Home Indiana Agriculture News Survey Shows Only 3% Of College Graduates Would Consider A Career In… The world’s demand for food will surge by 2050, with a projected 10 billion people requiring a 70 percent increase in food production. The question is, who will lead the way to find solutions for this demand and ensure the world’s people will be fed? A recent nationally representative survey conducted by ORC International on behalf of Land O’Lakes, Inc. shows there’s a startling lack of young people planning to work in the agriculture industry. In fact, only 3 percent of college grads and 9 percent of Millennials surveyed have or would consider an ag career.When compared to other industries, respondents were least likely to indicate that they have or would consider a career in agriculture (6 percent), with healthcare and technology at the highest career interest (each at 21 percent); followed by education (20 percent); marketing and sales; finance; and manufacturing and engineering (all at 12 percent).USDA job reports underscore these findings: more than 20,000 agriculture jobs go unfilled each year. Despite this fact, the majority of survey respondents – 54 percent – think it is difficult or very difficult for recent college graduates to get a job in agriculture.“We will need to produce more food in the next 40 or 50 years than in the previous 500 years combined,” said Lydia Botham, executive director, Land O’Lakes Foundation. “Our priorities are clear – we must focus on attracting the next generation of Ag workers to the highly skilled, well-paid career opportunities. Failing to do so may lead to severe consequences.”According to the survey, 76 percent of respondents do not think or are not sure if a career in Ag pays well. This misperception is prevalent across geographies (85 percent in the Northeast, 82 percent in the West and 71 percent in the Midwest and South).However, 35 percent of Millennials – significantly more than any other generation – think Ag careers do pay well, (compared with 21 percent of Generation X and 17 percent of Baby Boomers), which may be a promising sign of attracting college students to the field.“People still think you have to wear boots and overalls to work in Ag,” said Botham. “But modern agriculture has evolved to become one of the most vital and technologically advanced fields there is today. And the career choices are as dynamic as the industry itself – from seed geneticists and soil conservationists to supply chain analysts and economists.”To attract new college graduates, Land O’Lakes, Inc. created the Global Food Challenge – Emerging Leaders for Food Security™ program to engage future leaders in the challenges and opportunities facing agriculture.The yearlong fellowship program provides selected college students the opportunity to learn more about global food security, and includes travel to U.S. farms, to Washington, D.C., to understand policy, and to smallholder farms in rural Africa. Students are selected from a wide range of education disciplines, from agronomy and environmental science to nutrition, finance and marketing.Trey Forsyth, a 2014 Emerging Leader, believes that programs like the Global Food Challenge will encourage the next generation to get involved in agriculture – and to tackle global hunger. His trip with other Emerging Leaders to meet policymakers in Washington, D.C., was a revelation.“I saw a whole new side of agriculture that I never knew existed, and it was fascinating,” Forsyth said. “Now I’m thinking of pursuing a career in Ag policy.”Source: Land O’Lakes news release Previous articleClosing CommentsNext articleCover Crop Field Day to be held in Kouts Hoosier Ag Today SHARE Facebook Twitter By Hoosier Ag Today – Mar 21, 2016 SHARE Survey Shows Only 3% Of College Graduates Would Consider A Career In Agriculture Facebook Twitter
IndonesiaAsia – Pacific RSF_en IndonesiaAsia – Pacific Organisation Red alert for green journalism – 10 environmental reporters killed in five years August 12, 2020 Find out more Melanesia: Facebook algorithms censor article about press freedom in West Papua Receive email alerts November 19, 2020 Find out more Help by sharing this information News Reporters Without Borders is concerned by a series of media freedom violations in Indonesia in the past few days. At the same time, it has learned of the death of Darma Sahlan, a journalist working for the weekly Monitor Medan, whose body was found in Lawe Two, in Aceh province (in the north of the island of Sumatra), on 5 February.