The Illusion Through Green Colored Lenses
By: Suzanne Antoniou
IntroductionDespite rapid changes in the methods and massive growth in the scale employed in farming in the U.S., the colloquial view of the farmer remains that of a small-scale worker who nurtures plants to life; and the farmer continues to be generally depicted as diminutive and vulnerable. These views are solidified in early education, as children learn nursery rhymes like ‘Old McDonald,’ which portray small family farms. And consumers generally focus on the fresh, organic produce they see in grocery stores, as opposed to the often hazardous chemicals that affect those who harvest our food. The large disconnect between what is really occurring and what we have been enculturated to believe persists because it is in the best interest of agro-business for us to think of their practices in a positive light.1 Since the onset of the Green Revolution, however, this version of farming that continues to be perpetuated has largely fallen to the wayside and represents a thing of the past, although this shift was not particularly sought after by farmers.2 The Green Revolution’s practices signify an incredible technological step for mankind, as they represent the ability to construct life at its most basic components.3 As such, farming has been radically transformed. What were once plots of varied crops have been replaced by monoculture fields.4 The success of plants that had previously been dependent on dedicated care and careful planning, now essentially rests on liberal application of pesticides and fertilizers. 5What had been organic in its most basic sense is now exceedingly artificial.
The Green Revolution was intended to ‘modernize’ agriculture and fit it into the theme of the Industrial Revolution. As such, it represents a more streamlined and consistently applied method of farming. It was seen as the “miracle” that would fix the world’s food shortage issues, but as I discuss later, this goal has not panned out. 6This lack of results leads scholars such as Shiva to define the Green Revolution as a “policy of planned destruction of diversity in nature and culture to create the uniformity demanded by centralized management systems.” 7Productivity became the main focus of agriculture, and various methods were employed to increase yields: fertilizers, pesticides, genetically modified seeds, and mechanization of farming techniques.8 Principally human components of agriculture were removed and replaced with carefully calculated scientific practices—rendering humanity superseded by science. Additionally, the Green Revolution was seen as a counter to and savior from the spread of communism, a potentially voracious monster to post-war Americans and their way of life. 9It sprouted as a concept following the Second World War when hostility and fear of both a third World War and communism were running rampant in the United States. 10An interpretation of what had sparked the Second World War was that the Great Depression had led the Germans to believe they could not provide for themselves with the land they had, thus providing a reason (or at least an excuse) for their conquest of further land. 11The practices of the Green Revolution would eliminate this need for further land by instead making the land already in use more fruitful, hopefully counteracting any future impetus for war on account of land shortages.12
This paper explores how our understanding of ‘being green’ is shaped by the assumption of the Green Revolution as a green practice. The application of ‘being green’ in this sense is tied into the concept of manipulating the environment in both unnatural and unnecessary ways to create legibility aimed at justifying the capitalist and colonialist consequences of ‘being green.’ As such, the connotation of ‘being green’ that the Green Revolution provides is multifaceted. ‘Being green’ in this sense indicates carrying colonialist prejudices, aiming for maximum legibility as a source of support for practices, furthering the negative aspects of capitalism, perpetuating poverty, and shifting blame for world issues away from rich developed countries onto poor developing countries. Via these connections between the Green Revolution and greenness we can garner a greater appreciation for the Green Revolution’s connection to conventional greenness. All the factors comprising the Green Revolution render our world, both societally and ecologically, dependent on the Green Revolution. 13In the same way that genetically modified seeds rely on humanity for their survival, we too have come to need these seeds to exist. Additionally, the Green Revolution has left the success of developing countries reliant on the intervention of developed countries. 14Without continued access to foreign capital, developing countries cannot continue implementing the Green Revolution practices on which their economies have come to rely.15 What has resulted is a tenuous, unnatural, and cyclically worsening reliance of humanity on the farming conventions and political intrusion of the Green Revolution due to its potential to sustain continued life on Earth. 16Throughout this paper, I examine these main components of the Green Revolution that contribute to our understanding of greenness. From that, I then analyze how this facet of ‘being green’ creates the practical enslavement of humanity that the Green Revolution supports. Since highly productive farming of this nature is essentially a human subjugation of nature, I argue that the Green Revolution cannot truly be understood as a conventionally green system. As Paddock states, “the revolution is green only because it is being viewed through green-colored glasses…take off the glasses, and the revolution proves to be an illusion.”17
