 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kirk Andrews wrote:
> If you'd like a small taste of what it's like to try and feed your family in the
> places in the world that suffer starvation, try this simulation:
>
> http://www.3rdworldfarmer.com/
>
>
> The problem is indeed complicated. I do suggest you try the simulation--see how
> many times your family starves before you can make it work.
>
> Another problem not yet addressed is the "brain drain." Even if you are able to
> provide education, when someone in these nations is given an opportunity, they
> will often leave and go to more stable countries. The result is that those who
> obtain education and might have been able to help the nation tend to leave, and
> never return.
>
> History is also a large obstacle. In many nations, the presence of Westerners
> is not a welcome one. The long history of colonialism and Western
> ethno-centrism has a left a deep scar on much of the "third-world". Even
> outright charitable gifts are suspect, and more complicated endeavors are even
> less trusted.
>
> Famine is rarely caused by drought or the inability to produce food, because
> people settle in places where food is available. Famine is caused by war,
> corruption, and other forms of societal injustice. Unfortunately these
> problems are far more complicated, and there is no universal answer for all of
> them.
Actually, shortages of natively-produced food are generally caused by
environmental conditions. Political conditions, however, deprive the
people of the ability to import food from elsewhere.
The only genuinely human-induced famines (and the only famines to strike
industrialized nations) occurred in communist nations, whether due to
the sheer incompetence of the communist system (China's Great Leap
Forward starved millions) or malice of communist leaders (Lenin
purposefully starved millions of people).
A review of preindustrial history reveals that in any given locale there
was a famine about seven times per century, with the average famine
lasting 1.5 years, and famines were such common affairs that only
exceptionally bad ones were given much mention. Until industrial times,
people were generally taxed within an inch of their lives, and so they
were dependent on the next harvest; if that failed, the chances of
survival were dim.
Even nowadays, a few times every century, the local conditions cause the
crops to fail here and there. Droughts in the American midwest, for
instance, have caused the harvests there to be sub-optimal more than
once during my adult life. But the difference now is that those farmers
can buy food produced in other areas, and therefore aren't screwed.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> The only genuinely human-induced famines (and the only famines to strike
> industrialized nations) occurred in communist nations, whether due to
> the sheer incompetence of the communist system (China's Great Leap
> Forward starved millions) or malice of communist leaders (Lenin
> purposefully starved millions of people).
Saying "only" is a stretch.
Recently there was a "famine" in Niger. There was no real shortage of
food. Plenty of food was available, but it was unaffordable:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/famine/story/0,12128,1540214,00.html
Niger is anything but a communist country.
--
Do Not Attempt to Traverse a Chasm in Two Leaps...
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> The only genuinely human-induced famines (and the only famines to strike
>> industrialized nations) occurred in communist nations, whether due to
>> the sheer incompetence of the communist system (China's Great Leap
>> Forward starved millions) or malice of communist leaders (Lenin
>> purposefully starved millions of people).
>
> Saying "only" is a stretch.
>
> Recently there was a "famine" in Niger. There was no real shortage of
> food. Plenty of food was available, but it was unaffordable:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/famine/story/0,12128,1540214,00.html
>
> Niger is anything but a communist country.
Well, I stand corrected; the only cases of human-induced *mass
starvation* occurred in nations claiming to follow some form of Marxism.
As for the people in Niger, I am not quite persuaded (especially by an
article claiming that the UN and France favor free market solutions to
anything) that any genuinely free market is the primary cause of the
situation there.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> John VanSickle wrote:
>>> The only genuinely human-induced famines (and the only famines to strike
>>> industrialized nations) occurred in communist nations, whether due to
>>> the sheer incompetence of the communist system (China's Great Leap
>>> Forward starved millions) or malice of communist leaders (Lenin
>>> purposefully starved millions of people).
>>
>> Saying "only" is a stretch.
>>
>> Recently there was a "famine" in Niger. There was no real shortage of
>> food. Plenty of food was available, but it was unaffordable:
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/famine/story/0,12128,1540214,00.html
>>
>> Niger is anything but a communist country.
>
> Well, I stand corrected; the only cases of human-induced *mass
> starvation* occurred in nations claiming to follow some form of Marxism.
>
The Great Hunger in 19th century Ireland?
Although the importance of the human factor there is a point of debate.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/12/04 18:46:
> The Great Hunger in 19th century Ireland?
> Although the importance of the human factor there is a point of debate.
Here, the human factor is puting to much reliance on a single crop. If anything
make that particuliar crop fail you get a famine. In this case, it was a fungal
infection that destroyed a potato monoculture. That monoculture was made up of
effective "clones", or single strain, as you plant potato chunks frome the
previous crop, and the original stock came from a single location. The infection
is a natural ocurance, but the monoculture is a strictly human factor.
--
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
You know you've been raytracing too long when a co-worker nearly kills himself
over losing an hour's worth of work after a computer crash, and you just calmly
shrug your shoulders and say, "Is that all?"
Taps a.k.a. Tapio Vocadlo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>> John VanSickle wrote:
>>>> The only genuinely human-induced famines (and the only famines to
>>>> strike
>>>> industrialized nations) occurred in communist nations, whether due to
>>>> the sheer incompetence of the communist system (China's Great Leap
>>>> Forward starved millions) or malice of communist leaders (Lenin
>>>> purposefully starved millions of people).
>>>
>>> Saying "only" is a stretch.
>>>
>>> Recently there was a "famine" in Niger. There was no real
>>> shortage of
>>> food. Plenty of food was available, but it was unaffordable:
>>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/famine/story/0,12128,1540214,00.html
>>>
>>> Niger is anything but a communist country.
>>
>> Well, I stand corrected; the only cases of human-induced *mass
>> starvation* occurred in nations claiming to follow some form of Marxism.
>>
> The Great Hunger in 19th century Ireland?
> Although the importance of the human factor there is a point of debate.
Indeed. The Irish had become heavily dependent on potatoes, which were
wiped out by a blight. This led to both a shortage of food and a
shortage of money to buy food (since they would have gotten any money
they would have had by selling potatoes). A lot of Irish starved, and a
lot went to the United States.
I do recall reading that the English took steps to withhold grain from
the Irish in order to make the problem worse, but I'd want to
investigate that further before arriving at any conclusions. In any
event, the chief cause of the starvation was a major crop failure.
An economist named Henry Hazlitt wrote an interesting book on poverty,
and in it he observed that we have become so accustomed to our own
prosperity that we look on the poor nations as being exceptional, when
in fact it is Western prosperity that, from the historical perspective,
is the exceptional situation.
The Irish of the Potato Famine were poor for the exact same reason that
countless societies, for the overwhelming majority of human history,
have been poor; the inability of the populace to reliably produce
sufficient wealth to live at a higher standard.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
news: 4755de2c$1@news.povray.org...
> Well, I stand corrected; the only cases of human-induced *mass starvation*
> occurred in nations claiming to follow some form of Marxism.
See the British blockade of Germany in WW1
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/firstworldwar/spotlights/blockade.htm
Another example would be the mass starvation in North Vietnam in 1945 (1
million dead), caused by a combination of bad rice harvest, widespread food
pillaging by the Japanese occupation forces and the US blockade.
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> John VanSickle wrote:
>>> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>>> John VanSickle wrote:
>>>>> The only genuinely human-induced famines (and the only famines to
>>>>> strike
>>>>> industrialized nations) occurred in communist nations, whether due to
>>>>> the sheer incompetence of the communist system (China's Great Leap
>>>>> Forward starved millions) or malice of communist leaders (Lenin
>>>>> purposefully starved millions of people).
>>>>
>>>> Saying "only" is a stretch.
>>>>
>>>> Recently there was a "famine" in Niger. There was no real
>>>> shortage of
>>>> food. Plenty of food was available, but it was unaffordable:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/famine/story/0,12128,1540214,00.html
>>>>
>>>> Niger is anything but a communist country.
>>>
>>> Well, I stand corrected; the only cases of human-induced *mass
>>> starvation* occurred in nations claiming to follow some form of Marxism.
>>>
>> The Great Hunger in 19th century Ireland?
>> Although the importance of the human factor there is a point of debate.
>
> Indeed. The Irish had become heavily dependent on potatoes, which were
> wiped out by a blight. This led to both a shortage of food and a
> shortage of money to buy food (since they would have gotten any money
> they would have had by selling potatoes). A lot of Irish starved, and a
> lot went to the United States.
>
> I do recall reading that the English took steps to withhold grain from
> the Irish in order to make the problem worse, but I'd want to
> investigate that further before arriving at any conclusions. In any
> event, the chief cause of the starvation was a major crop failure.
There is indeed a line of thought that the cause for starvation was
crop failure but that for the mass starvation you needed the English.
> An economist named Henry Hazlitt wrote an interesting book on poverty,
> and in it he observed that we have become so accustomed to our own
> prosperity that we look on the poor nations as being exceptional, when
> in fact it is Western prosperity that, from the historical perspective,
> is the exceptional situation.
>
> The Irish of the Potato Famine were poor for the exact same reason that
> countless societies, for the overwhelming majority of human history,
> have been poor; the inability of the populace to reliably produce
> sufficient wealth to live at a higher standard.
And the existence of a group in charge that feels no moral obligation
other than trying to get rich as fast as one can.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Indeed there have been and continue to be local shortages of food due to forces
beyond human control.
Nevertheless, I maintain that hunger and starvation are almost always
human-induced. Unstable governments prevent people from being able to provide
for themselves. When bands of local "militia" roam around with automatic
weapons, it is unfruitful for locals to even attempt to be prosperous, because
it will only mean that the militia will then come and demand it from them.
Unstable governments result in various combinations of oppressive taxes,
frequent revolutions and civil war, non-existent crime prevention, etc.
Government money is spent on military concerns rather than building
infrastructure that would grow the local economy.
Therefore, those who live by sustenance farming cannot save up anything to carry
them through a bad crop year. Lack of infrastructure and stability prevent
industries from developing that would otherwise provide employment and way to
buy food. The corruption and instability of the government prevent food from
reaching the people either through trade or charity.
I think you will agree with me that there is enough food--somewhere--but
instable governments prevent it from reaching those who need it.
---
PS: It's not going to solve the problem, but it may help a little and is fun in
the meantime: www.freerice.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kirk Andrews wrote:
> I think you will agree with me that there is enough food--somewhere--but
> instable governments prevent it from reaching those who need it.
I agree; the United States probably throws away enough food to
significantly reduce the suffering in at least one nation that is having
problems. The problem is, as just about everyone here says, chiefly the
result of governments that fail to secure basic human freedoms (or, even
worse, actively abridge them).
The simple human right of keeping what one has produced is a deeply
unappreciated prerequisite for economic growth, and the stats back it
up. The prosperous nations allow their people to keep a larger share of
what they've worked for, ensure that some criminal doesn't take it
either, and place fewer roadblocks in the way of self-improvement; the
nations that are chronically mired in poverty have higher rates of
taxation, less protection against non-governmental robbery, and higher
regulatory burdens on economic activity.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
