Is a food crisis coming?

[Gorbachioo]

The Chinese never got to the state the african nations have, their government developed naturally without outside intervention for the most part
most of all though they have money and economic stability

I know that its going to be harder in Africa but if Europe and America truly commit to it then it is possible.



And for tohtori: I suppose that means you dont have a case.

 

[Golena]

If the chinese made it work then why cant the africans?

The chinese made it work because they came up with the idea on their own and enforced it by themselves.

There's a world of difference between that and us going in and trying to enforce it upon someone else. Feel free to try and teach them it might be a good idea, but history sort of shows that going in and forcing such things upon a population doesn't normally result in a nice flowers and rainbows scenario.
Denying aid until they work it out for themselves.. Well that's pretty much the same as walking away and letting them work it out for themselves isn't it, since when they do work it out, they won't need the aid anymore. An idea which you were happy to flame people for earlier.

 

[old.Tohtori]

And btw, i have done the little things too. Ive given money to charity, ive bought the energy saving lamps, ive controlled my water use etc. I just didnt want to make an issue out of it because i know that its nothing. So dont use that on me.

Likewise. Don't preach what you don't practise. Like said before, you're acting like a hypocrite.

And for tohtori: I suppose that means you dont have a case.

No, it means i'm not here to cater to your needs. Go look them up yourself.

 

[Golena]

I know that its going to be harder in Africa but if Europe and America truly commit to it then it is possible.

We can't currently stop 14 year old girls from dropping sprogs. How do you possibly suggest that we'll be able to stop 16 year old girls from dropping a second?

The only way it's going to happen is to get rid of democracy. But suggest that and they will lock you up as a terrorist so it's not a viable solution any time soon.

 

[Gorbachioo]

The chinese made it work because they came up with the idea on their own and enforced it by themselves.

There's a world of difference between that and us going in and trying to enforce it upon someone else. Feel free to try and teach them it might be a good idea, but history sort of shows that going in and forcing such things upon a population doesn't normally result in a nice flowers and rainbows scenario.
Denying aid until they work it out for themselves.. Well that's pretty much the same as walking away and letting them work it out for themselves isn't it, since when they do work it out, they won't need the aid anymore. An idea which you were happy to flame people for earlier.

Im not saying we should enforce it on anyone. Im saying that we should suggest it and then let them decide on their own. Im quite sure they are capable of realising that it absolutely has to be done.

And no denying aid untill they do good decisions is not the same as walking way. It is our duty to help but theres no point in throwing money at the problem if it doesnt solve anything. Again that was just one option, im sure someone will come up with a better one. But if not, then it should work too.



And for tohtori: Now you lost me, what the hell are you talking about?

 

[Golena]

Im not saying we should enforce it on anyone. Im saying that we should suggest it and then let them decide on their own. Im quite sure they are capable of realising that it absolutely has to be done.

Go down to your local estate and tell everyone there that they can never have more than one kid. Listen to the waves of support you get from every single member of that community.

Now go try it in an environment where the people are reliant on their kids to look after them in old age, and where there's a good chance that if they have 1 kid that it won't survive given the levels of disease and violence. I'm fairly sure that your "Im quite sure they are capable of realising that it absolutely has to be done." line is going to be slightly less of a 100% certainty than you might realise. In fact you'll probably just see more violence break out for the smaller amount of resources that are available after you've withdrawn your aid. You won't see every family having one kid, you'll see one family killing all the others to ensure their family is the one that survives.

You see the "natural" way isn't to only have 1 kid each. That worked in China because it was enforced by the rich at the top who could have as many kids as they wanted because they were making the rules. They got away with it because they had military power to back them up.
It comes back to the bloke in Africa vs the cow argument I made earlier. You naturally choose the person from Africa because they are more like you as being more important than the cow so the cow dying isn't important. Take that a step further. Your family is closer to you than the bloke down the street. If it comes down to your family line surviving or the village down the street you naturally choose your own family.

It's easy to sit back over here and say it's obvious that they need to have less children. That's because we and our immediate family line are unlikely to die because we don't drop out 3 sprogs. That's not always true in other places on earth.

