There are tons of articles out there that highlight the problem of food scarcity in the world. Well, there are some who would refute that. Has the human population grown so humongous, that the world's food resources are not enough for us? Or does the problem lie in the unequal distribution of these valuable grains of life?
But, why would rational beings like us make a decision to leave millions starving? Such is the influence of market forces in our present day society. There is food abundance, waste of agricultural resources and less concentration on the areas that need basic foods. The reason is : monetary gain from the food industry does not tie in with societal gain.
Go ahead and take a look at these webpages :
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Myth_FoodScarcity.html
http://www.psrast.org/nowohu.htm
http://www.foodfirst.org/node/239
These pages contain almost the same content. I think it would be foolish to assume that those who are living in developed countries, and even the richer section of developing countries, do not indulge in gluttony and over-consumption. The imbalance in developing countries is evident in the following article by the Food and Agriculture Organization: http://www.fao.org/FOCUS/E/obesity/obes1.htm
What we can do is to look at ways of improving food distribution in our local area, and also figure out means to make this process marketable.
More later. All posts are welcome!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
you make a valid point about glutton and over-consumption ... and i would of course agree that food is as much a profit-making industry as any, and capitalism dictates that you sell to the highest bidders – the affluent, not the poor and starving in need … can a part of the problem be curbed by these gluttonous individuals from consuming less and instead donating something to the needy? ye, sure … but again, isn’t that the “freedom” and privilege of capitalistic society – that you enjoy what you want, how you want it, as long as you can obtain it through legal means? clearly making a case for this “food scarcity” issue, or “promoting awareness” of it would be the only way to convince people about the need for them to eat less and give more?
as is the case with most things on this world being dictated by epistemologically unsound logic/doctrine, you can argue anything …
but i am of the firm opinion that there really is an issue at hand … look at it this way: just because the whole “being green” thing has been taken to a disgustingly capitalistic level (e.g. “how green is your favourite celebrity?”), it doesn’t mean that environmental problems due to pollution don’t exist … similarly, there is no denying that global population is increasing at unprecedented rates, so a forthcoming shortage in supply of all resources – not least food – is not implausible …
India is a case-in-point for most things that point to scarcity due to overpopulation … water has been a precious commodity for a few years now … and staple food is the next in line … there are, in fact, clear signs and drastic measures being taken by a number of nations that suggest a real problem may exist …
certain countries insist on a price ceiling for the staple crop, to ensure food is always affordable to minimum wage earners, irrespective of inflation … Zambia, for example, does this with maize when it is sold as “mealie meal”, which is used to make a dish called nshima – the staple diet of the people ...
in another circumstance, crop exporters have decreased or all together ceased exporting their harvest crops … for example, many mass-exporters of rice in Asia – India included – are completely ceasing exporting rice … this is to force supply to meet local demand, which simultaneously lowers the sale price enough to make it affordable to “everyone” …
both ideas seem to be very socialistic notions, and not driven by capitalistic intent …
the vast acres of arable land used for farming is contributing to the increasing land shortage … and in a time when urbanization efforts are trying to reclaim more of the farm lands, it is completely out of the question to think that more land could be used for farming to meet the burgeoning demands … the solution, it seems, is growing crops indoors, in a simulated but optimized environment … apparently the technology already exists … it would mean silo-sized “greenhouses”, divided into umpteen levels, with each level growing roughly an acre of food crop each … this will ensure many acres of food crop growing on the same lateral space … and this will also ensure consistent and year-round production, irrespective of the season, inclement weather, or disease epidemics … as artificial as the solution feels, it sounds like the future of farming is here!
then there is the completely separate but still pertinent issue of the extinction of certain strains of food crops … the global solution has been decided upon: a large seed storage vault – called the “Doomsday” Vault – is being constructed on Svalbard (!!!) … a serious cocktail of seed samples is going to be put into a state of “suspended animation” for the purpose of long term storage … a small amount can then be taken from these seed samples to make more when needed, and thus satiate any future needs to maintain or increase crop production …
the idea of food scarcity now may seem a bit far-fetched, especially in light of the fact that over-consumption in portions of the developed world and the financially upper echelons of developing societies … looking at and employing better methods of food distribution could alleviate the situation in the short term … but i do think that the combined problems of increasing population, the urgent need for urbanized living space, and the lack of farming land are issues intertwined, all requiring continued/immediate action for the long term …
The significance of overpopulation seems like it can't be ignored.
Mechanistically it makes sense -
more people,
land area stays constant, technology stays constant
must mean less food to go around per person, right ?
As far as why you see such a disparity between different parts of the world -
different parts of the world have different education levels and different views on fertility.
If you were to go into a poor inner city community in the US and ask some of the high school age girls what they want out of life - some of them will tell you they just want to keep their baby alive and healthy - if you ask them why they have a baby, you may be shocked to find out how little she had thought it through before hand, and how little she felt she could control her own fertility.
You could contrast this by asking a group of girls working on their masters degree when they expect to have their first child, and how many children they expect to have.
For those that have a higher education level, and fewer children, you wouldn't expect poverty to be an issues.
For those that have lower education, and more children, you would expect to start seeing living standards tested.
The point of the example is not to shift the attention away from males, since males also play a role in how society views fertility, but rather to show how views on fertility can relate to education levels, and have an impact on the problems of overpopulation, hunger, and other poverty issues.
It seems like part of the issue of poverty comes back to differences in values, in addition to infrastructure and political differences.
Post a Comment