Meat, Famine and starvation

[madd0ct0r]

Edi - not only can the planet produce enough food for the entire population, it already does (just).

If you account for biofuels, then it doesn't. (approximately food enough for 400 million goes into those refineries)

If you account for the amount of human consumable foodstuffs consumed by animals, then suddenly you can, and with a large safety net at that.

The Earth ain't into lifeboat economics yet, and it's got a long way to go. the surest way to ensure population growth drops off is to raise people's standard of living. When your kids are (almost) certain to survive to adulthood, when you have a pension ect and you also need to put your kids through school for them to get a job, the birthrate drops right down.

I think this is the only point we have in disagreement, but it's a fairly fundamental one.



HMS - the food production reducing is exactly the plan. if there is only a small market for meat then animal production contracts, and the fodder buisness supporting it contracts. the land now available can be used to grow other stuff that is now in demand, like soya. lots and lots of soya.

[LionElJonson]

If you actually cared about Africans, you'd be supporting the overthrow of the assorted dictators and corrupt bureaucrats that are actually responsible for the starvation. Probably in favor of a return to the good old days of paternalistic colonialism, since that's the only real way we could pull it off.

Hurray for the White Man's Burden.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And guess what, I agree that unplanned rapid decolonization was a serious mistake. Pity, but you're not going to get a typical "liberal" response here to your talking points.

[Broomstick]

I suppose if the notion of white/European/Western intervention is unacceptable along with the status quo we could let the Chinese step in. They'll certainly put people to work. I'm not certain, however, that that would leave any of the Africans better off than they are now, and conceivably worse.

[HMS Conqueror]

Reduction of harm is an important concept once you realize you can NOT force the world to be perfect. If everyone in the US or EU halved their consumption of meat it would have an impact. If enough people make enough little changes it really does add up.

It wouldn't, because food production wouldn't stay constant despite a reduction in demand. It's more like: you reduce your food bill from £100 to £50 and spend the other £50 on DVDs. The food industry shrinks by £50 and the DVD industry expands by £50. The amount of either going to Africa (or wherever) remains constant.

Maybe YOU would do that, but not everyone feels compelled to spend every dime of money they have. That's called living paycheck to paycheck and while all too many people do that (either from choice or necessity) it's not universal.

Put it in the bank if you want. It makes no difference to the point.

Though I agree with you that what Africa needs (among many things it needs) is something to sell to the rest of the world with which to make a profit. To some extent it does this with agricultural products such as coffee, some types of grain, cocoa, and other things but those are low profit/high bulk commodities that don't really promote a higher standard of living. Worse yet, such cash crops take up land that might otherwise be used for actual subsistence agriculture. Not that there is anything wrong with some cash crops, but there are countries that devote far too much to them and as a result are unable to feed their own, which is yet another contributing factor to the whole mess.

That's not worse: you can use the cash from the cash crop to simply buy a greater amount of food than you would have been able to grow. Otherwise the food would be the cash crop.

HMS - the food production reducing is exactly the plan. if there is only a small market for meat then animal production contracts, and the fodder buisness supporting it contracts. the land now available can be used to grow other stuff that is now in demand, like soya. lots and lots of soya.

There is no land shortage, however. In fact the US already produces vast amounts of useless food that is sold for below cost or just destroyed. The EU already decided to "fix" this problem by subsidising farmers to not grow food. Africa itself is vastly underexploited in terms of food production.

I suppose if the notion of white/European/Western intervention is unacceptable along with the status quo we could let the Chinese step in.

A country just barely above the breadline itself.

Personally I'd favour the Western colonialism option, if it weren't monumentally expensive and largely worthless to us. As it stands, there's really little that can be done unless the African countries reform internally.

[Broomstick]

Put it in the bank if you want. It makes no difference to the point.

Well, what exactly was your point? That Africa doesn't make stuff the rest of the world wants? The world doesn't spend enough on food? What?

Though I agree with you that what Africa needs (among many things it needs) is something to sell to the rest of the world with which to make a profit. To some extent it does this with agricultural products such as coffee, some types of grain, cocoa, and other things but those are low profit/high bulk commodities that don't really promote a higher standard of living. Worse yet, such cash crops take up land that might otherwise be used for actual subsistence agriculture. Not that there is anything wrong with some cash crops, but there are countries that devote far too much to them and as a result are unable to feed their own, which is yet another contributing factor to the whole mess.

That's not worse: you can use the cash from the cash crop to simply buy a greater amount of food than you would have been able to grow. Otherwise the food would be the cash crop.

Most cash crops - other than opium - aren't conducive to small farms. They're grown on mega-plantations where the farmers are hired labor that can be fired at will. Prices are set not by the producers but by what the wealthier world is willing to pay - if everyone in, say, Europe decides your coffee is too expensive you're screwed, but at least if you're growing a food product you can at least eat your own crop. You can't live on just coffee (even if college students try). There is also the fact that locally grown crops can be (though aren't always) cheaper due to not needing to transport them - poor African countries often can't import sufficient food because the added costs of transportation makes it prohibitive. And even if you can afford to import food, supply lines can be interrupted due to everything from weather to war.

Ideally, a country should grow a mix of its own food and some cash crops

Or if you don't find my argument persuasive - wealthy countries that could import all their food don't, and in some cases even spend considerable sums to maintain at least some level of indigenous agriculture beyond cash crops. Only the poorest countries devote the overwhelming amount of their land to cash crops.... and yet they remain poor. Shouldn't this pattern tell us something?

HMS - the food production reducing is exactly the plan. if there is only a small market for meat then animal production contracts, and the fodder buisness supporting it contracts. the land now available can be used to grow other stuff that is now in demand, like soya. lots and lots of soya.

There is no land shortage, however. In fact the US already produces vast amounts of useless food that is sold for below cost or just destroyed. The EU already decided to "fix" this problem by subsidising farmers to not grow food. Africa itself is vastly underexploited in terms of food production.

First of all, the US also "subsidizes" farmers to not grow food, and has since the 1930's. Aside from reducing overproduction, it also helps preserve soil fertility. I also suspect that with the advent of biofuels there are fewer crops being simply destroyed as farmers now have a role in producing industrial feedstocks, which tends to drive the price of crops like corn upwards and absorbs surplus. The gap between what we need to produce and what we ultimately can produce has been getting smaller over the past few years.

Second - much of "underexploited" Africa is, in fact, not suitable for food production. Most crops are adapted to temperate climates and don't do well in equatorial regions, which is why much of Africa exploits a different suite of food crops than the rest of the world such as plantains (also used in the American equatorial regions), cassava, millet, and sorghum - which, while popular in Africa don't have much demand in the global market even with recent expansion of peoples' tastes in food. Which species, arguably, should be grown in Africa because historically they've kept people fed whether or not they sell elsewhere. Considerable parts of Africa are rainforest, which has very poor soil that really isn't suitable for modern crop production without a lot of artificial fertilizer which is becoming more and more expensive and poor Africa can't afford. Much of Africa is desert, which won't grow shit without water which would require extensive irrigation projects that Africa doesn't have the money to build. Then there are mountains, which are of limited utility in growing food. Areas that are suitable for grazing cattle have problems like tsetse fies, which greatly limit which cattle species can even survive at all there, much less become profitable.

I dunno - Africa has been inhabited by humans longer than any other place on Earth. Given how clever humans are you'd expect that people would have pretty much figured out how to exploit what bits of Africa are exploitable. In general, if the land isn't already being used there is a reason, like lack of water or indigenous disease. Meanwhile, what parts CAN be used for food have become massively overpopulated and are being destroyed because too many people are trying to extract a living from the resources.

I suppose if the notion of white/European/Western intervention is unacceptable along with the status quo we could let the Chinese step in.

A country just barely above the breadline itself.

Personally I'd favour the Western colonialism option, if it weren't monumentally expensive and largely worthless to us. As it stands, there's really little that can be done unless the African countries reform internally.

Apparently, the fact that colonialism is responsible for many (though not all) of African's current ills completely escapes you.

[HMS Conqueror]

Put it in the bank if you want. It makes no difference to the point.

Well, what exactly was your point? That Africa doesn't make stuff the rest of the world wants? The world doesn't spend enough on food? What?

My point is that you spending your money on things other than food doesn't mean there'll be the same amount of food, only it will go to other people. It means that less food will be produced.

That's not worse: you can use the cash from the cash crop to simply buy a greater amount of food than you would have been able to grow. Otherwise the food would be the cash crop.

Most cash crops - other than opium - aren't conducive to small farms. They're grown on mega-plantations where the farmers are hired labor that can be fired at will. Prices are set not by the producers but by what the wealthier world is willing to pay - if everyone in, say, Europe decides your coffee is too expensive you're screwed, but at least if you're growing a food product you can at least eat your own crop. You can't live on just coffee (even if college students try). There is also the fact that locally grown crops can be (though aren't always) cheaper due to not needing to transport them - poor African countries often can't import sufficient food because the added costs of transportation makes it prohibitive. And even if you can afford to import food, supply lines can be interrupted due to everything from weather to war.

Ideally, a country should grow a mix of its own food and some cash crops

Or if you don't find my argument persuasive - wealthy countries that could import all their food don't, and in some cases even spend considerable sums to maintain at least some level of indigenous agriculture beyond cash crops. Only the poorest countries devote the overwhelming amount of their land to cash crops.... and yet they remain poor. Shouldn't this pattern tell us something?

There's nothing wrong with mega-plantations. Quite the contrary, they're what allow you to introduce proper industrial techniques that increase productivity. Nor is there anything wrong with being hired labour: you're in a stronger position as a labourer on a mega-plantation industrially growing high-value crop than as a precarious subsistence small-holder.

The pattern does tell us something, though: for poor countries, agriculture is a business, that is there to produce foreign currency to spend on useful imports. In rich countries, it's a subsidy-fest with no real industrial purpose, but that's tolerated because it buys a fair few votes and only costs a tiny % of our GDP anyway.

First of all, the US also "subsidizes" farmers to not grow food, and has since the 1930's. Aside from reducing overproduction, it also helps preserve soil fertility. I also suspect that with the advent of biofuels there are fewer crops being simply destroyed as farmers now have a role in producing industrial feedstocks, which tends to drive the price of crops like corn upwards and absorbs surplus. The gap between what we need to produce and what we ultimately can produce has been getting smaller over the past few years.

US subsidises to both grow and not grow food, so it's difficult to tell what the effect is overall, but the presence of fructose syrup (which is horrible btw) everywhere in US food indicates that it at least sometimes boosts the production. And for srs, the only purpose is to buy votes and campaign contributions with taxpayer money.

Second - much of "underexploited" Africa is, in fact, not suitable for food production. Most crops are adapted to temperate climates and don't do well in equatorial regions, which is why much of Africa exploits a different suite of food crops than the rest of the world such as plantains (also used in the American equatorial regions), cassava, millet, and sorghum - which, while popular in Africa don't have much demand in the global market even with recent expansion of peoples' tastes in food. Which species, arguably, should be grown in Africa because historically they've kept people fed whether or not they sell elsewhere. Considerable parts of Africa are rainforest, which has very poor soil that really isn't suitable for modern crop production without a lot of artificial fertilizer which is becoming more and more expensive and poor Africa can't afford. Much of Africa is desert, which won't grow shit without water which would require extensive irrigation projects that Africa doesn't have the money to build. Then there are mountains, which are of limited utility in growing food. Areas that are suitable for grazing cattle have problems like tsetse fies, which greatly limit which cattle species can even survive at all there, much less become profitable.

I dunno - Africa has been inhabited by humans longer than any other place on Earth. Given how clever humans are you'd expect that people would have pretty much figured out how to exploit what bits of Africa are exploitable. In general, if the land isn't already being used there is a reason, like lack of water or indigenous disease. Meanwhile, what parts CAN be used for food have become massively overpopulated and are being destroyed because too many people are trying to extract a living from the resources.

Africa isn't some dustbowl/jungle combo. There is that there, but those areas are also sparsely populated. Just look at Rhodesia before it was taken over by communists: it had a large agricultural surplus and a decent-ish economy. It's an institutional problem.

I suppose if the notion of white/European/Western intervention is unacceptable along with the status quo we could let the Chinese step in.

A country just barely above the breadline itself.

Personally I'd favour the Western colonialism option, if it weren't monumentally expensive and largely worthless to us. As it stands, there's really little that can be done unless the African countries reform internally.

Apparently, the fact that colonialism is responsible for many (though not all) of African's current ills completely escapes you.

Hardly any. If Africa had adopted Euro institutions after independence, like Singapore, Taiwan, etc. did, they would be first world today.