How To Feed The World 87
Dr. Norman Borlaug, who helped create wheat strains in the 1960s that increased the production of farms throughout the world by ten fold, turned 90 last week. This "food hacker", and his fellow agricultural researchers, by launching the "Green Revolution", have done more to feed the world than anyone else before or since. He recently published an essay on the future of the world food supply entitled
We can feed the world. Here's how.
Soylent Green Is People (Score:4, Funny)
make 10 times more food (Score:5, Interesting)
The food shortages in the world today have very little to do an overall lack of food.
Re:make 10 times more food (Score:2)
if we don't have a moral obligation to make more food, then we have a moral obligation to defend the forrests & wildlife of the world...
otherwise *gasp* we could let nature take its place and where humans are more abundant than food, let the strong survive.
Re:make 10 times more food (Score:5, Insightful)
Distribution problems are 100% unrelated to destruction of wildlife and forest, either as cause or effect.
Re:make 10 times more food (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:make 10 times more food (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if we did send it, there's no guanatee it would reach those who need it. Look at Somalia. We tried and failed because local warlords wanted to control the distribution, and they absolutely did not want the US to get the food to everybody.
The problem, again, is distribution. Frequently for political reasons. If they would clean up their own politics so delivery was possible then we might just send more to them. But as long as their governments seek to control distribution for political reasons, there's just no point.
And it's not just Africa - look at Iraq or North Korea, where food was sent, but the leaders hoarded it and used it to reward loyalty and punish disloyalty. Food as a weapon! And you want we should just blindly send more food to such reigmes? I don't think so...
Re:make 10 times more food (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:make 10 times more food (Score:2)
Re:make 10 times more food (Score:5, Insightful)
> have the food we just don't send it?
It's true; we have extra food, more than we can possibly use. It sits around
and rots because the supermarkets don't buy it all up in time, and the food the
supermarkets do buy up, a significant portion of *that* sits there (mostly in
their back rooms, but sometimes out in the consumer areas even) until it rots,
because people don't buy it fast enough, and the food that people do buy, more
than half of it doesn't end up going into anyone's stomach, for one reason or
another -- it doesn't get prepared before it goes bad, or once it's prepared
there's more than enough and it doesn't all get put on a plate, or it does get
put on a plate but then it's not all eaten. The *poor* people in Ohio throw
away almost as much food as they eat, and that's just what gets all the way to
the consumer before it gets thrown out.
Restaurants waste even more food than supermarkets. School cafeterias,
*especially* college cafeterias, waste even more than restaurants.
We have plenty of food. More food than we know what to do with. Who do you
know who, if a clearly emaciated person obviously starving came to the door,
would *for lack of extra food* turn the person away? (Some people would turn
them away for other reasons (fear of criminal activity, annoyance at being
interrupted by a total stranger, a dislike for the poor, a worldview that
considers handouts not to be doing the recipient any favors, or cetera), but
here I'm talking about turning them away for lack of any food to spare.)
Further, there are lots of people in the USA who would be happy to donate
food, even purchase food just to donate it, for the warm fuzzy feelings they
get from it. When the public library offers "Food for Fines", wherein people
can pay their fines with the equivalent amount of food, which is then donated
to some community action group, people come out of the woodwork to pay off
fines that they've let stand for months or years. McDonald's would be
pleased (if they were approached correctly) to donate a hundred thousand
Extra Value Meals toward a Solving World Hunger initiative just for the PR
value, and they're not alone.
But shipping donated food to where the starving people are is less than
altogether practicable (much less practical). If the recipients can't afford
food, they *certainly* can't afford the international shipping. On a small
scale, the cost of the international shipping positively *dwarfs* the cost
of the food, so that you feel like you're mostly giving your money to the
shipping company, not to the starving people. On a large scale, the
ecconomics of the shipping would be somewhat less unfavourable, but getting
the scale large enough would almost certainly require government involvement
(which raises budget issues and can upset taxpayers) or a large corporation
(which by the time you consider shipping and organizational overhead can
probably get a larger PR kick by doing something domestically).) And the
problems don't stop when you drop the shipment of food onto the docks. The
starving people are mostly inland, and the transportation infrastructure is
somewhat less developed[1] than around here. So you're looking at probably
using choppers half the time... it gets expensive fast.
