation of land resources and/or ecosystems.

Agricultural productivity refers to farm output at harvest time, compared to the original inputs:

Some degradation can be intentional, but most is the unintended result of people or governments seeking means of solving immediate food and economic crises, often at the cost of long-term damage to the environment. Tesfa G. Gebremedhin and Ralph D. Christy have pointed out that the shift towards large-scale agriculture accelerates environmental degradation and reduces the quality of rural life.

In fact, we have already had significant evidence to demonstrate the effects of replacing traditional agricultural methods with chemical and technological “modern” methods. The first big push for such a shift came during the “Green Revolution,” beginning in the 1940’s. With the onset of the Cold War, with populations starving and discontent around the world, Western powers were eager to do something to assuage peoples ‘dissatisfaction, in hopes of deterring them from turning to communism as a solution. And so, in order to avoid a “Red Revolution,” Western scientists presented the idea of a “Green Revolution,” a technological revolution in farming that would increase agricultural yields, thereby keeping everyone fed and satisfied, without need to turn to communism. Therefore, the Green Revolution moved forward as a development strategy.

Farmers were taught to use engineered seeds, along with fertilizers designed to complement them. With carefully measured ingredients, crops were sure to be resilient to weeds and pests, produce higher yields, and reduce work and soil runoff, as they did not require so much tilling. Farmers across the world, particularly in Asia, abandoned traditional techniques of intercropping in favour of introducing Green Revolution inputs.

At the present time, however, western researchers, in the name of a development, are attempting to resolve worldwide hunger. Did the “Green Revolution” succeed in resolving world hunger, or merely introduce a more serious issue? The impacts of such a shift are multi-faceted and include a loss of community autonomy as well as community relationships, lost biodiversity, soil depletion, poverty, with little reduction in hunger.

Even though “most hunger is caused by a failure to gain access to the locally available food or to the means to produce food directly” (Peter C. Timmer et al., 1983), the Green Revolution failed to acknowledge the issue of distribution, and thus largely failed in eradicating hunger. Are people hungry because the world does not produce enough food? No. In the aggregate, the world produces a surplus of food. If the world food supply were evenly divided among the world’s population, each person would receive substantially more than the minimum amount of nutrients required for survival. The world is not on the brink of starvation. (George W. Norton et al., 2008).

World hunger is not caused by food shortages. People are hungry because they are too poor to buy the food available, not because there is not enough. Furthermore, “the less conspicuous but more pernicious problem, in terms of people suffering and dying, is chronic malnutrition.” Even good estimates depend on the definition used for this concept, a conservative estimate suggests that roughly 800 million people suffer from chronic and severe malnutrition associated with food deprivation (The Economics of the Agricultural Development: World Food Systems and Resource Use, 2008, p.6).

In fact, in Asia, where Green Revolution agriculture was most widely adopted, we now find two-thirds of the world’s undernourished population. So the Green Revolution has done little to address the issue of world hunger.

It must be noted that in several cases, such as Mexico and India, Green Revolution agriculture did exactly what it promised to do, namely, to increase agricultural yields. Unfortunately, however, more food in the world does not necessarily mean less hunger.

There is need to remind the “fans” of modernization, especially the modernization of agriculture, of the boomerang effect of modernization through the experience of Punjab, which used to be the flag-bearer of the Green Revolution and the most prosperous region in India, but today is in a sorry state (George W. Norton et al., 2008).

Humanity has come to know how to congratulate those who are able to introduce scientific innovations, however harmful these may turn out to be, but fails to sympathize with those who suffer negative effects from scientific research and discovery, even though the latter constitute a significant proportion of people affected.

