Lets talk about famine in a world full of food

While this is a major humanitarian issue, it is also a matter of how people in these areas have chosen to live. No, I don't mean they have chosen hunger. Every nation has resources of some kinds. Some of the greatest oil deposits in the world are beneath bone dry, deadly desert sands. In many of the same places, huge aquifers exist beneath those same parched sands. Some cultures don't embrace progress, and without question, it's hard to progress when survival tops the priority list. Still, unless you want the battle to survive to go on forever, you think about what can be changed to alter the list.

We have spent billions in aid helping people in these nations survive- food of course, but also money- usually going to governments and disappearing before it provides any real results for the people. Much of our food winds up being sold to the people in the same way- dishonest governments, black-market profits. Many years ago I saw a show with Heraldo Rivera on the "Save the children" operation. When it started, they said there were 20 million children at risk. No doubt, a great many were supported in this way- but rather than become self sufficient, they became dependent, and had more children which also became dependent. and had more children. So- 20 years later, they had 30 million children to save.

It's one thing to offer a helping hand- it's another to simply sign on to feed them indefinitely. How do you motivate people to become self-sufficient? I don't know. In my experience, the fundamental mindset of people is almost impossible to change, until they have a burning desire to change it. If they have that, you can be a sort of guide- and while you still can't do it for them, they have the potential to become independent and self-sufficient.. The worst thing you can do to them is make them dependent, and we have done a great deal of it. They hate us for that. People must want to help themselves if they are ever to rise above a state of poverty and dependence on things they have no control over.

This is a fundamental fact of the nature of life; it applies to everyone everywhere.

 

I wasn't implying this.

On the contrary, I believe that just because we have "food" here, that does not mean it can be or should be distributed other places.

In fact it's interesting to me to dissect the arguments of the social engineers who want to modify society's systems without any understanding of how individual systems interact with all of society's systems.

Thus, those that want to feed the hungry with redistribution of surplus from the food system also want to restrain companies like Monsanto that are in part responsible for the surplus to begin with. They foster dependence, and then destroy the thing they pretend to provide.

It happens over and over again.

 

I used to. After we dropped the rig off a lot of us got laid off. Went to work landrigs for a while until government ****ed that up too. Now I'm a millwright in a factory that makes food cans, own a few rental properties and do some other things on the side. My rig was the one that jetted in the hole that sunk the Horizon.

I don't think we should be forced to subsidize anyone.

 

I think I get you now but I'm not entirely sure. To me it seems like it's more simple than that. No society faces famine of any duration unless it's caused by war.

 

Sure they do.

 

I wasn't talking about "give-away" distribution.. I was talking about internal distribution within countries. Yemen imports 90% of its food . (just like Libya)

Distribution systems fail when there is a conflict.

 

Yet when the National Institute of Science researched this, they found no harm with the chemicals they are using, but also found that compared to non GMO yields there has not been an increase in yields compared to increase yields in conventional crops. So this is debatable.

 

Examples pleased

 

Not to mention withholding food is a tool of war

 

Well, it's about society's systems. Some people believe they can be intentionally engineered at a macro level. I disagree.

Systems are created at a micro level, but at the macro level they function organically. Just as you don't control every cell in your body, you can't control all of the systems of mankind. The integration of these systems is the result of millions of individual choices, not centralized authoritative decree.

So when you make a change to a large organic system like "food production" you will globally change all the systems that interact with that system as well. It always results in unforseen negative consequences, some if which threaten the viability of all the systems.

Think of the disasters that have resulted from attempts to fiddle with finance.

Think of the disasters that have resulted from attempts to produce equality of outcome.

They are all attempts to impose value, while grounded firmly in well intentioned policy, resulted in the utter devastation of the systems they attempted to improve.

 

This goes back to my question about "we" Do we have the moral obligation to meddle in the affairs of other nation states in order to support people who share our values? How do we know they share our values? How do we pick which side to support if neither group shares our values?

 

I don't have a problem at all with attempts to improve products as long as so called improved products don't receive any special market protection. It's when the cronies start writing the protectionism into law that I have a problem.

 

we dont have a lack of food.

we only have a lack of responsible governments.

