"We have more than enough resources in the world...

Post Reply New Topic

Manufacturing fertilizer uses a lot of fossil fuels, both as fuel and as an ingredient.

Who said anything about fertiliser Or fossil fuels.

Living cows aren't what people throw away. People throw away half-eaten burgers, milk that's a day over the date stamp, bananas with a few spots on the shell and stuff like that. This is because groceries in the US are cheap and easily available. Sending the very same food that people typically dispose of to the other hemisphere, is impossible.

When they change a buffet from breakfast to lunch,all that food gets tossed.What a waste.To slaughter an animal for food,then chuck it in the trash.It died for nothing.

We rely on massive amounts of fertilizer in order to produce as much food as we currently do. If we plan to have every country produce as much per acre as the US, then we will need that much fertilizer. I know that this is an unpopular view, but I believe that population reduction is the only solution to our environmental problems. People will reach a stable population voluntarily if the government does only two things: provide free contraception and educate girls.

In a conversation about food production (not to mention distribution), leaving out fossil fuels misses a big part of the problem.

the real key is distribution of the food growing technologies, not necessarily distribution of the food itself. Not as a long term solution anyway.

Theres absolutely no reason however why excess foods with a long shelf life can't be exported. I don't think anyone is arguing for dropping T bone steaks and burgers over Africa.

Exporting shelf stable foods is not the problem. That's the easy part. The part that is proving far more difficult for aid organizations is getting that food into the hands of the hungry people. Once that food crosses the border, there are countless intermediaries who manage to insert themselves between the food and the hungry people so that they can use the food as a means of control or income. Aid groups wish it were as easy as just getting the food into the country but that turns out to be the only non-problematic step.

I agree that distribution of the technologies is a better long term solution. But then you run into the problem of the intermediaries who step in between so that they can profit and control. If you imported everything a village needed to start farming some plot (seeds, fertilizer, tractors etc.) you can bet some armed #$#@s would step in the middle of that and make sure that they were the ones controlling use of that technology.

91's posts address some of the problems aid groups face. Getting the food out of rich western countries is not the problem. The problems start after the food aid has crossed the border. Yes, western people throw away lots of food per that opening photo. If it could be teleported into the hands of starving people, that would be awesome. Barring that, much shelf stable food is donated to aid groups which attempt to distribute it. Distributing it once you cross the border is where the nightmare starts. 91 speaks of this and his posts are full of first and second hand experience of what the problems actually are. Westerners throwing half eaten burgers into the trash is not the problem.

If you gave em tractors also I'm hesitant on whether the common farmer could afford filling the gas tank or get the thing in for repair as needed - all that even before the land pirates show up.

Sounds like what they need more than anything over there is infrastructure. Wonder why no concrete though. No one's thought to be the first local manufacturer in certain areas or does the topography just not offer the raw material?

Programs where people have been given goats,chickens and bees are good.Drilling wells for clean water,solar cookers,and garden seeds help people.But if a skirmish breaks out, soldiers or your enemies will just come steal the goats and chickens.Even if you had a great garden it's not going to produce much of a tank rolls over it.
Peace is the only way for people to prosper.Doubt if that ever happens.

Techsteppergeneration and MisslIzard nailed it (so did 91 from a different angle). Peace- at least some of the time- and infrastructure are crucial. !st world countries have hungry people too- but there are soup kitchens and homeless shelters. Those things are a function of infrastructure.


Another problem- one which really is caused by 1st world countries- is that 3rd world farmers can't stay competitive in a 1st world international food market. Even if they have farmed succesfully for themselves and local markets in a peaceful corner for generations, that land tends to eventually go to international agricultural use. They get priced out of the local markets and then they eventually have to sell their little land parcel that they could have used for subsistence farming so that it can go to coffee or sugar beet or whatever. Fair Trade tries to address that but I don't know how succesful it is.

I remember there being a British charity called Seeds for Africa - they seemed to have the right idea by hitting as many developing areas with farming and agricultural techniques, once their farming is up to speed they have more time left for building and maintaining infrastructure.

Africa today is a very polarized blend as far as I understand it - ie. you have these Austin-like glass cities on one hand with high speed rail as well as areas that look like surburban Toronto and then you have people living in huts within 50 miles. It could go one of two ways - either capital investments in the more politically forward-thinking countries will help spread infrastructure, education, and institution to areas that don't have it or, alternatively, Africa might be the next big adventure after the founding of the United States in that they'll have little old infrastructure at a time where we flip to a new one - such as more purely electric and solar vehicles, different means of construction, and in a way Africa would become the techiest continent on the globe. Regardless I see a lot could change quickly in the next 50 to 100 years.