Dr. Paul Hermann Muller, the Swiss inventor of the organochlorine insecticide DDT, won the Nobel Prize of Physiology in 1948. DDT, a bug-killing synthesis of Dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane, was the first synthetic insecticide to be widely used, yet is now considered to be highly hazardous, so is widely banned for agricultural use, according to the World Health Organization classification (New Internationalist 323, May 2000: The Facts on the Pesticides). Under United States law, a pesticide is any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest, and also for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant. Pests can be insects, mice and other animals, unwanted plants (weeds), fungi, or microorganisms like bacteria and viruses [URL Available online http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about, Accessible on 22 August 2003].

Soil nutrient reserves are being depleted because of continued exploitation of nutrients without adequate replenishment. The consequent downward spiral of soil fertility has led to a corresponding decline in crop yields, food insecurity, food aid, and environmental degradation (Andre Batino et al., 2007).

Nikki Van Der Gaag has pointed out that organophosphate compounds include some of the most toxic chemicals used in agriculture. All have a cumulative effect with chronic exposure causing progressive inhibition of cholinesterase.

Van Der Gaag says that parathion is one of the most dangerous pesticides in the world; three drops are enough to kill a grown man. It is banned in most countries, but poor farmers buy it from illegal street shops and markets just because it is cheap and effective, and they have no idea of the dangers involved. Today, the World Health Organisation estimates that at least 3 million people a year are poisoned by pesticides, and that 200,000 people die. It is estimated that up to 25 million agricultural workers are poisoned every year. Pesticides are not just responsible for accidental poisonings; they have become a part of us and our environment in a way that could never have been imagined half a century ago: Pesticides waft into the air, sink into the soil, and leach into rivers and streams. Nor are they restricted to humans; they affect all living things from the smallest invertebrate to the largest whale.

An ecological study has demonstrated that 672 million birds are exposed to pesticides every year, and 10 per cent or 67 million, die. Our biodiversity is in a crucial danger. Among many other examples, we say that in China, 42,800 new cases of pesticide poisoning were reported in 1994, including 3,900 fatalities. Many were said to be victims of home-made cocktails marketed illegally (Bugs in System, edited by William Vorley and Dennis Keeney, Earthscan, London 1998). Acute pesticide poisoning is common, and little is known about potential long-term health effects.

What is shocking is the fact that hundreds of pests have become resistant to chemicals, and the number is growing. World pest populations have increased as pesticides kill natural predators of pests. As resistance to pesticides builds up and predators are reduced, future production potentials are jeopardized. And society bears the cost of off-farm pollution.

Here is the reason for questioning our conscience: “Why poison ourselves?” a precautionary approach to synthetic chemicals by Chris Bright (World Watch Paper 153, November 2000). Peter Rosset extols the virtues of the small farm model by “Kicking the Chemical Habit.” That is why, according to the Indian Environmentalist Vandana Shiva: “Every farmer is in debt and despair. Vast stretches of land have become water-logged deserts. And as an old farmer pointed out, even the trees have stopped bearing fruit because heavy use of pesticides has killed the pollinators, the bees and butterflies. Native seeds have been displaced by new hybrids, which are not perennial and so need to be purchased every year at high costs. Hybrids are also vulnerable to pests’ attacks. Now farmers are consuming the same pesticides as a way of killing themselves, in order to escape permanently from unpaid debts!” Misuse of Chemical pesticides and fertilizers has contaminated land and water, damaging the health of producers and consumers, and stimulating the emergence of pests’ resistance to pesticides.

‘Much of the food we eat contains pesticide residues. Although many of these do not exceed allowed levels for adult consumption, no one knows what the build-up of poison over time does to our bodies. Nor has the effects on babies and children been calculated. What we do know is that many of these pesticides can cause cancer or have other adverse effects on animals, humans and the environment…’ (New Internationalist 323, May 2000)

The Pesticide Action Network (PAN) has drawn up a list of twelve dangerous pesticides, which are well known as the “Dirty Dozen.” Almost all are in the World Health Organization’s hazardous category.

So what has been the argument for the continuing use of pesticides? One could eventually say they increase crop yields.

First of all, however, we do not need more food; we just need a fairer way of distributing it.