One thing that makes me wonder tho. You came into this thread preeching that you Vote to make things better, and that was important. Since 7 pages later you don't appear to actually have an answer to the problem, just that we should do "something" and your sure that someone has an answer, although you apparently haven't heard it yet since you can't tell us what it is, what actually are you voting on??

 

[old.Tohtori]

And for tohtori: Now you lost me, what the hell are you talking about?

Again, read up, not gonna repeat myself for your ease.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Go down to your local estate and tell everyone there that they can never have more than one kid. Listen to the waves of support you get from every single member of that community.

Now go try it in an environment where the people are reliant on their kids to look after them in old age, and where there's a good chance that if they have 1 kid that it won't survive given the levels of disease and violence. I'm fairly sure that your "Im quite sure they are capable of realising that it absolutely has to be done." line is going to be slightly less of a 100% certainty than you might realise. In fact you'll probably just see more violence break out for the smaller amount of resources that are available after you've withdrawn your aid. You won't see every family having one kid, you'll see one family killing all the others to ensure their family is the one that survives.

You see the "natural" way isn't to only have 1 kid each. That worked in China because it was enforced by the rich at the top who could have as many kids as they wanted because they were making the rules. They got away with it because they had military power to back them up.
It comes back to the bloke in Africa vs the cow argument I made earlier. You naturally choose the person from Africa because they are more like you as being more important than the cow so the cow dying isn't important. Take that a step further. Your family is closer to you than the bloke down the street. If it comes down to your family line surviving or the village down the street you naturally choose your own family.

It's easy to sit back over here and say it's obvious that they need to have less children. That's because we and our immediate family line are unlikely to die because we don't drop out 3 sprogs. That's not always true in other places on earth.

One thing that makes me wonder tho. You came into this thread preeching that you Vote to make things better, and that was important. Since 7 pages later you don't appear to actually have an answer to the problem, just that we should do "something" and your sure that someone has an answer, although you apparently haven't heard it yet since you can't tell us what it is, what actually are you voting on??

Its the same thing with global warming. Right now we're telling people in the third world not to chop down rain forests even though its the only work they can do. (not saying theres any justice in that, but its a good example) If you ask me, i think its alot easier to tell someone to have just 1 kid than telling him not to do the only work he can. Also, educating women has been known to decrease birth rates.

As for the cow example: Are you really comparing cows with human beings on another continent? (If anyone ever suggested a ban on killing animals i would support it, but untill then i'll keep eating meat.)


Its all about attitudes. When no one talked about global warming nothing happened. Now that everyone talks about it things are starting to happen. Before smoking was considered a "cool" thing, but these days its not and as a result less people smoke. When people want something, it happens.

Are you really telling me that we are powerless to change anything? Theres a million things we could do to help others but we do nothing.

The things i support:

- We should stop the privatization of water

- We should give farmers in the third world a chance to compete

- We should educate women (decreases birth rates)

- We should give them aid in getting their agriculture and economy working (

Theres more but thats a few on the top of my mind. Those things give wealth and stability and then things like restricting breeding are possible.

 

[Golena]

As for the cow example: Are you really comparing cows with human beings on another continent? (If anyone ever suggested a ban on killing animals i would support it, but untill then i'll keep eating meat.)

I'm saying that the ties people feel to other living things normally revolves around how far back down their evolution chain they need to go to find a common ancester.

You feel closer to your mum or brother than your neighbour down the street. You feel closer to your neighbour down the street than you do to a cow.

When life is easy and your not under pressure of not having too little food to feed yourself the line under which you care for tends to increase and so killing stuff becomes more unaceptable. If you've got plenty of food there's a debate about if eating the cow is right or wrong. If there's no food you can bet the cow gets eaten.
Make life harder and the line starts to shrink even further, when life gets very hard then your immediate family is important, everything outside that isn't.

We currently have life easy so we worry about everything. That will change very quickly if life actually starts getting difficult. I wonder how many of todays vegetarians would eat meat if there wasn't actuallly enough vegetables about to keep themselves alive. I imagine the "it's wrong to eat animals" argument would fade fairly quickly.

