Help support alternative media by visiting our Allies

Selkirk Mountain Real Estate

The Deceit Behind STEM Education

The trajectory has been the UN leading us to a STEM education emphasis, which in turn will be used to oust our local farmers.

The Deceit Behind STEM

The Deceit Behind STEM Education

By Karen Schumacher

For several years there has been much emphasis for a Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) education foisted upon our youth.  The question arose, why so much emphasis in these educational areas, especially at the expense of other important, and needed, educational subjects?  Although any industry could be used as an example for why a STEM education is promoted, agriculture is a pretty easy case study that explains STEM.

The agricultural industry, including your local farmers, provides food production not only for local needs, but often for regional and perhaps in some cases, global needs.  Who doesn’t need food?  As populations increased, food production became more sophisticated in meeting those increased food needs.  Advances in plant health, machinery, and harvesting have kept us well fed.  Over time, irrigation methods have also changed to water crops in a more efficient manner.  With STEM, a whole new ominous plan is now progressing for crop production.

According to some, the most efficient watering method for crops is drip irrigation.  A machine delivers water right on top of or at the plant root at scheduled times, supplying the required amount of water, nutrients, and fertilizer needed for healthy growth while reducing water run off  and evaporation.  The larger the crop, the larger and more complicated the machine.

There are some drawbacks to drip irrigation including cost, as high as $10k for 1 acre, maintenance requirements, plus the potential for clogging, damage from environmental factors, and restricted water distribution.

According to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), the average Idaho farm is 486 acres.  At $10k per acre, that means an average Idaho farmer would need to fork over 4 million dollars to install a drip irrigation system.  Or, according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), a drip irrigation system requiring pumps can be installed for as little as $1800 to $2500 an acre with additional costs to operate and manage it.  For the Idaho farmer the cost is now down from $875k to a little over $ 1 million.

Using drip irrigation as just one example, STEM education fields are necessary for its operation.

No longer can we rely on a farmer, whose experience goes back multiple generations, who understands the land in ways that are not taught in a book, we must now have college educated science experts leading the way on plant management, even though those experts may have never worked a piece of land in their lives.  Agribusiness Companies, sometimes called Corporate Farming, require different types of  science “experts“, or technocrats, determining nutrient and fertilizer amounts needed in drip irrigation for crop production as an example.  Thus, agriculture is just one type of science emphasized in STEM.  This could imply that current and past generations of farmers have never understood any of this science, even though they have been exemplary in feeding us for decades without a science degree.  Workers educated in computer science are also needed, who else will manage all those fancy machine programs?

Watering crops includes drip irrigation systems and other types of technology, such as sensors and other devices,  expanding the need for STEM educated workers in engineering and computer sciences.  Agricultural technology is for the sole purpose of conserving natural resources, especially water, and boosting production, thus feeding the global population which is anticipated to explode in the next few decades, at least according to some folks.  This cost of technology may be enough to end the survival of small farms.  Not only is the technology expensive, there is the long term cost of hiring those technocrats to operate it.

Mechanical, civil, electrical, and chemical engineers can be used in agriculture.  Different engineers are needed to design machinery, manage land and water use, conserve and store food, consider atmospheric science (no more Farmer’s Almanac), manage soil, plant and harvest crops, manage waste, design experiments…these are just a few tasks requiring engineers in agriculture.

As for math, “…the increasing complexity of agricultural technology makes it mandatory that workers”… have the necessary math skills.  These math skills may include include land locations, conversion, weights and other types of measurements, yield estimates, calculation of growing days, costs, chemical or nutrient calculations, and certainly calculating water use in the most efficient method possible.  There is also more sophisticated agricultural economics, know as agronomics, which focuses on the increase in food production and distribution.  How did farmers accomplish the same without that math degree?

In agriculture, the farmer is being forced to move to scientific production through the use of advanced science and technology, sophisticated engineering, and calculated methods on food production, all requiring more workers educated in STEM fields.  All fields are needed to just manage a drip irrigation system which might be cost prohibitive for the farmer.

