Why is there starvation in human populations?

[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?

 

[croghan27]

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

You really should have paid more attention in your reading comprehension class.

 

[WhoWee]

You really should have paid more attention in your reading comprehension class.

My comprehension is fine.

 

[croghan27]

My comprehension is fine.

Then your reading sucks.

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:

 

[WhoWee]

Then your reading sucks.

Really?

I asked this question. "Are you changing the subject again - this time global warming? "

This, after you changed the subject from starvation in Africa to a political discussion of South America - then to farming in India compared to China in the context of global warming?

Btw - I don't think you've supported this comment yet - with regards to Africa.

"I would think that the hundreds of billions that the west takes from the Continent might have something to do with it."

Please support this statement before changing the topic again.

 

[croghan27]

Note the title of this thread ... it does not specify Africa. If I reference another geographic area I am trying to put it into a context, not change any subject. That you see a mention of global warming as a change or subject (did you see the 'but') says more about you than about the subject we are (or were until you got belligerent) discussing.

Illicit outflows increased from $1.06 trillion in 2006 to approximately $1.26 trillion in 2008, with average annual illicit outflows from developing countries averaging $725 billion to $810 billion, per year, over the 2000-2008 time period measured.



Illicit flows increased in current dollar terms by 18.0 percent per annum from $369.3 billion at the start of the decade to $1.26 trillion in 2008. When adjusted for inflation, the real growth of such outflows was 12.7 percent. Real growth of illicit flows by regions over the nine years is as follows:



•Middle East and North Africa (MENA) 24.3 percent,
•developing Europe 23.1 percent,
•Africa 21.9 percent,•Asia 7.85, and
•Western Hemisphere 5.18 percent.

http://iff-update.gfip.org/"

and that is the illicit money ...

You can do your own research from here ...

http://www.financialtaskforce.org/2011/03/10/africas-missing-millionsbillionstrillions/"

 

[WhoWee]

Note the title of this thread ... it does not specify Africa. If I reference another geographic area I am trying to put it into a context, not change any subject. That you see a mention of global warming as a change or subject (did you see the 'but') says more about you than about the subject we are (or were until you got belligerent) discussing.



http://iff-update.gfip.org/"

and that is the illicit money ...

You can do your own research from here ...

http://www.financialtaskforce.org/2011/03/10/africas-missing-millionsbillionstrillions/"

From your link:

"Top 10 countries with the highest measured cumulative illicit financial outflows between 2000 and 2008 were:



China: $2.18 trillion
Russia: $427 billion
Mexico: $416 billion
Saudi Arabia: $302 billion
Malaysia: $291 billion
United Arab Emirates: $276 billion
Kuwait: $242 billion
Venezuela: $157 billion
Qatar: $138 billion
Nigeria: $130 billion "

How does this support your claim?

 

[rootX]

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

I have come across China's land problem before (I assume you are also referring to https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3213412&postcount=51"). It sounds very similar to current oil problem. But, as far China has strong economy and military (which it does) it can get anything it wants.

 

[Andre]

Here is also a cause mentioned for starvation in human populations

It's not new, but the publication platform is interesting.

Part of the abstract:

Results derived fromWorld Bank and World Health Organization (WHO) studies suggest that for every million people living in absolute poverty in developing countries, there are annually at least 5,270 deaths and 183,000 Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) lost to disease. Combining these estimates with estimates of the increase in poverty owing to growth in biofuels production over 2004 levels leads to the conclusion that additional biofuel production may have resulted in at least 192,000 excess deaths
and 6.7 million additional lost DALYs in 2010.

 

[lcary]

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.

One factor I'm sure that's a tiny bit involved is the fact that birth control products such as contraceptives and other services are not as available to people of the lower class demographic. I think what's more involved is that for some families the dynamic of parent child roles are difference as well. For example some farmers may have more kids even if they are poor because their children can contribute to the farm labor.

But even more so it's the fact that women in poverty are are not getting the education they need for better survival. Studies have shown once women are more educated birth rates start to go down.

some sources:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/206/poverty-and-population-growth-lessons-from-our-own-past

http://www.beadforlife.org/blog/2011/02/24/a-different-approach-to-birth-control-education/

http://www.yorku.ca/povproj/documents/ConferenceThemePaper.pdf

 

[rootX]

One factor I'm sure that's a tiny bit involved is the fact that birth control products such as contraceptives and other services are not as available to people of the lower class demographic. I think what's more involved is that for some families the dynamic of parent child roles are difference as well. For example some farmers may have more kids even if they are poor because their children can contribute to the farm labor.

But even more so it's the fact that women in poverty are are not getting the education they need for better survival. Studies have shown once women are more educated birth rates start to go down.

some sources:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/206/poverty-and-population-growth-lessons-from-our-own-past

http://www.beadforlife.org/blog/2011/02/24/a-different-approach-to-birth-control-education/

http://www.yorku.ca/povproj/documents/ConferenceThemePaper.pdf

This is an amazing program!

The majority of Ethiopia's population live in rural areas and when they are ill many do not seek medical advice, but a new government programme hopes to change this at a local level.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9464344.stm