As an arts student, I was able to have and appreciate the opportunity to participate in sociology classes. Looking back over the past 12 weeks, I have had the opportunity to engage in difficult but cognitive global topics. By cognitive, I mean topics that require thinking, understanding, and awareness. Today, I can say that I have gained the knowledge necessary to identify the potential root causes of local and global problems, as well as how they affect our cultural, economic and political patterns. I wouldn't have really had a clue about world issues and theories if someone had asked me about it at first. Now I believe I have the knowledge to provide someone with a satisfactory explanation. Of all the topics covered in this course, although the options are endless, I would like to reflect on our society's mindset when it comes to the green revolution. This discussion paper will also aim to analyze how our agricultural practices led to the green revolution as well as its economic impacts and changes. I will explain how and why I think this has not worked in some countries. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay There is no doubt that the industrial revolution and capitalism brought significant changes. This has not only led to changes in production methods but also in our consumption practices. As noted in Chapter 1 of the book, Samuel Strauss, a journalist and philosopher, coined the term "consumerism" to characterize a new way of life in the 1920s. According to him, the capitalist change in people's lives created a philosophy of life in which societies began to emphasize more and more production and accumulation. “Countries have been and are committed to perpetual economic growth, regardless of their moral or intellectual growth,” as Strauss puts it. Since this change became important, the goal has been to produce more and more goods. The industrial revolution forced people to work for wages, salaries, etc. and resulted in an economy where everything has a price. Almost everything has been transformed into “commodity”. This dates back to the major transition in America, when the rate and level of consumption of raw materials increased between 1880 and 1930. This is when food became a commodity and its production increased by 40 % from 1899. until 1905, in addition to clothing, jewelry, furniture, etc. The objective was therefore to further increase its production. Previously, people cultivated and produced food using tools and animals (like an axe, an ox, etc.). Then came irrigation with modern technology that required minimal human labor and energy and replaced food producers in decline since people began moving to cities, suburbs and living on wages. They had left their land and depended on wages to feed themselves. To meet the food needs of a growing population and those who did not produce food, emphasis was placed on maximum production. Farmers began to use more and more technology. The use of fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides has increased. It was between 1940 and 1950 that Norman Borlaug, an American scientist, sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation, began his research in Mexico. He has developed new high-yielding hybrid varieties of corn and wheat, alsodisease resistant and adapted to Mexican agriculture. His technique soon began to be adopted by other third world countries. However, it was in India where it enjoyed the most success as it recovered from the Bengal famine. The Green Revolution resulted in the production of about 130 million tons of grain by the end of 1979, as reported in the Journal of Food Ethics. There is no doubt that the green revolution has brought certain benefits. But if we consider the example of India, I would not agree with the Green Revolution mentality. India, after adapting HYV seeds, obviously no longer had to worry about food imports! Overall, it has provided people with a great way to prevent food shortage. Although Indian farmers have been able to produce tonnes more food grains than before, this has impacted people and the environment in many ways. New practices required increased use of pesticides, insecticides and fertilizers for higher yields, which led to an increase in the economics of petrochemical production plants since they produced more pesticides, fertilizers as well that oil prices have become higher due to increased use of machinery. This, in turn, affected the poor. I realized that this was all due to capitalist politics and behind the encouragement of the GR mentality. This provided a great opportunity for capitalists and producers to fill their bank accounts. It was also an opportunity for banks to participate by granting loans, etc. This, in turn, encouraged capitalist agriculture. As I saw growing up in India, farmers with more land and money recruit poor people in rural areas who need them to do the field work and that's when the exploitation begins. The landowners would not treat their workers well enough and would not even pay them all for their work. I would therefore say that these practices remain accessible to the rich, which has the consequence of widening the social and economic gap between societies. Now if I focus on the Green Revolution in India, we can notice how it affected people in real life. practices. It is clear that the crop that gave the highest yield was wheat. HYV seeds can produce large quantities of wheat, rice, etc. but they have left other crops such as sugarcane, tea, cotton unnoticed - not only by GR techniques but also by farmers as they do not bring them higher yields than wheat. , etc. This would clearly lead to shortages of other crops, as has been the case, and therefore reduce the overall growth rate of production. I can only see his side which made the poor suffer even more. When we talk to local people in India, we can see that there are still social and economic disparities that the media or green revolutionaries are not paying attention to. As I mentioned before, capitalist farmers, who only care about their surpluses, do little for the landless. Here, I am not saying that it is their responsibility. This is true, in a way, but what I am trying to emphasize is that the Green Revolution system has disturbed people's minds. This gave them a way to produce more, but they failed to equitably use the techniques and educate them. The green revolution is not a cup of coffee for the poor. Only those with access to land and money have high-yielding varieties. THE.