Contextualization of the TopicThe Green Revolution at its root was a scientific innovation that “resulted from the introduction of hybrid strains of wheat, rice, and corn… and the adoption of modern agricultural technologies including irrigation and heavy doses of chemical fertilizer,” along with “pesticides and the drilling of thousands of wells for controlled irrigation.” 18 Its application was paid for by the governments of the countries where it was implemented and foreign aid, in particular from the United States. 19 Beyond being a counter to communism as mentioned above, on a less political note, the revolution was thought to be able to counteract the supposedly unavoidable food shortage that was prophesized for the 1960s. 20 At this time, “the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization calculated that 56 percent of the human race lived in countries with an average per-capita food supply of 2,200 calories per day or less, which is barely at subsistence levels.” 21 In response to these disheartening findings, researchers worked to develop a strain of rice called “IR8” or “miracle rice.”22
These continued rapid advancements were not going to persist, leading people “to question the ‘sustainability’ of the new style” of agriculture. 23 Additionally, the Green Revolution was only effective in certain countries, specifically those that “had relatively stable governments and fairly well-developed infrastructures… factors permitt[ing] these countries to diffuse both the new seeds and technology and to bring the products to market in an effective manner.” 24 Societies without these conditions, such as those throughout Africa, were not able to gain very much from the Green Revolution.25 As a result, in comparison to Asian countries, African countries were almost hurt by the movement, as their production remained stagnant or even moved backward while some Asian countries were propelled forward by the Green Revolution.26
Examination of EvidenceThe Green Revolution is closely tied to capitalism and additionally, in contrast to the initial aims for it, furthers the separation between the two ends of the socioeconomic spectrum, simultaneously enriching the rich and wreaking further poverty on the poor. 27 Consensus had been that the Green Revolution would prove to be a largely positive force, since only its productivity had been considered as evidence of success, whereas its detrimental effects on society were largely disregarded. 28 This gauge is incomplete since “markets” cannot “provide the only measure of ‘output’ and ‘yields’” 29 The externalities of the Green Revolution were not typically factored into analyses of the effectiveness of the practice, leaving the “ecosystem… as a repository of waste products.” 30 As Shiva put it, “science takes credit for successes and absolves itself from all responsibility for failures.” 31 In accordance with that, the cons of the Green Revolution did not find their way into the established myth of greenness.32
The way in which the science of the Green Revolution “transform[ed] seeds into a commodity” exemplifies a single-minded focus on maximizing profits, despite potential externalities, which are a significant characteristic of capitalist economies. 33 In the words of Etzkowitz in 1997, this is the “capitalization of knowledge,” which concurrently altered the way in which farming was conducted. 34 Which is to say that farmers no longer saved seeds to use the next growing season but, instead, relied on purchasing bioengineered seeds each season, as such seeds were good for only one harvest. Thus, as Shiva put it, “the destruction of diversity and the creation of uniformity” apparent in this seed practice “simultaneously involve the destruction of stability and the creation of vulnerability.” 35 These “vulnerabilit[ies]” were largely experienced by the poor. 36 The rich, on the other hand, were able to profit from these seeds while the same seeds practically placed the poor farmers into serfdom. 37 Many of the poor farmers were unable to profit from the new seeds because their means did not allow for them to purchase the bioengineered seeds each season, or the various fertilizers and pesticides necessary for growth.38
Additionally, the Green Revolution greatly disordered life for the farming class wherever it was spread. Many farmers, particularly in Mexico, were “paid less than living wages” and were thus “forced to supplement their income.” 39 In many instances, this was done “by having their children work for wages in the fields and by having unmarried family members go to other regions of Mexico and to the U.S. and send money home.” 40 The Green Revolution disrupted the normal way in which labor was distributed throughout the families of the poor. The poor have also suffered at the hands of the Green Revolution’s crops in terms of their diets.41 Foods that are worth more subsequently have higher nutritional values, and due to what Reinton refers to as “a typical capitalist pattern of exploitation of the lower classes by the upper classes,” those living in developing countries suffer the consequences of poor diets and malnutrition when diverse and varied farmlands are restricted to mono crop farming. 42 This abuse is incredibly costly to the poor since their food quality can determine whether they live or die. 43 “70 percent of the world’s children under six years of age suffer from some degree of protein deficiency,” so this nutritional gap has distinct repercussions. 44 These people’s lives are even further impacted in that some people are even forced out of a job. 45 These unemployed workers trek away from farmland toward cities creating “massive slums and shanty towns of unemployed, unhealthy, and culturally confused people on the road to nowhere.” 46 This “rapid urban growth has… critically affected people and the environment through pollution” because places like “Mexico City… have grown so quickly that tens of millions of people live in areas without sewage systems.”47 Additionally, the tenuous working status and stress that the usage of genetically modified seeds create have had a negative impact on mental health, even being cited as aggravating causes of farmer suicides in India. 