5 ms·

Spending less SHARE OF INCOME in food means that on average the food is cheaper and/or people are earning more. If you can empathize with people outside the US

Spending less SHARE OF INCOME in food means that on average the food is cheaper and/or people are earning more. If you can empathize with people outside the US or Europe, that means that those people that earn $1 or $2 dollars per day all of their income was obviously spent on food. When those people earn $20 per day, they start to buy other goods. If you reduce the World to the USA, then the problem is indeed worst food. That is currently expressed in the lower life expectancy in the US, compared with the richest countries. But almost any US resident that spends the 10-12% of their wage (world average) in food is going to be correctly feed. Taller means that your genetics can express to their full potential. It's a very good index from when a country can feed the 100% of the needs of the youngest population. Poor countries malnourishes their youth (not on quantity but on quality) so they don't grow to their full potential height. Their people tend to be smaller. As soon as they become richer their youth starts to be taller. Are you saying that is better to starve the youth to save on future feed or clothings?

chiefalchemist 8y ago
Re: income as purchasing power. Perhaps. But none the less, as stated, that does not mean ppl are eating __better__. Fact: More ppl now die as a result of too much food, than not enough.
- otherme123 8y ago
  Something to eat is __better__ than nothing. You keep reducing The World to The US and it's not the same thing. Many, many people in the world starved in terms of vitamins and other nutrients, and they just fill their body with rice or corn floor. Which is just shy of dying from starvation, and put any body in the brink of the death at the minimal illness. In those cases, almost any increase in the quantity of food different from rice or floor is beneficial. Suddenly, millions of people could add carrots, tomatoes, oranges, pepper... to their monotonic diet, for the same or even less money. Yes, billions of people are eating __better__ than 30 years ago. But you insist this is wrong because some people in the US cannot shut their mouth and somehow are forced to eat beef in buckets. Please, explain me how this is related to people starving in Africa 20-30 years ago, or if you are saying thantobesity is a problem there.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
Re: taller. Perhaps. None the less, a bigger body requires more resources. In other words, that metric is clearly not all good news.
- otherme123 8y ago
  Are you saying that it's better for anyone to starve in his youth, to be shorter and to save "resources" when he becomes adult? This has to be the most short-sighted thing I've read in a long time. You should write a book explaining that theory: "Parents, malnourish your kids so they need to eat less in their adulthood". Maybe cutting a leg or an arm could save resources too: less body needs less food.

chiefalchemist 8y ago

Re: income as purchasing power. Perhaps. But none the less, as stated, that does not mean ppl are eating __better__. Fact: More ppl now die as a result of too much food, than not enough.

otherme123 8y ago
Something to eat is __better__ than nothing. You keep reducing The World to The US and it's not the same thing. Many, many people in the world starved in terms of vitamins and other nutrients, and they just fill their body with rice or corn floor. Which is just shy of dying from starvation, and put any body in the brink of the death at the minimal illness. In those cases, almost any increase in the quantity of food different from rice or floor is beneficial. Suddenly, millions of people could add carrots, tomatoes, oranges, pepper... to their monotonic diet, for the same or even less money. Yes, billions of people are eating __better__ than 30 years ago. But you insist this is wrong because some people in the US cannot shut their mouth and somehow are forced to eat beef in buckets. Please, explain me how this is related to people starving in Africa 20-30 years ago, or if you are saying thantobesity is a problem there.

chiefalchemist 8y ago

Re: taller. Perhaps. None the less, a bigger body requires more resources. In other words, that metric is clearly not all good news.

otherme123 8y ago
Are you saying that it's better for anyone to starve in his youth, to be shorter and to save "resources" when he becomes adult? This has to be the most short-sighted thing I've read in a long time. You should write a book explaining that theory: "Parents, malnourish your kids so they need to eat less in their adulthood". Maybe cutting a leg or an arm could save resources too: less body needs less food.