Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta pobreza. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta pobreza. Mostrar todas las entradas

martes, 8 de abril de 2014

Stress alters children's genomes

Poverty and unstable family environments shorten chromosome-protecting telomeres in nine-year-olds.

Pasieka/Science Photo Library Telomeres (shown in red) protect the ends of chromosomes from fraying over time.

Growing up in a stressful social environment leaves lasting marks on young chromosomes, a study of African American boys has revealed. Telomeres, repetitive DNA sequences that protect the ends of chromosomes from fraying over time, are shorter in children from poor and unstable homes than in children from more nurturing families.

When researchers examined the DNA of 40 boys from major US cities at age 9, they found that the telomeres of children from harsh home environments were 19% shorter than those of children from advantaged backgrounds. The length of telomeres is often considered to be a biomarker of chronic stress.

The study, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences1, brings researchers closer to understanding how social conditions in childhood can influence long-term health, says Elissa Epel, a health psychologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the research.

Participants’ DNA samples and socio-economic data were collected as part of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, an effort funded by the US National Institutes of Health to track nearly 5,000 children, the majority of whom were born to unmarried parents in large US cities in 1998–2000. Children's environments were rated on the basis of their mother's level of education; the ratio of a family’s income to needs; harsh parenting; and whether family structure was stable, says lead author Daniel Notterman, a molecular biologist at Pennsylvania State University in Hershey.

The telomeres of boys whose mothers had a high-school diploma were 32% longer compared with those of boys whose mothers had not finished high school. Children who came from stable families had telomeres that were 40% longer than those of children who had experienced many changes in family structure, such as a parent with multiple partners.

Genetic links
The link between stressful home environments and telomere length is moderated by genetic variants in pathways that process two chemical transmitters in the brain, serotonin and dopamine, the study found. Previous studies have correlated variants in some of the genes studied, such as TPH2, with depression, bipolar disorder and other mental-health issues. Variants of another gene, 5-HTT, reduce the amount of the protein that recycles serotonin in nerve synapses. Some alleles of these genes are thought to increase the sensitivity of carriers to external risks.

Related stories


In the latest study, the researchers found that the 'sensitizing' variants of these genes protected telomeres in children from nurturing environments, and caused greater telomere damage in children from disadvantaged homes. Those who lacked these alleles had little difference in their telomeres, regardless of living conditions.

But boys with more than two sensitizing alleles were strongly influenced by their home environments. They had the shortest telomeres in stressful homes, and the longest telomeres in advantaged environments. Although these variants were known to influence chemical responses to stress in the brain, they were not previously linked to telomere length, says Notterman.

The team plans to expand its analysis to approximately 2,500 children and their mothers to see if these preliminary findings hold. However, because the effects of stress are tangible by the age of 9, Notterman suggests that early intervention practices may help to moderate the effects of adversity on children’s health.

“This was a small study testing a big theory,” says Epel. “It is a first but important step in understanding how social disparities get under the skin to affect lifelong health.”Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2014.14997

References
Mitchell, C. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404293111 (2014).
Show context

Related stories and links
From nature.com

From elsewhere

ORIGINAL: Nature
07 April 2014



jueves, 14 de junio de 2012

UN environment summit opens, but prospects grim

ORIGINAL: Google
By Yana Marull (AFP) – 16 hours ago 

A Kayapo indian holds the holy fire during the Kari-Oca opening ceremony at the Rio summit (AFP, Antonio Scorza) 

RIO DE JANEIRO — Twenty years after the first Earth Summit, a renewed bid to rally the world behind a common environmental blueprint opened in Rio de Janeiro against a backdrop of discord and economic gloom.

Kicking off the so-called Rio+20 summit, Dilma Rousseff, president of host nation Brazil, called on "all countries of the world to commit" to reaching an accord that addresses the most pressing environmental and social woes.

The UN conference, which marks the 20th anniversary of the Earth Summit -- a landmark 1992 gathering that opened the debate on the future of the planet and its resources -- is the largest ever organized, with 50,000 delegates.

