As an art student, I have been able to have and appreciate the opportunity to participate in sociology courses. Looking back on these last 12 weeks, I have had moments where I engaged in challenging yet cognitive global topics. By cognitive I would like to mean topics that required thinking, understanding and becoming aware. I can now say that I have acquired the knowledge necessary to identify the potential root causes of local and global problems and also the knowledge of how they influence our cultural, economic and political patterns. I really wouldn't have had a clue about global issues and theories if someone had asked me a question about it in the beginning. Now, I believe I have the knowledge to give someone a satisfactory explanation. Of all the topics read in this course, although the options are endless, I would like to reflect on the Green Revolution mentality of our society. This reflection paper will also aim to analyze how our agricultural practices have led to the Green Revolution and its economic impacts and changes. I will discuss how and why I think it hasn't worked in some countries. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay There is no doubt that the industrial revolution and capitalism brought about significant changes. It has not only brought about changes in the ways of production but also in our consumption practices. As stated in Chapter 1 of the book, Samuel Strauss, a journalist and philosopher, coined the term “consumerism” to characterize a new way of life in the 1920s. According to him, the capitalist change in people's lives created a philosophy of life in which societies began to increasingly emphasize production and accumulation. “Countries have been committed and are still committed to pursuing perpetual economic growth, regardless of moral or intellectual growth,” as Strauss states. Since this change became evident, the goal has been to produce more and more raw materials. The industrial revolution forced people to work based on wages, salaries, etc. and it has led to an economy where everything has a price. Almost everything has been turned into a "commodity". This dates back to the Great Transition in America, when the rate and level of consumption of raw materials increased between 1880 and 1930. It was when food became a commodity and its production increased by 40% from 1899 to 1905 as well as clothing , jewelry, furniture, etc. The goal was therefore to further increase its production. Previously, people grew and produced food using tools and animals (such as axe, ox, etc.). Then came irrigation with modern technology that required a minimal amount of human labor and energy and replaced the declining food producers since people had started moving to towns, cities, suburbs and living on wages. They had left their lands and were dependent on wages for food. To meet the food needs of the growing population and people who did not produce food, the focus was on maximum production. Farmers began to use more and more technology. The use of fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides has increased. It was between 1940 and 1950, Norman Borlaug, an American scientist, sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation, began his research in Mexico. He developed new hybrid strains of high-yielding corn and wheat that were also disease resistant and suitable for Mexican agriculture. His technique soon began to be adopted by other Third World countries. However, it was most successful in India in the period inwhich he was recovering from the Bengal famine. The Green Revolution led to the production of approximately 130 million tons of grains by the end of 1979, as stated in the Journal of Food Ethics. There is no doubt that the Green Revolution has brought with it some benefits. But considering the example of India, I would not agree with the mentality of the Green Revolution. India, after adapting HYV seeds, no longer bothered about food imports, of course! All in all, this has provided people with a great way to prevent food shortages. Although farmers in India have been able to produce tons more grains than before, this has affected people and the environment in many ways. The new practices required greater use of pesticides, insecticides and fertilizers for greater quantities of yield, which resulted in greater economy of petrochemical production facilities as they produced more pesticides, fertilizers and oils, prices increased due to the greater use of machinery. This in turn affected the poor. I realized it was all capitalist politics and behind the encouragement of the GR mentality. It provided a great opportunity for capitalists and producers to fill their bank accounts. It was also an opportunity for banks to participate by providing loans and the like. In turn, it encouraged capitalist agriculture. As I saw growing up in India, farmers with more land and money recruit the rural poor who need to do the work in the fields and that's when the exploitation begins. Landowners wouldn't treat their workers well enough and wouldn't even pay for all the work. So, I would argue that these practices remain available to the rich, as a result of which the social and economic gap between societies has widened. Now, if I focus on the Green Revolution in India, we can see how it affected people with its real life consequences. practices. It is clear that the crop that yielded the most was wheat. HYV seeds can produce large quantities of wheat, rice, etc. but they have left other crops like sugarcane, tea and cotton unnoticed, not only by GR techniques but also by farmers since they do not bring them higher returns than wheat, etc. This would clearly lead to a shortage of other crops as has occurred and, therefore, reduced the overall rate of production growth. I can only see the side of him that made the poor suffer even more. When we go to talk to local people in India, we can see that there are still social and economic disparities that the media and green revolutionaries do not pay attention to. As I have already said, capitalist farmers, who only care about their surplus, do little or nothing for the landless. I'm not saying it's their responsibility here. In a way it is, but what I'm trying to point out is that the Green Revolution system has messed with people's minds. He gave them the opportunity to produce more, but failed to use the techniques correctly and educate them. The Green Revolution is not a cup of coffee for the poor. Only those who have access to land and money have high-yielding varieties. HYV seeds require more than normal use of fertilizers, insecticides, etc. to which only people with "capital" have access. In contrast, small farmers are not left financially starving but also hopeless with their agriculture. GS Bhalla and GK Chadha found that GR was beneficial only to the wealthy who own 2.5 to 5 or more acres of land, but one-third of farmers are still destitute. In short, following the culture of capitalism, GR does not fail to make farmers rich in this.