topal63
. . .
+533|7165

apollo_fi wrote:

topal63 wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

Holy mistaken semantics.

Thank you gentlemen, I have just learned... an idiom.
I think what your really trying to say is this (am I wrong)?

That the quality of life you enjoy should be something freely available to others (since it seems freely available to you in your society)? This includes access to food?
No... that's not quite what I am attempting to say 

I'm trying to say this:

The quality of life I (or we) enjoy is not sustainable, if we're to feed everyone.
Sounds like your believing in a myth. I think your plain old wrong then. It's just not true.

It is, more or less, possible to feed everyone in the world with our current technology and modern farming techniques. We simply don't do it - because we don't have a system in place to do it. We are not really a unified Global society.  Since impoverished people are usually the ones starving & suffering the goal is to build-up those societies in need; eliminating poverty by building a flourishing self-sustaining society would do far more than "throwing feed at cattle."

Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-16 13:29:44)

KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,993|7079|949

Malthusian theory?  Our technology allows us the ability to pursue a high 'quality of life' while at the same time feeding a large population.

You would have to qualify our 'quality of life'.  The quality of life I enjoy surely can be sustainable, and my quality of life is not necessarily inherent on the food supply I have access to.
topal63
. . .
+533|7165

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Malthusian theory?  Our technology allows us the ability to pursue a high 'quality of life' while at the same time feeding a large population.

You would have to qualify our 'quality of life'.  The quality of life I enjoy surely can be sustainable, and my quality of life is not necessarily inherent on the food supply I have access to.
I would define 'quality of life' as follows:

#1 Access to a sustainable food supply.
#2 Access to a clean replenishable water supply.
#3 Access to shelter.
#4 Access to information (ideas, education, culture, music, etc, not necessarily electronic in form).
#5 The welcoming of the ignorant & un-initiated into society - individuals must be wanted so that the tendency for natural reciprocal altruism will be ingrained and the society will be honored by the welcomed incoming ignorants.

To me the clear opposite of above is poverty. And society is a complex; a complexity; if one wants to address any social issue it has to address the complex; the complexity; to solve even a simple problem.

Edit: Add this one thing to... #5

Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-16 13:30:09)

Hurricane
Banned
+1,153|7077|Washington, DC

Food is energy. Energy is needed by our bodies or we die. So yeah, it's pretty damn basic
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6977|The lunar module

topal63 wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

The quality of life I (or we) enjoy is not sustainable, if we're to feed everyone.
Sounds like your believing in a myth. I think your plain old wrong then. It's just not true.

It is, more or less, possible to feed everyone in the world with our current technology and modern farming techniques. We simply don't do it - because we don't have a system in place to do it.
I have severe doubts that all humankind can be adequately fed, even using modern farming techniques, without reducing the amount of arable land used to produce feed for cattle.

Most 1st world people will consider it a change in the quality of their life if beef, pork and dairy products become less available, or prohitively expensive.

topal63 wrote:

We are not really a unified Global society.  Since impoverished people are usually the ones starving & suffering the goal is build-up those societies in need; eliminating poverty by building a flourishing self-sustaining society would do far more than "throwing feed at cattle."
Definitely so. Though, it will help if the members of the flourishing, self sustaining society do not starve to death while their society is being built.
topal63
. . .
+533|7165

apollo_fi wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Sounds like your believing in a myth. I think your plain old wrong then. It's just not true.

It is, more or less, possible to feed everyone in the world with our current technology and modern farming techniques. We simply don't do it - because we don't have a system in place to do it.
I have severe doubts that all humankind can be adequately fed, even using modern farming techniques, without reducing the amount of arable land used to produce feed for cattle.

Most 1st world people will consider it a change in the quality of their life if beef, pork and dairy products become less available, or prohitively expensive.

topal63 wrote:

We are not really a unified Global society.  Since impoverished people are usually the ones starving & suffering the goal is build-up those societies in need; eliminating poverty by building a flourishing self-sustaining society would do far more than "throwing feed at cattle."
Definitely so. Though, it will help if the members of the flourishing, self sustaining society do not starve to death while their society is being built.
But they (we) have to be responsible for their (or our) own society; this is no easy task. Also, food and money to buy food are commodities.

Check out this article from the Christian Science Monitor:
Some Africans prefer hunger to a diet of gene-altered corn
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1114/p12s01-woaf.html
"Information, however, is often confused. Farmer Victor Bwalia heard that GM corn makes women infertile. His neighbor told him. Meanwhile, Amroando Dandola, who makes flip-flops, thinks it infects people with HIV/AIDS. That is what his grandfather, Augustine, thinks, too."