Around 115 leaders are expected to attend the main event itself on June 20-22 but a series of conferences grouping businesses, environmental groups and non-governmental organizations are being held in advance.

This frenzy of contacts and deal-making could well be more fruitful than the UN Conference on Sustainable Development itself, analysts say, mindful of the failures of the 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen.

Behind the scenes, there is incipient panic over the draft summit communique after three rounds of preliminary informal negotiations left more than 75 percent of the paragraphs still to be agreed.

The charter is supposed to sum up the challenges and spell out pledges to nurture the oceans, roll back climate change, promote clean growth and provide decent water, sanitation and electricity for all.

The biggest divergences lie in four areas, according to sources close to the negotiations.

They include: 
  • action on climate change, 
  • protecting the oceans and 
  • achieving food security, and 
  • whether "Sustainable Development Goals" should replace the Millennium Development Goals when these objectives expire in 2015.
The UN has not ruled out the possibility of intense negotiations continuing right up to the leaders' summit that will be attended by French President Francois Hollande and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, among others.

Nations all agree that the summit comes at a turning point, and its outcome is crucial.

But privately delegates expressed doubt that a consensus on how to tackle these problems will be reached while many governments remain focused on the economic crisis.

The European Union will fight to the last for credible commitments in Rio but it will be "very, very difficult", the bloc's environment commissioner Janez Potocnik said in Brussels on Wednesday.

"After tough pre-negotiations in New York, unfortunately not enough progress has been made so we have some intense days ahead of us in Rio," the commissioner said.

Privately, EU negotiators were more forthright. "It will be very, very difficult to draw up concrete measures and fix dates," one told AFP.

"No promises were made during lead-up negotiations," said another. "There was nothing concrete, just a lot of blah-blah-blah and statements of intention."

French dreams of creating a World Environment Organization, for instance, are not expected to see the light of day. "At best there'll be a bigger role for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)," said a senior European official.

On the eve of the summit, the world's science academies warned that Earth faced a dangerous double whammy posed by voracious consumption and a population explosion.

According to UN figures, global food demand will double by 2030 and energy consumption will soar by as much as 45 percent, putting mounting pressure on finite resources amid growing social inequality, water shortages and global warming.

"Rapid population growth can be an obstacle to improving standards of living in poor countries, to eliminating poverty and to reducing gender inequality," said a joint statement from the science academies.

It emphasized the need to help millions rise out of poverty, brake trends of reckless consumption and address population growth through voluntary means such as education for women and access to contraception.

"If the right conditions are in place, measures that reduce fertility rates while respecting human rights can stimulate and facilitate economic development, improve health and living standards, and increase political and social stability and security," it said.

Notably absent from Rio will be US President Barack Obama, who is facing a tough re-election race at home, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The United States will be represented by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Copyright © 2012 AFP. All rights reserved

UN's sober warning on the environment (AFP/Graphic) 
Nations all agree that the summit comes at a turning point, and its outcome is crucial (AFP/File, Bay Ismoyo) 
According to UN figures, global food demand will double by 2030, putting mounting pressure on growing social inequality (AFP/File, Noorullah Shirzada)
Add caption
People visit an industrial exhibit and conference organized in the frame of the Rio+20 summit (AFP, Christophe Simon)
A man demonstrates in front of the Athletic Park in Barra da Tijuca, in Rio de Janeiro (AFP, Ari Versiani) 
Add caption
A renewed bid to rally the world behind a common environmental blueprint has opened in Rio de Janeiro (AFP/File, Antonio Scorza) 

sábado, 26 de mayo de 2012

How the US Sold Africa to Multinationals Like Monsanto, Cargill, DuPont, PepsiCo and Others

ORIGINAL: AlterNet
May 23, 2012

The G8 scheme does nothing to address the problems that are at the core of hunger and malnutrition but will serve only to further poverty and inequality.

