I think that's too much of a nutshell, really. Which people are starving? People are starving in southern Somalia, because the al-Shabaab are preventing the WFP from distributing food. People are starving in Haiti (or at least were until recently, I'm not sure of the latest developments) because of difficulties in distributing food aid given the damage to Haiti's infrastructure (which wasn't great to begin with).
But I don't think you mean these sorts of examples, where people are starving because of natural disasters or conflicts. You mean, I think, that people are starving because of fundamental inadequacies in their food supply. However, I'm not quite sure that's true. Certainly it would be helpful if you could give examples. It would also be helpful to put this in some sort of historic context: is starvation more or less widespread now than it was in the past?
For decades, the standard IMF/World Bank solution to food insecurity was to advise developing countries to concentrate on export crops, sell the crops, buy food from the developed countries with the proceeds, sell the food to the populace, and reinvest the profits into cash crops so they can grow their business.
Citation needed. AIUI, the point of growing cash crops is a more general one of development, rather than a response to food insecurity.
It's been nearly six months since I last ate something nobody bought, and as a result I'm poorer, I've eaten less well, and I've caused a lot more carbon emissions.
That's not at all obvious. The point of specialisation is that the people who grow food do it more efficiently than you or I would. We all end up richer than we would be if were subsistence farmers. Also, I don't know about your diet, but I'm sure that most people's diets are more varied, interesting and nutritious than they would be (were) under subsistence agriculture. After all, what grows in the UK about now?
It does so while employing fewer people, enforcing the marketization of the food supply – which forces people to earn money in order to live
I find it really bizarre when people suggest that employing fewer people is a bad thing. If we can grow the same amount of crops with half as many people, that frees up the other half to put their creativity to use for the benefit of humanity (and themselves). And what's wrong with earning money?
This is a revolutionary idea, and won't make much of any money for anyone; but what would help would be just to support people in what they want to do.
I'm not sure that's a very revolutionary idea. It seems to me that people have been suggesting that to me for some time. People want to do very diverse and often contradictory things. They want to drink Coca-Cola and own iPhones. Some subsistence farmers want to remain as subsistence farmers, but many want a greater degree of material prosperity than that implies.
I'm pretty certain that all the things you suggest are the sorts of things that Oxfam (for example) are all ready doing. There's a fairly substantial body of literature on whether that's effective, and the answer seems to be "it's hard to tell".
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-02-12 12:30 pm (UTC)I think that's too much of a nutshell, really. Which people are starving? People are starving in southern Somalia, because the al-Shabaab are preventing the WFP from distributing food. People are starving in Haiti (or at least were until recently, I'm not sure of the latest developments) because of difficulties in distributing food aid given the damage to Haiti's infrastructure (which wasn't great to begin with).
But I don't think you mean these sorts of examples, where people are starving because of natural disasters or conflicts. You mean, I think, that people are starving because of fundamental inadequacies in their food supply. However, I'm not quite sure that's true. Certainly it would be helpful if you could give examples. It would also be helpful to put this in some sort of historic context: is starvation more or less widespread now than it was in the past?
For decades, the standard IMF/World Bank solution to food insecurity was to advise developing countries to concentrate on export crops, sell the crops, buy food from the developed countries with the proceeds, sell the food to the populace, and reinvest the profits into cash crops so they can grow their business.
Citation needed. AIUI, the point of growing cash crops is a more general one of development, rather than a response to food insecurity.
It's been nearly six months since I last ate something nobody bought, and as a result I'm poorer, I've eaten less well, and I've caused a lot more carbon emissions.
That's not at all obvious. The point of specialisation is that the people who grow food do it more efficiently than you or I would. We all end up richer than we would be if were subsistence farmers. Also, I don't know about your diet, but I'm sure that most people's diets are more varied, interesting and nutritious than they would be (were) under subsistence agriculture. After all, what grows in the UK about now?
It does so while employing fewer people, enforcing the marketization of the food supply – which forces people to earn money in order to live
I find it really bizarre when people suggest that employing fewer people is a bad thing. If we can grow the same amount of crops with half as many people, that frees up the other half to put their creativity to use for the benefit of humanity (and themselves). And what's wrong with earning money?
This is a revolutionary idea, and won't make much of any money for anyone; but what would help would be just to support people in what they want to do.
I'm not sure that's a very revolutionary idea. It seems to me that people have been suggesting that to me for some time. People want to do very diverse and often contradictory things. They want to drink Coca-Cola and own iPhones. Some subsistence farmers want to remain as subsistence farmers, but many want a greater degree of material prosperity than that implies.
I'm pretty certain that all the things you suggest are the sorts of things that Oxfam (for example) are all ready doing. There's a fairly substantial body of literature on whether that's effective, and the answer seems to be "it's hard to tell".