The cow took a different path to us at some point down the evolutionary scale. That is the ONLY difference between it and someone in Africa. Do you think the person in Africa has more right to life than the cow? Do you think you'd feel the same way if you wern't human yourself?
You say you'd support a ban on killing animals.. Would that mean you'd try and stop animals killing other animals, because a large percentage of the animal population would die very quickly if you tried it. Is it ok to feed animal A to animal B to keep it alive, but not kill animal B to eat yourself? It's an argument that appears to come from people who want to care but haven't actually throught it through or understood how nature works.

 

[Gorbachioo]

I'm saying that the ties people feel to other living things normally revolves around how far back down their evolution chain they need to go to find a common ancester.

You feel closer to your mum or brother than your neighbour down the street. You feel closer to your neighbour down the street than you do to a cow.

When life is easy and your not under pressure of not having too little food to feed yourself the line under which you care for tends to increase and so killing stuff becomes more unaceptable. If you've got plenty of food there's a debate about if eating the cow is right or wrong. If there's no food you can bet the cow gets eaten.
Make life harder and the line starts to shrink even further, when life gets very hard then your immediate family is important, everything outside that isn't.

We currently have life easy so we worry about everything. That will change very quickly if life actually starts getting difficult. I wonder how many of todays vegetarians would eat meat if there wasn't actuallly enough vegetables about to keep themselves alive. I imagine the "it's wrong to eat animals" argument would fade fairly quickly.

The cow took a different path to us at some point down the evolutionary scale. That is the ONLY difference between it and someone in Africa. Do you think the person in Africa has more right to life than the cow? Do you think you'd feel the same way if you wern't human yourself?
You say you'd support a ban on killing animals.. Would that mean you'd try and stop animals killing other animals, because a large percentage of the animal population would die very quickly if you tried it. Is it ok to feed animal A to animal B to keep it alive, but not kill animal B to eat yourself? It's an argument that appears to come from people who want to care but haven't actually throught it through or understood how nature works.

Oh no no... you're not going to turn this in to a discussion about animal rights. Just comment on what i said.

We can talk about moral relativism some other day but the majority of man kind believes that people are more valuable than animals and thats what we'll work with here. Again, if it were up to me killing animals would be banned but right now we have bigger problems.

So tell me, should we not do the things i listed?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Just comment on what i said.

Again, irony, thou name ist Gorbachioo.

 

[Bugz]

or why not teach that the africans that when a man and woman fuck a kid is born? youd think they would of worked it out after the 30th kid but obviously not.

The reason they have so many children is because they have to.

Infant mortality rates are so extreme in some parts of Africa that a family has to pump out a lot of children to ensure at least some of them survive to an age when they contribute to the family as workers and bring up the next generation.

The same use to be the case in England before it developed. Once we dropped our infant mortality rates to an acceptable level - the amount of children per family dropped significantly too.

If anyone is interested in the whole idea of controlling population and the such by the way, check out the different theories re: it, namely Boserup, Malthusian and to a lesser extent the Marx theory. From what I can read - many of you are Malthusian (we let them die - they sustain a better quality of life with a lower population) but the Boserup theory is interesting too -> humans will develop itself out of trouble. This theory has been true of the past so whats stoping it from happening now?

All in all, a very interesting and controversial topic and Golena no harm done - I get cranky in the heat of an arguement and I do agree that we drastically need to curb population figures for the world. But I believe it shouldn't be done on a 'nuke Africa first' campaign but rather something we all contribute towards. Latin America and Asia are going to be big boomers in the next fifty years too and I image any work done to lower Africa's population will be outdone by that of Asia's natural population growth. But before we do this - I think Europeans really need to ask themselves a question - could we survive on less food and less resources? I think the answer is yes. With that in mind, wouldn't it be best to see if we spread the resources around a bit more evenly before we start to introduce population-handling techniques*

*The Americans ofcourse won't listen to this - they are already blackmailing Africans into being sterilized - fuckin Yanks.

 

[Gorbachioo]

Again, irony, thou name ist Gorbachioo.

