Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:42 pm Post subject: Re: U.S. food shortages/rationing (was NYC)
Quote:
Arkansas... First in the nation for rice production in 1994, the state's farmers
harvested 1.4 million acres of rice, with 43 percent of the total U.S.
rice acreage.
BENTONVILLE, Ark. 4/23/2008 (AP) _ Sam's Club, the membership
warehouse division of Wal-Mart Stores Inc., is limiting how much rice
customers can buy because of what it calls "recent supply and
demand trends."
The broader chain of Wal-Mart stores has no plans to limit food
purchases, however.
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:46 pm Post subject: Re: Food Riots Break Out Across the Globe
virgincrude wrote:
By what God given right can we impose upon others, something we can not fully controll ourselves (Google teenage pregnancy in the U.S for example).
Might.
As in, might makes right. Might provides the ability to impose the will of the mighty upon the weak; if great enough, it can also suppress opposition.
Teenage pregnancy can most certainly be controlled. If the child has desirable characteristics, seize the baby and put it in a specialized environment to develop soldiers. If the child fails to meet the standard, terminate the pregnancy. Then sterilize the female.
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:32 pm Post subject: Re: U.S. food shortages/rationing (was NYC)
Steam_cannon,
On the 18th of this month, I went to Sams to do some shopping - before the rationing-in-USA threads started. I commented when I came back that there was absolutely NO basmati rice, NO jasmine rice, and only a half-pallet of AR grown Riceland long grain rice. Yep, we grow almost half the country's rice, but like everywhere else, nothing produced here stays here.
There used to be a saying among the locals here that you could throw a wall around Arkansas and we'd be fine. At one point we produced so many manufactured goods and had so many different agricultural products (crops as well as animals), that the state could be self-sufficient. We even have/had oil wells. It's a pretty nice place to be still, but as everywhere, the manufacturing capacity has gone to crap, and specialization in agriculture has reduced the variety of crops. It's not the same place.
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:14 pm Post subject: Re: The Spreading Food Crisis Thread
Tanada wrote:
As a species we shot ourselves in the foot by monocropping, not by breeding the virus and releasing it.
That's true, but many peoples cannot imagine any problem evolving without human design input.
So for example AIDS was designed, bird flu was designed, Ebola was designed and now UG99 is also designed.
Dieoff will also be designed and oil depletion related civilization crash is designed and deliberate btw.
On the top of it G. W. Bush was piloting one of aircrafts, which crashed against WTC, but he parachuted split second before impact and quickly went on this daft meeting with schoolchildren.
Dick Cheney was piloting another one.
You know...
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:29 pm Post subject: Re: Food Riots Break Out Across the Globe
virgincrude wrote:
zensui:
Quote:
and what is the big picture? many humans consuming many resources, without a sense of limit. it's basic arithmetics.
I'm sorry zensui, I thought you had no problem reading and understanding English. The big picture, is that there is no single cause (or as most would have it no two causes) directly to blame. You say it is basic arithmetics? So why are people in America dying from obesity-induced diabetese, morbid obesity, anorexia/bullimia while those third world are rioting because they can't afford a bag of rice? It ought to make you stop and rethink your ingrained preconception that the third world is going hungry because there are too many of them. Google Malawi and how they solved their food crisis by ignoring World Bank imposed regulations. Yes, their population is growing. But their ability to feed themselves has lagely been taken away from them by the Free Trade Mantra which is actually preventing developing countries from producing enough food for their own populations.
Of course, to simplify so many variants (climate, policy, crop failure) and reduce it to 'simply arithmetics', serves your agenda, which is to impose fertility restrictions on the world.
Playing God has never been Man's strong point. People on this board who support physical measures limiting procreation find it easy to dictate to others whether or not they can have children. As this site's admin Aaron recently discovered, sometimes life has a way of taking you by surprise. So while in the first world we can celebrate such happy incidents as Aaron's new baby, we are allowed to limit the prospects of every woman in any given developing country the possibility of having her own? By what God given right can we impose upon others, something we can not fully controll ourselves (Google teenage pregnancy in the U.S for example). Humans consciously take steps to limit their offspring when they are able: i.e when they are educated as to contraception and they are easily and readily available: and when they reach a certain level of comfort/civilisation.
I am in favour of population control, but I don't advocate random sterilisation or government imposed laws; see China and its ongoing problem of lack of fertile females since so many were murdered as babies. And the people in India and other Asian cultures place more worth on a male child, resulting in lots of boys and too few women to go around. This simply creates more suffering. Solutions can not be acceptable if they take away one kind of suffering and simply replace it with another.
Many humans consuming many resources with no sense of limit, is just your way of blaming every body else for their suffering. You can rest assured the farmer in Malawi is far more aware than you, of the limitations of his surroundings. The difference is that unlike you, he does not possess the means to control his circumstances.
I live in a "third world" country and I'm fine with a 2 child per couple or woman and consistent with this, I've no offsprings yet. I agree with some of what you're saying.
But do you think about ecology too? OverConsumption and OverPopulation are 2 significant causes of ecological destruction, do you agree with this? Economical methods are the way we consume, it all ends with the same: consumption of humans, destruction of natural resources. Are you proposing that OverConsumption and OverPopulation are not significant? What is your point in arguing "OverConsumption and OverPopulation are not the big picture"? _________________ anagami.net
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:31 pm Post subject: Re: Food Riots Break Out Across the Globe
Kaj wrote:
Spot on, Virgincrude.
We could live quite comfortably here in the West without 75% percent of the crap we have if we shared more, wasted less and just cut down. Those resources, redirected, could probably take the rest of the world out of poverty.
I heard that the money spent on cosmetics in America could completely solve the water crisis in the third world with wells and water purification etc. Just one example of many sickening statistics.
Also, those who are terminally doomish about overpopulation seem keen on fast-forwarding third world starvation, and even present this as some kind of solution. They do not advocate on of the best mitigating effects for dampening population, which is to educate women in the third world. This is stastically proven to have significant results.
OverPopulation AND OverConsumption are the big picture. If someone is going to argue otherwise then probe it. Or are you 2 arguing that just OverPopulation is not the big picture? (in which case I agree) _________________ anagami.net
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject: Re: Food Riots Break Out Across the Globe
Ludi wrote:
Kaj, just curious if you are living without 75% of the crap? And actually, what you characterize as "crap" which of course might be someone else's livelihood.
No, I'm not.
I try to cut down, but I know this isn't enough by itself. I walk and bike. I don't buy much, and when I do its usually second-hand. However, I acknowlege that I am still living a pretty luxurious lifestyle by global standards.
That does not mean I cannot advocate systemic change though.
The system itself doesn't make it easy to cut down. For example, I cannot just use my neighbours car. In the current culture, they would resent me for doing that. So I will have to buy my own. The same for cooking implements, televisions etc. This is huge waste of resources. We would go much further by sharing all of this in a commnity. The problem is systemic, and inbedded in individualistic culture.
My whole point is that lifestyle choices alone aren't sufficient to bring about changes we need. They are helpful, but they need to be backed by organised social movements.
So that is why I advocate using much less, even if I currently fall short of those standards.
As for what I mean by "crap" I am talking about unneccesary duplication of stuff across many close households. I am talking about unnecessary packaging. I am talking about families having 3 cars. I am talking about buying all kinds of luxury products at supermarkets or restaurants and then chucking half of it out. etc.
I am surprised that you would disagree with this.
Quote:
<<<<makes "crap" for a living
What do you make?
(Staple food obviously does not qualify as "crap").
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:35 pm Post subject: Re: Food Riots Break Out Across the Globe
zensui wrote:
OverPopulation AND OverConsumption are the big picture.
I agree that these effects combine.
However, we can reduce consumption in the West rapidly within an ethical framework.
We cannot reduce population rapidly by ethical means. We would either have to actively kill off people, or passively allow them to die while we keep hold of our luxuries.
So, as I see it, we should reduce our consumption in the West as quickly as possible, and concurrently try to encourage gradual mitigation and population control in the rest of the world (by education).
Joined: May 10, 2007 Posts: 2740 Location: The Entropisphere
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject: Re: Food Riots Break Out Across the Globe
Kaj wrote:
zensui wrote:
OverPopulation AND OverConsumption are the big picture.
I agree that these effects combine.
However, we can reduce consumption in the West rapidly within an ethical framework.
We cannot reduce population rapidly by ethical means. We would either have to actively kill off people, or passively allow them to die while we keep hold of our luxuries.
So, as I see it, we should reduce our consumption in the West as quickly as possible, and concurrently try to encourage gradual mitigation and population control in the rest of the world (by education).
And if passive education doesn't work? Forced re-education?
And those parts of the world where a woman does not have the freedom to control her own body? Forced Liberation?
I agree yours are the most ethical answers, what do we do when the ethical does not work? _________________ "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
-Friedrich von Schiller
"What I try, may not work. It may be ineffective. It might even turn out in the pages of history to be the exact wrong thing to do, but I'm going to try to do what I c
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:51 pm Post subject: Re: Food Riots Break Out Across the Globe
wisconsin_cur wrote:
And if passive education doesn't work? Forced re-education?
I don't see why it wouldn't. And most countries are crying out for education, there's no need to force it.
Quote:
And those parts of the world where a woman does not have the freedom to control her own body? Forced Liberation?
You mean Afghanistan-intervention-style 'liberation'? No.
Rather, we should support NGOs and social movements across the world who are already struggling to these ends. There are nascent feminist movements all over the world, including in India, the Middle East and most other countries where women are oppressed.
Giving women access to the internet has also helped. In much of Latin America, for example, increased access to the internet has helped women get around catholic dogma, and learn more about contraception etc.
Quote:
I agree yours are the most ethical answers, what do we do when the ethical does not work?
Well if the ethical option doesn't work then there will be a die-off. But thats an "if" not a "when".
Last edited by Kaj on Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 12021 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: Re: Food Riots Break Out Across the Globe
Kaj wrote:
What do you make?
(Staple food obviously does not qualify as "crap").
I make artificial animal stunt doubles for motion pictures.
re: using the neighbors' stuff - we share tools, food, and sometimes vehicles with "neighbors" (five miles away). This is how communities used to function, especially in farming communities (and even now those like the Amish), equipment would be shared by the community, instead of each family owning each item. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:06 pm Post subject: Re: Food Riots Break Out Across the Globe
Ludi wrote:
I make artificial animal stunt doubles for motion pictures.
Seriously? Wow. Got a picture?
This is obviously a very specialised trade.
It isn't necessary for survival but I wouldn't call it "crap" because it is not an excessive product. Your creations are contributing to an artform which can be distrubuted to millions of people at minimum production cost. Its not wasteful.
Joined: Mar 05, 2006 Posts: 420 Location: East edge of the Milky Way
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:09 pm Post subject: Re: Food Riots Break Out Across the Globe
Jack wrote:
virgincrude wrote:
By what God given right can we impose upon others, something we can not fully controll ourselves (Google teenage pregnancy in the U.S for example).
Might.
As in, might makes right. Might provides the ability to impose the will of the mighty upon the weak; if great enough, it can also suppress opposition.
Teenage pregnancy can most certainly be controlled. If the child has desirable characteristics, seize the baby and put it in a specialized environment to develop soldiers. If the child fails to meet the standard, terminate the pregnancy. Then sterilize the female.
See how easy that is?
Interesting Jack. In a nutshell, this is what the Ancient Spartans did. They were'nt liked, but they were certainly respected.
Cheers
Alex
Joined: Dec 27, 2004 Posts: 12021 Location: zombie horde wonderland
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: Re: Food Riots Break Out Across the Globe
Kaj wrote:
[
This is obviously a very specialised trade.
It isn't necessary for survival but I wouldn't call it "crap" because it is not an excessive product. Your creations are contributing to an artform which can be distrubuted to millions of people at minimum production cost. Its not wasteful.
Yes, it's pretty rare! I'm very lucky. However, I wouldn't characterize the movie industry as "not wasteful" - it is extremely energy and materials intensive, not to mention expensive. _________________ "...powerdown so soft and fluffy you'll think you're living in a pillow..." - jboogy
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:44 pm Post subject: Re: Food Riots Break Out Across the Globe
Kaj wrote:
We cannot reduce population rapidly by ethical means. We would either have to actively kill off people, or passively allow them to die while we keep hold of our luxuries.
On the contrary!
Keep in mind that classical utilitarianism, a theory of ethics promulgated by Bentham and Loch, proposed that the ethical choice was the one that maximized happiness.
Now if we starve them slowly while holding onto our luxuries, they will be unhappy, but we will be happier. So long as our overall happiness is greater than theirs, we are behaving ethically. I suppose this means we should only starve 270,000,000 at a time. Once they die, we can starve the next area. I suppose that dead people are not unhappy, so they no longer fit into the utilitarian calculus.
On the other hand, and using the same assumptions, we could kill the MTW (Mangy Third Worlders) quickly and remain fully ethical. They could be excluded since they would be dead, and hence no longer unhappy. We would have our luxuries and by giddy with delight.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
