4 ms·
As attractive as your logic sounds, it is wrong. If the rich world consumed fewer food resources, that would not mean the poor would eat more. There is not some
by jacoblyles 16y ago
As attractive as your logic sounds, it is wrong. If the rich world consumed fewer food resources, that would not mean the poor would eat more. There is not some fixed quantity of food that is distributed by some central zero-sum mechanism. Rather, malnourished people are malnourished because they live in areas with dysfunctional economies and governments. Producing food isn't the problem, distribution is.
- abeppu 16y agoI totally agree that the issue isn't producing food but rather distributing it process. I further agree that this isn't a strictly zero-sum mechanism. But yeah, if rich people consumed fewer food resources, prices would drop, and some malnourished people who can't afford sufficient food now would be able to afford more. Blaming the problem on dysfunctional local economies and governments is facile way of absolving oneself of personal responsibility -- "My consumption of limited resources isn't the problem; it's corrupt governments. I can keep consuming however I like, comfortable in the knowledge that I'm not causing harm to anyone else". Yes, dysfunctional governments and economies in developing countries are part of the problem, and no matter what rich people do or do not consume, they probably won't help the hungry people in N. Korea by doing so. But there are plenty of places where that's not the case. The fact that the 2007-2008 food crisis did meaningfully impact a lot of people in developing countries should indicate that we are all connected to the same global food economy, and what we do with our agricultural resources in rich countries can and does impact the prices and availability in developing ones.