48 The discontent of farmers working under such regimes of sorts and existing under an ever-increasingly divided social order is also evident, e.g. in Ethiopia, where farmers have taken to demonstrating their discontent with insurrections. 49 Additionally, pesticide exposure on Yaqui children in Mexico has produced varied effects, indicating that we cannot be sure how great the ramifications of these pesticides could be: “exposed children demonstrated decreases in stamina, gross and fine eye-hand coordination, 30-minute memory, and the ability to draw a person.” 50 The damaging effects of pesticide use are likely larger than even prior hypothesized. Those who benefitted under these disruptive practices “were the urban industrial capitalists, who benefitted from unequal terms of trade between agriculture and industry, and large, commercial, agricultural landholders, who benefitted to the detriment of… agricultural laborers.”51 As Proctor stated in 1991, “science… does not always serve the collective we or the generic man but particular men—often those who control the means of its production and application.” 52
The colonialist application of the Green Revolution combined with the legibility its constituents seek to create produce fundamentally unnatural results. As Scott said in 1998, quantitative statistics are “calculated to make the terrain, its products, and its workforce more legible—and hence manipulable,” and in pursuing these types of data, administrators of the revolution changed agriculture markedly from something biological to something technological. 53 These so-called “bearers of modernism… inherited a series of unexamined assumptions about cropping and field preparation that turned out to work badly in other contexts,” but this realization came too late to stop them from bringing these ill-fitting practices to developing countries. 54 Despite tropical climates that are not favorable to plants that flourish in northern climates, the plants that were genetically modified to flourish in the north were sown in the tropics due to colonialist sentiments of superiority that result in viewing developing “landscapes and cultures… as empty.” 55 Thus, unfortunately, “most of the research to date has ignored tropical plants for development.”56
Northern crops obviously did not fare well here, necessitating the usage of some artificial agent to increase harvests. In aiming to boost yields of these crops and manufacture legibility, the farming plan devised in association with the Green Revolution relies on intense use of fertilizers and pesticides. 57 Because the practices of those in developing countries are viewed as inferior and therefore ignored, the overwhelming reliance on the “pesticide industry,” fertilizers, and foreign aid “has had the effect of under developing the emergence of alternative techniques,” leaving farmers stuck knowing these methods are not incredibly effective, but also having no alternatives once they begin the practices. 58 As Paddock states it, “the Green Revolution… would die tomorrow without any of its three legs: subsidies, irrigation, and fertilizer… the economies of the developing world make all three legs fragile supports.” 59 The success of the Green Revolution is inherently reliant on developing countries, yet, as is frankly customary at this point in international relations, the only ones truly benefitting from these partnerships are the developed countries. Those farming suffer the consequences of practices necessary to sustain the man-made crops. The massive amount of irrigation leads to the potential of entirely depleting water supplies surrounding farmland, leaving the nearby population at risk. 60 This irrigation that is often carried out “with improper drainage of formerly arid or semi-arid soils leaches out salts and heavy metals, leading to problems of water salinization and contamination.” 61 The immense amount of fertilizer necessary to sustain these crops leads to eutrophication downstream, which deteriorates both the water supply as well as the fish supply, further weakening the health of those in developing countries. 62 Additionally, the homogeneity of the crops leaves them exceedingly susceptible to “pest[s] and … new diseases.” 64 In particular, the overwhelming lack of genetic diversity means that these crops cannot respond well to disease, as their evolutionary capabilities are stunted, leading to the conception of additional bugs and illnesses with potentially devastating consequences. Further, as Shiva states, “even those high yielding varieties of crops, which are specially bred for disease resistance become highly susceptible to certain types of diseases when heavy doses of fertilizers are applied.” 65 Yet, proponents of the Green Revolution persist because they have abandoned the natural state of agriculture in favor of raising productivity and thus must rely on science to allow them to accomplish their goals. 66 These advocates believe that the faults of their man-made seeds can be overcome with ever increasing artificial manipulation, namely additional and often exorbitant amounts of pesticides and fertilizers.67 Society in its entirety, as a result, permanently sacrificed “soil fertility… for commercial gain.”68