Photo Credit: michaeljung via Shutterstock.com
Driving through Ngong Hills, not far from Nairobi, Kenya, the corn on one side of the road is stunted and diseased. The farmer will not harvest a crop this year. On the other side of the road, the farmer gave up growing corn and erected a greenhouse, probably for growing a high-value crop like tomatoes. Though it's an expensive investment, agriculture consultants now recommend them. Just up the road, at a home run by Kenya Children of Hope, an organization that helps rehabilitate street children and reunite them with their families, one finds another failed corn crop and another greenhouse. The director, Charity, is frustrated because the two acres must feed the rescued children and earn money for the organization. After two tomato crops failed in the new greenhouse, her consultant recommended using a banned, toxic pesticide called carbofuran.

Will Obama's New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition help farmers like Charity? The New Alliance was announced in conjunction with the G8 meeting last Friday. Under the scheme, some 45 corporations, including Monsanto, Syngenta, Yara International, Cargill, DuPont, and PepsiCo, have pledged a total of $3.5 billion in investment in Africa. The full list of corporations and commitments has just been released, and one of the most notable is Yara International's promise to build a $2 billion fertilizer plant in Africa. Syngenta pledged to build a $1 billion business in Africa over the next decade. These promises are not charity; they are business.

This is par for the course for the attempted “second green revolution” that is currently underway. The Gates Foundation and its Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa are working to build up a network of private seed companies and private agro-dealers across Africa. The goal is to increase average fertilizer use in Africa by more than a factor of six and to decrease the distance each African farmer must travel to reach a shop selling seeds and inputs. Those who support this vision have heaped praise on Obama and the G8's New Alliance. In fact, with both Republican and Democratic support, this is one of the only things both parties agree on.

But what do actual Africans think? Not just the elite, but the peasant farmers? Charity, for her part, is frustrated. Most of Kenya's land is arid or semi-arid, making agriculture difficult if not impossible. But Ngong Hills receive adequate rainfall – or they did anyway. The climate crisis has changed the previously reliable rainfall patterns within Kenya and even a wet area like Ngong Hills is suffering. The stunted, diseased corn one sees there was planted from the “best” store-bought seed and ample chemical fertilizer was applied. The crop failure was not due to lack of inputs.

In another part of the country, about an hour from Nairobi, Samuel Nderitu points out more failed corn crops. Corn – or maize as Kenyans call it – has been the main staple since Kenya was colonized by the British. But the corn growing on the demonstration farm of Nderitu's NGO, Grow Biointensive Agricultural Center of Kenya (G-BIACK) is healthy and thriving. So are G-BIACK's other vegetable crops and fruit trees. Why will he harvest a successful crop when his next-door neighbor will not?

G-BIACK is an organic farming training center, and the crops there were grown with manure and compost instead of chemical fertilizer. G-BIACK also saves seeds instead of purchasing seeds from the store. The farmers in this region, near the city of Thika, farm tiny plots – as small as one-fifth of an acre and averaging one acre. Many use chemical fertilizer, but since it is expensive, they often fail to use enough. “Here, in Kenya, if you plant anything without chemical fertilizer, if you don't know anything about organic farming, it can't grow,” says Nderitu. But, as G-BIACK proves, those who do know how to farm organically achieve great success. G-BIACK was named the NGO of the Year in 2010 by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization and the Government of Kenya. And its next-door neighbor with the failed crop is now attending its trainings to learn organic farming.

About 15 km outside of Thika, a farmer named James is also thrilled he switched to organic farming. Farming only one-fifth of an acre, he used to require two $60 bags of fertilizer to plant his crops. Now, he uses manure from his pigs and he is happy with the results. Like most Kenyan farmers, James grows corn, beans, pumpkins, kale, and other crops for family consumption. For income, he can sell a pregnant sow for $240 or a month-old piglet for $20. Before, he would spend much of that money on fertilizer, but now he can use it for other things. He proudly demonstrates how to use his new well, which his increased income allowed him to afford. Next, he plans to buy a water pump so he doesn't have to pull the water out of the well one bucket at a time.

