Recent letters to the editor in the Las Vegas Sun have addressed the danger of food shortages caused by overpopulation. The 16th century English economist and sociologist Thomas Malthus theorized that the food supply was growing arithmetically, while the population was growing geometrically.
He concluded that at some point, there would be more people on Earth than food to feed them. This was, of course, before modern farming techniques had been invented. Most modern sociologists, including myself, and economists now consider his theory to be invalid.
Most agree that the cause of food shortages around the world today has little to do with overpopulation and more to do with distribution, corruption and civil strife in some countries. Areas where starvation exists lack the roads, trucks and basic infrastructure to get food to the people who need it most.
Also, many of these nations have some of the richest, most fertile soil in the world. But the inhabitants lack the basic farming resources needed to grow crops.
In an age in which U.S. farmers are paid by the government not to grow certain crops, and ranchers would rather sell their cattle or dump their milk in the sewer to keep prices high, we need to keep this in perspective.
"... distribution, corruption and civil strife in some countries. Areas where starvation exists lack the roads, trucks and basic infrastructure to get food to the people who need it most.
Also, many of these nations have some of the richest, most fertile soil in the world. But the inhabitants lack the basic farming resources needed to grow crops."
Isn't it clear by now that these problems will never be solved? Or do you think that the CEOs of Aetna, Exxon, atc, etc, etc, etc, will suddenly decide to help feed the hungry instead of buying yachts and jets and palaces? If the Compassionate Conservatives squatting on this page are representative of their heroes, and they have clearly expressed their contempt for poor people here in the US, how can the problem ever be solved worldwide? Coerced wealth distribution? Not from the pockets of the selfish folk you'll hear from further down the page.
So, yes, there are more people already on Earth that are not, cannot and will not be fed. They are dying of hunger and will continue to die of hunger, and even if you are right, that theoretically, sufficient food can be produced and distributed to alleviate if not eliminate hunger, a kid in Mozambique can not eat theoretical bread or drink theoretically clean water.
Why pick on U.S. Corporations? The dictators of these third world countries where people are starving are living almost as well as the rich in this country. Let them lead the way on taking care of their own people. It's funny that these backward countries have plenty of money to buy guns, ammo, and other weapons of war while people are starving. Maybe the efforts to feed their poor should start within their own countries.
I believe it was Zimbabwe that the president seized all the large farms that were more that adequately feeding the people of the country by using modern farming methods. Then the land was turned over to the poor who had no idea how to farm it. The result, the people are starving. We are supposed to help this country?
Here is some info about how multi-national oil companies team up with corrupt dictators to exploit the local people for profits. The people of the Niger delta used to live off the land and they were self sustaining in population with their environment and they knew how to fish, raise animals and grow crops - until the pollution from oil production ruined their rivers, land and air. They protested in non-violent fashion and were met with violence. So that did not work and now they resort to violence.
It is an interesting cycle: Happy people are told some lies about the "good life". So they go along only too late to realize the consequences. Then they can't fish, grow or farm due to the oil spills and gas flares. So the oil that is exported to the USA is converted into food and sent back to them. Everybody in the USA pats themselves on the back for being humanitarians. Now there are a bunch of people with nothing to do and they are getting enough food - so they are bored and make more babies. They lose a lot of their agricultural roots and become prisoners of the "Oil State". The cycle repeats and now there is major conflict due to oil and rampant population growth. By the way this also keeps our oil prices down - other people are cheap and expendable. I'm just as guilty - I want cheap gas and everything that goes along with it!!
http://www.globalissues.org/article/86/n...
"The Niger Delta in Nigeria has been the attention of environmentalists, human rights activists and fair trade advocates around the world. The trial and hanging of environmentalist Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other members of the Ogoni ethnic minority made world-wide attention. So too did the non-violent protests of the Ogoni people. The activities of large oil corporations such as Mobil, Chevron, Shell, Elf, Agip etc have raised many concerns and criticisms."
McKee, is correct. Overpopulation is NOT the problem. The countries facing shortages not only have infrastructure and corruption problems but they also have restrictive economies and poor property rights. This makes it hard for farmers to grow crops and earn a profit.
Making matters worse are the first world countries, including the United States and European Union which HEAVILY subsidize their farming industry. (We don't just pay them to not grow food, we pay farmers when the world crop price drops below a certain point).
Cows in Europe, for example are subsidized to the tune of $2 a day for EACH COW. That is more money for each European cow than 1 billion poor people earn a day.
These subsidies drastically reduce the ability of third world farmers from making a living. Think about it, they can't compete against major agro firms that receive billions of dollars in subsidies. This means they can't even feed their own people.
The US has a nasty habit of dumping large amounts of surplus food on poor countries when the price drops (US buys up the excess supply and sends it oversees). This dumping puts the third world farmers out of work perpetuating the destructive cycle.
Stan G,
The problem isn't private corporations, once again, its dumb government policies.
Food shortages are caused by "leaders" like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe. In their zeal to do away with white minority rule and install black governments they have turned what were once prosperous countries that could feed themselves and export food to third world starvation zones with their hands constantly stuck out looking for the western world to provide.
RHG,
Getting rid of white farmers in Zimbabwe was just an association of a much larger problem - Socialism.
Neighboring Botswana is an example of what can be accomplished with a little capitalism and property rights. Botswana is now the wealthiest African country.
