World hunger

[The idea]

Self sufficency could provide a slow path to growth and could have prevented some of the kleptocracy in Africa. India tried this path with middling result. With the current devastating poverty and the AIDS crisis, I think the impoverished countries need western aid.

In any case, countries such as South Korea and Taiwan have shown that it is possible to go from poverty to riches in a generation. They are the models that poor countries should emulate. [...]

Are you trying to figure out how impoverished countries can get out of poverty? That's an interesting question that calls for creativity and constructive ideas. However, it's not actually the question that this thread is about, is it? Isn't the main question of this thread as follows? "Why are the poor countries (e.g. some African countries) poor and, in particular, why are they so poor as to have widespread hunger?"

I suppose you could say that they are poor because of the AIDS crisis, but is that true? Can one demonstrate that, had it not been for the AIDS crisis, those countries would not be poor?

[...] the Asian tigers had several advantages that the African countries lack - more homogenous population, better infrastructure, better education and lack of natural resources in particular.

Yes, I do mean that a lack of natural resources aids growth. Great mineral riches provide too much opportunity for corruption and false riches.

If the lack of a homogeneous population is one cause of poverty, then does that mean that the immigration policy proposals of Jean-Marie Le Pen might be a good idea to prevent France from becoming poor?

 

[Luciana]

Is a end to world hunger a good thing?

That's one of the most insensitive (but that's common here) and most idiotic (less common) comments I have ever heard in this forum.

The world is not yours, not your family's. The poor have as much right to live in it then you. They also happen to be using much less of the planet's resources, so maybe they're not as destructive.

Failing that, that are very rational arguments as to why hunger should end, and that would be a great thing for everybody.

Development requires education; one is not possible without the other. The more educated a woman is, the less children she will bear. That's a very well known fact, but one you apparently choose to ignore: let the poor die, that's what you're saying.

Hunger has never stopped anyone from having loads and loads of children. Quite the contrary. The problem is that those children have developmental difficulties, which might include lower-than-average IQ. AIDS is now slowing the growth rate in some African countries, but in average they're still higher than in developed countries.

In the 1970s couples had an average of 4,7 children, in Brazil. In the year 2000 it's 2,3, a much more sensible one. Small regions of the country who have not developed have kept the growth rate through the decades.

Going back to the question - why is there hunger in the world? I can put forth some arguments, some might have been mentioned already. They are:

* predatory colonization. Being Brazilian, I know what it is. It's when a country, for centuries, is depleted of its natural resources, and being kept, purposefully, underdeveloped and highly dependend of the main country's economy. Example? There wasn't a single printing press in Brazil until 1808. No university until the same year. The few schools were Catholic, and for the rich. Illiteracy rate at 99%. Brazil was peripheric to Portugal which was peripheric to England. Trade deals were one-sided, taxes were extremely high, profits would be sent to the main country and not invested here. I'm offering Brazil as an example but here it wasn't that bad. In some African countries it was much worse in terms of genocide and keeping people in their backwards stage.

Before the great depression of the 1930s, colonies were not usually conceived in therms of development planning. Instead, they were opportunities for private investiment in agriculture or mines or infrastructure, and sometimes for European settlement. They were commercial enterprises whose native inhabitants were treated as economic instruments: supplies of cheap labor which could be exploited to enhance the profitability of foreign capital.

* Decolonization processes - England tried, and managed to for the most part, to carry out a responsible decolonization process; that is, setting roadmaps for independence. Portugal did a major mess out of this. Angola was a neat country before its war of independence. Portugal went into debt in an effort to keep its colony, destroyed the political system, boycotted products, stopped investment, paralyzed farming... then gave up and left. Angola has never recovered from that blow. Some countries were left with the shambles of an administrative government.

Those countries had authoritarian governments. When the mother country left, local disputes started as ferocious as ever. So while it's true that corrupt governments keep the resources to themselves and let the people starve, it is also true that even if income were more fairly shared, still there isn't much money to begin with.

