I will have to look up the details, but IIRC, the Nobel last year was won by a gentleman who did advanced research on starvation and famine. His conclusion was that famine is caused not by crop yields, but by political actions. I will try to remember to bring in the info tomorrow.
And pldennison is absolutely right; the best way to slow down the birth rate is to improve the economy. Now how one gets the Congo to transform to a self sufficient economy is anyone’s guess.
As for reproduction, one only needs to survive to puberty to reproduce. Someone living on the verge of starvation who lives only to 20 can still have quite a few kids if they start churning them out at 12.
But I agree that our donations to Rwanda and Somalia are not going to change much. IT may relieve some suffering, but the problems go much, much deeper than having a 3 squares a day.
I don’t think anybody’s arguing that it wouldn’t be better to improve the situation in the world so that we didn’t have to send food aid. But by the same token, until that happens (and we are working towards it) we have to send food aid.
even if the government who is causing the famine confiscates it? Even if, in practice, those receiving the aid are selling it on the black market? Even if it is helping to save a despotic genocidal regime money?
We don’t have to send aid. We should if it makes sense and helps the situation. Charity should have a utlitarian function in addition to making the aid givers feel better more self righteous.
The gentleman in question is Prof Amartya K Sen, last year’s Nobel prize winner for economics. He is the first Indian-born Nobel laureate for economics, having beaten Jagdish Bagwati and maybe TN Srinivasan to the post.
Sen won for many, many things (I am an economist and he is one of my favorite scholars): his contribution on famines, his championship of the philosophy of economics and particularly his work on what is known as social choice theory.
Sen’s contributions on famine start from the observation that some poor countries never seem to experience famine, whereas some countries can experience famine whilst exporting food.
His home country of India has been very poor and has many who suffer malnutrition, but has rarely experienced famine.
When the British invaded India, they took possession of the “famine manuals” from the maharajahs. These were recipes for avoiding famines.
Crudely speaking, Sen’s theory of famines posits that mass starvation is not in general due to a lack of food per se, but rather a breakdown in systems of entitlement.
This underscores what my previous post, and Mr Zambezi’s said: that it it is deficiencies in institutions that allows mass starvation, not lack of food per se. The dilemma of what the rich world should do about it remains.
In the discussion of these terrible famines, one thing jumps out at you-these famines always happen in regions of the world that are ALWAYS close to disaster. For example-Ethiopia is a largely rocky, arid plateau; under the best of circumstances, it can only support a limited human population. Yet, the population always increases, so that it is in peril whatever happens-the minute the rains fail, they are back to mass starvation. Obviously, NOTHING is inhibiting the ethipians from increasing their numbers. The same for Somalia. Of course, famines also occur as the result of wars and internal conflict, but I just don’t see much of a future for people in places like the “horn” of Africa.
As for India, the reason they don’t have such mass famines-is that most of the country is fertile and well-watered, you are pretty much assured of getting a fair crop every growing season. Which brings up another question-why do people live in such marginal areas to begin with?
Good catch, Mr. Z. And of course, we should be doing all we can as we are sending our food aid to ensure that it reaches the people to whom it is intended and that it improves the situation.
There is much fertile land in Africa. Doe you picture it as a huge desert? furthermore, the areas that have famine are not always suffering from a bad crop year. Starving one’s enemy is an age old tactic. Somalia had full crops and plenty of food when we went over there.
And doesn’t it make some sense that in an agrarian culture with a high infant mortality rate that one would have many children in anticipation of the death of many of them? If 3 out of 5 children die by age 5, and one needs at least 3 kids to manage their little plot of land and farm animals, does it make any sense for them to have 2 children?
This is picmr’s point. When they become an industrialized society and the means of production change, then you will see the birth rate drop.
Of course, AIDs and civil war and race wars will have to be halted first…
Sending food to the hungry without addressing WHY there are hungry is a cruel and malicious act. The rationale for the act is to “feel good” about helping a child have a full belly while ignoring the consequences.