Then with any large-scale food import operation there's the issue of making
sure the starving people get to eat the food; in a lot of places this would
require a significant long-term military presence, lest the local thugs[2]
take the food to make feeding their armies a little easier. Of course, a
significant long-term military presence has serious political ramifications;
Various nations (mostly Europe) would not be keen to allow us to keep armed
forces all over Africa on a more-or-less permanent basis. They would make
a big deal publically abo
Re:make 10 times more food (Score:2)
Nevermind distributing it from the USA. Most countries are in need of food aid because bad government policies discourgage if not outright prevent the local land from producing enough. From North Korea to Zimbabwe the local land is perfectly capable of producing enough food. Communist/Stalinist bullies around the world are the source of the problem.
Re:make 10 times more food (Score:1)
Re:Social Darwinism (Score:3, Interesting)
That reasoning is OK, then the overpopulated species is fish, or birds or aligators or rabbits, but when the species is humans, then that sort of reasoning begs the question: "Who's we?"
Who is the 'we' that is outside nature looking in, that is well fed, and confident enough to be OK with social darwinism? When people are dying, you would be arrogant and wrong to suppose that it couldn't be you.
Unless, by
Re:Social Darwinism (Score:3, Informative)
Re:make 10 times more food (Score:5, Informative)
However (and as was partially stated in the article), in countries with modern food production (which yeilded the 10-fold increase 50 years ago) population growth has generally levelled off to a sustaining rate, rather than increasing the population 10-fold.
Personally I think there is no moral obligation to turn every acre of land over to food production.
The moral obligation referred to in the article is that of reducing or maintaining the amount of land needed for food production in order to preserve as many acres of land not currently used for this purpose as possible. In other words, there is a moral obligation NOT to turn every acre of land over to food production.
The food shortages in the world today have very little to do an overall lack of food.
You're right, they have little to do with an overall lack of food, but rather with a localized lack of food in third world countries. Mexico, much of South America, and much of Africa are seeing more and more land cleared for farms because they do not have modern food production. They also aren't using proper crop rotations, so the land is losing most of its nutrients. In other worlds, areas in which people are already starving are also moving rapidly towards their own equivalent of the US' dust-bowl.
The US and other high-yield countries can continue sending food to these countries, or we can give them the means to use their own farmland to produce more food of their own. As long as they're not paying for the food we ship to them now (which most aren't), the long-term costs of improving their farming methods is significantly lower than sending them food every year. The added benefit is that better farm yields can lead to economic improvements, which lead to more imports of other goods and possibly, eventually, improvements in other areas of production within those countries, pulling them out of third world status.
or maybe not (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, and why do you think they don't have modern food production methods? Do you think they don't know how to?
No, it's because they can't afford to. US agriculture is energy intensive, consumes lots of non-renewable raw materials, and generates lots of pollution. If a country is willing and able to pay that price, it's not surprising that they can get enormous yields per acre. But third world nations don't have the money to engage in that kind of agriculture. The US can only afford to do it because its agricultural sector is subsidized, both explicitly and implicitly by piggybacking on other infrastructure.
It's not as much a question of "modern" vs. "outdated", it's a question of how much you are willing to spend and accept in other costs in order to increase yields. And as the costs of non-renewable resources and pollution keep increasing, there is a good chance that it is US-style agriculture that will start failing.
Re:or maybe not (Score:2)
Why would the cost increase? Can you back this up? (Are you just talking about the cost of fertilizer?)
All industrial areas gets cheaper over time. Also, since modern farming has been done for decades now, if there was some effect destroying the soil we should know about it, yes?
(The article did recommended crop rotation.)
Re:or maybe not (Score:4, Informative)
It's actually a loss in cation exchange capacity. Along with the exports of vegetable matter out of the growing area goes a lot of Ca and Mg (useful for plants), thus raising the Al+++:[basic cations] in the ground, and incidentally acidity. This directly leads to lowered fertility and even to aluminium toxicity and lateritisation in extreme cases.
The only way to counteract it is to add lime to the ground, which is disruptive to ground microfauna, hence to soil structure.
There are simple solutions, though, letting cattle graze on site instead of exporting fodder out of the fields. Unfortunately, it's not "productive" enough for the modern farmer. In the meanwhile, soil fertility and overall quality is dropping at an alarming rate, with an ever increased use of lime and fertilizers to keep that bloody productivity high.
