Greed is causing World Hunger!! (edit)

[Chibibar]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/16/national/main5673056.shtml

1 in 7 American is on the brink of "food insecurity" (which I think basically a fancy word for not getting enough food/hunger)

1 billion people world wide are going hungry

U.N is not committing 44 billion a year to help poor country in agriculture to feed themselves.... or pledge to end world hunger by 2025.

Why?
[opinion rage]
Cause there is no ROI in it (Return On Investment) i.e. no profit in it.

It is sad that we have planes and ships cost millions upon millions of dollars while we have people going hungry

[/opinion rage off]

 

[crono1224]

Greed is killing World Hunger!!

Coincidently I am almost finished reading Atlas Shrugged .

 

[Iaculus]

?

 

[Dusty668]

Yah, the greed of the Organic Fudz movement.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDU3Njc3NDJlOTJiZDc2MDc2MWNkYzcxNjA2NTQ0OGI=

Also

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2375008/posts

But hey, I gotta go count my money from selling nothing to no one on another continent.

 

[Chibibar]

Yah, the greed of the Organic Fudz movement.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDU3Njc3NDJlOTJiZDc2MDc2MWNkYzcxNjA2NTQ0OGI=

Also

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2375008/posts

But hey, I gotta go count my money from selling nothing to no one on another continent.

so, you blame the anti-organic industry? I'm confuse here
(not sure of the sarcasm, but I don't understand the 1st sentence)

 

[Dusty668]

From the first article:

Some anti-GMO donors, meanwhile, are remarkably self-serving.

"A considerable part of the anti-biotech-activist bankroll comes from organic and other 'natural' food marketers who relish the thought of injuring their conventional competitors by supporting unscientific scaremongers," says David Martosko, research director at the Center for Consumer Freedom in Washington.

Indeed, GMO-phobic sponsors include the Organic Trade Association, Wild Oats Markets and Whole Foods Markets, which calls itself "the world's largest retailer of natural and organic foods." WFM, its website states, "believes in a virtuous circle entwining the food chain, human beings and Mother Earth: Each is reliant upon the others through a beautiful and delicate symbiosis."

A lot of countries are refusing tons of foods from American donators, subsidized countries and self sufficiency organizations because of the 'frankenfood' scare tactics done in the late 90's, especially by Greenpeace. That is laid out in the second article. No sarcasm, just details a lot of media including Al Gore left out.


Ok yah the counting money part was a bit snippy.

 

[GasBandit]

Not just greed. Also "green energy."




http://gasbanditry.com/twg163/pictures/Politics/ethanol-starving.jpg

 

[@Li3n]

Not just greed. Also "green energy."

Yes, because before green energy Africa was so well fed.

 

[GasBandit]

Not just greed. Also "green energy."

Yes, because before green energy Africa was so well fed.[/QUOTE]

You have lots of corn. The price of corn is X, mostly due to government subsidies.

Do you:

A) No change
B) Drop subsidies, lowering the price of corn
C) Maintain subsidies AND enact a clean energy bill with an ethanol mandate, raising the price of corn severalfold?

Can you guess which our government did? How do you think it affected aid sent to africa?

 

[Krisken]

Not just greed. Also "green energy."

Yes, because before green energy Africa was so well fed.[/quote]

You have lots of corn. The price of corn is X, mostly due to government subsidies.

Do you:

A) No change
B) Drop subsidies, lowering the price of corn
C) Maintain subsidies AND enact a clean energy bill with an ethanol mandate, raising the price of corn severalfold?

Can you guess which our government did? How do you think it affected aid sent to africa?[/QUOTE]
After you drop subsidies on corn and farmers have to actually live off the price of the food they make, how low do you think all those products will be? You really think removing subsidies to farmers will lower prices?

Subsidies are the reason a box of cereal is under $5. It's why a 2 Liter of soda is still $1.50.

 

[Cuyval Dar]

Not just greed. Also "green energy."

Yes, because before green energy Africa was so well fed.[/quote]

You have lots of corn. The price of corn is X, mostly due to government subsidies.

Do you:

A) No change
B) Drop subsidies, lowering the price of corn
C) Maintain subsidies AND enact a clean energy bill with an ethanol mandate, raising the price of corn severalfold?

Can you guess which our government did? How do you think it affected aid sent to africa?[/quote]
After you drop subsidies on corn and farmers have to actually live off the price of the food they make, how low do you think all those products will be? You really think removing subsidies to farmers will lower prices?

