4 ms·
> For all intent and purposes, that food is not available to the rest of the world. That's the point - its by intention and purpose. If we had the purpose as
by fit2rule 11y ago
> For all intent and purposes, that food is not available to the rest of the world.
That's the point - its by intention and purpose. If we had the purpose as a society to feed people, we would have done it already many times over.
But the intention is just not there..
- gonvaled 11y agoAnd I think that: 1) That will never be a priority. We have so many things which are more important to us, and it is just such a difficult problem to solve because of: 2) Whenever (by some magic coincidence?) we are able to feed the whole world population by better distributing the available food, we will do what we have always done: increase population above carrying capacity. As said, we are fighting against a very basic mechanism of life: overproduction of offspring. It is an uphill battle.
- eru 11y agoWhy do so many rich countries have below replacement rate fertility, then? (Eg Germany, Italy, Japan..)
- gonvaled 11y agoThat is the anomaly, as I have stated above. It is an open question if we are able to extend that behaviour to the rest of humankind. Even China's one-child policy has not managed to control population growth. For that to happen, it would seem that we need to increase the world standard of living to the american/european level. Given the consumption footprint that would mean, it is highly questionable if we will ever achieve that. Not impossible, just questionable. I still think Mad Max is more likely.
- eru 11y agoYes, China's one-child policy didn't seem to make too much of a difference, but that's because Chinese fertility rates fell even in areas that didn't enforce the one-child policy. The consumption footprint is easily achievable---the limiting factor is energy burned per day. Nuclear (or cheap solar) can change that.