“We offer our condolences to Sahlan’s family and we urge the authorities to do everything possible to shed light on his death, and to not rule out the possibility that he was murdered in connection with his work,” Reporters Without Borders said. “They must also do what is necessary to guarantee the safety of journalists and freedom of information. We are very worried by the problems for journalists throughout the country and in West Papua in particular.”Sahlan’s body was found in a ditch near his motorcycle. The cause of death is not clear. His wife told Serambi Indonesia that she thought he was murdered and that the body was then placed in the ditch where he was found. She said there were lacerations and other injuries on the body. She also reported that he had a heated phone conversation with someone a month ago about one of his stories.The police are investigating his death. According to an autopsy, he sustained a blow to the head from a blunt object and injuries to the face. Skid marks were also found near the body.Petr Zamecnik, a Czech journalist working for Fincentrum, was arrested on 8 February after photographing a pro-independence demonstration in Manokwari, in West Papua province. A local police spokesman said Zamecnik had entered the country on a tourist visa and claimed to be doing a report on places of interest to tourists but was unable to prove this. He has been transferred to the immigration authorities, who are to decide if he will be deported. Andri Jufri, a young Indonesian journalist working for Kompas TV, was beaten up by members of a motorcycle gang as he was returning home on the evening of 5 February in Makassar, the capital of South Sulawesi province. He sustained injuries to the face and body, and his glasses, helmet and motorcycle were damaged. The VIVAnews website said Makassar’s gangs do not like journalists covering the illegal motorcycle races they organize.Blocking Twitter accountsThe minister of communication and information technologies has meanwhile announced that anonymous and “offensive” Twitter accounts will be blocked. He gave no details but Indonesia’s Information and Electronic Law provides for sanctions for blasphemy, fraud, threats, pornography and gambling. Indonesia’s 55 million Internet users take a great interest in social issues including corruption and sectarian violence.Indonesia is ranked 146th out of 179 countries in the latest Reporters Without Borders press freedom index. In the troubled West Papua region, at least two journalists were killed, five were kidnapped and 18 were attacked in 2011. Foreign journalists who want to visit the region must apply in advance to the information ministry for accreditation, which takes time, and they must agree to be accompanied if they obtain it. Only three were allowed to visit West Papua last year. On eve of the G20 Riyadh summit, RSF calls for public support to secure the release of jailed journalists in Saudi Arabia News News News August 21, 2020 Find out more to go further Follow the news on Indonesia February 10, 2012 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Reporter found dead in Aceh, other attacks on journalists
ColumnsNavigating A Janus-Faced Problem: Big Data, Rights And The State Mahesh Menon12 May 2020 10:34 PMShare This – xBig data seems to have finally made it to mainstream political debate in India. Kerala Government’s decision to use the services of data management company & the “Argogya Sethu” app launched by the government of India have both been the subject matter of controversy and litigation. Concerns center around data protection, privacy of users and the potential for surveillance….Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginBig data seems to have finally made it to mainstream political debate in India. Kerala Government’s decision to use the services of data management company & the “Argogya Sethu” app launched by the government of India have both been the subject matter of controversy and litigation. Concerns center around data protection, privacy of users and the potential for surveillance. These Criticisms notwithstanding, scientists have made a strong case for use of these advanced computational models as they promise a lot of potential at tracking the spread of the disease or for contact tracing. It is also argued that these models can aid in gradual lifting of lockdowns or aid the planning of logistics for movement of men and medicines to places where the infection is expected to spread faster. We are then once again caught in the middle of a debate that is crafted as a classic one: of individual rights to privacy v. greater welfare to (to the greatest number) by managing the pandemic. Big Data debates have often followed this paradigm. On one hand there are a large number of promising advances that use big data has brought to the table for citizen welfare- AI and big data-based systems have been outperforming doctors at detecting several medical conditions. There are claims that they can increase access to credit by improving credit score mechanisms. Perhaps the most important of these uses relate to how they can improve government efficiency, especially when it comes to delivery of social welfare. It has also been suggested that they can be deployed for fact finding and to promote human rights. More governments are resorting to use of data to develop predictive analysis to find new opportunities against crime (i.e “predictive policing”). Overall, it is claimed that AI and big data has immense potential that can be harnessed for public good. The United Nations has also recognized the value and potential in these technologies and has instituted a dedicated channel of work titled “Big Data for Sustainable Development”. A report of the Independent Expert on the rights of older persons has pointed out the opportunities and challenges in deploying AI and automation in the care of older persons and another one by the High Commissioner on Human Rights reflects on the potential that it holds to promote women’s health. On the other hand, critics have pointed out that big data and AI based solutions