One fast way to end hunger would be to stop agricultural subsidies in the developed contries as fast as possible. No African or Latin American plantation can compete against a national treasure. If people are only allowed to plant and sell under a liberal market, they will be given at least a chance to further their development. They don't have industries and they can plant only for subsistance. That's no way to keep a country. There will be widespread hunger for as long as this situation goes on.

Brazil's industrialization only started in 1930. It was only viable because of the money earned in the coffee plantations. Had it been possible to plant it in Europe, with agricultural subsidies, then the seeds of our development would never have been planted (no pun!).

Poverty and hunger bring political instability. In a world where nations don't fight nations, but instead nations fight terrorists, underdevelopment and what it allows for- religious fundamentalism, resentment, anger - are very dangerous prospects. Let me say this again: underdevelopment threatens the safety of us all. It is also inhumane. You can't seriously believe in human rights if you feel that hunger should be kept in order to avoid overpopulation (an assumption that, btw, is false).

 

[Luciana]

The biggest current issue is that Western economic policies could not be better design ensure the continuation of poverty in developing nations. Basically our tariffs, subsidies and trade policies are designed to prevent exports of everything that they can produce competitively. Our highly subsidized farmers not only prevent African nations from exporting in the industry where they can most use the cheap labor to advantage but we also flood their countries with cheap agriculture product preventing them from creating domestic competitiors. Ditto the textile industries.

Exactly.

1) Many of the "nations" are not nations in the sense of common identity. The tribes/enthnicities were carved up in a manner to make it easier for the colonialist to rule not for self rule. The colonialists frequently had a divide and conquer mentality which meant when independence came, there was great animosity between groups.

While I mostly agree, it must be said that all country's borders are somewhat arbitrary (Austria, Hungary, Balkans in general). Spain has ethnical problems to this day, but it's localized and confined.

However, I'm always a bit skeptical of those who are too quick to blame ethnical differences for the African problems (and I don't think that is your case, CBL4, I must add). First, because it's convenient - it's their fault, other countries have nothing to do with that. Second, it smells of racism, as in "those people are too backwards to get along, they're naturally belligerant" (I've heard variations of those many times). And third, while it's true that there is wide animosity within countries, at the very least we must accept that, after decolonizations, the borders were accepted "as is". Countries have changed names, but not borders, with very small exceptions (Lesoto springs to mind). African nations don't fight among themselves.

I'm afraid that, when you don't have much to share, the fight for it will always be bloody. Thus the ethnical conflicts. Had there been more development, and the contentment that it follows, those fights might never even happen.

Edited for html.

 

[AWPrime]

Luciana Nery, taking the short cut?

Are you that naive that you really think that your 'measures' will eradicate all hunger?





ps. My stance is more based upon that it would be impossible to eradicate all hunger in the world, not on saying that they should starve. So you can stop being rightious.

 

[shanek]

Development requires education; one is not possible without the other. The more educated a woman is, the less children she will bear. That's a very well known fact, but one you apparently choose to ignore: let the poor die, that's what you're saying.

Hunger has never stopped anyone from having loads and loads of children. Quite the contrary.

Looking at the history of my country in general and my family lines in particular, the progression seems to go something like this:

You start out with mostly farming families, which grow just enough food to feed themselves and a bit extra to sell to get what they need. They have a dozen or more children each generation.

Innovations and new technology make farming easier.

The farming families don't have to work as hard to make ends meet. They have fewer children and can afford more stuff.

More innovations come.

Children start leaving the farm and going to work at certain trades. While considered by many to be a "sweat shop" (usually judging by today's developed standards), this work is easier and produces a greater return than working on the farm.

Farms start to disappear; more people work at trades while the farms that are left, being more efficient, can still handle. Family size dwindles.

As more people work at trades, these jobs become more competitive, and companies raise standards of safety, shorten working hours, etc.