How about you point out one thing ive left unanswered then. Makes this whole argument a little more usefull if theres something to work with. And if not, then go somewhere else with your bitter comments

 

[rynnor]

I got bored after a couple of pages but regarding the original post:

Within 3 years the price of wheat/rice etc will be back down - the current high prices are attractive so many farmers switch to producing them - within a couple of years supply is so high the prices drop back down again - appparently these commodity peaks never last long due to this.

 

[cHodAX]

I got bored after a couple of pages but regarding the original post:

Within 3 years the price of wheat/rice etc will be back down - the current high prices are attractive so many farmers switch to producing them - within a couple of years supply is so high the prices drop back down again - appparently these commodity peaks never last long due to this.

Isn't going to happen bud, the unprecedented growth of China's economy means they will continue to swallow up massive amounts of food resources and keep the prices high. The world population is set to grow by another 2 billion over the next 50 years and they all have to be fed, prices are not going back down, certainly not by significant amounts. People need to start realising this now and planning ahead, we need to start growing our own food and end or at least reduce our reliance on cheap foreign imports.

Remember one thing, never in the history of this planet have we seen anything like the current population explosion growth combined with an insatiable thirst for food and natural resources. You can't make comparisons to commodity peaks of the past because there has never been a set of circumstances quite like what we are experiencing now. It really is going to be a case of adapt or die in the next 100 years, I am just glad we only have 60 million mouths to feed on this island as we have the land mass and technical knowhow to grow everything we need, all that we require is the politcal will and investment.

 

[Bugz]

The reason a commodity peak isn't likely to occur that brings the cost of crops down to their original market price is more over to do the situation of biofuels (which will arguably become the biggest crop-substituter in the future).

Govt's have set biofuel 'minimums' - a % of their total fuel usage that they aim to have used biofuels for. Govt's will increase this over time and the supply for biofuels will keep rising. For the moment, supply will rise steeply as cost increased for an disequilibrium of supply and demand. As supply then rises, crop supply will drop, rising the price for that produce. Farmers in Africa will bounce between the two, depending on what gives them the best profit so in a sense, there will be commodity peaks, but with the idea that the 'starting' price will be the price it's at it now, and that this starting price will increase whenever the biofuel minimum increased, since this is the minimum supply that has to be met.

That's my view on it anyway.

 

[liloe]

There's a world of difference between that and us going in and trying to enforce it upon someone else. Feel free to try and teach them it might be a good idea, but history sort of shows that going in and forcing such things upon a population doesn't normally result in a nice flowers and rainbows scenario.

The only way it's going to happen is to get rid of democracy. But suggest that and they will lock you up as a terrorist so it's not a viable solution any time soon.

Tbh I totally agree on those two statements. Everything we Europeans claim as great achivements is something we have gotten through a lot of fighting. Democracy, human rights, gender equality etc. were things nobody enforced on us, but things our ancestors fought for.

Africa never had democratic nations, but was a tribal land instead. Is this a bad thing? Not at all, as long as people there are happy. Just look at all the indio tribes which live happily in their piece of the jungle. The only dangerous thing for them is "White Man bringing them culture." The tribes in Africa always had conflicts between them and those can't be solved just by placing some kind of "democratic" leader above them all. "Democratic" because the leaders are often enough influenced by their own background.

Our biggest problem is that we're stuck with the idea that what works well for us, has to work well for everyone else aswell. At least one thing worked well: The guns with which we "civilised" nations kill each other work just as fine in Africa...

 

[andeh]

But before we do this - I think Europeans really need to ask themselves a question - could we survive on less food and less resources? I think the answer is yes. With that in mind, wouldn't it be best to see if we spread the resources around a bit more evenly before we start to introduce population-handling techniques*

*The Americans ofcourse won't listen to this - they are already blackmailing Africans into being sterilized - fuckin Yanks.

The answer to the question is without a doubt yes, however one must bear in mind that humans are self serving by default and thus the ones occupying positions of power in the west will invariably be the ones willing to promise prosperity, a.k.a maintaining the status quo in underdeveloped nations.