Organic farming in Kenya is not about hugging a tree. It's a simple financial matter. Those who rely on purchased inputs must use their scarce income to buy them. In Thika, where the population is concentrated and land sizes are tiny, many women supplement their farming income with prostitution. The area's AIDS rate is sky-high, although it has come down from the 37 percent high it reached a decade ago. Poverty breeds AIDS by pushing women into prostitution, but AIDS also breeds poverty, as children are orphaned when their parents die. Some are raised by grandparents, others live in child-headed households. By allowing farmers to keep their money instead of spending it on costly inputs, organic farming gives hope of breaking this cycle. How many fewer women will need to enter prostitution if they can instead make ends meet by farming?

Whereas chemical farming is input-intensive, organic farming requires knowledge. A farmer relying on fertilizer and purchased seeds needs money and the entire supply chain required to manufacture the inputs and distribute them to a nearby agro-dealer. But knowledge is free. Robert Mwangi learned how to farm organically from G-BIACK and soon saw his income increase. With five acres, he was never destitute, but now he has enough money to help family members out when they are in need. Mwangi's neighbors have seen his success and he is helping them adopt organic methods too. At the same time, he conducts experiments on his land to see which methods or crops give him the best results. As each farmer in the community conducts an experiment or two on their land each season, they can share their results with one another and all will benefit.

An internationally celebrated farming technique called the push-pull method has also helped Kenyan farmers increase yields – by a factor of 3.5. The yield increase is due to elimination of an insect pest, the stem borer, and a parasitic weed, striga, as well as an increase in soil fertility. The farmer pulls the stem borer away from the corn by planting a cattle feed crop called napier grass nearby. Napier grass is more attractive to egg-laying stem borer moths than corn, but few of the larvae that hatch on it survive.

A second cattle forage crop, desmodium, is planted between rows of corn. Desmodium, a legume, fixes nitrogen in the soil. It also releases chemicals into the soil causing striga seeds to “suicidally germinate.” It releases yet more chemicals into the air that repel stem borer moths and attract parasitic wasps that prey on stem borers. All of the crops used in the system are native, so no corporation profits, only the farmers themselves.

Malaki Obado and his son Padwa investigate a moringa tree. (Jill Richardson)
Elsewhere in Kenya, not far from the home of Barack Obama's paternal grandmother, American Amy Lint and her Kenyan husband Malaki Obado champion native Kenyan crops that are perfectly adapted to the region's long dry periods. To an untrained eye, the area looks desolate and devoid of food, but the locals know better. Walking through their rural village, the point out leafy greens, fruits and crops used for building materials, medicine and rope, all growing wild. These aren't a replacement for cultivated staples like corn, cassava or sorghum, but they provide micronutrients in local diets and improve local food security. With so much natural abundance, one must wonder why the Gates Foundation has sunk so many millions of dollars into creating staple crops with the full range of required nutrients genetically engineered into them.

Across Kenya's many different ethnic groups, provinces and ecological zones, farmers agree on what they need most, and it isn't help from Monsanto or Wal-Mart. It's water. In arid and semi-arid areas, lack of water has always been an issue. But at least the two rainy seasons, the long rains between March and June, and the short rains between October and December, were consistent. During each rainy period, Kenyan farmers would grow a crop that had to last until the next harvest. But, according to farmer Florence Ogendi, the rains changed about five years ago. First the short rains became unreliable, and now they can't even count on the long rains. In her area, the long rains used to come in late February, but this year they did not arrive until April.

Sometimes, water that used to be shared by all is now taken or polluted by a powerful few. Near Kitengela, an enormous flower farm has drilled wells to irrigate its crops, which are for export. With so much water going to irrigate flowers, the nearby Isinya River now runs dry. Elsewhere, Lake Naivasha suffers the same problem, also due to flower farms. And a day after Nderitu took his goats to graze near a local river, all five goats were dead. The autopsy revealed the deaths were from pesticides. Nderitu blames the enormous Del Monte pineapple plantation just across the river from where his goats grazed.