impact individual human rights. AI systems ultimately require collection and use of vast quantities of data, which then impacts the individual’s right to privacy. It has also been observed that “AI can easily perpetuate existing patterns of bias and discrimination, since the most common way to deploy these systems is to “train” them to replicate the outcomes achieved by human decision-makers”, thus questioning any purported improved outcomes that they promise. Researchers have also pointed out that there are risks of discrimination through replication or exacerbation of bias in AI systems, particularly in when it comes to ‘predictive policing’ methods. These debates have also found its way into the Charter based human rights system at the UN, especially the Human Rights Council. The Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, Professor Philip Alston has produced three reports that reflect on these themes. Two of them after country visits to the United Kingdom and the United States (States that has been increasingly putting Big Data based solutions in its social welfare system) and a dedicated report on use of digital technologies in the welfare state, which has been prepared through a consultative process with States, Academics and CSOs making their submissions. The report, covers human rights concerns across a range of issues – such as digital identification, automated programmes to assess eligibility and calculation and payment of benefits, and fraud prevention and detection using algorithms to score risks and classify needs. Professor Alston observes that “digital state” is an emerging reality and that this is accompanied by significant reductions in welfare budget by eliminating services, reducing the pool of beneficiaries and imposition of more stringent conditions, many of which are intrusive in nature. More worryingly, they also include state goals for behavioural modification. Across these developments, he sees a more fundamental change in the making – “complete reversal of the traditional notion that the State should be accountable to the individual”. These measures are advertised as being “scientific and neutral” and meant to promote efficiency, prevent leakages and better targeting. However, as he argues in his report, they often operate on values that are antithetical to human rights. He identifies a specific set of potential risks that arise in various contexts such as putting vulnerable individuals at a greater risk of exclusion; the dehumanization of the process and elimination of possibilities for clarifications; rolling out rigid systems that does not take into account the needs of particular sets of the population or that which cannot respond to emergencies and how it impacts the dignity of the recipient and the elimination of human values such as compassion. He also notes that the populations that are meant to receive these benefits are relatively more vulnerable and hence they are forced to accept forms of intrusiveness that better-off individuals would never have accepted. He has also reflected on the impact that these programmes have on the civil and political rights of the individuals, specifically that there is a real risk of beneficiaries being effectively forced to give up their right to privacy and data protection to receive their right to social security. While these concerns in the realm of individual human rights are important, perhaps most significant of the dangers flagged by Professor Alston is the potential that technology now offers for behavioural modification and large scale surveillance – both of which has the potential of altering the landscape of our polity as we know it. This is a good time to recollect the Cambridge Analytica scandal – an instance of how a private Big Data company was able to garner the potential of targeting tailor-cut advertisements on social media to influence the results of Brexit as well as the US Presidential elections. Professor Michal Kosinski, who developed the basic psychometric techniques that were used by Cambridge Analytica has posited that computer based assessments of human personality are more accurate than those made by humans and that with big data, it becomes easier to make large scale assessments. For instance, he notes that facial recognition can tell us what our politics and IQ is, our voice can reveal a lot about our personality and even our physical movements (which our mobile phones can capture) can reveal a lot. Such knowledge can then be harnessed to modify our behaviour, thoughts and attitudes. The proliferation of automated and semi-autonomous bots on social networks must be viewed in this context of attempts at large scale modification of our thinking and consequential changes in actions. The Special Rapporteur on “Promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression”, in his report to the General Assembly on AI and its impact on freedom of opinion and expression has acknowledged these concerns and has opined that “forced neurological interventions, indoctrination programmes…or threats of violence designed to compel individuals to form particular opinions or change their opinions” are violative of the human rights obligations imposed by the ICCPR. The same data sets that we create for targetting welfare, making a delivery for efficient