To sum up with an ugly buzzword, modern farming isn't sustainable.
Re:or maybe not (Score:2)
Ah, but it takes decades until you have to leave the ground to cows for a while? Shouldn't be a large problem in most of the industrialised world.
You describe a "race to the bottom"? Farmers can't be 10-20% less effective and keep soil quality up because of competition from other farmers?
A typical problems with capitalism -- things like this should be regulated centrally, but too often aren't. On the other hand, no other way of orga
Re:or maybe not (Score:4, Informative)
What competition? Farming is heavily subsidized in the US and Europe. That's the main reason US farmers can use high-yield, intensive methods and still compete internationally. And it's a big problem for developing nations, whose agricultural methods actually would be internationally competitive if only they were allowed to compete on a level playing field.
Re:or maybe not (Score:2)
Even if you're inside a subsidy system you can't be 10-20% more expensive than other producers inside the same system.
Can you give references to support that modern farming is more expensive than non-mechanized 3ld world farming? (Neither European leftwing nor eco group, please.)
Never mind -- considering the terrible way of life for people working in labor intensive developing world farming, I don't care. It is something that sho
Re:or maybe not (Score:2)
Sure. As an example, just look at gasoline prices, the cost of pollution control on your vehicle, fees for disposing of oil and old tires, etc. All those costs have gone up. Farmers face the same increases in many more areas.
All industrial areas gets cheaper over time.
No, they don't. Production methods may get more efficient and certain products may get cheaper, but the cost of most non-renewable resources, labor, and pollution all tend to go up ov
Re:or maybe not (Score:2)
A quick Google gave this page [cato.org], search for Simon. (The rest of the article is the inverse of your position.)
Yes, oil use will have to end. But we usually find other ways when we get to such an end. (labor has gone up in cost -- which is a damn good thing!)
(Besides, pollution is a problem when industrialization starts. It then start to cost real money, so if the country isn't totally corrupt, it gets
Re:or maybe not (Score:2)
Compared to when?
When you back out the factor of rising gasoline taxes (such taxes being obviously not a problem of resource depletion, but merely a political decision), and adjust to use constant dollars, gasoline today in the U.S. costs about 25% of what it did in 1964. That's despite the fact that gasoline processing requirements and quality standards have gone up dramatically in that time for environmental reasons.
Re:or maybe not (Score:1)
We [google.com] do [oregonstate.edu].
The "Green Revolution" is not a way of getting more for less. It has a high cost in natural resources, a non-sustainable scheme that is the equivalent of a solving financial crisis by borrowing. It's a credit card, not a cash deposit in humanity's checking account, and the interest is piling up.
Until the time comes w
Re:or maybe not (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. It is possible (I suspect even easier) to build a sustainable agriculture practice without all the expensive inputs. In the US, the most expensive input into agriculture is labor. Ironically, that's what these other countries have as a cheap input. We substitute petroleum inputs for labor because it's cheaper, the situation is probably reversed in South America.
I'm really not sure why things are the way they are, but I don't buy your theory. I suspect it has more to do with the efforts of farmers to grow cash crops for export rather than sustainable food crops.
Anyway, that's my opinion, and it's worth at least as much as you paid for it :)
Re:make 10 times more food (Score:2)
> food production (which yeilded the 10-fold increase 50 years ago) population
> growth has generally levelled off to a sustaining rate, rather than increasing
> the population 10-fold.
This is not due to having enough food, however. It's due to ecconomic factors.
The countries that have the ecconomic strength to keep all their people fed are
the same countries with adequate police coverage, transportation infrastructur
Re:make 10 times more food (Score:1)
The countries that have the ecconomic strength to keep all their people fed are
the same countries with adequate police coverage, transportation infrastructure,
something that resembles a passable excuse for an education system, unemployment
and inflation mostly under control most of the time, adequate communications
infrastructure, enough hospitals, and so on.
As history has shown us in many countries, including the US, most of the
Re:make 10 times more food (Score:3, Interesting)
finally somebody gets it right... (Score:2)
Check the links to info on peak oil here [ecis.com] for information a bit more current than this guy's belief system is.
I'm perfectly willing to listen to what this guy has to say about plant breed
Overpopulation is a myth (Score:3, Informative)
1) Things like farm subsidies where the US government pays farmers to make less food.