The Green Revolution gave those in developed countries a forum through which to divert blame for environmental issues away from themselves and instead onto developing countries. As Brosius explains, these diverters have “chosen to ignore the problems in their own backyards and are only interested in pointing their fingers and directing world attention” away from themselves, framing other issues as “the end all of all environmental ills.” 69 Scholars like Paddock take on this selfish argument tactic when they criticize the main problems associated with the Green Revolution as contributing to the “world’s horrendous population growth,” and avoid any mention of the consumption problem of developed countries. 70 He further argues that “if the Green Revolution is to be a reality, production must now grow faster than it has in the past” in order to feed the growing population that the Green Revolution fosters.71 The greater potential productivity of the Green Revolution leads many to believe that there will be resources available to sustain a greater human population. 72 Paddock illustrates this viewpoint by criticizing, as incredibly irresponsible, a man who admires his pregnant wife and believes that the productivity of the Green Revolution will allow him to see her in this state more often.73 This viewpoint seeks to portray the food scarcity problem as due to overpopulation as opposed to one of distribution. In reality, it is primarily an issue of over-consumption in the North combined with a lack of effective distribution, as opposed to the overpopulation problem Paddock cites. By arguing in this vein, the abuse of the poor via the Green Revolution seems almost justified, since presumably their inability to carry out mental contraception practices is what plagues our society. This false opinion can be so ingrained that population can even be characterized as “pollution spelled inside out.” 74 Even environmentalists like Brower, who adamantly argue against harmful pesticides, will retain their argument that population growth is the major concern, touting such phrases as “when rampant growth happens in an individual, we call it cancer.” 75 Paradoxically, in order for farmers to make enough money to pay for the new farming practices, they had “larger families” as part of their “survival strategy,” because “more family members meant more people to contribute to the food basket.” 76 Paddock, however, does make an insightful argument that the placating effects of the Green Revolution may actually be of great concern, because developing countries will feel as though their hunger issues are solved, as opposed to continuing to work to solve them: “the governments of the hungry nations will once again turn their thoughts away from the No.1 problem of solving the agricultural and rural problems of their countries and resume their emphasis on pacifying the cities and worshipping the idol of industrialization.”77
AnalysisThe very name of this movement implies greenness, but I argue that the Green Revolution does not fit within the confines of the traditional definition of greenness. The conventional characterization of greenness entails ideas of naturalness, self-sustainability, nonintrusiveness, and laissez faire tendencies. As I have argued above, the Green Revolution is in essence the complete opposite of all these components. It took something as natural and selfsustaining as the process of plant reproduction and transformed it into something “developed in laboratories” that is reliant upon technologically altered seeds and interventions.78 It leads to an unnatural condition that must be strictly managed in order for it to continue. 79 The fact that this system is not self-perpetuating creates a fragile foundation for humanity to rest upon. Without human intervention, these manmade crops would fail, because these “domesticated species are totally dependent on man for their survival.”80
Yet, this human intervention only furthers the instability of the entire system and creates unintended costs and risks. 81 Pesticides and fertilizers are crucial to the success of these crops, but, as Yapa states: “the long-term use of chemical fertilizer, accompanied by a reduced use of organic matter, has adversely affected soil quality and increased soil erosion… to counteract the consequent decline in yields, farmers are forced to apply more fertilizer.” 82 Pesticides have a similarly cyclical pattern which Yapa also explains: “the indiscriminate and widespread use of pesticides destroys the pests’ natural enemies, with the pests themselves genetically evolving into more pesticide-resistant forms, which in turn necessitates the use of new and more powerful pesticides.” 83 Greater quantities of pesticides must be used along with higher “toxicities of pesticides.” 84 Additionally, “mechanical plowing and intensive irrigation has led to top-soil loss in areas with fragile soils” and “this has required greater use of chemical fertilizers,” further evidencing the positive feedback loop apparent here. 85 The positive feedback loop that this creates is accurately characterized as what Merill in 1976 dubbed the “vicious cycle of chemical agriculture.” 86 Conventional farming entails a self-sustaining process of renewing the nutrients in the soil which occurs through organic processes that regulate themselves.87 The Green Revolution’s replacement for this is “linear non-renewable flows of phosphorous and potash derived from geological deposits, and nitrogen derived from petroleum.” 88 In order for these single input strategies to continue to work, farmers must continuously add more of them, attempting to recreate the natural ecosystem processes the Green Revolution disturbed. The way our current agricultural system is being carried out is what Pyarelal in 1949 dubbed “not agriculture but down right robbery of the soil at the cost of posterity.” 89 This pattern is further destructive to future generations because its continuation will require more and more “fossil fuels.”90