What you fail to realise, or perhaps choose to ignore is that the rise of western civilisation to become the dominant culture did not happen by chance, it simply developed faster. My knowledge of this subject is not extensive but i'm sure you'll be able to extract the meaning from the following. Even today tribes exist in africa, they may not even recognise a neighbouring tribe as members of the same country, if they even extend that to themselves (the sense of belonging to a larger population). This sort of thinking was beginning to dissapear in England in the 10th century, such tribes surely existed in England, but were eroded into nothingness over time as the unification of England took hold. In the west population groups have always sought dominion over others, it is a continuing trend throughout history. You might even say the global monopoly currently held by western powers was earned, and something as significant as this is not going to be simply given away.

You can whittle on as much as you like about morals or the value of human life, but as it stands currently, the life of a european is worth considerably more than that of an african. This will not change anytime soon, it is the reason why any curbing of population growth will occur in underdeveloped nations and why the situation in africa will not change dramatically until factors aforementioned in this thread begin to take hold. Even then the chances are western civilisation will hold all the high cards and the underdeveloped nations will perhaps feel the effects more than those living in the west.

Personally I couldn't care less about africa, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Having said that though, I do consider myself fortunate to be born into a fairly well off family, but then life is a game of chance and you could so easily be less fortunate, or perhaps not even exist. I suppose the real question is whether you would trade your life with that of someone living in poverty in africa?, if you say no then wanting to help them is somewhat pointless. In the grand scheme of things your life is worth almost nothing, as is theirs but ultimately the selfish bias of humanity will show through in 99.9% of cases I expect. Not all of this is directed at you bugz, it is more of a general response to the thread.

 

[Platin]

Im not an example for anyone. Me living like a monk wont make a difference.
If everyone thought about worlds issues like i do there would not be any
problems. And thats what im trying to accomplish. The reason why debating about it hasnt helped is because only a tiny minority do it. The rest just focus on shopping.

That doesn't sound arrogant at all.

Have you ever heard: "practise what you preach"? Otherwise you're just like the politicians.

(You actually sound like one, no offense)

 

[Gorbachioo]

You can whittle on as much as you like about morals or the value of human life, but as it stands currently, the life of a european is worth considerably more than that of an african. This will not change anytime soon, it is the reason why any curbing of population growth will occur in underdeveloped nations and why the situation in africa will not change dramatically until factors aforementioned in this thread begin to take hold. Even then the chances are western civilisation will hold all the high cards and the underdeveloped nations will perhaps feel the effects more than those living in the west.

Personally I couldn't care less about africa, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Having said that though, I do consider myself fortunate to be born into a fairly well off family, but then life is a game of chance and you could so easily be less fortunate, or perhaps not even exist. I suppose the real question is whether you would trade your life with that of someone living in poverty in africa?, if you say no then wanting to help them is somewhat pointless. In the grand scheme of things your life is worth almost nothing, as is theirs but ultimately the selfish bias of humanity will show through in 99.9% of cases I expect. Not all of this is directed at you bugz, it is more of a general response to the thread.

And this ladies and gentlemen is why democracy doesnt work. (Along with tris' and tohtoris replies ofcourse)

 

[Gorbachioo]

That doesn't sound arrogant at all.

Have you ever heard: "practise what you preach"? Otherwise you're just like the politicians.

(You actually sound like one, no offense)

What are you talking about? I practise exactly what i preach.

I never said we should live like monks. I said that its our duty to find out about things and discuss them, and when the time comes vote for them. Again, when people want something, it happens. Certain things have to be stopped and certain things have to be given up. Or else we dont have the moral highground when the next tower collapses.

And it might sound arrogant. But its true.

 

[tris-]

And this ladies and gentlemen is why democracy doesnt work. (Along with tris' and tohtoris replies ofcourse)

yes im sure what i think makes a massive impact on anything.

the problem wiuth you is unless everyone agrees with you theyre wrong. its a complete waste of time trying to discuss anything.

 

[andeh]

What are you talking about? I practise exactly what i preach.

I never said we should live like monks. I said that its our duty to find out about things and discuss them, and when the time comes vote for them. Again, when people want something, it happens. Certain things have to be stopped and certain things have to be given up. Or else we dont have the moral highground when the next tower collapses.