This progression continues, and at some point, hunger becomes rare and starvation a thing of the past. The only thing that seems to be necessary for this to happen is a free market.

Notice that both of your well-reasoned examinations of why hunger exists involve government.

Those countries had authoritarian governments. When the mother country left, local disputes started as ferocious as ever. So while it's true that corrupt governments keep the resources to themselves and let the people starve, it is also true that even if income were more fairly shared, still there isn't much money to begin with.

But the above progression I illustrated makes the capital more efficient, if only it's allowed to progress.

Poverty and hunger bring political instability.

Which brings more poverty and hunger. So this is a serious problem.

 

[shanek]

My stance is more based upon that it would be impossible to eradicate all hunger in the world,

There's no evidence for this. We can certainly produce enough food to feed everybody. Some say we already are. Undeveloped countries with their population certainly have the potential labor resources. If they began operating free markets then this potential labor would attract capital investments. Natural resources are nice, but not necessary; just ask Japan.

In fact, I can think of absolutely no reason why it wouldn't be inevitable that hunger would be eliminated in the world, if only the oppressive governments were overthrown and the world's markets were free.

 

[Luciana]

Luciana Nery, taking the short cut?

Are you that naive that you really think that your 'measures' will eradicate all hunger?

You asked : Is a end to world hunger a good thing? And yes, I'm indignant that such a question even crosses the mind of a 21st c. man.

Because, sincerely, I never thought that anyone would even doubt that ending hunger is a good thing. Really, don't you think that's a tad cruel to even consider such a proposition?

When did I say that "my" (I'm not proposing anything new) "measures" (your quotes) would eliminate hunger? But it's a good start, don't you think?

You said that hunger avoids overpopulation. I said that education takes cares of overpopulation by itself. Would you care to challenge that?

ps. My stance is more based upon that it would be impossible to eradicate all hunger in the world, not on saying that they should starve. So you can stop being rightious. [/B]

So you're saying: if ending hunger isn't possible, then let them die.

Ending hunger is possible - if it's not, it should be made possible. If mankind can't live up to that task, then we have failed. And as shane has pointed out, there's just no evidence for this. It is, therefore, with great alarm that I see your dismissiveness of the whole thing.

 

[Luciana]

Notice that both of your well-reasoned examinations of why hunger exists involve government.

Local and worldwide; yes.

But the above progression I illustrated makes the capital more efficient, if only it's allowed to progress.

Correct; however, other elements get in the way of this progress: the general crash of the market or the unexpected decrease of prices of your main export product; punitive external debts, advanced technology rendering yours obsolete, stream of unfair trade treaties (more bargain power from some countries), an unwanted war (someone invades your territory, you have to act), irresponsible government killing credit previously directed to your country, geographical complications, even natural catastrophes. I wholeheartedly agree that a liberal market is the first step. Unfortunately, it isn't all there is to it.

 

[AWPrime]

Because, sincerely, I never thought that anyone would even doubt that ending hunger is a good thing. Really, don't you think that's a tad cruel to even consider such a proposition?

Well one could say that nuclear power for everybody is good.

That is untill we got to know all of the downsides.

That is why I phrased it as an question. To let you think on possible downsides and humannature.

Ending hunger is possible - if it's not, it should be made possible. If mankind can't live up to that task, then we have failed.

I thought that I had a low opinion of humankind but you just outdid me.

 

[Luciana]

Well one could say that nuclear power for everybody is good.

That is untill we got to know all of the downsides.

That is why I phrased it as an question. To let you think on possible downsides and humannature.

Wait. You're not comparing nuclear power to food, are you? I'd be delighted to understand your line of thinking here.

Also, would you care to consider the upside of ending hunger that is, that development, even if in its early stages, will mean an increase in educational level and thus control population growth all by itself?

Aside from overpopulation, can you think of any other reason as to why people should be let to die of hunger? You were the one who put forth the notion that maybe ending hunger isn't desirable.

