If the Chinese government can pull this off effectively, without doing anything too stupid (splitting up families, letting people starve to death, destroying their inner city economies), then I would see this as a good thing. The most efficient farming and food-production systems today produce a unit of food using far fewer resources (people, labor, energy, etc) than were required in previous decades.
The people who continue to live in rural areas should focus on farming efficiently for large populations rather than for subsistence. If you can move the subsistence farmers into cities, and if (this is a big "if") they can work and earn a decent wage without obliterating the current economy, then they will more than likely be better off personally, and will consume fewer resources globally.
I happen to think that this is a very difficult thing to do, and that their timeline is probably way too optimistic, but I don't think China should be criticized for trying. They stand to gain tremendously if they can pull it off.
I'm glad to see someone with this point of view. A lot of people don't seem to realize that there is a huge difference between the idealized American farmer and the lives of real peasants living in rural China. It's extremely difficult to run roads, electricity, and water to all these villages, or to provide them with modern schools and clinics (and corresponding staff) necessary to implement social welfare that extends beyond the cities.
A tour of some of the planned urban areas of China (Chengdu, mentioned in the article, is a fine example, plus pandas!) along with some of the smaller villages makes it very clear that the 'average' Chinese farmer is far worse off than one might expect.
I'm not really sure I have an example for the contemporary United States that even comes close. I suspect you'd have to change the definition of 'farmer'. Perhaps a family living in a dilapidated trailer, unemployed, growing cheap, starchy foods in what little land they can rent, in an area with poor or nonexistent utilities, would be a more accurate comparison.
Comparing a planned city such as Chengdu with a similar effort elsewhere, say in India, is another surprise. Ahmedabad is a pretty good example.
I have come to the conclusion that communism is an impediment to human excellence.[1] However, seeing the extreme levels of poverty that the central government is trying to resolve, and has resolved to a certain degree, I can understand the difference in prioritization.
There was a link to a book on cooltools years ago http://kk.org/cooltools/archives/461 that I just noticed was available on the Kindle. Poverty is so outside the understanding of most of us that it's not just about not having nice things. Poverty in the developing world and in the undeveloped world is so much worse that it's almost as if an impartial, uninformed observer would wonder if we are the same species, and I don't base that on skin color, eye shape, gender, etc.
[1] I don't care if you disagree on this point. I grant you a perpetual, irrevocable, license to do so.
> It's extremely difficult to run roads, electricity, and water to all these villages, or to provide them with modern schools and clinics (and corresponding staff) necessary to implement social welfare that extends beyond the cities.
Better cage them up in modern labor camps to produce smartphones for fat Americans. Free market, baby!
anyone who criticizes this kind of thing has never been to the chinese countryside.
it. fucking. sucks. it's not the US countryside. there aren't red barns and guys riding Indian motorcycles and nice roadside cafes to check out the shots you took on your DSLR.
there's a reason that during the mao era people were sent there for punishment. these poor people want jobs and money not open ditches full of cow shit and 7-day a week hard farm labor.
The people who continue to live in rural areas should focus on farming efficiently for large populations rather than for subsistence. If you can move the subsistence farmers into cities, and if (this is a big "if") they can work and earn a decent wage without obliterating the current economy, then they will more than likely be better off personally, and will consume fewer resources globally.
I happen to think that this is a very difficult thing to do, and that their timeline is probably way too optimistic, but I don't think China should be criticized for trying. They stand to gain tremendously if they can pull it off.
reply