According to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), farming is now called “sustainable” agriculture for raising farm income, promoting environmentalism, increasing the quality of life, and increasing food production.  It is also their desire to “improve the quality of surface water and groundwater resources”.  “Sustainable agriculture” actually came from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a United Nations (UN) non-governmental organization (NGO).  Promoting and implementing UN goals are NGO obligations, in this case sustainable development (SD), which is also known as Agenda 21.

Agenda 21, Chapter 14, is devoted to agriculture.  The goal is transforming agricultural practices to reduce waste and conserve resources.  As UN organizational partners, the United Nations Environmental Program and Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO), focus on an “Activity Cluster” by “Creating the enabling conditions for uptake of sustainable production practices at the national level and through the building of partnerships”.  The Agri-Food Task Force was created in 2010 with specific goals to overtake agricultural practices by 2022, of course with participation by our federal government.  As part of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, the US Department of Agriculture has been implementing Agenda 21 since 1993, and is now implementing the UN Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).

Returning to irrigation, the goal is to squeeze out and utilize every drop of water in a sustainable manner and scientifically manage plant growth.  Through its partnership with UNEP to implement Agenda 2030 SDG, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will mandate regulatory actions, forcing farmers out of business.  Regulations such as requiring clean water prior to application on crops, pest and dust management, even regulating livestock, all for sustainable agriculture in line with the UN.  Scientists support this as well by creating technology such as water recovery machines which add nutrients back into used water, requiring STEM educated workers.  Idaho might be a particular target for requirements to change to other technologies because of its agricultural water use.  The UN promotes drip irrigation, their business partner, Yamaha, even creating the technology for it.

With the expense for technology, ballooning requirement for scientific expertise, regulations, and brainwashing on the UN sustainable agriculture concept, farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to survive.  Sustainable agriculture and food security are UN fallacies based on overpopulation and man-made climate change myths. The true goal is corporatism, forcing the death of farming for agri-corporations which have the finances to move in and take over our food production and supply.   Monsanto, Noble, Mosaic, Nestle, DuPont, and General Mills  are just a few agricultural corporations that join hands with the UN, often merging to advance their monopolies and push the local farmer out.  These monopolies also lead to significant power, influence, and control over our food supply.  Corporations have the financial resources to move food production towards the STEM principles and meet regulatory demands, along with bank investments in water, such as Citigroup, Goldman Sachs (14)(17), JP Morgan, and Morgan Stanley.  The World Bank thinks investment in water is great.

The UN uses climate change as justification for SD, and technocracy, the control of governments and society by science experts, to implement it.  “Best practices and evidence based” are terms that insinuate only science holds the answers.  As farms are destroyed by the inability to afford regulatory and technological demands imposed by our government in partnership with the UN, UN business partners are ready to take over, implementing SD practices for the UN.  The UN is the primary force behind a STEM education to meet those corporate workforce needs, even providing resources for STEM and using it for social change.  It is through the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) partnership with the UN that SD was integrated into education, which now includes STEM.  The United Nations Educational and Scientific Organization (UNESCO) even has learning objectives for teaching SDGs.  As stated in this video, the Western Governor’s Association, of which Governor Otter is a member, is in support of “…aligning education and training with industry needs…”.  This is exactly the purpose of STEM which is part of the UN objectives for corporatism.  Pick your industry, the same STEM rubbish is being integrated into those as well.

The trajectory has been the UN, in partnership with our government and corporations, leading us to a STEM education emphasis, which in turn will be used to oust our local farmers, with our food supply eventually being fully controlled by corporations, most of whom partner with the UN.  Sound crazy?  Well, others have written about it.  There is also the question of whether an actual shortage of engineers and scientists exist.  Starting on page 26 of this 2017 Congressional Research Service report,  it summarizes why a true shortage may not exist.  With the UN driving the agenda these facts are hidden.  Meanwhile, Idaho children are being surrendered to this deceit, denied the right to an education that provides truth and balance in all subjects for a strong foundation, and robs them of self determination.