2) Poor distribution of food.
By poor distribution means two things. First it means that food isn't doled out in proportion to where it is needed. Some places are difficult to send food to. Other places it is not economical to send food to. The food just isn't brought to where it needs to be. In conjunction with that some people eat more than their fair share. I'm no commy, in fact quite the opposite, but all these fat disgusting americans eating McDonalds two to three times a day is just sick. Eat when you are hungry and don't eat when you're not hungry. Eating is not an activity, that flabby gut of yours could be someone's atrophied muscle.
Re:Overpopulation is a myth (Score:3, Informative)
Poor distribution can be solved by increasing production in the areas that pose distribution problems, or near those areas to create a shorter distance for distribution (if not
Re:Overpopulation is a myth (Score:5, Interesting)
They can also go the other way and damage the ability to produce local food, as was done in Zimbabwe, where President Robert Mugabe kicked many of the white farm owners off of their land, turning them over to local blacks who had little or no idea of how to run a farm (including many prime farms that ended up in the hands of relatives and cronies), under the guise of a fair "redistribution" of the land. He has since demanded that the white farmers (many of whom lost virtually everything) assist in the transition, but many of them have basically flipped him the bird and moved to Britain to live with families of their own. Zimbabwe was a food exporter only a few years ago; now millions depend on food handouts because the farmlands lie poorly maintained (if they're used at all), and many are afraid of voting against Mugabe (ignoring the probably rigged elections) for fear of him punishing their regions.
Re:Overpopulation is a myth (Score:1)
> a day.
Three Big Macs a day isn't even extreme. There are people who get two Double
Quarters in a single meal. (Yes, that's a pound of beef, plus cheese and
whatnot.) Plus SuperSize fries.
The one that scares me, though is the guy who waits in the drivethrough for
fifteen minutes every single morning for McDs to open so he can get is four
large coffees. He doesn't just come when it's time for the place to open,
presumably be
Re:Overpopulation is a myth (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, you are further marked as a troll by your complaint of Americans consuming too much food, "more than their fair share". The problem as you say is that food is not going where it's supposed to, it's rotting in warehouses and silos, it doesn't matter if some of it goes through McDonald's. And, eating is by definition an activity.
If you want to complain about the actions of Americans, complain about how instead of donating their time and/or money to help people in other countries, they're posting on slashdot, which while it does have a small impact on other news outlets is generally a tale told by an idiot. In more ways than one.
Re:Overpopulation is a myth (Score:2)
Maybe we CAN fit more people on the Earth, but should we?
We can do as you say, produce more food, and distribute it better. But in order to do so, we would have to dismantle/modify/reorganize many current behaviors and institutions. Not that those institutions don't of themselves deserve to be dismantled/modified/reorganized, but for the SOLE END of sustaining more people?
IMHO, there's an ideal human population, related to many things, including
The problem's on the output side (Score:3, Interesting)
People in the United States among the best environmental policy -no wonder environmentalists don't want to see it downgraded. Hell, many countries in South America still allow leaded gasoline! Raw, untreated sewage is spilled directly into Sao Paulo's rivers, which run through the city down to the beach! Imagine if that were the case in the U.S.?
Becau
Re:The problem's on the output side (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The problem's on the output side (Score:2)
You get more human bodies on the face of the earth, you'll get more sh!t, refuse and greenhouse gasses, that remains undisputed. The real queston is what the effect is and will continue to be, and whether mankind wil
Re:The problem's on the output side (Score:2)
An example of the output's effects on ecology (Score:2)
The main cause is excess nitrogen run-off from farm fertilizers, sewage and industrial pollutants. The nitrogen triggers blooms of microscopic algae known as phytoplankton. As the algae die and rot, they consume oxygen, thereby suffocating everything from clams and lobsters to oysters and fish.
