I am a little curious about all these people the OP says are making this claim. I hear lots of claims - mostly from charities - that lots of Americans/children go to bed hungry. I’m not sure I’ve ever heard anyone claim that lots of Americans/children are dying of starvation (not in contemporary sources, anyway.)
I pointed out that ‘starve’ used to mean 'do without sustenance of any kind- food, shelter, warmth etc.
My reasoning was no different than Happy Fun Ball’s. Your question did make me see that the rate is ‘age standardized’ and that may limit the ability to make a calculation from the rate and population.
But we’re double the rate of Australia and South Korea. I think the distribution of scores for the gray countries shows we can clearly do better; we’re in the bottom half after all. Anyway it’s all a matter of perspective. To somebody who spends their days fighting hunger, I think they might see 3000 as a large number and our rate as a sign of serious problems. To somebody worried about coronary heart disease this may not seem like such a big deal. It is #49 in the top 50 causes of American deaths and in support of TriPolar’s assertion, it is mostly a problem among the elderly. I do not believe it to be a very serious problem, but wonder if there is something reasonable that can be done since it seems to be a problem for a very specific population.
According to Wikipedia Starvation is the most extreme form of malnutrition. Death by malnutrition could reasonably be interpreted to be death from starvation.
You can be morbidly obese and still die of malnutrition. Malnutrition means you lack certain nutrients, not that you lack calories.
Starvation is usually interpreted as lack of calories.
Really? Because I’ve been speaking English for nearly half a century now and I have never encountered that particular usage. Any cites for that?
Origin:
before 1000; Middle English sterven, Old English steorfan to die; cognate with German sterben
If you speak any German, you’d see it right away. When he said “archaic” he really meant archaic. But I hope that we’re not debating in Old English these days…
Odd. When I click your link it defaults to female. When I click “both” for gender, malnutrition drops off the chart. Maybe these deaths are attributable to eating disorders as suggested above.
Click both, then click on ‘All Ages’ above the leftmost columns. This sorts the list and you can see it as 49.
Only 12 people died of malnutrition under the age of 24 and 7 of them were female. Anorexia is typically an adolescent disorder among females. I think that anorexia probably causes more deaths than 7 (or 12) year to year. So my guess is that they came up with a standard definition that can be used to compare rates across all nations. Since anorexia is typically a first world problem, that particular cause wouldn’t be included.
What is even odder, which I noticed earlier, is that it’s there for male and female individually, but not for both.
For whatever reason it initially sorts on the top 50 causes of death for the 35-44 age group.
Death from malnutrition isn’t exactly the same as starvation. Anorexics can die from heart failure as Karen Carpenter did. She could have been eating a healthy diet at the time she died but the damage was already done from years of malnutrition. Still, the malnutrition deaths should include deaths by starvation, acute malnutrition as opposed to chronic perhaps. I still think the total numbers will largely be composed of the very sick and elderly, with many of them voluntarily giving up nutrition, and the rest from neglect or at least misguided concepts of care. It requires intent or a terrible decision for someone to starve to death in this country, food is abundant.
Just for the record: I don’t believe you, and I don’t believe you’d stay healthy if you did.
In a metropolitan area it wouldn’t be difficult to collect $10 a day from begging, and if food is all you spend money on $10 is plenty for healthy meals. Whether or not that particular poster could manage it is a different matter, as is the supposition that such a beggar is spending the money on food anyway since it is available free for many people.
Speaking English does not mean you have an extended vocabulary:
To suffer from deprivation.
to deprive or be deprived (of something necessary)
Obs. to die
to cause to suffer for lack of something needed or craved.
starve - deprive of a necessity and cause suffering
Starve has its origin in OE ‘Die’. Then it came to mean die of cold, then deprive of food or other necessity. Modern usage with humans now usually means deprive of food, but we still say that engines are starved of fuel or that we may be starved of love.
