Recently in class we
spoke about food politics and the issues we have seen arise along with their
origins. It has been debating as to whether it is the technology that have
formed these issues or the people using the technology that is being created. There
are several different technologies being created for bio-engineering medical
purposes but it could be seen that there are not as many being created for food
purposes. Are our priorities in line to help all people and save more than
seeing more starve? How much does it count if someone is in good health but cannot
recall when their last meal was? If there was more of a balance between the
technologies that are created for both industries, then it would assist more
people.
Yet there is also still the people that are funding the
creations of these technologies and using them. Corporate control that companies
have with this technology could be used for ulterior motives. Corporations are
just looking at the end product and the revenue it could bring in. So their
priority may not be how the technologies could succeed better in helping the
people, but focusing on the technologies that would produce the most revenue
for the company. There is also the possibility of potential ulterior motives to
be neo-colonialism. By having technologies for bio-medical usage or food purposes
that sets power structures that countries fall into depending on technologies
they have and utilize along with the revenue that accumulates from them.
The
need for everyone to be involved is critical in most environmental efforts and
issues. So if some countries are using these new technologies, all the
countries including the developing ones, should be using this new technology as
well. But some undeveloped countries do not have access to this new technology
and developing countries may see an opportunities to go in and change
undeveloped countries current structures to expand their technology usage. By
micromanaging undeveloped countries, it will cause them to conform to our
standards.
Both
ulterior motives are existent currently but if one had to be chosen for which
is more of a motive, it would be neo-colonialism. It can already be seen as
African cultures are being transformed from what they have been doing for
centuries due to other countries coming and attempting to take control of the
area for an environmental cause. It is said that because they are unaware they
need to be guided and thus that leads to control over a part of the country’s
economy. I don’t think that they need to be guided. It has been centuries that
these cultures have existed and survived, they will adapt according that works
for them and will be beneficial for the global environment. But forcing them to
assimilate the methods that have been successful for developed countries isn’t
fair and is not their place to do so.
You mention that neo-colonialism could be an ulterior motive of agricultural companies like Monsanto. Is it s motive or a result? Is it possible that they only want profit and the result is the creation of neo-colonial relationships? Is motive necessary for the presence of neo-colonialism?
ReplyDeleteProfessor Shirk is probably right about the motivations of Monsanto. Monsanto is a multinational, public traded company which would most likely value its stock holders above all else. Their neo-colonialism tactics are likely the result of extensive cost-profit analysis whichsaid that using foreign labor was the most profitable.
DeleteI agree with Professor Shirk and Noah that Monsanto's activity is not intentionally instituting neocolonialism. The possible existence of neocolonialism is an unintentional consequence of Monsanto's utilization of foreign labor. Monsanto's activities seem to fit into the "race to the bottom" theory where large companies will go into foreign countries to find the cheapest prices of natural resources and labor. Monsanto participating in the "race to the bottom" and utilizing cheap foreign labor provides a more likely motive for their activities. Additionally, Monsanto has a history of strict product regulation. The company has taken legal action against small farmers found to have Monsanto product in their fields due to winds blowing the product from nearby fields. Monsanto's aggressive tactics to protect and expand their product would suggest that the their actions are motivated by profit rather than colonialism.
DeleteOne of the benefits that multi-national corporations provide is the funding to propel projects into realistic innovation. Yes, there may be ulterior motives of these companies and yes, some of those motives may be ignoring the most important use of this technology, but there is no ignoring the fact that they have the money that is enabling the technology to exist and flourish.
Delete