Axinn, George H. (author / Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University) and Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
1988
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 72 Document Number: C03372
James F. Evans Collection; Axinn, This paper presents some of the basic trends, issues, and questions regarding the last four decades of international development cooperation in agriculture. The impact of technical cooperation tends to account for only a small proportion of change; the bulk of the variance being caused by internal, rather than external, forces and events. The paper reviews both multilateral and bilateral technical cooperation and then illustrates with the case of U.S. universities in international technical cooperation. It goes on to question the difference between "development" and "merely change", and asks who are the real beneficiaries: Finally, the paper suggests the following factors affecting continuity and change as forces to be analyzed with respect to any attempt at technical cooperation: biological, physical, cultural, social, economic, administrative, political, and diplomatic. The world experience of the past four decades confirms that without consideration of such a human ecology of continuity and change, well-meaning interventions in international technical cooperation are likely to have unintended consequences for both "donors" and recipients". (author)
12 pages, via Online Journal, Climate change compels us to rethink the ethics of our dietary choices and has become an interesting issue for ethicists concerned about diets, including animal ethicists. The defenders of veganism have found that climate change provides a new reason to support their cause because many animal-based foods have high greenhouse gas emissions. The new style of argumentation, the ‘climatic argument(s) for veganism’, may benefit animals by persuading even those who are not concerned about animals themselves but worry about climate change. The arguments about the high emissions of animal-based food, and a resulting moral obligation to abstain from eating such products, are an addition to the prior forms of argument for principled veganism grounded on the moral standing of, and concern for, nonhuman animals. In this paper, we examine whether the climatic argument for veganism is convincing. We propose a formulation for the amended version of the argument and discuss its implications and differences compared to the moral obligations of principled veganism. We also reflect upon the implications of our findings on agricultural and food ethics more generally.