Secondly, eight per cent of pesticides are used in the rich world, and many of these are used not to grow food for humans but to produce animal feed for livestock. Hence, this becomes an escalating cycle of poison! [URL Available online http://www.pan-international.org, Accessible on 23 Septembre 2005]

Finally, most pesticides in the Thirdly World are used on export crops, most of which are eaten by people in the West.

Furthermore, pesticides are big business. If pesticides were banned altogether, billions of dollars in food production would be lost, says the agro-industry.

All in all, while alternative development strategies can be followed, agriculture has an important role to play in overall development, especially in most developing countries.

“How can agriculture be improved to facilitate its role in providing food and contributing to overall development?” asked George W. Norton et al. (2008).

Land is source of food, shelter, tools, health, burials, in short LAND IS LIVELIHOOD (Rupert Hambira, 1999).

To my mind, by its essence and its nature, agriculture should also have something to do with culture. Here, Culture not only refers to ‘growing, cultivating’ but to some extent it also relates to ‘originality, authenticity’.

For generation after generation, numerous communities in the Global South practised subsistence farming. Within a village, they had the capacity to produce food they needed to survive. As such, these communities were self-sufficient and members of the communities maintained strong relationships.

However, these communities are now dependent in several ways on the Western world for their livelihoods: not only did they require a steady stream of imported agricultural inputs (demand increased by the inability to save and reuse suicide seeds), but they now had to export their crops- often producing luxury crops that could not sustain their own diets but were in high demand in Western countries.

And so, the rise of the pesticide industry has just transformed ‘agriculture’ into another deal, ‘agribusiness’ to the detriment of small farmers who farm more ecologically but just as productively. Agribusiness is inextricably linked to increased use of agro-chemicals. It is an approach to food production that sees the soil as a source of profit and the earth as a resource to plunder. It sees agriculture only as business and farmers as business people rather than guardians of the land!

Traditional methods, such as the abandonment of a piece of land for gaining fertility, shifting cultivation, fallowing, rotation of crops, organic manuring were and are, systems for land rehabilitation since the equilibrium in nature has been upset, and it should consequently and inevitably, be restored.

Research should go into alternative ways of reducing pests. In any cases, the use of biological means is highly appreciated instead of chemical pesticides as far as the prices paid by people’s health and by the deterioration of the environment are concerned.

Nevertheless, at some point, it will not be possible to switch overnight to completely organic agriculture. There needs to be a transitional period where there is a combination of organic and chemical agriculture.

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Norton, G.W.; Alwang, J.; Masters, A.W.,2008. The Economics of Agricultural Development: World food systems and resource use. New York: ISBN.

Bationo, A.; Waswa, B.; Kihara, J.eds., 2007. Advances in Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and opportunities. USA, Springs.

Boyce, K.J.; Rosset, P.; Stanton, E.A.,2007. Land Reform and Sustainable Development. New York: Anthem Press.

URL: href=” [accessed on March 1, 2000]

25 Responses to “First Place: David Tshimba’s “By Trying to Solve a Problem, Human Beings Have Now Created a New Issue””

1. David N. Tshimba, November 16th, 2009 at 5:11 pm

   This particular essay of mine has been edited once again just after it had been posted on this web. In line with this, I warmly welcome constructive comments as well as questions pertaining to this literature.

   Yours humbly,

   Dave

2. jude, November 19th, 2009 at 5:20 am

   This article is likeable; the issues touched are quite passionate and the author exudes conversance with them.

3. Jude Ssempebwa, November 20th, 2009 at 4:41 pm

   Dear Jude,

   I thank you so very much for spend a bit of your precious time to glance at my work.

   Your comment is indeed so encouraging and thrilling.

   Thanks again.

   Peace!

   Dave

4. Pritpal Kaur, November 22nd, 2009 at 9:36 am

   Thank you so much for such an informative essay!