Subsidies are the reason a box of cereal is under $5. It's why a 2 Liter of soda is still $1.50.[/QUOTE]
I lol'd.

 

[Shakey]

Dropping all subsidies would be bad, but pushing for more corn to be raised for ethanol was a bad idea. Corn is way behind in harvest this year due to the weather. What they do have off the field is wetter than it should be and needs to get to the ethanol plants asap.

Problem is ethanol isn't turning out to be the next big thing and the plants don't want all the corn. So the farmers are spending a ton of money on natural gas to dry their corn, which will cause the price of that to go up even more for heating this winter. They only have a limited amount of driers though, so again, the corn sits in the fields.

A lot of the farmers are also reporting the corn is molding in the field. If you try to dry moldy corn it will burn up. So a lot of it will get reported to the insurance companies for a loss.

Corn based ethanol is gonna cause a lot more problems than it's worth. It's much more prone to price fluctuations due to weather than oil, and the only reason it's cheaper is because the government gives the ethanol producers a good chunk of money.

 

[AshburnerX]

They ARE working on ways tog et ethanol from algae and grass though. Those will probably be much for successful for fuel needs, as they don't require the huge space that corn does (and with algae, you can just grow it in tanks just about anywhere).

 

[TotalFusionOne]

Just a thought here... But it seems like a lot of the worlds problems would be solved if we just stuck to having one, MAYBE two kids per couple. Wouldn't that solve most of the problems of the world in oh, say... Two generations or so?

 

[Cuyval Dar]

Yeah, cause that TOTALLY WORKS for the Chinese.

 

[strawman]

It's NOT a lack of food problem, it's a POLITICAL problem.

If we supply aid, the warlords take it and gain favor with families by doling it out, thus keeping them in power. Or the witches tell the villagers the food is cursed, so the witches retain their power. Or the thieves steal it and sell it.

We can't move food and expect it to do ANYTHING other than become a free bargaining chip for local leaders.

We can't come in and distribute it ourselves because the local leaders will see it as subverting their command, and fight against it.

We can teach them, to some degree, but what happens to those that learn? They too find themselves struggling against a political process that makes it difficult to earn a living.

Change has to come from within for those countries where food is particularly problematic.

 

[Dusty668]

Just a thought here... But it seems like a lot of the worlds problems would be solved if we just stuck to having one, MAYBE two kids per couple. Wouldn't that solve most of the problems of the world in oh, say... Two generations or so?

Good luck selling that concept. Heck it can't even be done in "modern" societies.



Although if it was enforced *koff koff at gunpoint koff*, it would help a lot in the promale child countries since no one would have a daughter and other countries could move in once the sad lonely men died off.

 

[Shakey]

They ARE working on ways tog et ethanol from algae and grass though. Those will probably be much for successful for fuel needs, as they don't require the huge space that corn does (and with algae, you can just grow it in tanks just about anywhere).

Until they have a dependable source of it, I'll be doubtful. Grass will run into the same problems as corn. What is used as fields for livestock hay will be converted to grass needed for ethanol. Causing prices for meat to rise, and in a bad year the price of ethanol will rise again. Woodchips are a possibility, but will surplus woodchips ever be enough or will trees be chopped just for ethanol? Don't forget about how much oil is used up to plant, harvest, and convert these crops to ethanol.

In my opinion we don't need more ethanol, but we do need more food.

 

[strawman]

Just a thought here... But it seems like a lot of the worlds problems would be solved if we just stuck to having one, MAYBE two kids per couple. Wouldn't that solve most of the problems of the world in oh, say... Two generations or so?

Good luck selling that concept. Heck it can't even be done in "modern" societies.

Although if it was enforced *koff koff at gunpoint koff*, it would help a lot in the promale child countries since no one would have a daughter and other countries could move in once the sad lonely men died off.[/QUOTE]

Countries where populations are either limited by the gov't, or self limit, are having a very, very hard time right now.

China is faced with an undercurrent of unattached young men with no prospect to marry since males are prized over females. These young men get antsy, and China spends a lot of energy trying to keep them happy so they don't cause problems. There's a reason internet cafes and gaming is so popular there...

Japan has had a somewhat self-limiting population due to crowding, but they are now seeing a huge looming issue with an aging populace that will need extraordinary resources for health care and elder-care.