Should we feed the hungry? I’ll respond with a qualified “yes”. But ONLY if we take on the additional responsibility of determining the factors that caused the hunger and defining a remedy.
People like Sally Struthers that have spent years on television actually make the problem worse. When it became politically correct to send tons of food to Africa to feed the hungry the U.S. lead the way. Ethiopia, Zaire, and all the other coutries with massive starvation were suddenly fed. The diseases that often accompany hunger were diminished, and the populations grew.
Prior to the 20th century and all of its advances in medicine, agriculture, and the ability to deliver huge quantities of supplies around the world, populations were largely controlled and limited by nature. A region simply could not maintain a greater population than its agriculture and political environment would allow.
The “I gotta feel good even if it kills you” crowd fed the hungry, extended the life expectancy, ignored the reasons for the hunger, and in many locations tripled the population.
So now how do we fix it? Regions that existed for ages under a precarious and delicate balance now have populations several times greater than can be supported locally. There are no modern skillsets and no movement into the industrial or technological revolutions. The only “asset” that these regions have is humanity.
I don’t know how to fix it. I wish I did. Does anyone else?
Sending food to the hungry without addressing WHY there are hungry is a cruel and malicious act. The rationale for the act is to “feel good” about helping a child have a full belly while ignoring the consequences.
Should we feed the hungry? I’ll respond with a qualified “yes”. But ONLY if we take on the additional responsibility of determining the factors that caused the hunger and defining a remedy.
People like Sally Struthers that have spent years on television actually make the problem worse. When it became politically correct to send tons of food to Africa to feed the hungry the U.S. lead the way. Ethiopia, Zaire, and all the other coutries with massive starvation were suddenly fed. The diseases that often accompany hunger were diminished, and the populations grew.
Prior to the 20th century and all of its advances in medicine, agriculture, and the ability to deliver huge quantities of supplies around the world, populations were largely controlled and limited by nature. A region simply could not maintain a greater population than its agriculture and political environment would allow.
The “I gotta feel good even if it kills you” crowd fed the hungry, extended the life expectancy, ignored the reasons for the hunger, and in many locations tripled the population.
So now how do we fix it? Regions that existed for ages under a precarious and delicate balance now have populations several times greater than can be supported locally. There are no modern skillsets and no movement into the industrial or technological revolutions. The only “asset” that these regions have is humanity.
I don’t know how to fix it. I wish I did. Does anyone else?
There is no doubt that enough food exists in the world to feed all who are in it. The farmers of our country alone could probably feed half of the world if we did not pay them to not grow crops.
The problem is most definitely the systems of government in various parts of the world, and people’s will and ability to change those systems. A dictator in control of a well-fed military is extremely difficult to overturn for a hungry (starving) underclass. It becomes a political decision to get involved, and try to change things. The food being shipped over may find it’s way to some of the people who really need it, but any funds sent to needy nations almost surely will not.
By the way, since most of this discussion has been focused on the African continent, I’ll add a new thought – why are we sending aid to Russia, an industrial nation with their own damn space program? What the ---- is that all about? The Ukraine has enough fertile land to feed “all of Europe” according to the Ukrainian people I talk to, but crops just rot in the fields year after year. People have to want to get the harvest to market, and have to be able to do that with relative safety and without interference from crooked politicians or mafia. So what happens now that we have sent millions, and the problems have only become worse? Any humanitarian goals accomplished here? More like the rich getting richer, because most of this aid ends up in a Swiss bank account. I believe efforts must be well thought out, and aimed at fixing a situation if possible. If someone needs a hand because of unforeseen disaster or war of course we are the first to help, but to continuously “feed” the habit just makes us into dopes, and does no good for the intended beneficiaries.
For example-Ethiopia is a largely rocky, arid plateau; under the best of circumstances, it can only support a limited human population.
To suggest that these areas are hopeless because of their geography is a bit of an oversimplification, don’t you think? Los Angeles is in a desert, but it’s one of the largest and richest population centers on earth.
quote:
Which brings up another question-why do people live in such marginal areas to begin with?
