I read a paper a few years ago that basically said that food insecurity is not a problem with production, but is instead a problem with distribution. The USA throws away enough food to feed another good sized country. I don’t know the exact nature of the distribution problem and whether it’s a problem of resources or something else, like s political problem.
The distribution problem in 100% of famines is that some government somewhere cracks down on the free transfer of food. They either physically stop food from moving, or they provide huge financial incentives for moving food outside the famine area.
The biggest issue involves the logistics on the ground, and in places with extremely high food insecurity, there tends to be little to no legitimate government, and so getting anything done involves dealing with local gangs and warlords. It doesn't matter how much money you have if every shipment you send will just be stolen at gunpoint and sold to fund the local thug's next golden toilet. This is not a problem that can really be solved by throwing money at it.
Sure it makes sense. You got some dairy making way too much milk, how are you going to get it around the world? The fuel spent is worth a lot more than you would get for selling it. Plus it has to be kept cold. That’s why all the cheap food we eat is made pretty close by and if you are getting something imported chances are it costs more. And that doesn’t even get into what if the place is unstable which would add more costs.
The shit thing is the very people who need food the most are the ones who can’t afford it.
So yeah the food is there but getting it where it needs to be is the tricky part.
It's only "tricky" because those in charge are motivated by profit, not actual distribution. They also continue to overproduce and dispose of surplus produce deliberately to drive profit.
None of these things are accidental nor natural, they are all part of the intentional design of capitalism.
You are not wrong, but capitalism is the most violent power structures to ever exist - even a fascist will reject the idea of infinite consumption in a finite universe.
Honestly we just need to be more proactive. It is fine to give tax breaks to the rich as long as they are actually sending most of the money saved to charity.
Most other mammals? Humans do this too. We’re just advanced enough to do it before it’s actually a baby.
Edit: I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. How is it that people in this thread think humans are never selfish or immoral, and other animals don’t care for their young?
Yes, but for vastly different reasons. Almost all mammals but humans destroy non-viable infants, so I don’t get what point you were trying to even discuss here?
The topic being, most other mammals would destroy their young before they died of hunger or thirst, so it’s a uniquely human issue.
If it’s not viable, you don’t need to destroy it. It’s already not viable. You also don’t know why an animal does something. I’ve seen a dog nurse a kitten before. I have no idea what it’s thinking and why it’s doing that.
My point is that you’re putting humans on some pedestal like our behavior is vastly different than the other animals when it’s not. We’re more social than other animals, but we have the same instincts and base behaviors. After all, we are animals.
No. Neither humans nor other animals have an instinct to eat their young. No one has claimed that’s instinctual. I’m saying that humans have killed their young, just like other animals, and humans have instinctual behaviors, just like other animals.
Some animals are psychopathic and kill all their young. Some humans are psychopathic and kill all their kids. It doesn’t mean that’s instinctual behavior.
And when pushed to the extreme, like starvation, some animals will die, and a few will eat their young. Humans will do the same, some will die and a few will eat their kids.
If it’s not viable, you don’t need to destroy it. It’s already not viable.
So you are going to waste precious resources until it dies? Putting the rest of the litter at risk? You have to destroy it, a predator might find it, and your nest as well. Animals know what they are doing.
My point is that you’re putting humans on some pedestal like our behavior is vastly different than the other animals when it’s not. We’re more social than other animals, but we have the same instincts and base behaviors. After all, we areanimals.
Because our behavior is vastly different than most species? The social part is maybe what makes us unique? When one family dies, we don’t destroy their young to protect the rest like other species, we adopt them and provide for them. Hence why they can die from hunger and thirst unlike other species……………
Ok so by destroy it, you mean like eating or burying a stillborn? Humans have always buried their stillborn infants. That’s the same behavior.
Humans adopt orphans. Again, you’re assuming animals never display the same behavior. They do! Animals will adopt the abandoned or orphaned young of others. I literally just told you about a dog who nursed a litter of kittens. I saw it. With my own two eyes. You can’t tell me that doesn’t happen because I’ve literally seen it.
And again, you’re ignoring all of the times that humans don’t do what you’re talking about. How many orphans have starved to death in history because no one took them in? Countless.
If you really want to put humans on that pedestal, make room for most other mammalian species, and several non-mammalian species too. Or, you know, just recognize that humans are animals, and our behavior is not too dissimilar from other animals.
I would hope the need to feed the ego as a provider would overhwelm the need for ego as the denier. That or ego just goes out of the equation if apes had unlimited access to unlimited ressources.
Don’t get me wrong, undue profits WILL be made, but at the same time it’s not really free either. Gotta pay for parts/equipment and the people maintaining the reactor and infrastructure.
I dunno. I think that not having to worry about having enough would change how people feel about resources. If it’s always going to be there, it just… doesn’t matter.
How does OP define unlimited? There’s hella diamonds but their release is controlled by a cartel inflating their value. Not unlimited surely but also not equally accessible so the price can be manipulated.
One could argue we currently live in a universe with virtually unlimited resources. It’s accessibility that is the issue.
Add comment