Even the US, since the birth control pill, has a greatly reduced birth rate which has led to projections of a huge retiring baby boomer generation that will necessarily be supported by the smaller rising generations.

Sorry, but zero population has fallen out of favor for a reason.

 

[Rob King]

Unfortunately, if every last person in the world were turned into a saint overnight, and we distributed food fairly, it would only be a matter of a decade before we had starving people again. The problem is that we as a race reproduce faster than we die, so we will always expand to our limit. Right now (as it has been for most of history) our limiting factor is food.

New agricultural techniques, or more efficient distribution will never curb world hunger. Population control is the only thing that will.

---------- Post added at 02:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:21 AM ----------

Apparently I took too long in responding, and people have been discussing the population thing already. With regards to how population control should be executed, I feel like the answer is less government restrictions, and more empowerment of women.

I have been hesitant to support such ideas, mainly because I hate cultural imperialism, but the fact is that cultures with empowered women have less children.

 

[@Li3n]

Can you guess which our government did? How do you think it affected aid sent to africa?

Sure, but that's just another small drop in an ocean of misery.


Plus, aid sent to Africa is at best a band aid... solving the problem would require a local solution as the main thing.

B) Drop subsidies, lowering the price of corn

YOU FAIL ECONOMY FOREVER.... food is cheaper in countries where make 10 times more medium income wise then here... care to guess why?

 

[Math242]

I'm hungry

 

[@Li3n]

Have some ethanol...

 

[TotalFusionOne]

Countries where populations are either limited by the gov't, or self limit, are having a very, very hard time right now.

China is faced with an undercurrent of unattached young men with no prospect to marry since males are prized over females. These young men get antsy, and China spends a lot of energy trying to keep them happy so they don't cause problems. There's a reason internet cafes and gaming is so popular there...

Japan has had a somewhat self-limiting population due to crowding, but they are now seeing a huge looming issue with an aging populace that will need extraordinary resources for health care and elder-care.

Even the US, since the birth control pill, has a greatly reduced birth rate which has led to projections of a huge retiring baby boomer generation that will necessarily be supported by the smaller rising generations.

Sorry, but zero population has fallen out of favor for a reason.

Erm... I'm not following you at all. You seem to be using confirmation logic to make your point.

China is in the problem they're in now because of the way that they viewed female births in the past, oh, couple of centuries. Not because of population restrictions at all. Or gender restrictions. Just the cultural restrictions that said females weren't "Worth" taking care of. So problems based on population restrictions there are non-existent and don't really support your cause that they're invalid.

As for Japan and the US you're pointing out current problems as to why that system won't work. I don't understand, are you just looking for solutions in this decade? The next decade? Or long term? Yes, the Social Security is borked in the US right now. But the next generation won't have the same issue. Yes, our current generation will be fucked financially. But... I really don't have a problem with that if the long term goals work.

Japans problem is going to be solved in the next 50 years. The US' problem... Well whenever the economy ACTUALLY collapses instead of this false collapse we just had, or some other major change I can't see. OR When the baby-boom generation dies and the lower population becomes the elder population. Either way the long-term views on population restrictions are sound. We just need to educate people to make them willingly follow this instead of making it government mandated.

It's actually pretty easy. Take the closest "eco-friendly" person you can find and convince them that the best way to preserve earths natural resources is to have less people populating. Rinse, repeat.

 

[Chazwozel]

Just a thought here... But it seems like a lot of the worlds problems would be solved if we just stuck to having one, MAYBE two kids per couple. Wouldn't that solve most of the problems of the world in oh, say... Two generations or so?

Good luck selling that concept. Heck it can't even be done in "modern" societies.

Although if it was enforced *koff koff at gunpoint koff*, it would help a lot in the promale child countries since no one would have a daughter and other countries could move in once the sad lonely men died off.[/quote]

Countries where populations are either limited by the gov't, or self limit, are having a very, very hard time right now.

China is faced with an undercurrent of unattached young men with no prospect to marry since males are prized over females. These young men get antsy, and China spends a lot of energy trying to keep them happy so they don't cause problems. There's a reason internet cafes and gaming is so popular there...

Japan has had a somewhat self-limiting population due to crowding, but they are now seeing a huge looming issue with an aging populace that will need extraordinary resources for health care and elder-care.

Even the US, since the birth control pill, has a greatly reduced birth rate which has led to projections of a huge retiring baby boomer generation that will necessarily be supported by the smaller rising generations.