Access to land is another issue for Kenyan farmers. While farmers like James try to coax a living from a fraction of an acre, nearby Del Monte grows pineapples on several thousand acres. Locals report that they pay their workers a mere $2.40 a day, less than the minimum wage, but actually more than the $2.05 per day the other large farms in the area pay. Mwangi, who lives within sight of Del Monte's land, feels ill whenever they spray pesticides. The land could likely support more farmers, and more successful farmers, if it wasn't concentrated in the hands of a few corporations.

And one more request: Would the industrialized world please stop wreaking havoc with the climate! Sidney Quntai, a Maasai man, says, “In the last ten years... the climate pendulum shifted. Just took a drastic turn.” The Maasai are semi-nomadic pastoralists, relying entirely on raising cattle, sheep and goats in Kenya's arid and semi-arid areas. The droughts and flash floods of the last decade have brought invasive weeds and new livestock diseases to his people, and some families have had their herds wiped out entirely between the droughts and diseases of the last decade.

The new G8 scheme to help African farmers does nothing to address the problems that are at the core of hunger and malnutrition. More likely, it will serve only to further poverty and inequality across the continent. The elites of the first world work together with the elites of the third world in the name of helping peasant farmers, but it nobody consults the peasant farmers themselves. Perhaps Obama could spend a week or two living with his Kenyan family members to find out what they actually want and need before he suggests another program to “help” the people of Africa.


Jill Richardson is the founder of the blog La Vida Locavore and a member of the Organic Consumers Association policy advisory board. She is the author of Recipe for America: Why Our Food System Is Broken and What We Can Do to Fix It..

miércoles, 25 de abril de 2012

"Sabemos muchísimo pero entendemos muy poco". Entrevista a Manfred Max-Neef, economista chileno

ORIGINAL: PublicacionTXT
por Daniel Olivera
30/06/2011

Hace unas semanas, Amy Goodman entrevistó en Bonn, Alemania al reconocido economista chileno Manfred Max-Neef.  Manfred ganó en 1983 el Right Livelihood Award, dos años después de haber publicado su libro Economía Descalza, Señales desde el Mundo Invisible. El economista comienza por explicarnos el concepto de economía descalza.


MANFRED MAX-NEEF: Bueno, es una metáfora, pero es una metáfora que se originó en una experiencia concreta. Yo trabajé alrededor de diez años de mi vida en áreas de pobreza extrema en las sierras, en la jungla, en áreas urbanas en distintas partes de Latinoamérica. Al comienzo de este periodo estaba un día en una aldea indígena en la sierra de Perú, era un día horrible, había estado lloviendo todo el tiempo. Era una zona muy pobre y frente a mí estaba otro hombre parado en el lodo (no en el barrio pobre sino en el lodo). Y bueno, nos miramos. Era de corta estatura, delgado, con hambre, desempleado, cinco hijos, una esposa y una abuela. Yo era el refinado economista de Berkeley, que enseñaba en Berkeley, etc. Nos mirábamos cara a cara y de pronto me di cuenta de que no tenía nada coherente que decirle en esas circunstancias a este hombre, que todo mi lenguaje de economista era inútil. ¿Debería decirle que se pusiera feliz porque el producto interno bruto había subido un 5% o algo así por el estilo? 


Todo esto era completamente absurdo. Entonces descubrí que no tenía un lenguaje para ese ambiente y que teníamos que inventar un idioma nuevo. Ese es el origen de la metáfora economía descalza que, en concreto, simboliza la economía que un economista debe usar cuando se atreve a meterse en los barrios bajos. El punto es que los economistas estudian y analizan la pobreza desde sus oficinas lujosas, poseen todas las estadísticas, desarrollan todos los modelos y están convencidos de que saben todo lo que hay que saber sobre la pobreza. Pero ellos no entienden lo que es la pobreza, ese es el gran problema y es también el motivo por el cual la pobreza aún existe. Esto cambió completamente mi vida como economista: inventé un lenguaje coherente para esas condiciones de vida.