Beyond creating dependency between the continuation of our society and genetically modified crops, the Green Revolution also prompts developing countries to be reliant on developed countries and their “international capital.” 91 The financial capabilities of developing countries are insufficient to fully implement the technologies that the Green Revolution requires. In essence, the Green Revolution not only entails “control over nature,” but also imposes “control over people.” 92 Instead of being what Reinton referred to as “man’s possibility to change society without social reforms,” 93 the Green Revolution only worsened the distinctions existing between social classes, as the “modern technologies [were] redistributed along the lines of the existing societal modes of distribution.” 94 Additionally, the Green Revolution further subdivided the lower socioeconomic classes by “increasing stratification and differentiation within peasant agriculture.”95
The Green Revolution leaves humanity incredibly vulnerable, with an ever-present fear that a “failure [will] lead to disaster.” 96 Even when regulators attempt to protect workers by taking such actions as banning DDT, the solutions can be no better: “when the U.S. banned imports of fruits and vegetables sprayed with DDT, agriculturalists in Mexico began using other pesticides which have shorter half-lives (and thus allow the produce to pass border inspections), but are more acutely toxic for agricultural workers and their families who come into immediate contact with them.” 97 Unfortunately, in this example, “numerous deaths” have been “attributed to the new pesticides.” 98 Developed countries continue to benefit at the expense of developing ones.
It is incredibly ironic that this entire movement was purportedly started to benefit developing countries. Beyond that, it is laughable to think that it was further supposed to act as a safeguard against political instability and future wars and or class conflicts, when in reality the Green Revolution was an impetus for all of these. 99 In essence, the Green Revolution failed to accomplish what it was created for and instead became a source of the social ills it was supposed to protect against. As the Green Revolution failed to live up to expectations, it also was unable to properly encompass its name. It is not green.
ConclusionThis understanding of the Green Revolution in hind sight “is a call for us to weigh carefully the terms under which institutionalization occurs, and to make an effort to discern” more critically and fully “what is gained and what is lost, who is heard and who is silenced, as the process continues.” 100 Vigilance, a lack of complacency, and an urge to take action are necessary to avoid of these types of issues in the future. Taking the snippets of science and media that are force fed us at face value is a dangerous practice. Further examination and dispassionate analysis are necessary, especially in light of the narrow, biased bits of information we are given in the fast-paced, convenience driven world we live in. With the threat of climate change looming and tangible effects of it noticeable, we, as a society, need to sure up our collective response and work toward a proactive plan of action. Additionally, as consumers, we can counteract the effects of green-washing.
From the onset, the Green Revolution was portrayed as a positive force—full of promise as the solution to world hunger. But as its associated failings became evident, many were tricked into the lemming status of blindly believing and keeping faith with that promise, notwithstanding the cold hard data to the contrary. As Scott explained, “a combination of American political, economic, and military hegemony, the promise of loans and assistance, concerns about world population and food supply, and the great productivity of American agriculture made for a degree of self-confidence in the American model that is hard to overestimate.” 101 In this day and age, we can redeem ourselves in a sense by personally taking a stand to address green-washing as well as climate change. More can be done about these issues than we can do at this point about the Green Revolution that remains in motion. As consumers, we can collectively act to support the changes we wish to see by being more cognizant of what we buy, who we support, and where our money is really going. At this level, our purchases can have an impact, as demand can really shift the market supply and determine how much of a good is produced. Fully making yourself aware of all of the various factors of production involved in what you eat, clothe yourself with, decorate your house in, and drive around with can be incredibly time-consuming and is realistically probably impossible. But, small steps toward better understanding both the externalities associated with various production methods along with our role in mitigating these effects, can be our contribution to diminishing these consequences. Realizing that everything society defines as green is not actually conventionally green is the first step.
AppendixI conducted my research primarily using the Brown online library databases--including J-Stor and Josiah. Many searches led me to books that were available in sections on Google Books. I also performed further research on documents we had read for class discussion in my course ENVS 0070E What Does It Mean To Be Green. Additionally, I used Google Scholar and the regular Google search engine to find information for the contextualization of my topic.
Footnotes1 Shiva, V. (2016). The Violence of the Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology, and Politics. (p. 24). Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
2 Metress, J. (1976). The Myth of the Green Revolution. Social Science, 51(2), 91-96. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41886012
3 Stone, G. 2010. The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39, 383. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25735118
4 Crawford, Gary, George Fussell, Alic Gray, George Ordish, Kenneth Mellanby, Kusum Nair, and Wayne Rasmussen. "Origins of Agriculture - Scientific Agriculture: The 20th Century." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Accessed December 5, 2016. https://www.britannica.com/topic/agriculture/Scientific-agriculture-the-20th-century.
