I just watched a really great documentary that Harrison Ford and other Hollywood people were in. As I watched it, and thinking about climate change from all sides, and then thinking about the drought in Syria, and drought and climate change overall, what if we looked backward, and then thought forward along a genogram — the same basic one I have always used…
Here is the documentary:
In thinking about this problem overall — I see several interconnected things, a huge corporation, graft and corruption, starving people in refugee camps, drought, and supply and demand.
One problem with science, they are always trying to SOLVE problems, by looking under microscopes and altering things. This is taking a narrow view in my opinion.
But, my field is Depth Psychology. So, if we think about James Hillman and his concept of “dis-ease” as a disease, or blight on the landscape how might we rethink this through a far different lens and look at the war torn area first. That would be Syria — which has suffered a huge, huge drought and led into these problems.
If we are facing a time when climate IS CHANGING all over the world, and if we rethink this in terms of CHANGING the global food chain to adapt to this?
PALM OIL plantations are at the center of this documentary.
PALMS were originally (before modification) grown in desert areas. Palms grow in the Sahara? Where it is very dry. In looking at the agriculture in Syria from the wikipedia:
Until the mid-1970s, agriculture in Syria had been the primary economic activity. At independence in 1946, agriculture (including minor forestry and fishing) was the most important sector of the economy, and in the 1940s and early 1950s, agriculture was the fastest growing sector. Wealthy merchants from such urban centers as Aleppo invested in land development and irrigation. Rapid expansion of the cultivated area and increased output stimulated the rest of the economy. However, by the late 1950s, little land that could easily be brought under cultivation remained. During the 1960s, agricultural output stagnated because of political instability and land reform. Between 1953 and 1976, agriculture’s contribution to GDP increased (in constant prices) by only 3.2 percent, approximately the rate of population growth. From 1976 to 1984 growth declined to 2 percent a year. Thus, agriculture’s importance in the economy declined as other sectors grew more rapidly.
I’m watching the and looking at all the refugees and the destroyed landscape, and the dialogue. It looks like COTTON was the big crop until the 80’s?
Water is a problem. Could there be desal plants built for the ocean water?
Opinions differ as to the causes of the decline of cultivated and irrigated areas after 1963. Some observers say that marginal lands brought under cultivation proved uneconomical after a few years and were abandoned. Others claim that the merchant developers used exploitative techniques that eventually reduced the productivity of the soil. Still other observers blame land-reform measures, which coincided with the decline of the cultivated and irrigated areas. Each view is probably somewhat valid.
PALM OIL seems to be a pretty valuable thing, no?
Aren’t Palms more suited to arid areas than the areas currently being clear cut that Harrison Ford shows?
PROBLEM: The average farmer’s reliance on outdated and inefficient irrigation methods is a major obstacle to improving agricultural outputs. The introduction of drip, sprinkler, and subsurface irrigation methods is handicapped because of the limited amount of money available to the common farmer. Because of these shortcomings, Syria is susceptible to food shortages during long droughts.