5. Kisekka Joseph, November 23rd, 2009 at 5:36 am

   Dear David,
   that is the way to go.It is a splendid attempt .Are you aware that Agriculture in a broader sense goes beyond farming? You may want to indicate that you intend to use the term in a restricted sense.You talk of `the ability of a productive system to maintain its productivity`.Try to provide other words so that if I do not understand the word productive I do not remain uncertain about productivity .If you get time you should read more about Schumacher`s Small is beautiful ,Rachael Carson`s Silent Spring ,Berry Commoner`s The poisonous Circle and of course Vandana Shiva`s critiques of the Green Revolution.Do not forget to consult some of articles in several Issues in The Ecologist..at the Research Directorate.
   Your criticisms are lacking.What is the way forward?Is it between a return to the past?Is organic farming feasible? Bring the argument nearer at home by citing vivid examples,otherwise this may seem to be too far away from your lived experience.The idea of culture in agriculture is interesting but it is simply mentioned .
   The article is appreciated.
   Kisekka Joseph

6. David N. Tshimba, November 24th, 2009 at 6:50 pm

   Dear Joseph,

   First and foremost I thank for taking some of your precious time to glance at my piece of work and eventually throw some light on it.

   I primarily acknowledge that the notion of agriculture in its broader sense goes beyond farming. My sense was a restricted one.

   Secondly,in my revised version of this very essay I have just pointed out that ss scholars noted over time implicit contradictions the expression ‘sustainable development’ has very often brought about it now seems convenient to look at sustainability as a unique way forward to a better living of the current generation and that of the generations yet to come.In line with this, I too believe that sustainable agriculture is the ability of a productive system to maintain its productivity over time, without severe or permanent degradation of land resources and/or ecosystems. Agriculture, according to Gliessman (2007) cannot be sustained as long as dependence on inputs from agro-industry remains.In actual fact, agricultural productivity refers to farm output at harvest time, compared to the original inputs (George Norton et al.,2008). However, it now is a matter of fact that as our system of global food production attempts to feed a world population that continues to grow: the techniques, innovations, practices and policies that have allowed increases in productivity have also undermined the basis for that productivity (Gliessman, 2007).

   Thirdly, since we have now seen that inputs from technological advances towards agricultural mechanisation or ‘modernisation’ had seriously missed the point of sustainability in food systems, here is the way forward: AGROECOLOGY- a new approach to agriculture and agricultural development that builds on resource-conserving aspects of traditional, local, and small-scale agriculture while at the same time drawing on modern ecological knowledge and methods (Gliessman, 2007). Of course, organic agriculture is and will still be feasible. Organic agriculture is an alternative that builds on a non-industrialized understanding of the relationship between food production and nature. Organic farming therefore has a potential for a more sustainable agricultural development. One main aim of organic agriculture is to find another balance of conflict between economical pressures to reduce nature’s time and labour time using external inputs on the one side and the resulting impact on biological and environmental systems on the other. Stolze et al. (2000) conclude that organic farming is an effective and economically efficient way of achieving environmental goals; organic farming results in improvements in most environment indicators and supplies environmental services at lower costs. Although, because ‘perpetuity’ can never be demonstrated in the present, based on our present knowledge however, we can suggest that a sustainable agriculture would, at the very least ‘rely mainly on resources within the agroecosystem, including nearby communities, by replacing external inputs with nutrient cycling, better conservation, and expanded base of ecological knowledge.’

   Fourthly and finally,with the idea of culture in agriculture, farmers are in the best position to be stewards of agricultural land.Traditional methods, such as the abandonment of a piece of land for gaining fertility, shifting cultivation, fallowing, rotation of crops, organic manuring were and are, systems for land rehabilitation since the equilibrium in nature has been upset, and it should consequently and inevitably, be restored.It is however important to recall that agriculture of the future must be both sustainable and highly productive if it is to feed the growing human population. This twin challenge says Gliessman (2007), means that we cannot simply abandon conventional practices wholesale and completely return to traditional or indigenous practices. In any case,for instance, the use of biological means is highly appreciated in place of chemical pesticides, for the prices paid by people’s health and by the deterioration of the environment are not to be weighed down.