It would behoove the Idaho Legislature, Board of Education, and State Board of Education to give serious thought to really understanding the deceitful background behind STEM, and the direction they are taking Idaho children.  The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are loaded with SD ideology.  References to climate change in the NGSS have been removed by the Idaho House, it is now up to the Senate to support the House in that decision.  Incorporating climate change back into the standards is just advancing UN ideology and objectives.  In fact, it would be impressive if our legislature would eliminate NGSS along with Common Core altogether, have Idahoans create its own standards and curriculum, and focus on teaching students the truth while giving them the freedom to make decisions about their future, rather than it being determined for them.


Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here:

4 Comments on The Deceit Behind STEM Education

  1. UN sucks, their agendas suck and government schools suck – yes.

    However, invention rocks. The new ag techniques emerging are not about hurting farmers, the STEM subjects naturally derive from inventions of the new emerging ag techniques. It is not about hurting farmers it is about adapt or be left behind. For instance, there are indoor aeroponics ag techniques that can increase productive density of various herbs and vegetables by 300 times while reducing water requirements by 99% per plant, reducing nutrient requirements by 60% per plant, eliminate ALL agricultural runoff and completely eliminate the need for pesticides while eliminating harmful bacteria and contaminants from the food and have daily harvesting 365 days per year. Think about time 1 acre producing the same amount as 300 acres while using 1% of the water to continually produce more healthier (non-gmo) food with 40% less nutrients.

    The real truth is adapt or fail – the science, technology, engineering and math is easy and no school taught me any of that. Just invent, the rest comes as a necessity to optimize in order to be competitive.

  2. 1) Without modern math and engineering discerning what is the correct amount plants take from the land and what is required to put back in is imprecise.
    2) Genetic engineering has unintended consequences.
    3) Farmers in the Great Depression had a very very hard time; even leading to marches of 300+ farmers into town grocery stores and demanding food; that does not even remotely make sense unless the farmers were unproductive.
    4) Nowadays machines run off of GPS and do not even need a human to drive them; that cuts off labor requirements; but also requires some one with tech savy.
    5) Lessons learned from the Great Depression drought include planting strategic trees to act as wind breaks; in modern times these trees have been cut down to maximize farming potential.
    6) The Mayan and Aztec Milpas and breeding of Maize show that old time farmers were not clueless…but that does require many more considerations in itself…like the availability of water.

    In the end there are lots of variable to balance, farmers were not as good without modern science; however, the demands of the market (liabilities and assets) and the scary aspects of sciences possibilities seem to ignore the horse-sense and grounded common sense of the people of bygone eras.

    • 7) There is also the dangerous alternative departing from common sense learned from experience and good science….that is bad science leading. A person might dismiss that by saying “It would never happen in modern times”,…but it did happen less than 90 years ago:
      “The pseudo-scientific ideas of Lysenkoism assumed the heritability of acquired characteristics. Lysenko’s theory rejected Mendelian inheritance and the concept of the “gene”; it departed from Darwinian evolutionary theory by rejecting natural selection. Proponents falsely claimed to have discovered, among many other things, that rye could transform into wheat and wheat into barley, that weeds could spontaneously transmute into food grains, and that “natural cooperation” was observed in nature as opposed to “natural selection”. Lysenkoism promised extraordinary advances in breeding and in agriculture that never came about.”
      “Although it’s impossible to say for sure, Trofim Lysenko probably killed more human beings than any individual scientist in history. Other dubious scientific achievements have cut thousands upon thousands of lives short: dynamite, poison gas, atomic bombs. But Lysenko, a Soviet biologist, condemned perhaps millions of people to starvation through bogus agricultural research—and did so without hesitation. Only guns and gunpowder, the collective product of many researchers over several centuries, can match such carnage.”

Comments are closed.