AMY GOODMAN: ¿Y cuál es ese idioma? ¿Cómo aplicas un sistema económico o haces que las circunstancias expliquen esos cambios?
M. MAX-NEEF: No, la cuestión es mucho más profunda. Es decir, no es como la típica receta que te da alguien de tu país, en donde te dicen "le garantizamos quince lecciones o la devolución de su dinero." Ese no es el punto, te lo pongo de esta manera: hemos alcanzado un nivel en nuestra evolución en el que sabemos muchas cosas, sabemos muchísimo pero entendemos muy poco. Nunca en la historia de la humanidad ha habido tanta acumulación de conocimiento como en los últimos cien años y mira cómo estamos. ¿Para qué nos ha servido el conocimiento? La esencia está en que el conocimiento por sí mismo no es suficiente, carecemos de entendimiento. La diferencia entre conocimiento y entendimiento te la puedo explicar con un ejemplo: vamos a pensar que tú has estudiado todo lo que puedes estudiar desde una perspectiva teológica, sociológica, antropológica, biológica, inclusive bioquímica y sobre un fenómeno humano llamado amor. El resultado es que tú sabrás todo sobre el amor, pero tarde o temprano te vas a dar cuenta de que nunca entenderás el amor a menos de que te enamores. ¿Qué significa esto? Que sólo puedes llegar a aspirar a entender aquello de lo que llegas a formar parte. Como dice la canción: si nos enamoramos, somos mucho más que dos. Cuando perteneces, entiendes. Cuando estás separado, solo acumulas conocimiento y esa ha sido la función de la ciencia. Ahora bien, la ciencia se divide en partes pero el entendimiento es completo, holístico. Y eso es lo que sucede con la pobreza. Yo entendí la pobreza porque estuve allí; viví con ellos, comí con ellos y dormí con ellos. Entonces comienzas a entender que en ese ambiente hay distintos valores, y diferentes principios—comparados con los que existen allí de donde tú provienes y te das cuenta de que puedes aprender cosas fantásticas de la pobreza. Lo que he aprendido de los pobres supera lo que aprendí en la universidad. Pero pocas personas tienen esa oportunidad, ¿te das cuenta? Ellos ven la pobreza desde afuera en lugar de vivirla desde adentro. Aprendes cosas extraordinarias. Lo primero que aprendes y que los que quieren mejorar el sistema de vida de los pobres no saben, es que dentro de la pobreza hay mucha creatividad. No puedes ser un idiota si quieres sobrevivir, cada minuto tienes que estar pensando, ¿Qué sigue? ¿Qué puedo hacer aquí? ¿Qué es esto y lo otro y lo otro? Así que tu creatividad debe ser constante. Además, están los contactos, la cooperación, la ayuda mutua y toda una gama de cosas extraordinarias que ya no se encuentran nuestra sociedad dominante que es individualista, avara, egoísta, etc. Totalmente lo opuesto de lo que tienes allá. Y es sorprendente porque a veces llegas a encontrar gente más feliz entre los pobres que la que encontrarías en tu propio ambiente. Lo que significa que la pobreza no solo es una cuestión de dinero. Es algo mucho más complejo.

AMY GOODMAN: ¿Qué crees que debamos cambiar?
M. MAX-NEEF: ¡Oh!, casi todo. Somos dramáticamente idiotas. Actuamos sistemáticamente en contra de las evidencias que tenemos. Sabemos exactamente qué no debemos hacer. No hay nadie que no sepa esto, especialmente los grandes políticos saben exactamente lo que no se debe hacer. Y aún así lo hacen. Después de lo que pasó en octubre del 2008, tú pensarías que van a cambiar porque se han dado cuenta de que el modelo económico no funciona, que incluso tiene un alto nivel de riesgo, dramáticamente riesgoso. Y uno se pregunta:¿Cuál fue el resultado de la última reunión de la Comunidad Europea? Ahora son más fundamentalistas que antes. De tal modo que lo único de lo que se puede estar seguro es que ya viene la próxima crisis y que será el doble de fuerte que la actual. Pero para entonces ya no habrá suficiente dinero. Esas son las consecuencias de la sistemática estupidez humana.

AMY GOODMAN: Si tú estuvieras al frente de la economía ¿qué harías para evitar otra catástrofe?


M. MAX-NEEF: Primero que nada, necesitamos de nuevo economistas cultos, que sepan historia, de dónde vienen, cómo se originaron las ideas, quién hizo qué y así sucesivamente. Lo segundo, una economía que entienda que es subsistema de un sistema finito más grande: la biosfera, y como consecuencia la imposibilidad de tener un crecimiento económico infinito. En tercer lugar, un sistema que tenga claro que no puede funcionar sin tomar en serio los ecosistemas. Pero los economistas no saben nada de ecosistemas, no saben nada de termodinámica, nada de biodiversidad, son totalmente ignorantes respecto a estos temas. Un economista debe tener claro que si los animales desaparecen, él también desaparecerá porque entonces ya no habrá qué comer. Pero él no sabe que dependemos totalmente de la naturaleza ¿te das cuenta? Sin embargo, para los economistas de hoy en día la naturaleza es un subsistema de la economía, concepto que es totalmente absurdo! Además debemos acercar el consumidor a la producción. Yo vivo bien al sur de Chile, una zona fantástica donde tenemos toda la tecnología para la elaboración de productos lácteos de máxima calidad. Hace unos meses estaba desayunando en un hotel y al tomar un paquetito de mantequilla descubrí que ésta venía de Nueva Zelanda, absurdo ¿no te parece? ¿Y por qué sucede una cosa así? Porque los economistas no saben calcular los costos reales. Traer mantequilla desde un lugar que queda a 20.000 kilómetros a un sitio donde se produce la mejor, con el pretexto de que es más barato es una estupidez monumental porque no tienen en cuenta el impacto que causan esos 20.000 km de transporte sobre la naturaleza. Por si fuera poco, es más barata porque está subsidiada. Es un caso muy claro en el que los precios nunca dicen la verdad. Todo tiene su truco ¿sabes? esas artimañas causan enormes daños. Si acercas el consumo a la producción, comerás mejor, tendrás mejores alimentos y sabrás de dónde vienen. Incluso podrías llegar a conocer a la persona que lo produce. Se humaniza el proceso, pero hoy en día lo que los economistas hacen está totalmente deshumanizado.

AMY GOODMAN: ¿No crees que la misma tierra nos forzará a actuar de diferente modo? ¿Estaremos llegando al fin?
M. MAX-NEEF: Sí claro. Ya algunos científicos lo están diciendo pero yo aún no he llegado a ese punto. Pero muchos lo creen y piensan que es definitivo, que estamos fritos, que dentro de algunas décadas no habrá más humanos. Yo no creo que hayamos llegado a ese punto, pero sí que estamos cerca y diré que ya cruzamos el primero de los tres ríos. Y observa lo que está pasando en todos lados, es alarmante cómo la cantidad de catástrofes ha ido aumentando y se manifiesta en todas las formas: tormentas, terremotos, erupciones volcánicas. El número de eventos crece dramáticamente, es sobrecogedor y nosotros seguimos en las mismas.

AMY GOODMAN: ¿Qué has aprendido de las comunidades pobres en las que has vivido y trabajado que te de esperanza?
M. MAX-NEEF: La solidaridad de la gente; el respeto por los otros; la ayuda mutua; nada de avaricia, un valor inexistente dentro de la pobreza y uno estaría inclinado a pensar que allí es donde más está presente, que la avaricia debería ser patrimonio de los que menos tienen. No, todo lo contrario, mientras más tienes más quieres, la crisis actual es producto de la avaricia. La avaricia es el valor dominante del mundo actual. Mientras persista, estamos acabados.

