4 ms·
It seems odd to contrast the two since there's no direct relation. Hunger/famine is generally caused by regional problems for example poor infrastructure or se
by Someone1234 7y ago
It seems odd to contrast the two since there's no direct relation.
Hunger/famine is generally caused by regional problems for example poor infrastructure or security. If lack of infrastructure doesn't allow the movement of goods (e.g. food/aid) or water, it doesn't matter how much "excess" food there is elsewhere you cannot get it to where it is needed, and ditto with moving supplies into areas safely.
If you want to combat hunger, build more roads, water pipes, and improve regional security. Pointing out that there's a spare/excess $1 bag of corn on the opposite side of the world isn't constructive, because it would cost $100 to get that $1 bag of corn to where hunger is (e.g. sea, train, then air drop, and that ignores corruption/spoilage).
Obesity is problematic. But it has nothing directly to do with hunger. If it was that easy to re-allocate/re-locate food to the hungry we would already be doing so. But per the article remote and war-torn areas like African nations remain the number one source of severe hunger.
Plus growing food nearer to where it is needed is always cheapest since transport (and related fuel) costs can far exceed the actual food's value. Which brings up a related problem: Water rights/water security. Even if you can build pipes, a region may lack water flow into it if it has been diverted (or destroyed by global climate change).
- huffmsa 7y agoWe might not relocate it though. Dumping massive amounts of international sourced food typically drives down prices so much that the local producers can't make enough money to keep their operations going, and close up shop. Then when the food aid is turned off, the population has both grown to the level that aid could support, and the local production capacity is less than it originally started, meaning more famine related conflict.
- Someone1234 7y agoThat's an absolutely fantastic point and I thank you for raising it. This is another example of where infrastructure pays more dividend than simply dropping aid onto areas. You truck in concrete and build a water-way, a region could eat for one hundred years, whereas if you bus in aid they can eat until the aid runs out (and it competes/undercuts local food). This is why China's effort to build infrastructure (on loan) in this regions[0] is kind of a double-edged sword. While China's motivations may be anything but pure (regional influence/military supply lines/indebting poor countries) the side-effort could be reduced hunger/famine regardless. [0] https://africacenter.org/spotlight/implications-for-africa-china-one-belt-one-road-strategy/ https://africacenter.org/spotlight/implications-for-africa-c...
- simonsarris 7y agoYou don't even have to do the dumping. Venezuela gov's own program for better food allowed Venezuelans to purchase food from neighboring countries for 'cheap.' The result is that a lot of Venezuelan farmers closed shop during these good times. Alas, cue hard times, and you have today (or these past ~3 years). (This is a terrible simplification of Venezuela's ills, I only say it because it is an interesting case where internal food aid did the same destructive thing. It seems if you want lasting food aid, you should always try to make the aid bottom up, from the farmers.)
- sixplusone 7y agoGive a man a fish, and you fed him for a day. Some ancient wisdom being ignored.
- thebigspacefuck 7y ago“In addition to the challenges of stunting and wasting, Asia and Africa are also home to nearly three-quarters of all overweight children worldwide, largely driven by consumption of unhealthy diets.“ I think in this case the link between obesity isn’t on the other side of the world, it’s that those with access to food in these locations don’t have access to healthy food.