Maybe you could google yourself in future rather than cast aspersions.
I don’t doubt that you can collect $10 in change in a day. I doubt that just anybody can do it, and I’m doubtful that it’s in any way healthful. I’ve seen plenty of longterm NYC homeless, and none have been the picture of health.
Oh, please. We’re talking about people starving to death. In that context, the word has only one meaning.
Even in the poorest parts of the third world, actual starvation is rare and only really happens in catastrophes- wars, famines, etc. and even then it is primarily among children, the elderly and women. The vast majority of people who die due to food insecurity succumb when their chronically malnourished body can no longer fight diseases, or when a diarrheal disease depletes their limited resources. Just plain not having calories for a sustained period (it takes weeks without food to starve) is rare anywhere.
So I would venture that the any starvation in America is due to abuse or mental illness, with maybe a few elderly folks and people lost on the woods thrown in. Personally, I’ve known freehand who’ve lived well for years on discarded food.
I think the term being used is “free-gan”. Spell check isn’t allowing me to write it w/o a hyphen. Maybe you had the same problem.
But yeah, the idea that people are starving to death in the US is nonsense. Anyone who isn’t mentally ill or looking to kill himself can get food if he needs it.
My post was:
"Starve now means to lack food. Originally the word meant to have lack of life sustenance generally.
The figures for life expectancy for the homeless and roofless are amazingly low- often mid forties to fifties. The US has one of the largest populations of homeless and roofless in the developed world. In an archaic sense then, many do starve to death. How much of this is to do with food poverty is a different matter."
I got a snarky reply; I snarked back.
Yeah, I mean isn’t that what happened to Terri Schiavo? She wasn’t even anorexic, she had just gone onto a diet to lose weight and wasn’t getting the right combination of macronutrients and electrolytes and collapsed one day and suffered near-brain death. Probably others have had that happened but “gone all the way” and died on the spot. If those are counted in the 3,000 then it’s not even related to economic situation but just making a few weeks series of bad food decisions.
I live in a pretty nice residential area right outside the main city of a metro area and the exit you take to get to my house almost always has a guy standing on the median at the first light trying to get money from passing motorists. I’d say about every few days I see someone roll down their window to hand him a few dollars. Considering he probably stands there 3-4 hours every day and thus I’m seeing a very small window of his pan handling I’m confident he has no problem getting $10 a day.
It’s not really a good living or anything, but yeah I don’t see how you couldn’t scrounge together $10/day which anyone could live on. That’s even without all the food banks, charity, food stamps and all those other options.
Really? You don’t believe that you can healthily live on $10/day, or you don’t believe Stringbean can panhandle $10 a day? I suspect if he/she is smart enough to use a computer and speculate an intent to do that they’re more than capable of the panhandling. Or do you not believe that if you want to find a way to eat, you can? Most of the homeless I see are not underweight, I’d say a number similar to the overall obesity rate are actually obese that I personally see every day.
I would agree that not everyone can panhandle due to physical or mental impairment. I’d also agree that not everyone would get healthy meals for $10/day, but that’s mostly due to the ignorance of thinking a bag of Doritos is a healthy meal, not that it’s impossible to get a healthy day’s worth of food for $10.
I would speculate that low homeless (especially roofless) life expectancy has nothing to do with malnutrition per se, but is really probably more related to greater chance of death from: violence, exposure, and alcoholism. Alcoholism probably the biggest of the three, then after alcoholism other drug addictions as well. If you’re an alcoholic not in recovery it’s a disease that almost always kills and usually many years before life expectancy norms.
One of the reasons we have so many “roofless” homeless in America is actually because our homeless shelters mostly have anti-alcohol policies. Some municipalities have started running ‘wet house’, which allow homeless alcoholics to drink in the shelter as it was recognized it’s better to have them drink themselves to death inside versus outside, because if you ask an alcoholic to choose between their bottle or a roof almost always they will choose the bottle.