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