I thought that I had a low opinion of humankind but you just outdid me.

I don't understand what you mean. At this point, I'm not sure I even care to understand what you mean.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Luciana,

That's one of the most insensitive (but that's common here) and most idiotic (less common) comments I have ever heard in this forum.

I 100% agree.
Did not want to say what you said, but you "took the words right from my mouth "

Matteo

 

[shanek]

Correct; however, other elements get in the way of this progress: the general crash of the market or the unexpected decrease of prices of your main export product; punitive external debts, advanced technology rendering yours obsolete, stream of unfair trade treaties (more bargain power from some countries), an unwanted war (someone invades your territory, you have to act), irresponsible government killing credit previously directed to your country, geographical complications, even natural catastrophes. I wholeheartedly agree that a liberal market is the first step. Unfortunately, it isn't all there is to it.

Some of these are problems with governments. Others are just the competitive nature in the world economy; competition, while it may hurt some particular players in the short-term, is overall in the long run a good thing for everybody.

 

[Luciana]

Luciana,

I 100% agree.
Did not want to say what you said, but you "took the words right from my mouth "

Matteo

Oh, thank you. I'm relieved... there's hope, then. It's impossible to leave a statement (or even a question) like that go unchallenged. I had to set aside my dislike of arguing politics because of that. I'm now going back to my lair soon.

I had at least two more points to make regarding "why there's hunger", but the two ones I posted ran so long that I lost my train of thought. If I remember them later, I'll post them.

 

[Matteo Martini]

One fast way to end hunger would be to stop agricultural subsidies in the developed contries as fast as possible. No African or Latin American plantation can compete against a national treasure. If people are only allowed to plant and sell under a liberal market, they will be given at least a chance to further their development. They don't have industries and they can plant only for subsistance. That's no way to keep a country. There will be widespread hunger for as long as this situation goes on.

Do not understand this, Luciana.
Why can not they ( undeveloped nations ) get developed by themselves ??
Western nations did not have to sell crops and food to other nations in order to get developed

Matteo

 

[Luciana]

I suppose you could say that they are poor because of the AIDS crisis, but is that true? Can one demonstrate that, had it not been for the AIDS crisis, those countries would not be poor?

Absolutely not. Actually, the wealth gap between North-South countries has remained stable throughout centuries. Those who were rich are still rich, those who are poor are still poor. There's moving up and down the ladder but, in general, the gap has remained.

If the lack of a homogeneous population is one cause of poverty, then does that mean that the immigration policy proposals of Jean-Marie Le Pen might be a good idea to prevent France from becoming poor?

Brazil is white (European), black (West Africa) and indian (native). We have miscigenated, simple as that. There was never a racial war. So I can't agree that a lack of homogeneous population will necessarily be bad, let alone that it will lead to poverty. Quite the contrary, we have been making lots of progress. Now, yes, there are cultural clashes in the begining, but there's no reason, per se, to believe that this should be detrimental to a culture or country.

 

[AWPrime]

Wait. You're not comparing nuclear power to food, are you? I'd be delighted to understand your line of thinking here.

What offense me, is your refusal to think about any negative side-effects.

And I am not just talking about possible overpopulation.

I don't understand what you mean. At this point, I'm not sure I even care to understand what you mean.

I have gotten that sence from you earlier. I just imagen the humanrace to have bigger goals to reach.

