Some Details of Planning
Ten trillion dollars of start-up cost is required for developing
2,000 million hectares of unused land with agricultural potential
in nearly 100 countries. Per hectare, the start-up cost will be $5,000
on average. This includes irrigation. Almost every land undertaken
to be developed will be provided with irrigation. This will free
the project from dependence on rain and will give us up to three
crops per year, improving also the quality of every crop. Irrigation
is necessary to predict crop production. It is necessary also in
order to set the time and quantity of exports in advance so that
buyers may have a reliable pace for purchasing and selling the produce
to their markets. This also helps the financing banks to count on
the return of their investment according to schedule.
It is on the basis of providing irrigation that the project becomes
productive throughout the year and provides freedom from uncertainties.
It is on this basis that we use the phrase: Our project is quite
certain, dependable, and therefore risk-free.
We are sure this will give confidence to any experienced financial
Our policy of giving high interest to banks comes from the urgency
to attract maximum investment to start the project.
The Project: Removal of Poverty and Creation of
As long as poverty exists in any part of the world dissatisfaction
will remain in world consciousness and world peace will remain fragile.
Therefore, removal of poverty is a vital requirement for world peace.
The World Bank records that there are 2.3 billion people earning
an average of just over one dollar a day. They require two trillion
dollars of additional income per year to come out of extreme
poverty. For that our program is to develop organic agriculture
in the 2,000 million hectares of unused land with agricultural
potential in almost 100 countries. The start-up cost for cultivation
of this land is 10 trillion dollars and it will produce a profit
of 2 trillion dollars per year (conservatively considered). This
additional 2 trillion dollars per year will more than triple
the income of the poorest 2.3 billion people of the world.
This plan must be completed within 2-3 years because it will only
eradicate the level of extreme poverty of 2.3 billion people. Another
two such rises will be necessary to eradicate the poverty of the
same population (2.3 billion people) and raise their yearly income
from US $450 to $3,000.
Yet another rise like this will be necessary to raise the income
of another 3 billion people with a present income of about $2,000
to the level of $3,000.
The second, third and fourth rises will be easier and easier because
each rise will have a better base.
Our proposal is not an emotional appeal. Whatever the tender sentiments
about poverty removal involved in it, all will be naturally fulfilled,
but our proposal is a business proposal, it is hard business, it
is lucrative business. The program offers a red carpet to the great
leaders of the business world.
for the Health, Wealth and Wisdom
of the Rich
According to the World Bank there are about
one billion people in the world who are not poor. They have
an average yearly income of about $27,000.
At least they should begin to eat nutritious food by spending
about $400 per person per month. At the moment their average
expenditure may be half of that and in the name of food they
are eating poison—chemically produced agriculture.
Their expenditure in nutritious food, even if it costs 3-4
times their present expenditure in poisonous food, would be
worth it for them.*
$400 per person per month will bring to the project of world
peace $4.8 trillion per year.
$4.8 trillion will be the gross income coming to the producers
of organic agriculture every year (the yield of these 2000
Expenses will be about $2 trillion (at the rate of one thousand
dollars per hectare).
Out of the remaining profit of $2.8 trillion dollars, the first
allocation will be repayment of the financiers.
Whatever remains will come to the management for the world
|* Eating poisonous
food, how much do they spend on health care? It is obvious
that they spend more than 3-4 times the cost of their present
poisonous food. If they spend this on proper food, they will
save suffering and will live healthier and longer lives.
This logic is being put forward to say that our poverty-removal
program, by development of organic agriculture, has only a
win-win position for everyone who involves himself in this;
and it answers the question about the size of the project if
anyone asks: where will be the market for the additional production
of food from 2,000 million ha?