"Human kind is engaged in a gigan
Re:Could we really feed everyone? (Score:2)
Re:Overpopulation is a myth (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but the real problem of overpopulation is that other people suck. There is nothing like living in an area, where you can turn off the TV, step outside, and hear nothing but the wind and the birds. In the Great Kingdom of Suburbia, I can step outside and be guaranteed to hear several neglected yapping dogs confined to fenced backyards and at least one car with 1000 watts of trash in the back seat and truck. Add to that neighb
Re:Overpopulation is a myth (Score:3)
Quoting the article:
Consider these facts: The land area of Texas is some 262,000 square miles* and current UN estimates of the world's population (for 12 October 1999) are about 6 billion.** By converting square miles to square feet -- remember to multiply by 5,280 feet per mile twice -- and dividing by the world's population, one readily finds that there are more than 1,217 square feet per capita. A family of 5 would thus occupy more than 6,085 square feet of living space.
Re:Overpopulation is a myth (Score:1)
Re:Overpopulation is a myth (Score:1)
That's flat-out incorrect. A reasonable definition of "running out of space on earth" is no longer being able to exist as a species without displacing other species to the point where we drive them to extinction. We have reached that point and passed it.
We don't need more people. We would do just well as a species with about 4 billion fewer of us shitting in the nest. Doing anything to improve either food production or food d
Re:Overpopulation is a myth (Score:2)
We reached that point and passed it about six thousand years ago when large-scale farming began.
Re:Overpopulation is a myth (Score:2)
But this problem is much harder to solve - you can't ship American (European, Japanese, South Ko
Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
All he seems to be doing in this essay is advocating that farmers use modern farming techniques (i.e. synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, mostly). So fine. That's not all that controversial is it? But how does that ensure that the food actually gets to people? How does that ensure efficient use of resources?
Where's the sensible criticism of the bizarre government involvement in the U.S. food supply? Why does he not take issue with price supports and all the other nonsense that makes a gallon of milk cost more here in the heart of dairyland than any two gallons of gas? Why does he not mention vegetarianism, which is far more energy efficient than processing vegetable matter through cows and chickens and pigs? Why does he not talk about the problems that foreign aid and the drug trade produce in many countries, where farmers find it more profitable to be on the dole or to grow drug crops than they do to grow food crops that could feed their coutnrymen?
If the answer were as simple as "use synthetic fertilizer and pesticides", don't you think we would have solved all of this by now?
Re:Uh... (Score:4, Informative)
Remember a few months ago when a handful of countries were refusing food shipments for fear that some percentage of the crops were genetically engineered? Those are the types of controversies that come from modern farming techniques (though most of what he's talking about is 50+-year old techniques, he does discuss food adapted for the environments). Beyond that, he also points out how much misinformation is widely believed about increasing food production, and the issues with local crops and people wanting to preserve those crops rather than plant higher-yield crops.
But how does that ensure that the food actually gets to people? How does that ensure efficient use of resources?
He is talking specifically about increasing production on land already in use, in third world nations. This gets food to the people specifically by making the production point closer to the people, and by increasing the yields of those local points of production already being used, and depleted, by these people. The efficient use of resources comes from increasing the yields of these farms and decreasing deforestation and other problems (like stripping the nutrients from the soil) that could eventually lead to the farms not producing at all.
Where's the sensible criticism of the bizarre government involvement in the U.S. food supply? Why does he not take issue with price supports and all the other nonsense that makes a gallon of milk cost more here in the heart of dairyland than any two gallons of gas?
Much of that is not needed when you consider that he was addressing part of the reason for the government's involvment in that food supply. If the US weren't supplying food to half the world, we would have little need to have so much involvment in securing that supply. On the other hand, some level of involvment tends to be good to secure our own supply. There's a lot of weird crap going on with that whole system, and pulling the burden off of that system would help with reforms.
Why does he not mention vegetarianism, which is far more energy efficient than processing vegetable matter through cows and chickens and pigs?
Probably because cows, chickens, and pigs are somewhat less likely to be used as large controlled food sources in third world countries, but will instead be used to supplement the diet, being kept by families or communities and allowed much less land than they would be in the US. Vegetarian diets themselves lend problems, as most people that make that choice need to keep a strict eye (at least moreso than someone with a more balanced diet, though it seems most people in the US would be better served seeing a nutritionist regularly) on their own health and diet to prevent malnutrition. Besides, what good is a vegitarian diet in a country where you can not get the vegetables in the first place, even to feed your starving chickens?
Why does he not talk about the problems that foreign aid and the drug trade produce in many countries, where farmers find it more profitable to be on the dole or to grow drug crops than they do to grow food crops that could feed their coutnrymen?