 

[Luciana]

Do not understand this, Luciana.
Why can not they ( undeveloped nations ) get developed by themselves ??
Western nations did not have to sell crops and food to other nations in order to get developed

Matteo

Yes, they had. Or no, they didn't. They got crops and sold manufactured/industrialized stuff. At some point, that's exactly what they did. Take England, for example. They sold fabrics to the entire planet, and that was a major source of development. With the incredible profits they could invest in infrastructure, more industries, better quality of life to its citizens. How did they manage to sell so much? Lack of sizable competition, for a while. Political influence in Latin American governments, and unfair give and take (as in "I build your railroad, now buy this fabric"), or downright bribing of local governments. Portugal was peripherical to England (which offered protection against Spain and Napoleon), so for decades to come Brazil was buying fabric, Chinas, all sorts of consumer products from England. Nowadays the Brazilian economy doesn't depend on coffee anymore, but in the past it did. It was the coffee plantations that financed our industrialization. But someone had to buy our coffee first (thanks, you caffeine-addicted Americans! )

If crops weren't profitable, and a necessity, no European country would invest in agricultural subsidies. But it probably it, or at least they think it is. If not, they can just grow back their forests and buy crops from less developed countries.

As it is, there's just no room for development. There is not enough money in ther economies! Even if distribution was fair, income per capital is in most cases just dismal. Poverty is perpetualized if they can't generate wealth. But if they can't afford to even sell stuff, for basic lack of infrastructure plus unfair competition, how can they afford to buy anything, even crops? Hunger follows.

 

[Luciana]

What offense me, is your refusal to think about any negative side-effects.

And I am not just talking about possible overpopulation.

And I just asked, but I can repeat:

Aside from overpopulation, can you think of any other reason as to why people should be let to die of hunger? You were the one who put forth the notion that maybe ending hunger isn't desirable.

So, yes, I'm curious to know what are the negative effects of ending hunger. Go ahead.

I have gotten that sence from you earlier. I just imagen the humanrace to have bigger goals to reach.

Please, please everybody, is that a troll that I just came across? If so, please PM me. Thanks.

AWPrime, could you quit the one-liners, please? I'm afraid the subject of world hunger isn't a priority in your life, but since you can put forth such a notion, could you please at least clarify it?

Hunger is torture. Slow, painful and inhumane torture. It tortures millions of men, women and children everyday. I have never been hungry in my life, but I surely can empathize. Actually, going without food for long gives me headaches. Now I'll go fix dinner and wonder what could be mankind's goals. Perhaps you could enlighten me a little here, also?

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Matteo Martini, I'm not trying to pontificate but altho the question seems simple on it's face, the causality and it's impact are both complex and ill suited to linear definition.

It's like asking about the weather. The outcome is understood to be directly attributable to it's pre-cursors but the behavior that gave rise to the setting ( for rain , say or hunger ) is immensely complex and fluid when we try to define it. So we have an understandable phenomenon that we can define that arose from situations that are ephemeral and plastic.

So I don't think we can J'Accuse any particular setting that leads to hunger as there are many reasons. I.E. Civil War VS drought but one outcome, that can be defined and examined Ex-Post Facto.

There is also the question that upset You and Luciana, that being the intersessionary effect of society on the hungry millions in underdeveloped nations. I will play Devil's advocate here.

Why should we strive to provide food and housing to people who will amount to nothing but a drain on us all? Evolution shows that only the successful organism will prosper and sometimes not even them. Why when the organism presents nothing of direct value in the short term and maybe the long, be artificially propped up when the law of the jungle would make them obsolete? Why should Mr. and Mrs. Smith of Peoria have to pay taxes to provide for foodstuffs and medicines that many in their own community cannot afford? Ultimately being voluntary VS mandatory inclusion in programs that those taxpayers object to?
Not my point of view BTW, just raising the logical extension of the Hunger may not be bad train of thought.

 

[The idea]

The more educated a woman is, the fewer children she will bear. That's a very well known fact [...]

If that's true, then women who inherit a lot of intelligence should have as little education as possible and marry men who earn as much money as possible. Then such women will tend to produce lots of children and be able to take care of those children.

Of course, I am assuming that intelligence is, to an important extent, inherited from the mother; that it is desirable for future generations to be as intelligent as possible; and that the tendency for a woman who has more education to have fewer children is--for whatever reason--a fixed tendency.