   Hope the above points elaborate further what was the hidden idea behind this essay and make some sense to you!

   Best regards

   David

7. David N. Tshimba, November 24th, 2009 at 6:59 pm

   Hello dear Pritpal,

   I too thank you so very much for this great sacrifice to spending some of your precious time to glance at my piece of work.

   Thanks a lot for your encouraging words.

   Dave

8. Diana, November 25th, 2009 at 4:30 am

   David this is really good you have made the Umu research foundation proud. looking foward to many more of your works. This is really brilliant. Keep up the spirit.
   Diana Bero

9. Ssentongo Jimmy Spire, November 25th, 2009 at 1:13 pm

   David,
   It’s good that as a student you can already think of sustainability issues and ways around the mess we are creating as human beings. However, on top of the other comments given, I think in some sections you are over-quoting thus suffocating your own voice. Moreover several of the sources do not feature in the References! Could you try to be louder than than the sources. Otherwise your direction and passion are greatly appreciated.

10. David N. Tshimba, November 25th, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    Dear Jimmy,

    I profoundly appreciate your comment. Above all thanks for your kind words.

    I should also vividly acknowledge that in matters of Sustainability I wouldn’t have done much without your indomitable inspiration, wisdom and support.

    Now, here is my voice: We- the world should cease to deal with AGRICULTURE as AGRIBUSINESS. In its essence, the notion of culture is deeply implicated in ways of practicing and studying farming! The bell of AGROECOLOGY is already tolling (see Gliessman, 2007)

    My second loud voice is that it will not be possible to switch overnight to completely organic agriculture. There needs to be a transitional period where there is a combination of organic and chemical agriculture and this transition should only be oriented in the quickest time possible towards environmental friendly practices such as organic means. Maybe for a good many reasons, the publishers did not post all the refernces of this essay (perhaps space shortage)

    The revised edition of this essay contains further references. Here are some:

    Ralph D. Christy, and Tesfa G. Gebremedhin. 1995. Structural Changes in U.S. Agriculture: Implications for African American Farmers, pp.45-65. In Stewart, James B., and Joyce E. Allen-Smith, (ed). Blacks in Rural America. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Rauch, J. 2003 Will Frankenfood Save the Planet? The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 293 (3):pp 103-108.

    Brown, R.L. ed. 1990. State of the World. New York: W.W. Norton & Company:

    Gliessman, R.S. 2007. Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems, 2nd ed. California: CRC Press

    Halberg, N.; Alrøe, H.F.; Knudsen, M.T. & Kristensen, E.S. eds. 2006. Global Development of Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Prospects. Oxford: CABI Publishing.

    Lakshman, Y. 1996. Improved Seeds and Construed Scarcity. In Peet, R. & Watts, M. (eds) Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development, Social Movements. Routledge: London, U.K.

    Neuenschhander, P.; Borgemeister, C.; Langewald, J. 2003. Biological Control in IMP System in Africa. CAB International: USA.

    Pick Up Your Poison [ E-book] retrieved online at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about. Accessed on August 22, 2003.

11. David N. Tshimba, November 25th, 2009 at 10:30 pm

    Dear Diana,

    I profoundly thank you so very much for your kind words.

    Thanks for spend some of your precious time to contribute toward this scheme.

    I too, am proud of your role and aspiration in UMU Student Reserach Foundation.

    Let us keep this candle ever burning…

    Yours humbly,

    Dave

12. Godfrey J. Mwase, November 26th, 2009 at 7:06 am

    Hey Davie,
    It is great, we need more environmentally alert guys like you on this our planet “mother Earth” we are right by your side to fight the terror of insesible enviromental degradation in the name of development!!Our being responsible in whatever we do is what creates sustainability for everything.
    Bravo my pal and keep up the fire you win!!
    Godfrey

13. David N. Tshimba, November 26th, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    Dear Mwase,

    I thank you for your appreciation. We have been given only one planet to live in and on. It is shameful if the last thing we can do to contribute to the depletion of our ‘only home.’

