5 ms·

Are people dieing en masse there or is more than half the food being provided as aid? I don't see how the title is possible without one of those as humans usual

by lovich 9y ago

Are people dieing en masse there or is more than half the food being provided as aid? I don't see how the title is possible without one of those as humans usually eat 3 times a day so they are earning <1/3rd of whats needed on average to just eat. You could eat less and still survive but that much of difference doesn't seem like someone could live through for very long

jpatokal 9y ago
The article uses local market prices for food, but in very poor countries, most people are subsistence farmers and grow what they eat. Also, yes, in South Sudan people are currently dying in masse, there's a vicious civil war in progress.
- lovich 9y ago
  I understand they are using local prices. Local prices dont matter when you are comparing a day's wage though. That's how much money you earn in one day regardless of the number attached to it. If the amount of food you need in a day costs more than you can earn in a day I would assume this would quickly lead to starvation. I know about the civil war and deaths due to violence, I was curious if there was starvation happening as well
tmnvix 9y ago
> humans usually eat 3 times a day I have no contrary statistical evidence, but I suspect this assumption may be wrong - especially with regard to poverty-stricken countries. I count myself as a relatively privileged individual and for more than half of my lifetime (since being responsible for my own meals) I have mostly chosen to eat two meals per day. I know a lot of similar people. Three meals per day is more than is needed for sufficient nourishment.
- lovich 9y ago
  right, like I said you could eat less. 3 meals isn't a hard and fast limit, its just common. Even if you got down to one meal a day though, the title is saying that it costs more than the income you make working that day. That is unsustainable
  - tmnvix 9y ago
    It could be sustainable if you are also growing food. That is, you would spend more than your entire day's earnings on food if not for the fact that you or your family produce most of the food you need. At least that is my take on how such a seemingly paradoxical situation can come about.

by lovich 9y ago

jpatokal 9y ago

The article uses local market prices for food, but in very poor countries, most people are subsistence farmers and grow what they eat. Also, yes, in South Sudan people are currently dying in masse, there's a vicious civil war in progress.

lovich 9y ago
I understand they are using local prices. Local prices dont matter when you are comparing a day's wage though. That's how much money you earn in one day regardless of the number attached to it. If the amount of food you need in a day costs more than you can earn in a day I would assume this would quickly lead to starvation. I know about the civil war and deaths due to violence, I was curious if there was starvation happening as well

tmnvix 9y ago

> humans usually eat 3 times a day I have no contrary statistical evidence, but I suspect this assumption may be wrong - especially with regard to poverty-stricken countries. I count myself as a relatively privileged individual and for more than half of my lifetime (since being responsible for my own meals) I have mostly chosen to eat two meals per day. I know a lot of similar people. Three meals per day is more than is needed for sufficient nourishment.

lovich 9y ago
right, like I said you could eat less. 3 meals isn't a hard and fast limit, its just common. Even if you got down to one meal a day though, the title is saying that it costs more than the income you make working that day. That is unsustainable
- tmnvix 9y ago
  It could be sustainable if you are also growing food. That is, you would spend more than your entire day's earnings on food if not for the fact that you or your family produce most of the food you need. At least that is my take on how such a seemingly paradoxical situation can come about.