- http://www.agbioworld.org, http://agbioview.listbot.com
Sterling Stoudenmire commented - It is important
to follow their sources of money, because that may lead to the answer.
Tom DeGregori reponds:
Good point! We need to know who is funding Third World Network and other
similar organizations as it is virtually certain that these organizations
are not receiving any significant amount of money from third world sources.
Having spent considerable time in several of the countries in which some
of them are based and having many friends there, I can confidently say that
they are overwhelmingly seen as irritants and not spokespersons for their
countries. But someone funds there trips to Seattle or Washington and
otherwise respected news sources such as National Public Radio interview
them and puts them forward as representatives of the the third world which
they are not - not even remotely so. (In Seattle, the NPR reporter was
actually directed by an observer to interview some scientists from India
who were more representative of third world and Indian thinking on these
issues but as far as I could ascertain, these interviews were not run but
that of Martin Khor of the Third World network was. Unfortunately, far too
many of my academic friends consider Dr. Vandana Shiva as a spokesperson
for 3 billion Asians, most of the rest of the third world and feminist
everywhere and she is so portrayed in the media. In the article that
initiated this discussion, there is an underlying assumption that Le Lin
Lim is somehow giving voice in defense of those in Africa dying of
starvation. This is grotesque and obscene and should be so labeled.) This
is a fraud that is being perpetuated upon the public in developed countries
allowing Luddite groups to claim falsely that they are speaking not for
themselves but for the poor and downtrodden masses of humanity. Only Tom
Friedmann of The New York Times has had the insight and courage to label it
as the fraud that it is.
A further aspect of the money connection is that the Luddites are always
looking for some presumed corrupting corporate tie to any scientific report
etc. with which they disagree. It should also be noted that those who are
being falsely put forward as spokespersons for the third world, are often
people with a degree or two (or even a PhD) in a scientific field but
without any peer reviewed publications or any achievements in science or in
any endeavor which has helped to feed or shelter people, prevent or cure
disease or in any other way further the human endeavor. But their role in
an advocacy group has given them a standard of living and an ability to
travel the world that is beyond the grasp of those with far more
credentials than they have and which is availble only to a very small elite
of those who are major contributors to knowledge and human well being.
These advocates then, have a very much stronger motive to further a "party"
line and promote an environmentalists agenda than those of us in developed
countries with peer reviewed publications and secure employment that
provides a more than adequate standard of living and those in developing
countries who chose not to take the money of the advocacy groups.
At 09:56 AM 4/29/2000 -0500, sterling stoudenmire wrote:
>It is important to follow their sources of money, because that may lead to