Sorry, but zero population has fallen out of favor for a reason.[/QUOTE]

Says the guy with a baseball team of kids.

 

[@Li3n]

I always love the anti-population control arguments... because they're all about how it's gonna require sacrifices... yeah, no shit. But don't worry, i bet some magical solution that requires no effort at all will show up soon...

 

[Covar]

Yea, I like having a brother and sister.

 

[Chibibar]

So....... this has gotten a bit complex that I thought.

When the U.S. is willing to donate food, receiving country don't want "genetic engineer" food cause it is bad?

 

[sixpackshaker]

It is because the sustainable agriculture people tell the leaders of poor countries that 'frankefood' is bad.

The main cause of famine is not lack of rain, ethanol, or organic food crazies, it mostly stems from warfare. If you want to kill the enemy, it is easier to kill the unprotected farmers than it is to kill the armed forces or the villagers they protect.

I watched this 1940's spy film, that predates the Cold War, with my mother. The "hero" of the story was a food scientist that went to Germany after the war to find a way to help feed the Germans. My mom made some snarky remark about how he should have stayed at home to feed the hungry in America at that time. I told her that the reason the Germans were starving in '46-'47 was that they just went through 6 years of tanks rolling across the country side, and the analogy of killing farmers to kill even more citizens and soldiers.

 

[Armadillo]

So....... this has gotten a bit complex that I thought.

When the U.S. is willing to donate food, receiving country don't want "genetic engineer" food cause it is bad?

Pert' much.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIvNopv9Pa8]Penn and Teller: Bullshit! about GE food featuring Norman Borlaug, a personal hero of mine.[/ame]

 

[RealBigNuke]

I always love the anti-population control arguments... because they're all about how it's gonna require sacrifices... yeah, no shit. But don't worry, i bet some magical solution that requires no effort at all will show up soon...

What exactly is the argument for a population growth based model? Is it that we're not going to be around when it gets bad, so who cares, or is it that we're just betting everything that a magical easy no sacrifice solution will show up before we run out of room and resources?

 

[Chazwozel]

So....... this has gotten a bit complex that I thought.

When the U.S. is willing to donate food, receiving country don't want "genetic engineer" food cause it is bad?

because they think it's bad due to propaganda by pinko greenpeace idiots. Yes.

The most that is done to genetically engineered crops is the introduction to pest resistance genes and pesticide resistance. I had an idiot at the bar try to convince me that he won't eat genetically engineered corn because they use fish DNA in it. I just rolled my eyes in the pure ignorance that I was bathed in.

FYI: when you eat anything, your digestive system breaks down your food into amino acids, fats, and sugars and then builds using those basics. Free floating DNA/RNA nucleic acids are broken down by shitloads of DNases and RNases everywhere.

I swear to God, I can't begin to describe to the lay person how hard it is to keep RNA stable.

 

[Chibibar]

So....... this has gotten a bit complex that I thought.

When the U.S. is willing to donate food, receiving country don't want "genetic engineer" food cause it is bad?

because they think it's bad due to propaganda by pinko greenpeace idiots. Yes.

The most that is done to genetically engineered crops is the introduction to pest resistance genes and pesticide resistance. I had an idiot at the bar try to convince me that he won't eat genetically engineered corn because they use fish DNA in it. I just rolled my eyes in the pure ignorance that I was bathed in.

FYI: when you eat anything, your digestive system breaks down your food into amino acids, fats, and sugars and then builds using those basics. Free floating DNA/RNA nucleic acids are broken down by shitloads of DNases and RNases everywhere.

I swear to God, I can't begin to describe to the lay person how hard it is to keep RNA stable.[/QUOTE]

Well, I don't know/understand the inner workings of my body THAT well but I figure our body is design to break down pretty much what we eat. Of course excessive stuff (like Alcohol) can cause damage to liver in the long run but I didn't think engineer food will do harm (at least not that I know of)

It is hard NOT to encounter engineer food one form or another. Even if you eat all organic, I'm sure restaurant use some engineer veggies to keep the cost down.

 

[Bowielee]

The only "frankenfood" thing I don't get is seedless fruits. If they're seedless, how do they produce new generations?

 

[Chibibar]

The only "frankenfood" thing I don't get is seedless fruits. If they're seedless, how do they produce new generations?

hehe.. who cares! it was made to be eaten..... I love watermelon without seeds.

Of course there are times where WITH seeds are fun too (spitting contest)