The Myth of Famine and Third World Countries

When we ask ourselves why are so many people in the world starving to death, there are two typical thought processes. Lack of production and lack of distribution.

The idea that not enough food is being produced to satisfy the world is built upon the ideas of overpopulation and inefficiency. We think that populations are growing faster than the food supply. This is simply untrue, if we were to evenly distribute current food production every person on earth could receive 3000 calories each day.

So why are people starving? It's not drought, I'll tell you that. It's agribusiness. Governments will sell off land to multinational companies, including our own, so that they can grow mono crops to export to nations willing to pay the highest price. In Asia, where people used to be able to farm enough variety to feed both their families and sell to market, land is being taken away to produce luxuries like pineapples. Farmers don't have a choice, most must sell their land or get beaten to death, and they're all starving for the profit of a company, and their own government.

In west Africa, a place we associate with drought related famine, its a similar story. In west African farmers are governmentally forced to grow peanuts to produce peanut oil for export. Half of Senegal's farmable land is used for peanut farming. And this is ruining the land. Poor peasant farmers don't have the money to pay for fertilizer, so the greedy peanut legume basically depletes the soil of all the necessary nutrients required to grow crops. Drought only reveals the problem when the hot winds blow all the top soil away. People don't have a choice, its either starve to death in protest or make a measly salary off of farming peanuts to slowly starve.

In the Dominican Republic its sugar, in Brazil soybean oil. The problem lies in two places, multi national corporations, including our own, and their own governments. People are being robbed of land to produce the crops they need to sustain themselves and their land is used to sell exportable luxury crops.

This is why buying cooperative farm products is good. When people have been able to rally and cooperatively buy their own land to farm, they control where the profit goes, and how much are exported costs, allowing them to reap the benefits of their hard work. Buy paying a little extra, you're benefiting those who really need the money, and not some giant corporation who can sell everything for cheap because they use cheap starving labor. But that's not just it. We can also show our protest against these corporations from taking advantage of these economically challenged nations. The way it is now corporations will go for the cheapest labor and then sell to the country with the most money to offer.

Just something to think about.

 

Starving

Comments

[Kirk]

[this is good] Careful Auds, when you start talking about trying to make the world better for everyone regardless of how much money they have, you risk being labeled a communist. I know from experience. Of course, its only rich assholes and ignorant twits that think that way, but sometimes they seem to be the majority in this country.

Anyway, this is a wonderfully informative post for those who maybe haven't really thought about it. Good on you for getting up on your soapbox!

[Sarah]

I've never heard of this before. It's very interesting and something new to consider. 

[Torch]

There seem to be at least two extreme ways to look at distribuiting wealth.  One is Capitalism.  Find a way to figure out what people want, do it, and keep what you earn.  Another way is Communism.  Everybody works to the level they can, all the money is cast into a central spot, and the money is then given out on the basis of need.

To me, Socialism is sort of a blend. It also comes in degrees. Not all money is taken from the worker (as in Commuism), but what is taken is given out to those in need (as in Communism) by the government.  I think America is currently a Socialist country - but not as socialist as others.

Personally, I think all these systems have advantages and disadvantages.  My point in respect to this post, however, is that perhaps the main issue in world anything (hunger, education, health, etc.) is not "the rich bastads." This also includes corporations by the way.  They are actually "individuals" legally and really just represent a very rich person / player.  The key is the government.  (I think you actually made an arguement her on this too.)

The government needs to be effective in stimulating workers (and corporations) to produce wealth. It also, however, has to ensure the wealth is not generated at the expense of other individuals, and also has to care for those who cannot legitimately care for themselves.

I just think you will continue to see this type of poverty when you have a poverty in effective govermental leadership in these countries. 

[Kirk]

I agree with Torch that it is, at its core, a governmental problem. BUT, let's face it, it is in fact the "rich bastards" who hold such sway over governmental entities as to allow the atrocities of corporate farming you mention.

[Auds]

I agree that its definitely poor government management now, but I have to think the cycle stemmed from imperialism in the first place.

And the problem just isn't in other countries. Even in the US, corn farmers are barely etching out a living as corps pay minimum price for the stuff, and they still have to buy their own supplies (foodwise) as monocropping is now the norm. The only reason they aren't flat out starving like 3rd world countries would be government supplementation. It's still just putting a band aid on the problem.

That profit monster.

[Emil Hannon]

[this is good] It is very valuable phrase