or contact tracing amidst the COVID-19 pandemic can thus be used for a variety of other purposes that impacts our individual rights and the future of our political organization. Additionally, we now live in a world where private, corporate actors poses and use these powerful tools and make a case for lesser regulation so that innovation is not stifled. While the language and tools of human rights have been deployed to face these challenges, it is doubtful whether they alone can provide the answers that we seek. For instance, the response to many of these concerns centre around calls for stronger data protection laws and greater individual control over data and a consent-based framework on the use of data and acting within human rights principles. Human Rights are notorious for being too individualistic and one is left wondering whether responses that are built entirely around the capabilities of individuals would be adequate to protect our interests that span across our social and democratic organization. Perhaps, it is time to move the conversation beyond group welfare versus individual rights into welfare (or other promises) to how the deployment of these technologies impacts our collective democratic and political values. The conversation thus needs to move on from the language of a technical debate on efficiency in delivering welfare (and its potential impact on the rights of individuals) to one that touches democracy and political decision making at large. While the technology itself may be neutral, it is not immune from providing advantages to one or another form of political or economic organization – a factor that needs to be a part of any conversation that we have when we deploy them. As Professor Alston has observed “digital welfare state technologies are not the inevitable result of scientific progress, but instead reflect political choices made by human. Assuming that technology reflects preordained or objectively rational and efficient outcomes risks abandoning human rights principles along with democratic decision-making.” Mahesh Menon is an Assistant Professor, Daksha Fellowship. Views are personal. Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story
The Tinbergen building, which currently houses the departments of Zoology and Experimental Psychology, is to be demolished, Oxford University has announced. The facility will be replaced by a new life sciences centre for the Departments of Plant Sciences, Experimental Psychology and Zoology.The presently empty Tinbergen building had to be evacuated in February 2017 after the discovery of asbestos that could not be disposed of while the building was still in use, causing some disruption to students and staff. The departments were subsequently moved into temporary accommodation.The building is set to be destroyed after current work to remove asbestos is completed. Construction work will then begin for the new centre, and is expected to continue into 2022.Although the centre is unlikely to open in time for some students to use the new facilities, many have been positive about the plans.One Biological Sciences student said: “I think it will improve biology because at the moment our buildings aren’t that modern so it will be nice to have a modern one.”Staff have also expressed excitement at the prospect of new facilities.The Head of the Department for Plant Sciences, George Ratcliffe, said in a recent department newsletter that “there would be clear benefits in bringing two organismal biology Departments under the same roof”.However, the announced destruction of the Tinbergen building, regarded in Oxford as a brutalist landmark, has drawn concern from the Oxford Brutalist Society, who say they are “devastated at the university decision to destroy the Tinbergen building” and expressed concern that “concrete masterpieces are continually knocked down with no regard to their architectural significance”.Oxford City Council is in consultation regarding the plans for the new building, and Oxford residents are to have an opportunity to comment on the issue in 2019.The University has been contacted for comment.
As financial institutions look to better-implement their brand footprint in the communities they serve, increasing importance is placed on community involvement. This isn’t old-school community involvement where you could get away with having a table or booth at an event with a couple of passive employees handing out flyers. Community involvement that works well in 2017 is defined much more by proactive, deeper-level meaningful interaction between bank or credit union staff and the populations they serve.A terrific example of this comes from Denver Community Credit Union (Denver, CO; $315 million assets; 25,000 members). In its quest for community involvement, Denver Community focuses on a number of key areas including financial education and a heightened awareness of the brand.“Since Denver Community implemented a financial education program in 2005, it has reached tens of thousands of people with the message of financial empowerment,” said Helen Gibson, VP of Marketing and Education. “In 2016, 2,395 people attended classes at the credit union, listened to podcasts, or participated in financial coaching.” continue reading » 8SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr