The peasants' decision to cut green and sell grain has once again sparked controversy. Some people accuse farmers of "fooling around" and ignoring food security, but in fact, farmers make this choice because of the pressure and hardship they have faced for many years. We should not judge the peasants only on the superficial ground, still less should we stand on the moral high ground and criticize them, but should look at them with sympathy and understanding.
Loading...
In recent years, the mainland's agriculture has faced many difficulties. The increasing cost of agricultural inputs, and the rise in fertilizers, pesticides and other production costs, directly compress farmers' profit margins. According to the data, between 2015 and 2020, the price of fertilizer rose by almost 50%. The price control of agricultural products has taken a long time, and it is difficult to balance the rise in input costs. It is no longer possible for peasants to support their household expenses by relying on one-third of an acre of land alone.
Social security, such as rural infrastructure and medical insurance, needs to be improved. Farmers are seriously ill and have no money to see a doctor, and their children need to take care of their own education, and these daily problems have become a heavy burden. What's more, farmers lack financial knowledge and access to increase their incomes through other means, so they can only rely on agricultural production that can be harvested once a year. Under the pressure of such an external environment, the living space of peasants has been shrinking.
Under such circumstances, the peasants cut the grain and sold it, which can be understood as a kind of survival. Selling unripe wheat directly allows for timely cash availability for daily expenses and production turnover, which in a sense solves the current problem. In addition, the price per mu of silage is several hundred yuan higher than that of mature wheat, which also brings a glimmer of life to farmers.
Although this is not in line with the country's long-term food security goals, it is undoubtedly the best solution for farmers who are struggling to secure their livelihoods. Of course, it is unfair to cut the green and destroy the grain simply for the purpose of survival. As the breadbasket of the country, farmers should also shoulder the responsibility of maintaining food security. But criticism must be seen in the context of the big picture.
We should not ignore the external pressures brought about by the policy and institutional levels, nor should we ignore the growing pressure on farmers to survive. If the state can strengthen the protection of agriculture and improve the security system, the peasants will not have to be forced to make choices that harm the long-term interests of the country.
The key to distinguishing between "nonsense" and "survival" is not only to look at the subjective motives of farmers, but more importantly, to examine the impact of the external environment on them. We need to fully understand the environmental pressures on farmers and look at their choices with compassion and understanding. Rather than blaming from a high-level perspective. This requires all sectors of society, including policy-making departments, to provide more protection and support to farmers in terms of policies.
Only by promoting the sustainable development of agriculture through reform and innovation can farmers truly extricate themselves from their predicament and ensure national food security in the long run. Behind the peasants' cutting of green crops and the destruction of grain is the pressure they have faced for many years to survive under the impact of policies, systems, and markets. Blaming farmers solely on the basis of food security and national interests ignores this context.
The key is to look at the problem from a broader and understanding perspective, and to help farmers truly solve their predicament. Only through reform and making up for their deficiencies in social security can the peasants no longer be forced to choose measures that may harm the interests of the state, and can the country's food security be guaranteed for a long time.
The government should strengthen the protection of agriculture and improve the social security system. For example, we should increase the cost of agricultural subsidies, establish a basic agricultural insurance system, and strengthen the construction of medical and educational facilities in rural areas, so as to reduce the pressure on peasants' production and livelihood. At the same time, we should adjust the grain procurement price mechanism to be more closely integrated with market fluctuations and protect the interests of peasants.
Market mechanisms should also be redrawn. Some key products, such as grain, should be given a certain amount of policy protection space to avoid external shocks that will cause irreversible blows to farmers. At the same time, we will guide farmers to increase sustainable income through multiple channels, such as supporting the development of agriculture-related industries.
Society should also pay attention to and understand farmers. It is necessary to look at the choices of the peasants with compassion and understanding, rather than pointing fingers from the moral high ground. Every citizen should perceive the hard work of farmers and support the government in formulating more thoughtful policies for farmers.
Only with the participation of the whole society can we hope to build a new agricultural system that not only guarantees food security, but also respects and supports farmers' right to subsistence. This is the long march to build a beautiful countryside, which requires the whole society to work together.
In this regard, what do netizens think of this matter, welcome to leave a message in the comment area to discuss!