And it might sound arrogant. But its true.

And this ladies and gentlemen is why democracy doesnt work. (Along with tris' and tohtoris replies ofcourse)

So in the first quote you outline why a democratic solution is needed, in the second you say such a solution will not work. n1

 

[Gorbachioo]

So in the first quote you outline why a democratic solution is needed, in the second you say such a solution will not work. n1

A democratic solution is needed because its the only solution possible. Saying that democracy doesnt work does not contradict that. oh and btw, i think your a disgusting person. Enjoy your little life.. ;o



And for tris: I am discussing this in a constructive manner but what can i say when your comments are something like "why the hell should i care about anyone else"? (And yes the insults might not be constructive but again, what else should i say to a person like you?)

 

[old.Tohtori]

And for tris: I am discussing this in a constructive manner but what can i say when your comments are something like "why the hell should i care about anyone else"? (And yes the insults might not be constructive but again, what else should i say to a person like you?)

We've actually had plenty of constructive and all-around comments, but all that is not fit for your world, fly by you like a 747.

You ignore all points made, and don't bother even trying to read again.

We can all agree that politicians should do something, but in the meanwhile, other ways should be done.

Giving aid does not exclude voting, and voting should not exclude you from helping.

EDIT: Reason why i'm not gonna go through this whole thing and show you where you ignored points, and what your reply was to them, is that you'd just ignore them again.

 

[Platin]

What are you talking about? I practise exactly what i preach.

I never said we should live like monks. I said that its our duty to find out about things and discuss them, and when the time comes vote for them. Again, when people want something, it happens. Certain things have to be stopped and certain things have to be given up. Or else we dont have the moral highground when the next tower collapses.

And it might sound arrogant. But its true.

So you don't have or believe in any sollutions, but you think people should *think* like you in a sense that they should simply talk more about world issues, but rely on others to do something. You really should be a politician

 

[Gorbachioo]

So you don't have or believe in any sollutions, but you think people should *think* like you in a sense that they should simply talk more about world issues, but rely on others to do something. You really should be a politician

Did you read what i said about the attitudes? I cba to post it all again so read it up but here it is in a nutshell:

When no one talked/cared about global warming/environment nothing happened. Now that everyone talks about global warming things are starting to happen. When smoking was considered a "cool" thing many people smoked. Now less people smoke because smokers are not respected anymore. And i dont rely on "others" to do something. I rely on politicians to do something. And politicians do something when people want it bad enough.

When attitudes about something change politicians start working to change it.

 

[Gorbachioo]

We've actually had plenty of constructive and all-around comments, but all that is not fit for your world, fly by you like a 747.

You ignore all points made, and don't bother even trying to read again.

We can all agree that politicians should do something, but in the meanwhile, other ways should be done.

Giving aid does not exclude voting, and voting should not exclude you from helping.

EDIT: Reason why i'm not gonna go through this whole thing and show you where you ignored points, and what your reply was to them, is that you'd just ignore them again.

I know discussion and voting doesnt exclude helping. A person that does both is obviously a better person than me. I do one of the two and thats good enough for me for now. Still puts me one level above you -,-

(but again, the social discussion is what makes things happen, not private donations BUT i dont think that im a better person for talking about it instead of helping. I highly respect people who actually get out there)


Instead of reminding us about these comments ive ignored just post one. Just one! Unless ofcourse there actually is none but you just want something to whine about.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Instead of reminding us about these comments ive ignored just post one. Just one! Unless ofcourse there actually is none but you just want something to whine about.

I was going to, but since...

I know discussion and voting doesnt exclude helping. A person that does both is obviously a better person than me. I do one of the two and thats good enough for me for now. Still puts me one level above you -,-

When i vote and help where i can, and you still think that, it's a moot point to discuss anything with you.

 

[Gorbachioo]

I was going to, but since...



When i vote and help where i can, and you still think that, it's a moot point to discuss anything with you.

Oh please. You give a couple of euros a month to charity and give stupid theories on how to solve the worlds problems on internet forums and suddenly you're Mother Teresa.


Now give us facts or piss off.