What are both positive and negative impacts of Green revolution I and green revolution II?

Question

suggest related sites for getting this information.

Answer 1

The link is good article for you.  This sis just part of the link.

Criticisms of the Green Revolution

Food security

Malthusianism assumptions of the Green Revolution

These assertions of success generally assume some variation of the Malthusian principle of population. Such concerns often revolve around the idea that the Green Revolution is unsustainable, and argue that humanity is currently in a state of overpopulation with regards to the sustainable carrying capacity of the earth.

Malthusianism has been evident throughout the history of the Green Revolution. The team sent to survey Mexican agriculture in 1941 for the Rockefeller Foundation cited the high birth rate and relative inadequacy of its agriculture as a cause for concern. In 1959, the Ford Foundation carried out a study in India that stated the nation’s population would outstrip its food supply by 1966, although the validity of its methodology was a subject of criticism. At Borlaug's Nobel acceptance speech he stated, "...we are dealing with two opposing forces, the scientific power of food production and the biologic power of human reproduction."

[edit] Is food production actually related to famine?

To some modern Western sociologists and writers, increasing food production is not synonymous with increasing food security, and is only part of a larger equation. For example, Harvard professor Amartya Sen claimed large historic famines were not caused by decreases in food supply, but by socioeconomic dynamics and a failure of public action.  However, economist Peter Bowbrick has accused Sen of misrepresenting historical data, telling outright lies and being wrong on his theory of famines. In fact Bowbrick argues that Sen's views coincide with that of the Bengal government at the time of the Bengal famine of 1943 and the policies Sen advocates failed to relieve the famine.

Food production versus quality of diet

Some have challenged the value of the increased food production of Green Revolution agriculture. Miguel A. Altieri, a self-proclaimed "agroecologist" and peasant-advocate, writes that the comparison between traditional systems of agriculture and Green Revolution agriculture has been unfair, because Green Revolution agriculture produces monocultures of cereal grains, while traditional agriculture usually incorporates polycultures. Additionally, some claim traditional systems of agriculture that were displaced by the Green Revolution such as the chinampas in Mexico or raised-field rice farming in Asia can be highly-productive. Critics point out that these traditional forms of agriculture produced less food than Green Revolution crops, and were prone to famine, as evidenced by the frequency of famine in these communities.

There are several claims about how the Green Revolution may have decreased food security for some people. One such claim involves the shift of subsistence-oriented cropland to cropland oriented towards production of grain for export and/or animal feed. For example, the Green Revolution replaced much of the land used for pulses that fed Indian peasants for wheat, which did not make up a large portion of the peasant diet. Also, the pesticides involved in rice production eliminated fish and weedy green vegetables from the diets of Asian rice farmers.Critics of this view counter that this presupposes an inherent superiority of subsistence living, which tends to be romanticized in rich Western countries.

Answer 2

They are both emotional revolutions and have no basis in reality.