    The world also needs some guys like you who can be whistle-blowing agents to counter the mess going on.

    Best regards
    Dave

14. Benjamin Axel Mugema, November 26th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

    David,

    Quite frankly this is a well-written essay. You have debated your views well and come up with tangible and rather practical solutions. However, I would want to agree with Jimmy that in certain instances, you seem to over quote, which not only weaknes your voice, but your individual argument as well. I am also skeptical about some of your solutions, particularly those that are to be carried out by farmers. Case in point, your last paragraph that talks about abandonment of land to gain fertility. In this day and age when land is perharps the most scarce resource, and with climate change rendering alot of land unfit for use, you ought to think perharps of solutions that allow for the land to be used consistently over a long period of time.

    Otherwise, keep it up.

15. David N. Tshimba, November 27th, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    Dear Benjamin,

    I have always appreciated your pin-pointed contributory comments for the betterment of myself as one of your long-time pals.

    My apologies to you for over quotations much as you ought to recall that I am junior in the field, if not only a whistle-blower.

    Secondly and most importantly, in the last paragraph of my essay the issue pointed out comes as follow: “Traditional methods, such as the abandonment of a piece of land for gaining fertility, shifting cultivation, fallowing, rotation of crops, organic manuring were and are, systems for land rehabilitation since the equilibrium in nature has been upset, and it should consequently and inevitably, be restored.” Far from portraying the whole past as our way forward, I just wanted to bring forward the idea of AGROECOLOGY. Also, it is for you key to note that solutions that allow for the land to be used consistently over a long period of time have been proven as not being ecological friendly and hence constitute a threat to sustainable agriculture, for a over-exploited soil ends up into nutrient depletion and thus fails to play its role in food systems.

    Last but not least, try to remember and bear with me that organic agriculture is an alternative that builds on a non-industrialized understanding of the relationship between food production and nature. Organic farming therefore has a potential for a more sustainable agricultural development.

    Thanks so very much, dear pal.
    Looking forward to your feedback.

    Dave

16. Benjamin Axel Mugema, November 29th, 2009 at 7:29 am

    David,

    Agroecology, the way to go! The way forward. I certainly agree there, of course not to a full extent, you know how I get sceptical and a little too pessimistic often.
    Anyhow, think also about the capacity building and empowerement you would need especially among the rural farmers to build this sort of thing. The governments involved wold need to work extra hard to establish such porgrammes.
    Besides the politics involved, let’s not detract from the main point here. Of course, you will agree with me that agriculture is the backbone of all economies, developed or underdeveloped. At the same time, urban sprawl is increasing more than ever, particularly in third-world nations. Now, if the ultimate goal is development, I would want that you recommend ways of achieving development and sustainability, albeit in an agricultural perspective but with consideration to the priorities.
    Do not lose the focus here, by priorities, I mean, is our goal technological and industrial development like the western nations, or are we aiming at sustainability and equal resource distribution?
    I think it is important that we create the difference here.

    Benjamin.

17. David N. Tshimba, November 29th, 2009 at 8:03 pm

    Dear Benjamin,

    Well said! The main focus oughtn’t to be either forgotten, or renounced. We are on our way to SUSTAINABILITY.

    Will we reach there without any economical and technological venture? I certainly say NO. Once we have reached there, will we still need to refer to the used means so as TO SUSTAIN THE SYSTEM? I will definitely say NO again. This profoundly applies for AGRICULTURE AND ITS DEVELOPMENT.

    Cheers,

    Dave

18. Sean Rose, December 2nd, 2009 at 4:14 am

    really enjoyed this! greetings from the UK.