6 Shiva, V. (p. 54).
7 Ibid. (p. 24).
8 Ibid. (p. 121)
9 Ganzel, Bill. 2007. “The Green Revolution—Agriculture to Prevent War.” Living History Farm. Accessed December 5, 2016. http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/crops_13.html
13 McNeill, John R. 2000. “The Biosphere: Eat and be Eaten.” Chapter 7 of Something New Under the Sun: An Environmental History of the Twentieth-Century World. (p. 227) New York: W.W. Norton.
14 Yapa, Lakshman. 1993. “What Are Improved Seeds? An Epistemology of the Green Revolution.” Economic Geography, 263.
15 Reinton, O. 1973. The Green Revolution Experience. Instant Research on Peace and Violence, 3(2), 69. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40724684
16 Yapa, Lakshman 261.
17 Paddock, William C. "How Green Is the Green Revolution?" BioScience 20, no. 16 (1970): 897. doi:10.2307/1295581.
18 Lobb, Richard. 2003. "Green Revolution." Encyclopedia of Food and Culture. Encyclopedia.com. (December 5, 2016). http://www.encyclopedia.com/food/encyclopediasalmanacs-transcripts-and-maps/green- revolution
27 Reinton, O. 1973. The Green Revolution Experience. Instant Research on Peace and Violence, 3(2), 59. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40724684
28 Ibid 70.
29 Shiva, V. 118.
30 Yapa, Lakshman 260.
31 Shiva, V. 23.
32 Paddock, William C.
33 Yapa, Lakshman 262.
34 Stone, G. 385.
35 Shiva, V. 81.
37 Sonnenfeld, David A. "Mexico's "Green Revolution," 1940-1980: Towards an Environmental History." Environmental History Review 16, no. 4 (1992): 29-52. doi:10.2307/3984948.
38 Crawford, Gary et al.
39 Sonnenfeld, David A. 35.
41 Reinton, O.
42 Ibid 67.
44 Metress, J. 94.
45 Ibid 93.
47 Sonnenfeld, David A. 43.
48 Stone, G. 391.
49 Manig, W. 1989. “Green Revolution” Technologies Reconsidered: Another View: The Ethiopian Example. Africa Spectrum, 24(3), 282. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40174370
50 Guillette, E. A., M. M. Meza, M. G. Aquilar, A. D. Soto, and I. E. Garcia. "An Anthropological Approach to the Evaluation of Preschool Children Exposed to Pesticides in Mexico." Environmental Health Perspectives. 1998. Accessed December 7, 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1533004/.
51 Sonnenfeld, David A. 34.
52 Yapa, Lakshman 268.
53 Brosius, Peter. 1999. “Green Dots, Pink Hearts: Displacing Politics from the Malaysian Rain Forest.” American Anthropologist 101: 51.
54 Scott, James C. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. (p. 264). New Haven: Yale University Press.
55 Yapa, Lakshman 265.
56 Metress, J. 93.
57 Ibid. 92.
58 Yapa, Lakshman 263.
59 Paddock, William C. 900.
60 Sonnenfeld, David A. 39.
62 McNeill, John R. 224.
63 Shiva, V. 98.
65 Ibid. 95.
66 Ibid. 104.
68 Ibid. 113.
69 Brosius, Peter 42.
70 Paddock, William C. 897.
71 Ibid. 898.
73 Ibid. 900.
74 McPhee, John. 1971. Encounters with the Archdruid. (p. 42). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
75 Ibid. 83.
76 Sonnenfeld, David A. 35.
77 Paddock, William C. 900.
78 Sonnenfeld, David A. 32.
79 Yapa, Lakshman 261.
80 Metress, J. 92.
81 Yapa, Lakshman 261.
84 Sonnenfeld, David A. 40.
86 Yapa, Lakshman 261.
87 Shiva, V. 104.
89 Ibid. 114.
90 Metress, J. 93.
91 Yapa, Lakshman 263.
92 Shiva, V. 24.
93 Reinton, O. 58.
94 Manig, W. 281.
95 Ibid. 276.
96 Metress, J. 94.
97 Sonnenfeld, David A. 41.
99 Manig, W.
100 Brosius, Peter 51.
101 Scott, James C. 270.