Because they’re born there. What do you suggest they do? Move to New Jersey and open an Arby’s franchise? As Americans we just happened to be born in the richest empire in the history of civilization. That doesn’t make us better or morally superior. That makes us lucky. To my mind, what we do with that windfall determines what we’re worth.
Wow! I don’t think I have ever heard anything more repugnent.
This is really taking “personal responsibility” to the extreme. Are you really saying that the starveing person in (name a place) is personally responsible for his orr her lot in life? HELLO! Unfortunately we are all not born in nice places. What makes you think that people who are DYEING OF HUNGER can change their situation in anyway. This isn’t the stereotypical person waiting for the welfare check…this is watching your sons and daughters die slowly. but I guess that is their fault. By the same logic peole in slavery should have done something about it. And gee…those Jewish people in WWII should have worked to make their life better.
You (an American I assume) probably have nore say over what happens in their lives than they do. If you can’t handle starving people on your hands, do something about it.
Famines as a result of political factors rather than lack of food per se; also courtesy of the reference in Mr.Zambezi’s post:
China 1958-61; Ukraine 1932-34; Cambodia 1975-79: due to the imposition of Marxist theory on traditional agriculture.
Nigerian, Ethiopian, and Sudanese governments using famine as a weapon against non-favored subgroups.
Bengal 1943: British wanted to keep rice supplies out of the hands of the Japanese, and send it to India (under British rule at the time). Result: mass starvation in Bengal.
Bangladesh 1974: famine came in one of their most productive rice years; largely attributed to the socialist Mujibur Rahman’s martial policies
In a investigative report for the Village Voice in 1993, the take-home message was that the dumping of free food into Somalia destroyed the agricultural economy. No one could sell their crops with piles of free food sitting at the docks of Mogadishu. Of course, only certain people were allowed to receive the food; others starved. Again, distribution policy and politics. Somalia, about the size of Texas, has a lot of fertile land and a population of only around 6 million (1993).
Expansion for divemaster: the 1974 famine was caused by rumors of a shortage. this led to hoarding. Then the socialist leader Rahman sent the army to arrest hoarders which convinced the people that there was a shortage which led to high prices and a lot of black market rice.
Then the Us declared it was ceasing food aid to punish Bangladesh for sellig Jute to Cuba. (Same source. Everybody should read this book.
Excellent points about the political and economic factors contributing to starvation, dm and MrZ. (I read PJ, too.) Many organizations are trying to address the root causes, rather than the symptoms. See http://www.thehungersite.com for a list of related sites.
I just want to add to the discussion that the status of women plays a role in this issue.
“Women and girls are most affected by hunger and poverty. Traditionally, women bear the primary responsibilities in the most relevant areas - food production, nutrition, family planning, primary health and education. Yet most development inputs continue to go to men.”
Women’s control over reproduction is also an important factor.
You know, MGibson, you are exactly right. It was through the sweat of your brow and the providence of the good Lord that you were born into an incredibly affluent society which has made its money by successively enslaving and exploiting people of different skin colours. Of course you have no duty to help the downtrodden, starving, and suffering members of your own species. Good on you for standing up for the rights of the rich!
I’m less inclined than most to “correct” anyone online or get into a heated discussion over trivial matters. It’s not my personna to do such and I’m a relative newcomer to the group.
But, (there’s always a “but”, isn’t there?), if a seemingly intellectual discussion is going to break down into bickering and such, at least let’s get the facts right.
Take the sentence, “an incredibly affluent society which has made its money by successively enslaving and exploiting people of different skin colours”.
Skin color had nothing to do with it. The roots of this great society were firmly planted when its original experiment in socialism broke down and capitalism replaced it.
Several notes on slavery:
Slavery was a necessity of the era. It was practiced in many parts of the world.
This county had white slaves long before it saw its first black slave.
Many of the blacks sold into slavery in this country were already slaves in their “native” country.
At the outbreak of the civil war, there were approximately 10,000 black slaves in this country whose owners were also black.
Take someone to task using the facts. It makes for a much more persuasive argument.