 

Me either. Progress is important in this area with a growing population. I worry about the long term effects of putting too many eggs in one basket in so far as limiting species of crops. I read about the potato famine once. I also an concerned about the long term effects of some of these chemicals that are being used. They do tend to build up and move about. But then complete organic farming is impossible, and is just a luxury these days. Too many people. Not enough manure.

 

I wasn't talking about "give-away" distribution.. I was talking about internal distribution within countries. Yemen imports 90% of its food . (just like Libya)

Distribution systems fail when there is a conflict.

 

duplicate

 

Near half the worlds food is thrown out because it cant be sold. Either it sits on the shelf too long or it never makes it to market because its unproffitable. If it doesn't look right or its the wrong shape or size, it cant be sold for enough money to make transportation and preservation worthwhile. And what does make it to market must sell at a profit, if its undersold it drives down overall costs to below profitability for the growers, and they go out of business. In short- the profit margins of food are so slim that theres no wiggle room for charity.

Additionally, I know that in the US the waste is far higher than other places because its somehow preferable that the hungry starve rather than risk poisening by expired food. Food rarely rots in US stores because of the wide 'safety range' added to expiration dates. We throw our food out quite a bit earlier than necessary to prevent expensive lawsuits. Stores that attempt to give this 'expired' (but still edible) food to the poor tend to get fined by the govt for endangering public health.

How to fix all of this? I have no clue. The food producers need to make a profit or they change to a different industry and theres no food. Safety regulations increase production cost, but reduce sickness and probably reduce overall cost to society in the long run. Its a damn shame for all that food to go in the trash while folks starve, but how to fix it?

 

I know what you have said is true.

 

North Korea and Venezuela for starters.

 

I'm bored with hearing about famine in the third world. I grew up being told to eat my beets because some kid in China would love to have beets. Later in my teens, I was told about starving Africans, and then starving Cambodians, and then it was back to Africa for more starvation, and now it's the middle east and africa?

Sam Kinnison's plan to end world poverty by having the starving Africans move to where the food is isn't helping Europe very much. All you end up with are starving Africans in europe, unless they are given food to eat.

I think that maybe I can live with people starving after all these years. It's just Darwin's way of culling the herd.

 

I'd disagree with the last part if your post. A little education removes the need for much of the regulations. Take meat for example. We evolved as opertunistic eaters. There is very little that we can't eat. Even slightly spoiled meat doesn't generally hurt us if it's cooked properly. Rancid meat can be saved in most cases if the original cut is thick enough.

 

Natural catastrophes happen. Human victims of these events can be helped or hindered by others. In the case of Somalia, food was weaponized by the local warlords. The UN, supported by the US and other military forces attempted to correct the problem, but after the Battle of Mogadishu, the US bailed out and they still have a problem almost 3 decades later.

Most areas of the world where there is famine are being helped, but not at the expense of supporting brutal regimes like in Somalia.

The Left complains about the US military then is eager to send it into those areas. The Left complains about the military budget, then wants it to be the world's police man/food vendor. Please make up your mind.

 

Depending on the causes of famine, whether that is parched earth or internal conflict, some times helping is not possible.

The situation in Yemen is an example of the latter. In the past two years Saudi Arabia has provided $8 billion in aid to Yemen and that has not brought peace or stability to the Yemeni people. What it has done is embolden the rebels.

 

The old solution to "parched earth" was to move. Why don't people move? Political things like borders or warlords.

Throwing money at a problem, despite the fervent beliefs of the Left, doesn't solve all problems. It's like throwing money at a "money pit" house. Unless the underlying problems are fixed, the money is just a band-aid, a temporary fix.

 

The "regulations" set up that prevent supermarkets from easily donating unsold food is DISGUSTING. The govt would prefer people starve than allow charitable organizations from getting food where it can be eaten. Its really shameful. Because a soup kitchen or homeless person can SUE them if they get sick. WTF? I'm not implying rotten food be donated. But a common sense approach is needed. People working at supermarkets as well as soup kitchens can use common sense as to what's good or not.

Its like the Seinfeld episode about the Muffin tops. The soup kitchen head says the homeless are complaining that they're just getting stumps and Elaine says, "but, they're still edible". But in the end, she says, "If the homeless don't want to eat them, the homeless don't have to have them!" and the head of the shelter says, "GOOD!!!"....and then they can't find anywhere to throw the stupid things out, because the dumps won't even take the stumps either because they're not good enough=) It's genius, if not a sad commentary on reality.