19. David N. Tshimna, December 3rd, 2009 at 7:47 am

    Dear Rose,

    I am pleased you have read my essay and found enjoyment.

    The last thing humanity could do at this crucial time is to sit back in their deteriorating ‘comfort zone’ and relax as if nothing much is taking place. Of course, I personally am not doing that much if not to blow the whistle for many others.

    I believe that before the notion of eternity there is the idea of sustainability. Thus, the latter has got to be incorporated in whatever we think of, plan of, and especially do.

    Greetings from Uganda!!

    David

20. Jo Ssekandi, December 7th, 2009 at 2:25 pm

    Dear David,
    Your work is a joy to read, I will try to be a little critical on a few of the issues you raised here; when you talk about GMOs and the subsequent effects and giving organic agriculture as the solution, is this a global solution or an African one? You and I are faced with a global challenge of feeding the world population now exceeding 6billion humans without compromising nature. I agree with you that currently we have enough food on this planet although it is unfairly and inequitably distributed, have you hears of “food miles” and the CO2 effects that come with it? When you point out that people are too poor to buy food I totally agree with you, but what should we do? As the population increases, more arable land is or/and will be turned into settlements, so one of the solutions would be industrialization to create more jobs and again this has its own dynamics; am sure by now you realize that it is s mental jungle out there!

    Nevertheless this is quality work
    Cheers

21. Joseph Ssekandi, December 7th, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    Dear David,
    Your work is a joy to read, I will try to be a little critical on a few of the issues you raised here; when you talk about GMOs and the subsequent effects and giving organic agriculture as the solution, is this a global solution or an African one? You and I are faced with a global challenge of feeding the world population now exceeding 6billion humans without compromising nature. I agree with you that currently we have enough food on this planet although it is unfairly and inequitably distributed, have you hears of “food miles” and the CO2 effects that come with it? When you point out that people are too poor to buy food I totally agree with you, but what should we do? As the population increases, more arable land is or/and will be turned into settlements, so one of the solutions would be industrialization to create more jobs and again this has its own dynamics; am sure by now you realize that it is s mental jungle out there!
    This is good work David

22. David N. Tshimba, December 8th, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    Dear Joe,

    I thank you so very much for your kind words and most distinguishably for your critical viewpoint. This will indeed help me to significantly expand on the content of my essay in the nearest future.

    I too totally agree with you that the issue is global rather than local but again, since the whole scheme is dear to the idea of sustainability, I dearly recommend local ’solutions’ to resolve the ‘mental jungle out there.’

    Regards,

    Dave

23. Sulaiman Tejan, December 9th, 2009 at 6:53 am

    David my good friend,
    Your essay is well acticulated, but your focus was somehow repeatative. let me tell you guy, too much of writing result in repeating the samething over and over.

    essays need to be well structured and presented in a well summarized text. You delved too much into history.

    Dont mind me your essay is commendable keep it up.

    Note:
    I suggeste that the three of ue; you, myself and Benjamin network for future challenges facing our planet mother Africa. Believe me if only we do, we can make an impact. send me an e-mail to stjalloh@yahoo.com so we can start writing each other for further opportunities and also share experiences.

    Thanks

24. David N. Tshimba, December 11th, 2009 at 8:30 am

    Dear Tejan,

    I take to heart your comment. Nevertheless, allow me to remind you that if ‘I delved so much into history’ it was not as a by-the-way. That was indeed my focal point. History should not only be recalled or referred to when we are dealing with social studies or technology. It still has its golden place in AGRICULTURE as well. And, in fact, it may/will reshape its future.

    True that the above piece of work needs to be well structured but if it is already “well articulated”, it means that there is no possibility for it to be “somehow repetitive.” The reader might presume its repetitiveness by the criterion of its length but the fact prove something else if we remain within this hypothetical condition.

    Cheers,

    Dave

25. VICTOR AND PRAISE, December 12th, 2009 at 11:49 pm

    David you are on the right track the way you take your responses.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail