Why is there starvation in human populations?

[m.e.t.a.]

Somewhere between one third and one half of [STRIKE]all human deaths [/STRIKE] all deaths of children under 5 are caused, either directly or indirectly, by malnutrition.

Human starvation is an issue which is surely on all our minds a great deal of the time. It is often discussed, and there is a mountain of data on the subject. But there are still some questions about starvation which I am largely ignorant.

I have two main questions. For each question, it can be presumed that I refer to some local region/population which suffers greatly from starvation.


1. Is the supply of food and water insufficient?

Is starvation caused, in part, by the supplies of food and/or water diminishing over time, eventually reaching levels too low to sustain the local population? If so, what factors contribute to this diminishing supply?

i) Climate change / unprecedentedly adverse weather.
ii) There is ample farmland to support the population, but the crops fail more often than they used to, or are now more frequently ravaged by pests.
iii) The number of able farmers is diminishing.
iv) The quality of the water is decreasing year on year, e.g. due to chemical contaminants, parasites, or harmful microbes.
v) Diminishing supplies of cattle, fish, and other animals.
vi) Other factors...?



2. Is there overpopulation?

Is starvation caused, in part, by the human population growing unchecked until it is too large for the available farmland to support? If so, what factors contribute to this overpopulation?

i) There is insufficient birth control (and the instinct to copulate is too strong to resist).
ii) There is widespread rape in the region.
iii) It is traditional or customary to have many children.
iv) Having many children benefits you personally (e.g. the children will grow into adults who will then help support you and your family).
v) There is mass immigration to the region.
vi) Other factors...?



I apologise if some of these questions are considered taboo, or so obvious as to require no explanation. But I would be grateful for any answers to any of the questions. In particular, I'd like to know whether both (1) and (2) are equally significant causes of starvation, or whether one is far more significant than the other.

 

[Jack21222]

Somewhere between one third and one half of all human deaths are caused, either directly or indirectly, by malnutrition. This makes malnutrition a bigger killer than cancer and heart disease combined.

Do you have a source for this? 1/3rd sounds possibly believable, but I have a hard time seeing 1/2.

 

[m.e.t.a.]

Do you have a source for this? 1/3rd sounds possibly believable, but I have a hard time seeing 1/2.

I thought that seemed very high as well. I should not trust everything I read on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition#Mortality":

"According to Jean Ziegler (the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food for 2000 to March 2008), mortality due to malnutrition accounted for 58% of the total mortality in 2006."

Other sources suggest that this figure of approx. 50% pertains to deaths of children (approx. < 5 yrs), not of the whole population. So you are correct: I got my figure wrong. From the World Health Organisation:

" ... [malnutrition] is responsible, directly or indirectly, for 35% of deaths among children under five."

"Recent estimates suggest that malnutrition (measured as poor anthropometric status) is associated with about 50% of all deaths among children."

I can't find any data on adult deaths due (directly or indirectly) to malnutrition. (And anyway, there is no precise definition of what constitutes "death due indirectly to" or "death associated with".)

However, adult data aside, the malnutrition death rate among children under 5 alone is horrendous: at least five million deaths per year, or nearly 10% of all deaths.

 

[skeptic2]

This is a very interesting question. One would expect that over several generations the population in a region would stabilize to what the land and water can support. That this isn't happening suggests additional factors at work. I'm sure there must be other factors but one of the more important I think is corruption. I read once that there is a high correlation between poor countries and corrupt countries. Closely related is the existence of oligarchies in which the wealth of the few depends on the poverty of the many.

 

[Hurkyl]

1. Is the supply of food and water insufficient?

Is starvation caused, in part, by the supplies of food and/or water diminishing over time, eventually reaching levels too low to sustain the local population? If so, what factors contribute to this diminishing supply?

i) Climate change / unprecedentedly adverse weather.
ii) There is ample farmland to support the population, but the crops fail more often than they used to, or are now more frequently ravaged by pests.
iii) The number of able farmers is diminishing.
iv) The quality of the water is decreasing year on year, e.g. due to chemical contaminants, parasites, or harmful microbes.
v) Diminishing supplies of cattle, fish, and other animals.
vi) Other factors...?

Here's one 'other factor' to consider:

vii) Lack of distribution. (due, I presume, to political/monetary concerns)​

2. Is there overpopulation?

Is starvation caused, in part, by the human population growing unchecked until it is too large for the available farmland to support? If so, what factors contribute to this overpopulation?

i) There is insufficient birth control (and the instinct to copulate is too strong to resist).
ii) There is widespread rape in the region.
iii) It is traditional or customary to have many children.
iv) Having many children benefits you personally (e.g. the children will grow into adults who will then help support you and your family).
v) There is mass immigration to the region.
vi) Other factors...?

I have an 'other factor' to consider for this one too:

vii) The local region is disinclined to allocate land for farmland (or, at least, farmland meant to feed the local population)​

 

[Pythagorean]

The matter of distribution has to be significant with how much food waste I see in the US.

 

[AlephZero]

The matter of distribution has to be significant with how much food waste I see in the US.

Does your definition of "waste" include "convert into biodiesel"?

 

[cobalt124]

The matter of distribution has to be significant with how much food waste I see in the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6456987.stm

In the U.K., about a third of purchased food is thrown away, though half of this is inedible (tea bags, bones and so on).

 

[lisab]

Ultimately, the reason some humans starve is because it's allowed to happen.

 

[DaveC426913]

One would expect that over several generations the population in a region would stabilize to what the land and water can support.

I have nothing to back this up but I think there is a belief in some poorer countries that high mortality does not mean have fewer babies, but have more babies.

 

[Pythagorean]

Does your definition of "waste" include "convert into biodiesel"?

no :)

 

[rootX]

I don't find food wastage argument strong enough. If people waste less food, they will spend less on food. That suggests either suppliers go out of business or they give rest of the food to other parts of the worlds for free which I don't see coming? So, stopping wasting food will likely not solve the problem of hunger.

 

[rootX]

I have nothing to back this up but I think there is a belief in some poorer countries that high mortality does not mean have fewer babies, but have more babies.

They produce like there's no tommorow (joking) but I recall starting a thread why do poor people have children when they cannot support themselves.

 

[DaveC426913]

They produce like there's no tommorow (joking) but I recall starting a thread why do poor people have children when they cannot support themselves.

At the risk of seeming disrespectful, I think it's the gambit of cod and sea turtles. Have many, hope some survive. There's a name of it that escapes me.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm sure there are many reasons for the higher birth rates in 3rd world countries and yours may have something to do with it, but there is another that likely also plays a significant roles: lack of contraception.

 

[rootX]

Literacy rates:
http://world.bymap.org/LiteracyRates.html

Infant mortality rate:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

Birth rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_birth_rate

Country by mortality rate (sorted by mortality, Angola highest) : Literacy rank (213 total) : birth rate rank
Angola : 174 : 8
Afghanistan: 211 : 5
Niger: 210 : 1
Mali: 201: 2
Somalia: 206 : 7

I could go and try to prove that mortality/birth rate is a problem among poorly literate countries .. but don't feel like it.

 

[Stephen Tashi]

Some distinction needs to be made between "malnutrition" and "starvation". Malnutrition can happen to people who have no sense of being hungry.

 

[WhoWee]

Here's one 'other factor' to consider:

vii) Lack of distribution. (due, I presume, to political/monetary concerns)​

I think you've identified the nasty secret - food is available but it doesn't (consistently)reach the people who need it - for a multitude of reasons.

 

[skeptic2]

I think you've identified the nasty secret - food is available but it doesn't (consistently)reach the people who need it - for a multitude of reasons.

Well let's identify the reasons.

Food doesn't reach the people because...

- they are too poor to pay for it.
- the food is highjacked along the distribution route.
- societal, political or environmental changes have destroyed the previous routes of distribution and new routes don't exist yet.

 

[WhoWee]

Well let's identify the reasons.

Food doesn't reach the people because...

- they are too poor to pay for it.
- the food is highjacked along the distribution route.
- societal, political or environmental changes have destroyed the previous routes of distribution and new routes don't exist yet.

Don't overlook waste, storage rot, infestation, and hoarding.

 

[BWV]

the Indian Nobel prize winning economist, Amartya Sen noted that famine is nonexistent in functioning democracies - the political pressures on governments ensure that relief will get to areas stricken by disaster, crop failure etc. On the other hand, mass famine was a defining characteristic of communist regimes, from the USSR in the 1920s through the Great Leap Forward to Cuba after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Famine also occurred in colonial regions, such as Bengal in 1943, where the British government was not accountable to the local population

 

[WhoWee]

the Indian Nobel prize winning economist, Amartya Sen noted that famine is nonexistent in functioning democracies - the political pressures on governments ensure that relief will get to areas stricken by disaster, crop failure etc. On the other hand, mass famine was a defining characteristic of communist regimes, from the USSR in the 1920s through the Great Leap Forward to Cuba after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Famine also occurred in colonial regions, such as Bengal in 1943, where the British government was not accountable to the local population

How are the events similar in the context of this thread (distribution, funding, availability, theft, waste, ?) - what is your conclusion?

 

[BWV]

How are the events similar in the context of this thread (distribution, funding, availability, theft, waste, ?) - what is your conclusion?

For at least the past 100 years famine has been solely a product of bad political and economic policy, not overpopulation, global warming, ozone or any of the other factors you mentioned.

 

[WhoWee]

For at least the past 100 years famine has been solely a product of bad political and economic policy, not overpopulation, global warming, ozone or any of the other factors you mentioned.

That's a very wide brush-stroke, care to be more specific?

 

[BWV]

That's a very wide brush-stroke, care to be more specific?

I think my OP addressed the point adequately, if you want to provide counterexamples then be my guest.

 

[croghan27]

Good point, rooteX - uneducated women tend to have more children that the educated.

I am sure it is not a physiological condition - but has something to do with being empowered. The countries with the highest birth rates are the counties with the fewest educated women.

Even in well educated societies, as in the west, those with most education tend have the least children.

(No I do not have readily available references for what is stated above - but they are easily available.)

 

[WhoWee]

For at least the past 100 years famine has been solely a product of bad political and economic policy, not overpopulation, global warming, ozone or any of the other factors you mentioned.

When did I mention global warming and ozone?

 

[BWV]

When did I mention global warming and ozone?

sorry, just hyperbole

although did not read your OP close enough to see it was talking about chronic malnutrition rather than famine

the cause of chronic malnutrition is simple - agriculture. It enables a large population dependent on cheap carbohydrate calories from a few food sources. Hunter gatherers tend to have a more diverse, higher quality diet.

 

[croghan27]

the cause of chronic malnutrition is simple - agriculture. It enables a large population dependent on cheap carbohydrate calories from a few food sources. Hunter gatherers tend to have a more diverse, higher quality diet

.

Can't agree with that one, BMW. The land required to produce a vegetarian diet is far less than then needed to process the veggies through beasts.

I would think that some famines are purposely man made ... Pol Pot did a good job here - but he was only a tip ... starvation is a decision. Whether political as in North Korea adhering to a system that has not and does not work, or economic, as in Africa where the west takes billions of dollars of their goods and leaves them to starve.

 

[skeptic2]

I would think that some famines are purposely man made ... Pol Pot did a good job here - but he was only a tip ... starvation is a decision. Whether political as in North Korea adhering to a system that has not and does not work, or economic, as in Africa where the west takes billions of dollars of their goods and leaves them to starve.

Thank you croghan27, this is the point I was trying to make in post #4. Intentionally keeping wages so low that a family cannot even buy enough food creates a working class that is not willing to risk the little they have for a change that is as likely to be for the worse as for the better. In addition, low wages works to the benefit of a wealthy ruling class. When the workers are malnourished, the free market no longer works. Workers will not risk quitting their jobs in favor of better ones if they don't like their salaries or working conditions.

 

[BWV]

.

Can't agree with that one, BMW. The land required to produce a vegetarian diet is far less than then needed to process the veggies through beasts.

BWV not BMW

yes that is why agriculture replaced hunting and gathering - it does allow a greater population density, but at a cost which is a diet reliant on a few starches. Jared Diamond summarizes the basic points here
http://www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html"

While farmers concentrate on high-carbohydrate crops like rice and potatoes, the mix of wild plants and animals in the diets of surviving hunter-gatherers provides more protein and a bettter balance of other nutrients. In one study, the Bushmen's average daily food intake (during a month when food was plentiful) was 2,140 calories and 93 grams of protein, considerably greater than the recommended daily allowance for people of their size. It's almost inconceivable that Bushmen, who eat 75 or so wild plants, could die of starvation the way hundreds of thousands of Irish farmers and their families did during the potato famine of the 1840s.

I would think that some famines are purposely man made ... Pol Pot did a good job here - but he was only a tip ... starvation is a decision. Whether political as in North Korea adhering to a system that has not and does not work, or economic, as in Africa where the west takes billions of dollars of their goods and leaves them to starve.

I think you would be hard pressed to find an instance of famine in the 20th century that was not man-made. Post-colonial African famines are not the fault of the west, they are the result of government policies or civil wars.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I highly doubt that there is not enough food (or available farming space either currently available or able to be built) on this planet to feed its population well. Just look at the surpluses of the U.S and Europe. Distribution is the sole problem and just like skeptic2 says...

Food doesn't reach the people because...

- they are too poor to pay for it.
- the food is highjacked along the distribution route.
- societal, political or environmental changes have destroyed the previous routes of distribution and new routes don't exist yet.

I'd add to that a forth reason
- some distribution routes do not exist

The food waste in developed countries is bought about by food not being eaten before it is thrown away, if you had some hypothetical means of distributing the food that likely will not be eaten and could easily, cheaply and safely transport this food to starving people then problem solved.

However aside from logistical and political problems if businesses and nations start producing more food than they need then they will scale down production at the expense of the aid helping those starving people

 

[skeptic2]

For an example of how effective limiting food and water is for controlling a population, imagine what would have happened in Libya if Ghadaffi, instead of attacking the protesters, had simply turned off the water to the whole country. How long would this uprising have lasted then?

 

[croghan27]

ryan m b - there is nothing there for me to argue about. I would just make the point that natural disasters are just that, natural and happen all the time ... it is the human factor that results in the starvation or survival: remember Egypt in the bible set aside 10 years of grain against drought and survived where many did not.

as for, BMV: I think you would be hard pressed to find an instance of famine in the 20th century that was not man-made. Post-colonial African famines are not the fault of the west, they are the result of government policies or civil wars. ryan made a good point about the Irish potato famine - it was aided by the desire of the rulers (either English or Irish Lords allied with them) to unseat the indigenous farmers from the land so it could be turned over to sheep grazing - that is where the $$$ was. They let nature do what they were reluctant to do.

I would maintain that the African governments you decry are the result and continuation of colonialism. The Nigerian government is still there thank you to Shell Oil, Mugabe from diamonds, and the in-the-news Qaddafi through oil.

 

[BWV]

I would maintain that the African governments you decry are the result and continuation of colonialism. The Nigerian government is still there thank you to Shell Oil, Mugabe from diamonds, and the in-the-news Qaddafi through oil.

this list of famines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines has a single instance in Nigeria which was a blockade of Biafra during the civil war in the late 60s.

Ethiopia, which was never a colony of a Western power, appears most often on the list and the causes are linked to the country's history of authoritarian governments

the other frequently appearing region is the Sahel where famine does appear to be a natural phenomena tied to droughts and desertification - although you could argue that the political boundaries that carved countries out of the region, which are a product of colonialization, are to blame in that they produced small countries of uniform climate which lacked the regional diversification necessary in order to transfer resources to aid victims of droughts or other natural events.

 

[croghan27]

this list of famines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines has a single instance in Nigeria which was a blockade of Biafra during the civil war in the late 60s.

Ethiopia, which was never a colony of a Western power, appears most often on the list and the causes are linked to the country's history of authoritarian governments

the other frequently appearing region is the Sahel where famine does appear to be a natural phenomena tied to droughts and desertification - although you could argue that the political boundaries that carved countries out of the region, which are a product of colonialization, are to blame in that they produced small countries of uniform climate which lacked the regional diversification necessary in order to transfer resources to aid victims of droughts or other natural events.

Methinks we are just about saying the same thing, BMV - I just have the footnote in mind that: Many African countries are not self-sufficient in food production, relying on income from cash crops to import food. and you can bet the individual farmer is not the one to benefit from the cast crop. (Did not PBS have a special on chocolate not so long ago.)

I have to agree with the Wiki article when it says:

Numerous factors make the food security situation in Africa tenuous, including political instability, armed conflict and civil war, corruption and mismanagement in handling food supplies, and trade policies that harm African agriculture. An example of a famine created by human rights abuses is the 1998 Sudan famine

 

[rootX]

Good point, rooteX - uneducated women tend to have more children that the educated.

I am sure it is not a physiological condition - but has something to do with being empowered. The countries with the highest birth rates are the counties with the fewest educated women.

Even in well educated societies, as in the west, those with most education tend have the least children.

(No I do not have readily available references for what is stated above - but they are easily available.)

Reason I brought that up was to blame the literacy conditions for starvation among those countries. Western nations/Shell Oil are not preventing them from getting food but their own ignorance is. They need to know what is good for them.

Food might be distributed to those nations but I don't think that would address the cause of starvation problem.

 

[WhoWee]

UN report.

http://www.foodfirst.org/sites/www.foodfirst.org/files/pdf/UN_Organic%20Agriculture_Africa_2008.pdf

 

[croghan27]

Reason I brought that up was to blame the literacy conditions for starvation among those countries. Western nations/Shell Oil are not preventing them from getting food but their own ignorance is. They need to know what is good for them

.

I would think that the hundreds of billions that the west takes from the Continent might have something to do with it. Much of the wealth of Africa goes to a few ultra-rich families ... at the moment Mubarak of Egypt, Ali in Tunisia and Qaddafi in Lybia at the most prominent - but the rulers of Nigeria (Abacha)and good 'ol Mugabe do quite well for themselves. (I have heard it estimated that their total wealth, if used for the proper purposes would eliminate poverty in Africa.) In South America we used to call them 'tin pot' dictators. They are in place and held in place by the west.

It is not up to me to tell them "what is good for them", I am not that arrogant - it has been demonstrated that foreigners coming into a country thoroughly screw things up, even with the best of intentions - it is up to them to do what is good for them ... we would do well just to stop being part of the problem.

Food might be distributed to those nations but I don't think that would address the cause of starvation problem.

I would think that is the least we could do. Christ, as I understand Christ, would approve of this as would Muhammad and most religious leaders ... even atheist get into this endevour.

 

[DaveC426913]

(I have heard it estimated that their total wealth, if used for the proper purposes would eliminate poverty in Africa.)

I think this is kind of simplistic (not that I think you're actually suggesting anything). Do these guys have power? If we literally took their money and distributed it as food and resorces, could they still keep the country running?

It is not up to me to tell them "what is good for them", I am not that arrogant - it has been demonstrated that foreigners coming into a country thoroughly screw things up, even with the best of intentions - it is up to them to do what is good for them ... we would do well just to stop being part of the problem.

Seem to me there's a solution part way in between total takeover and total withdrawal. Transparency. As they get included in world economic activity, and are exposed to how their countries could be run (with more distributed wealth and maybe some democracy), they will make these changes for themselves. Seems to me that's what's happening all over the Middle East right now.

I would think that is the least we could do. Christ, as I understand Christ, would approve of this as would Muhammad and most religious leaders ... even atheist get into this endevour.

Trouble is, it still boils down to contributing money. In principle, lots of people want to help, but frankly the most efficient way for them to help is to simply donate money to good charities, who can most efficiently use it. And as soon as it becomes just a matter of giving money, people no longer feel attached.

 

[croghan27]

I think this is kind of simplistic (not that I think you're actually suggesting anything). Do these guys have power? If we literally took their money and distributed it as food and resources, could they still keep the country running?

Yes, it is not for me to suggest this problem has a simplistic answer ... it is filled with nuisance and has more corners than snakes and ladders. Completely by chance I was listening to Democracy Now as I read the various posts here. The article is about the loss of income from 'off shore' banking and tax havens... but the speaker is a man that has done much research into the banking industry and motions this in passing - here is the URL:

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/15/offshore_banking_and_tax_havens_have

TRANSPARENCY - If you remember the 1960 film, The Alamo, Richard Widmark gets the shivers from the word Freedom. (Wish I could find it on YouTube) - but transparancy would be a good place to start. It would be like the WikiLeaks revelations ... everybody knows that has been said in private places ... everyone knows these folks are a bunch of despotic crooks - but it is an elephant in the big room ... it would be a good place to start.

Trouble is, it still boils down to contributing money

A lot of that depends upon where the money comes from ... if is comes from a mining company that makes billions in part by keeping these slugs in power - the question is who's money is it comes into play.

 

[WhoWee]

.I would think that the hundreds of billions that the west takes from the Continent might have something to do with it. Much of the wealth of Africa goes to a few ultra-rich families ... at the moment Mubarak of Egypt, Ali in Tunisia and Qaddafi in Lybia at the most prominent - but the rulers of Nigeria (Abacha)and good 'ol Mugabe do quite well for themselves. (I have heard it estimated that their total wealth, if used for the proper purposes would eliminate poverty in Africa.) In South America we used to call them 'tin pot' dictators. They are in place and held in place by the west.

It is not up to me to tell them "what is good for them", I am not that arrogant - it has been demonstrated that foreigners coming into a country thoroughly screw things up, even with the best of intentions - it is up to them to do what is good for them ... we would do well just to stop being part of the problem.

I'm a little confused. If the "West" creates a market for and demand of a resource that is found on a "continent" - and pays the ruler of that land a fair price for that resource - how can one describe that with the word "takes"?

If the leader of a nation decides to purchase gold toilet seats instead of an irrigation system or a tractor - should the "West" be held accountable - doesn't seem reasonable?

 

[croghan27]

I'm a little confused. If the "West" creates a market for and demand of a resource that is found on a "continent" - and pays the ruler of that land a fair price for that resource - how can one describe that with the word "takes"?

If the leader of a nation decides to purchase gold toilet seats instead of an irrigation system or a tractor - should the "West" be held accountable - doesn't seem reasonable?

Fair price? How about if they overthrow a democratically elected government and install some toady as 'glorious leader' as in Chile with ITT and (that monster) Pinoche.

Yes, Anaconda and Kennecott Copper along with ITT should be held accountable.

 

[WhoWee]

Fair price? How about if they overthrow a democratically elected government and install some toady as 'glorious leader' as in Chile with ITT and (that monster) Pinoche.

Yes, Anaconda and Kennecott Copper along with ITT should be held accountable.

I thought we were talking about Africa?

 

[croghan27]

I thought we were talking about Africa

?

Do you think it has never happened in Africa? I used Chile because it is the best documented ... but love did not put Mubarak into the leadership of Egypt, nor Ali in Tunisia - England, France and the US have been and indeed still are messing around in central Africa.

R. Reagan even made friends with the aparteid government of S. Africa to support the FNLA in Angola.

 

[WhoWee]

?

Do you think it has never happened in Africa? I used Chile because it is the best documented ... but love did not put Mubarak into the leadership of Egypt, nor Ali in Tunisia - England, France and the US have been and indeed still are messing around in central Africa.

R. Reagan even made friends with the aparteid government of S. Africa to support the FNLA in Angola.

Regardless of how a leader gained power - shouldn't a leader want their country to produce adequate amounts of food (to feed everyone) and not be dependent on other countries?

 

[rootX]

.

I would think that the hundreds of billions that the west takes from the Continent might have something to do with it. Much of the wealth of Africa goes to a few ultra-rich families ... at the moment Mubarak of Egypt, Ali in Tunisia and Qaddafi in Lybia at the most prominent - but the rulers of Nigeria (Abacha)and good 'ol Mugabe do quite well for themselves. (I have heard it estimated that their total wealth, if used for the proper purposes would eliminate poverty in Africa.) In South America we used to call them 'tin pot' dictators. They are in place and held in place by the west.

It is not up to me to tell them "what is good for them", I am not that arrogant - it has been demonstrated that foreigners coming into a country thoroughly screw things up, even with the best of intentions - it is up to them to do what is good for them ... we would do well just to stop being part of the problem.

I would think that is the least we could do. Christ, as I understand Christ, would approve of this as would Muhammad and most religious leaders ... even atheist get into this endevour.

For current Middle East ...
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=480238&page=16 and apeiron had similar opinions. I would agree that West has been messing around with those countries for its own interests but I don't understand why it has to play the role of a care taker.

It is not up to me to tell them "what is good for them", I am not that arrogant - it has been demonstrated that foreigners coming into a country thoroughly screw things up, even with the best of intentions - it is up to them to do what is good for them ... we would do well just to stop being part of the problem

I believe poor/uneducated people can be easily manipulated for bread thus are more prone to support the incompetent leaders. External help will be of little good if people themselves are not ready for change.

 

[croghan27]

Regardless of how a leader gained power - shouldn't a leader want their country to produce adequate amounts of food (to feed everyone) and not be dependent on other countries?

Control of a food supply is a power political tool - you can bestow sufficient unto your favourites and ration food to your opponents.

rootX has a partial answer in the intervening post:

I believe poor/uneducated people can be easily manipulated for bread thus are more prone to support the incompetent leaders. External help will be of little good if people themselves are not ready for change.

The people of Biafra were the best educated in all of Africa - yet they starved through interdictions put in place by the Nigeria 'government'.

 

[croghan27]

Here is an interesting concept I came upon just after finishing the last post - it is by Gwynne Dyer and about climate warming, but the food reference may be helpful in this discussion:

I first encountered the concept of Real Population Density (note the “Real”) when I was interviewing people in the Netherlands last year about how the country would fare as the temperature rose.

http://www.embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/real_population_density_04-13-2011

 

[WhoWee]

Here is an interesting concept I came upon just after finishing the last post - it is by Gwynne Dyer and about climate warming, but the food reference may be helpful in this discussion:



http://www.embassymag.ca/dailyupdate/view/real_population_density_04-13-2011

Are you changing the subject again - this time global warming?