"After two years of drought, people here are hungry. Boys dive for mancada roots in the swamp. Men and women go into the forests looking for nuts and berries to boil. Countrywide, according to the World Food Program (WFP), 2.9 million Zambians are in need of food aid. Some 250 tons of it, more then half of which were donated by the US, were headed for Zambia when Mr. Mwanawasa decided, in mid-August, to reject it."


And here is another idea - Food Dumping Aid or Trade?:
http://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/ngo … _aid_e.pdf
"Food Aid is a ncessary evil; it should only be given for short periods of time to overcome disasters."

Food Dumping [Aid] Maintains Poverty
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelate … umping.asp
"In the industrialized northern countries, we instinctively believe that food aid is a very worthy cause and many do their utmost to genuinely help in this field. Web sites like the hungersite.com allow you to simply click a link and thereby donate food to someone in need in a developing country. However, there is more to it that selecting on a link."

"In fact, if priority is not placed on the political root causes of hunger, sites like this may unwittingly contribute to the harm that has already been inflicted on the poor in developing countries because the poor countries will remain dependent. (Providing free food in emergency situations of course is usually welcome, but we are concerned with systemmic root causes of hunger in non-emergency situations here as some one sixth of humanity goes hungry each day in non-emergency situations."

A few different sites (some for - some against)
http://www.ftncoalition.org/
http://www.centeronhunger.org/
http://www.fas.usda.gov/food-aid.asp
http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/is … son204.htm
http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~agroeco3/t … ology.html

Hunger linked to Poverty:
http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basic … ional.html

apollo_fi wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Sounds like your believing in a myth. I think your plain old wrong then. It's just not true.

It is, more or less, possible to feed everyone in the world with our current technology and modern farming techniques. We simply don't do it - because we don't have a system in place to do it.
I have severe doubts that all humankind can be adequately fed, even using modern farming techniques, without reducing the amount of arable land used to produce feed for cattle.
From: http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs … 8v5n3.html (12 Myths about hunger)

Myth 1 - Not Enough Food to Go Around
"Reality: Abundance, not scarcity, best describes the world's food supply. Enough wheat, rice and other grains are produced to provide every human being with 3,500 calories a day. That doesn't even count many other commonly eaten foods - vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits, grass-fed meats, and fish. Enough food is available to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food per person a day worldwide: two and half pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of fruits and vegetables, and nearly another pound of meat, milk and eggs-enough to make most people fat! The problem is that many people are too poor to buy readily available food. Even most "hungry countries" have enough food for all their people right now. Many are net exporters of food and other agricultural products."

Poverty and Hunger in America:
http://www.secondharvest.org/export/sit … lstats.pdf

Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-16 15:10:12)

Parker
isteal
+1,452|6841|The Gem Saloon
well, yes. people need to eat, but it takes money to buy food in order to eat it. so in that case should money be a  basic human right? i saw someone say air...so well throw water in there also.


shit you need a job to get money in order to buy food and eat it, so will we say that jobs are a basic human right? if someone isnt able to do the job should they still get it because they need those basic human rights?
Milk.org
Bringing Sexy Back
+270|7223|UK
Hangover + Bacon Roll = WIN!
motherdear
Member
+25|7098|Denmark/Minnesota (depends)
getting food for free is not a human right, people can grow it themselves.
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7209

Milk.org wrote:

Hangover + Bacon Roll = WIN!
Bacon roll?  Please describe, me loves bacon.
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6977|The lunar module

topal63 wrote:

Check out this article from the Christian Science Monitor:
Some Africans prefer hunger to a diet of gene-altered corn
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1114/p12s01-woaf.html
"Information, however, is often confused. Farmer Victor Bwalia heard that GM corn makes women infertile. His neighbor told him. Meanwhile, Amroando Dandola, who makes flip-flops, thinks it infects people with HIV/AIDS. That is what his grandfather, Augustine, thinks, too."

"After two years of drought, people here are hungry. Boys dive for mancada roots in the swamp. Men and women go into the forests looking for nuts and berries to boil. Countrywide, according to the World Food Program (WFP), 2.9 million Zambians are in need of food aid. Some 250 tons of it, more then half of which were donated by the US, were headed for Zambia when Mr. Mwanawasa decided, in mid-August, to reject it."


And here is another idea - Food Dumping Aid or Trade?:
http://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/ngo … _aid_e.pdf
"Food Aid is a ncessary evil; it should only be given for short periods of time to overcome disasters."

Food Dumping [Aid] Maintains Poverty
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelate … umping.asp
"In the industrialized northern countries, we instinctively believe that food aid is a very worthy cause and many do their utmost to genuinely help in this field. Web sites like the hungersite.com allow you to simply click a link and thereby donate food to someone in need in a developing country. However, there is more to it that selecting on a link."

"In fact, if priority is not placed on the political root causes of hunger, sites like this may unwittingly contribute to the harm that has already been inflicted on the poor in developing countries because the poor countries will remain dependent. (Providing free food in emergency situations of course is usually welcome, but we are concerned with systemmic root causes of hunger in non-emergency situations here as some one sixth of humanity goes hungry each day in non-emergency situations."
Some food for thought there. Thanks.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7028|SE London

usmarine2005 wrote:

Milk.org wrote:

Hangover + Bacon Roll = WIN!
Bacon roll?  Please describe, me loves bacon.
Slice open bread roll. Fill with lovely bacon. Add condiment of choice. Eat.

Mmmmmm.


Did you know bacon has some funky stuff in it that makes you happy?
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7091
thc

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-05-16 14:48:51)

Milk.org
Bringing Sexy Back
+270|7223|UK
Bacon Roll: Add Ketchup

https://www.honestsausage.com/NewImages/HonSaus1.04/moreimages/Cnv00063.jpg
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6977|The lunar module

Parker wrote:

shit you need a job to get money in order to buy food and eat it, so will we say that jobs are a basic human right? if someone isnt able to do the job should they still get it because they need those basic human rights?
I know I'm going to get, er, vocal expressions of disagreement to this...

But yes, I think every adult person has the right to a job. Not any job, but a job.
apollo_fi
The Flying Kalakukko.
+94|6977|The lunar module

topal63 wrote:

apollo_fi wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Sounds like your believing in a myth. I think your plain old wrong then. It's just not true.

It is, more or less, possible to feed everyone in the world with our current technology and modern farming techniques. We simply don't do it - because we don't have a system in place to do it.
I have severe doubts that all humankind can be adequately fed, even using modern farming techniques, without reducing the amount of arable land used to produce feed for cattle.
From: http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs … 8v5n3.html (12 Myths about hunger)

Myth 1 - Not Enough Food to Go Around
"Reality: Abundance, not scarcity, best describes the world's food supply. Enough wheat, rice and other grains are produced to provide every human being with 3,500 calories a day. That doesn't even count many other commonly eaten foods - vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits, grass-fed meats, and fish. Enough food is available to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food per person a day worldwide: two and half pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of fruits and vegetables, and nearly another pound of meat, milk and eggs-enough to make most people fat! The problem is that many people are too poor to buy readily available food. Even most "hungry countries" have enough food for all their people right now. Many are net exporters of food and other agricultural products."
I have to admit that I honestly believed we already have reached a point of unsustainability. If the above holds true, I really am glad to stand corrected.

However:

'Reports from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as well as numerous other international organization further confirm the serious nature of the global food supply. For example, the per capita availability of world cereal grains, which make up 80% of the world's food supply, has been declining for the past 15 years. These shortages are now reflected in major increases in the price of cereal grains, the basic food for billions of people.

Thus as the world population continues to expand, greater pressure than ever before is being placed on all basic resources that are essential for food production. Unfortunately, while the human population grows exponentially, food production can only increase linearly. Furthermore, degradation of land, water, energy, and biological resources vital to agriculture continues unabated.'

From http://egj.lib.uidaho.edu/egj09/piment1.html (Population Growth and the Environment: Planetary Stewardship).

Last edited by apollo_fi (2007-05-16 16:19:16)

Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7028|SE London

apollo_fi wrote:

I have to admit that I honestly believed we already have reached a point of unsustainability. If the above holds true, I really am glad to stand corrected.
There's plenty of food. It's just rarely in the right places. Food wastage becomes quite a big issue, since western countries have way more food than they need and developing countries tend not to have enough.
topal63
. . .
+533|7165

apollo_fi wrote:

Thus as the world population continues to expand, greater pressure than ever before is being placed on all basic resources that are essential for food production. Unfortunately, while the human population grows exponentially, food production can only increase linearly. Furthermore, degradation of land, water, energy, and biological resources vital to agriculture continues unabated.'

From http://egj.lib.uidaho.edu/egj09/piment1.html (Population Growth and the Environment: Planetary Stewardship).
Certainly exponential population growth is not a good-thing for the environment, and the demands we would have to place on it would stress it (the environment) further. If 6-7 billion people eventually becomes 12-14 billion in the future; no one is going to deny that - that is not an environmental issue in itself. But, right now we can feed the worlds population and then some (more even, it's possible to make everyone a fat-fatty).

Unchecked population growth is not something you can necessarily de-tangle, as an issue, from the world hunger problem. But, the more immediate connection is that there is abundance now in the food supply, and the proper link to hunger-starvation is to poverty (and the social constructs, that cause it & perpetuate it). Impoverished people and impoverished societies are the ones not partaking in the available abundance.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-17 09:23:11)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard