DBQ #1 People like Dr. Vandena Shiva in document 8 can say how the Green Revolution brought a negative effect especially in Punjab, however, the graphs in document 1 & 2 by the Food and Agriculture Org. of the united Nations show that food supply has been increasing and in turn, cause our population to grow immensely these last years. The Green Revolution may not be able to provide for such a large population in the future so the positives will go away, but the negatives, such as the need for more cash income, soil erosion, water shortages, etc. will stay. Documents 3, 4 and 6 all say that the Green Revolution is good or will be good. In document 3, from Harry Truman's inaugural address in Washington D.C., he states that the ability for people
…show more content…
Considering that it was most likely the U,s, that started the Green Revolution, with Punjab being an important part, there's no way for the president to say that the Green Revolution was going to become a failure without making the U.S. look bad. In document 4 by Dr. Norman Borlaug in his Nobel lecture, says that for those in hunger and poverty, the Green Revolution is a miracle. Dr. Borlaug was an agricultural scientist involved in the Green Revolution. Again, it'd be pretty bad if someone who has participated and spent countless hours contributing to Green Revolution says that it will not work. Rather, he states a situation where the resolution will stop becoming good and that is in a situation where the human population grows without control. In document 2, by the Food and Agriculture Org. of the U.N., the graph shows exactly that. The Green revolution seems to be producing results in the beginning but slowly starts to decline due to the large boom in population. This means eventually, the human and food ratio will stay equal, but because there are more humans, the ratio of humans and water consumption or the ratio between humans and pollution will change for the worse as more people will use the resources of the environment and we can't …show more content…
Document 7, 8 and 10 all associate the Green Revolution with failure and negative results. Document 8 from Dr. Vandame Shiva, an Indian physicist talks how the Green Revolution led to many bad results. One being water shortages which directly correlates with document 2 and how the growth of the human population will lead to these negeative results. That side, Dr. Shiva is Indian, so it's natural that she would deeply care about her home. She says that Punjab, which document 5 refers to as the pioneers of the Green revolution, says that Punjab hasn't been positively affected at all. Although document 5 by Chidambaram Subramaniam is also Indian, in front of an interview televised to the U.S., it'd be foolish to try to negatively blame the U.S. for the failure of the revolution which may or may not have been true. Support from the U.S. is very valuable however in an article that many people don't read, there's no risk for Dr. Shiva to offend the U.S. This also goes for document 7 by a newsletter named Focus. Not many people in this day and age would ever read a random newsletter, so saying that the Green Revolution has produced major costs for a catagory rural women is ok. Focus can say what they want; if they thought the revolution was bad for rural women,
Considering that it was most likely the U,s, that started the Green Revolution, with Punjab being an important part, there's no way for the president to say that the Green Revolution was going to become a failure without making the U.S. look bad. In document 4 by Dr. Norman Borlaug in his Nobel lecture, says that for those in hunger and poverty, the Green Revolution is a miracle. Dr. Borlaug was an agricultural scientist involved in the Green Revolution. Again, it'd be pretty bad if someone who has participated and spent countless hours contributing to Green Revolution says that it will not work. Rather, he states a situation where the resolution will stop becoming good and that is in a situation where the human population grows without control. In document 2, by the Food and Agriculture Org. of the U.N., the graph shows exactly that. The Green revolution seems to be producing results in the beginning but slowly starts to decline due to the large boom in population. This means eventually, the human and food ratio will stay equal, but because there are more humans, the ratio of humans and water consumption or the ratio between humans and pollution will change for the worse as more people will use the resources of the environment and we can't …show more content…
Document 7, 8 and 10 all associate the Green Revolution with failure and negative results. Document 8 from Dr. Vandame Shiva, an Indian physicist talks how the Green Revolution led to many bad results. One being water shortages which directly correlates with document 2 and how the growth of the human population will lead to these negeative results. That side, Dr. Shiva is Indian, so it's natural that she would deeply care about her home. She says that Punjab, which document 5 refers to as the pioneers of the Green revolution, says that Punjab hasn't been positively affected at all. Although document 5 by Chidambaram Subramaniam is also Indian, in front of an interview televised to the U.S., it'd be foolish to try to negatively blame the U.S. for the failure of the revolution which may or may not have been true. Support from the U.S. is very valuable however in an article that many people don't read, there's no risk for Dr. Shiva to offend the U.S. This also goes for document 7 by a newsletter named Focus. Not many people in this day and age would ever read a random newsletter, so saying that the Green Revolution has produced major costs for a catagory rural women is ok. Focus can say what they want; if they thought the revolution was bad for rural women,