Sorry Patrick. The "problem" as you so casually put it, is people. No matter the reason, there are not hundreds, but hundreds of millions of people starving. Right now. This minute. Not just hungry, not just very hungry. Starving. Starving to death. Human nature, and that includes you, is such that this little "problem" is insoluble. Is it theoretically possible to solve it? Sure, if you would put someone else's welfare, someone you don't know, will never meet, and who can never be expected to return the favor or even say "thank you", high on your to-do list. But that will never happen. So the truth is that yesterday and today, there are too many people in the world to feed. Tomorrow it will be worse, much worse.
We once thought the oceans were an unending reservoir of food. By "once", I mean 3 or 4decades ago. That was when fishermen cast nets a few yards wide, and others caught with hook and line. That was before we grasped the enormity of harvesting with nets that spanned miles. Now, the large fish are in serious decline. Much of our seafood is being grown on farms because entire species are nearly gone from the oceans.
The population of the US has doubled since I graduated high school. Patrick says there's no "problem" because the percentage of starving people is decreasing. If it decreases 10 percent, while the world population doubles, instead of 160 million malnourished children, we'll have 288 million.
Sorry, Patrick, perhaps I should have said "only" 288 million malnourished children.
When Christ was feeding the hungry, HE had a much easier time of it. There were a mere 300 million humans on the face of the entire planet. We didn't reach a billion until 1800, just a bit after the birth of the US. It took 100 years, until 1900 to get to 2 billion. But then things went nuts. 30 years later, another billion. The fourth billion took a mere 15 years. The next 2 billion took 25 years and here we all are now at over 6 billion people.
Unless the Lord sends a few dozen of HIS Sons this time to help feed the starving, the "problem" will not be solved. Is there anyone here who can imagine how Patrick's Utopia of unregulated capitalism and unfettered personal greed can do anything but exacerbate this intolerable human condition?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis...
The problem is that you cannot buy locally, everything is global. Since you have to get banana, coffee, sugar, etc from 3rd world contries; they are not brought over on solar sails and rainbows. Oil drives these big ships.
If we remade our country to neo-Agrarian, where we don't have to ship our products as far for our consumers, then we'd have to use less oil to ship from here to their. As the Green people say, buy locally think globally. It would be better not the get food from far off places unless we have to. First food supply, then we could do the same for everything else. I'm not saying we should isolate us from the rest of the world, we just need to rebuild inside our society then we could build the outside.
Patrick holds up Botswana as a shining example of how capitalism solves the hunger problem. But here are some facts:
Botswana has a population of 2 million people and a standard of living around that of Mexico. About 60% of the population live above the international poverty line of $1.25 a day. Life expectancy at birth has dropped from 65 to 35 years.
Debswana, the largest diamond mining company operating in Botswana, is 50% owned by the government. Mineral industry provides about 40% of all government revenues.
The government provides full scholarships with living expenses to any Botswana citizen in university, either at the University of Botswana or if the student wishes to pursue an education in any field not offered locally, such as medicine, they are provided with a full scholarship to study abroad.
Approximately one in six Batswana has HIV, giving Botswana the second highest infection rate in the world. The government recognizes that AIDS will affect the economy and is trying to combat the epidemic, including free anti-retroviral drug treatment and a nation-wide Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission program.
Aids, reducing the population, not capitalism, is what is "curing" the problem in Botswana.
Well I suppose we could count on disease, famine and war to do it world wide. Global warming should assist nicely.
True, we do have much surplus food. Just look in the average U.S. citizen's pantry/fridge. But, your assertion that better farming practices could wipe out hunger for a global population set to double by 2050 (12 billion people!) is quite optimistic. What is your evidence that "many of these nations have some of the richest, most fertile soil in the world." I find that hard to believe. The richest soils come from grasslands (particularly the former tallgrass prairie of the midwestern U.S.). I'm sure most areas like this are being farmed to some degree already. We in the U.S. still don't have the most sustainable farming practices. Do you think dumping tons of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides on the land and engineering plants to produce more will make the world a better place? Typical economist- only looking through a narrow hole and missing the bigger picture of causes and effects. Typical economist- not taking the "eco" in economy seriously.
How much of this will be of issue when AIDS begins to run rampant in the United States now the our mighty hero, our "God sent" President Obama has lifted the ban on HIV infected travelers to the United States of America.
By the way, let's talk about clean water without which this conversation is pointless because we will all be starving not to mention thirsty.
These days it seems like there is one crisis after another. I try to keep focused on the known crises that effects me and my family the most.
On December 22, 2012, I will broaden my efforts to deal with crises that effect world hunger, overpopulation and global warming.
Stan G,
1) Africa is being wracked by AIDs, Botswana is no exception. AIDS is hurting the economy, but they aren't suffering from food shortages or over population either.
2) Even if the wealth in Botswana is at the level of Mexico, that is still very good for Africa - and things can get better.
3) Yes, the government owns some companies and provides certain services, but it still has a larger free sector in the economy than other African countries
http://www.freetheworld.com/cgi-bin/free...
http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Bo...
Djeco,
Yes, we've done it before and we will continue to do it. "Inorganic" crops as you call them are nothing new. Humans have been genetically engineering food and animals for years. We just have a better and faster process. These engineered crops will allow us to harvest more food per acre (in fact, this has been a 200 year trend now with no signs of slowing down).
In effect, environmentalist crazies objecting to the use of genetically modified foods are the ones who are dooming millions of people on the planet to die.
I can't tell if these people are stupid or evil but its one or the other. Either way, they simply aren't thinking through the consequences.