I think you might find that most of those farmers choose to grow drug crops because they find it to be the only way they can keep their farms and their lives, rather than because it's more profitable. Dealing with those situations is often a matter of politics, trying to handle not only the politicians in government, but the real power in those countries, which often lies in the hands of men that will kill farmers that grow food crops until the land falls into their hands.
Most of your questions seem to fall into the realm of politics. The point was simply that, despite how simple it seems to "use synthetic fertilizer and pesticieds", there is a sig
Re:Uh... (Score:1)
Over-population is real but it begs the question.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The article addresses one part of a bigger problem. A man who who can't read is unlikely to be a productive farmer, let alone care about the environment. So the West ends up making grants and loans to make up for entire countries of uneducated folk in Africa.
Most of Africa's problem could be eased by education. An educated farmer goes out looking for good seed - you have to stop him from being productive. Its a proven fact that female literacy is THE most effective form of birth control in poor countries. I wish we could see grants towards rural schools in Africa instead of dealing with the symptoms of a poorly educated society, namely low productivity, high birth rates and high environmental degradation.
Re:Over-population is real but it begs the questio (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Over-population is real but it begs the questio (Score:2)
One trip in a Tokyo subway convinced me that Japan is crowded!
Look at the population of the oil producing states. I believe this population is unsustainably high, tied to the wealth from continued production of oil (end of oil = end of food.)
Now that I've mentioned oil, I guess that applies to all of us: No oil for synthetic fertilizers food production goes down...
So sure
Re:Over-population is real but it begs the questio (Score:2)
Yes, Japan is crowded. However a look at statistics will show that they have a age imbalance. There are more old people than young people. In other words the population is shrinking. Modern education, and toys mean there is plenty to do other than reproduce, and people know the effects of kids on their life style, so many choose not to have kids. On a macro scale Japan's population is set to drop.
Re:Over-population is real but it begs the questio (Score:2)
I don't know much about Japan's social care policy but the ones in the US and EU scream "Ponzi Scheme!"
sustainable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:sustainable? (Score:2, Funny)
To Dr. Norman Borlaug it is indeed. That's exactly what makes him into the "mad scientist" stereotype. His "super" wheats created both the solution to startvation in total numbers AND increased the inbalance in distribution of food. And believe it or not, he thinks he did good and could have done better through better technologies... If only he would show a similar remorse to Alfred Nobel's after seeing the effects of his aggriculture & explosives chemistry.
Re:Att'n Tune: You are stupid. (Score:2)
Re:Att'n Tune: You are stupid. (Score:2)
In rea
More people starving now than ever? (Score:4, Insightful)
learn to read (Score:2)
You obvisouly did not read the artical and know nothing about how it works in reality. It may stand to reason that increasing food supply increases popultion (less people die from malnutrition), but in the real world a better food supply makes most people have less kids, by enough to not only compensate, but over compenstate. As the artical shows, the grains introduced in the 1960s to parts of Africa have already worked to greatly slow the population growth over there.
learn to write (Score:2)
First world intervention in the third world, even something which seems to be as purely good as increasing the food supply, is a complex and controversial topic, and you should not restrict your opinion to, for example, the article mentioned in the original post. I was just trying to balance the somewhat Pollyanna-ish tone of the Slashdot summary.
A quick search on Green Revolution in Google brings up plenty of conflicting informed opinion [foodfirst.org].
Re:learn to read (Score:2)
In the real 3th world birth control is very expensive. The reason why parents have so many children is not because of overcompensation but of the lack of birth control.
All the article states is that they have brought the populati
Food (Score:3, Insightful)
Feed the world? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem with poverty and starvation can't be solved by sending a starving family your leftovers. Sending food their way is just going to alleviate hunger for a few days. This is a band-aid solution that simply isn't sustainable.
The real problem is infrastructure. When a country is constantly in a state of war, when its government is controlled by a dictator who doesn't give a damn about his people, there obviously isn't going to be enough food. People can sustain themselves if they are left alone: people can easily be self-sufficient. But when they are exploited and oppressed in the name of greed and lust for power, when the knowledge of how to be self-sufficient is obliterated, people starve.
We can't feed the world, but we can free the world to feed itself.
These crops destroy 3rd world infrastructure. (Score:1)
It makes the average comfortable first worlder a little more comfortable with a can of beans that costs $.08 less, and some very wealthy persons considerably more wealthy (and powerful)while making the poor very poor and the very poor dead.