AMY GOODMAN: ¿Cuáles serían los principios que enseñarías a los jóvenes economistas?
M. MAX-NEEF: Los principios de la economía deben estar fundamentados en cinco postulados y un valor esencial.
  1. Primero: la economía está para servir a las personas y no las personas para servir a la economía. 
  2. Segundo: el desarrollo se refiere a las personas, no a las cosas. 
  3. Tercero: crecimiento no es lo mismo que desarrollo y el desarrollo no necesariamente requiere de crecimiento. 
  4. Cuarto: no puede existir una economía con un ecosistema fallando. 
  5. Quinto: la economía es un subsistema de un sistema mayor y finito: la biosfera. Por lo tanto, el crecimiento permanente es un imposible. Y el valor fundamental para poder consolidar una nueva economía es que ningún interés económico, bajo ninguna circunstancia, puede estar por encima de la reverencia por la vida.
AMY GOODMAN: Explica lo que acabas de mencionar.
M. MAX-NEEF: Nada puede ser más importante que la vida. Y digo vida, no seres humanos, porque para mí el punto clave es el milagro de la vida en todas sus manifestaciones. Pero si predomina el interés económico, uno no solo se olvida de la vida y otros seres vivientes, termina también ignorando a los seres humanos. Si recorres esta lista que acabo de mencionar, uno a uno, verás que lo que tenemos ahora es exactamente lo contrario.


AMY GOODMAN: Volvamos al tercer punto, crecimiento y desarrollo y explícalo mejor.
M. MAX-NEEF: Crecimiento es una acumulación cuantitativa. Desarrollo es la liberación de posibilidades creativas. Todo sistema vivo de la naturaleza crece y en cierto punto deja de crecer, tú ya no estás creciendo, ni él ni yo. Pero continuamos desarrollándonos, de otro modo no estaríamos dialogando en este momento. El desarrollo no tiene límites pero el crecimiento sí. Y este es un concepto muy importante que políticos y economistas ignoran, están obsesionados con el fetiche del crecimiento económico. He trabajado durante décadas y en este tiempo se han hecho muchos estudios. Soy el autor de una famosa hipótesis: la hipótesis del límite, que dice que en toda sociedad hay un periodo de crecimiento económico—entendido convencionalmente o no—que trae una mejora en la calidad de vida pero sólo hasta cierto punto: el punto límite, a partir del cual, si hay más crecimiento, la calidad de vida comienza a decaer. Esta es la situación en la que nos encontramos actualmente. Tu país es el ejemplo más dramático que puedes encontrar. En mi libro que saldrá publicado el próximo mes en Inglaterra, titulado "La economía desenmascarada"—hay un capítulo llamado "Estados Unidos, una nación en vías de subdesarrollo" la cual es una nueva categoría. Actualmente manejamos los conceptos de desarrollado, subdesarrollado y en vías desarrollo. Ahora tenemos el nuevo concepto de en vías de subdesarrollo y tu país es el mejor ejemplo, en el cual el 1% de los americanos cada vez están mejor, mejor y mejor, mientras que el 99% va en decadencia en todo tipo de manifestaciones. Hay personas que viven en sus autos, ¿sabes? ahora duermen en sus carros, estacionados enfrente de la que fue su casa. Miles, millones de personas lo han perdido todo. Pero los especuladores, los que crearon todo este problema, esos están fantásticamente bien. Para ellos no hay problemas.

AMY GOODMAN: ¿Entonces, cómo cambiarías las cosas?
M. MAX-NEEF: Bueno, no sé cómo cambiarlas. Es decir, solitas van a cambiar, pero de manera catastrófica. Para mí no sería raro que de un momento a otro millones de personas salieran a las calles de Estados Unidos a causar destrozos. No sé, pero podría suceder. No lo sé. La situación es absolutamente dramática y se supone que es el país más poderoso de la tierra. Y aún en estas condiciones, siguen con sus guerras absurdas gastando billones y trillones. Trece trillones de dólares para los especuladores y ¡ni un centavo se fue para las personas que perdieron sus casas! ¿Qué tipo de lógica es esa?

Traducido por: Rose Mary Salum