Freedom (Score:1)
Were you aware that the unemployment rate in Iraq right now is half of what it was under Saddam Huseein?
----
We have hunger and want in the world because evil men use the vehicle of government to deprive men of that liberty which they need to produce abundantly.
-Ezra Taft Benson
Who's the employer? (Score:2)
Were you aware that the unemployment rate in Iraq right now is half of what it was under Saddam Huseein?
Hmmm. Would that be because the US taxpayers are paying their salaries? Lots of socialism creates lots of jobs as long as the taxpayers are willing to keep shelling out the dough. Think we could work out that kind of deal here at home? Taxpayer money for everyone!! Wooo Hoo!! Oh, wait. Tax cut? You mean it's all being financed with new debt our children will have to pay? Uh-Oh. What time do the chick
Providing more food may not be the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
The general observation that there is sufficient food to feed the current population, if only we could find a equitable way of distributing it, is one thing. But you need to factor in the impact of better food production on future demands too.
Recently there was a TV documentary in the UK to commemorate 20 years since the 'Band Aid' / 'Live Aid' events triggered by famines in Ethiopia. This insightful program (Ethiopia: A Journey with Michael Buerk) by the original reporter who broke news of the famine observed that prior to the famine, the country was able to feed itself (provided the rains came). Twenty years of food aid and the ensuing population explosion later, Ethiopia remains the largest receipient of food aid in Africa, and no longer can produce enough to feed itself even in a year with good rains. There is also apparently an increasing problem with fresh water supplies in the country.
So more food may be part of the answer, but simply providing more food to hungry people does not appear to be the solution. As always, it seems to be much more complex than that.
Remember "We are the world"... (Score:5, Informative)
The only problem was that those starving were either disfavored ethnic minorities/races or innocent civilians living in territory occupied by anti-government guerilla. Food was a weapon, nothing more. The same story [mercurynews.com] continues today.
bad for local economies (Score:2)
While genetically manipulated vegetables and grain have higher yields when you grow them, there's a catch: using them creates a financial dependency on the companies that produce the seeds (gene technology is of course patented). Typically, the genetically modified seeds will work as
Re:bad for local economies (Score:2)
Re:bad for local economies (Score:2)
Dumping makes it impossible to compete for these african farmers. Without dumping and without import restrictions, these african farmers would be able to outcompete european/us farmers without the need for genetically modified seeds. I've seen cost models where all charity that goes into africa combined is less than
Re:bad for local economies (Score:1)
Excuse me for being drunk and surly. I realize the current educational system tends to promote socalism rather than capitalism and this is probably the source of your confusion. Reality works more like this:
Rich f
Re:bad for local economies (Score:2)
Of course farmers shouldn't be stopped from going to some company (on a voluntary basis) to buy genetically modified seeds at the market price. That's free market and I ex
Re:bad for local economies (Score:1)
Ah, didn't realize governments were forcing them to use GM seed. Thanks for pointing that out. Once government is involved to that extent, it makes no sense to try to predict much of anything because of the high level of irrationality injected into the system.
I don't agree that using GM seed would require advanced techniques. Seed is plug and play, even if GM as long as made for the locale. In fact, it should be easier to grow. It is why farmers have been genetically modifying plants for thousands of yea
Green Revolution is Not Sustainable (Score:4, Interesting)
Let them know it's... huh? (Score:2)
from the in-perfect-harmony dept.
So I assume Hemos was remembering the 1980s Band Aid [inthe80s.com] concerts (warning: auto-playing MIDI crap). The song "Do they know it's Christmas?" hit the top of the UK charts in November 1984, and was at the top of the US charts soon after. The touching refrain was this:
Feed the world
Let them know it's Christmas time
Feed the world
Do they know it's Christmas time at all?
What I didn't even think about, my senior year, was that the "they" we were
Author's recommendations won't help (Score:2)
The production of food has NEVER been the problem. Instead, the problem has always been distribution and inequality. There is more than enough food in the world to feed EVERYONE--this has always been true over in the long term. But the food is not distributed evenly. You are not going to fix the problem by producing more.
For example, the auth
Regional military solution? (Score:2)
One of the reacurring bumps talked about above is food as a weapon. The "make people free" solution to has been o