Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Food Crisis Rippling Out Like a "Tsunami"
UNITED NATIONS - "A rolling tsunami of social unrest is underway as we speak -- hungry people are desperate people capable of taking desperate actions. This tsunami is rapidly enveloping the global South, and it won't take much longer before it knocks at the door of the global North," warned Vicente Garcia-Delgado, the U.N. representative for CIVICUS, the world alliance for citizen participation.
At a forum on the world food crisis held at the United Nations Friday, civil society groups stressed that over 800 million people are now at risk of starvation, while 100 million have joined the ranks of the extremely poor in just the last few months and are now living on less than a dollar a day.
The food price index of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation rose by 9 percent in 2006 and 23 percent in 2007. As of March this year, wheat and maize prices were 130 and 30 percent higher than a year earlier. Rice prices have more than doubled since late January.
A new briefing this week by the U.N. Economic and Social Council says that the poor, especially in urban areas but also the rural landless and small farmers who are net food buyers, have been most vulnerable to food price hikes, as a very high proportion of their household income is spent on food.
However, "Even within rich countries, increasingly large portions of the population are having real problems bringing food to the table and paying for other basic necessities," Garcia-Delgado said.
He stressed that the peace and security challenges presented by the hunger crisis and climate change must be understood as global challenges, calling for global solutions that address the concerns of all nations and peoples.
"Governments must not fall prey to the temptation to seek unilateral solutions based on defensive or militaristic non-solutions. It would be extremely dangerous to look at the current crisis strictly from a national perspective. A knee-jerk resort to a 'fortress America' or a 'fortress Europe' type of mentality would only exacerbate the risks of social and political chaos and will not work," Garcia-Delgado said.
Asma Lateef, director of bread for the World Institute, a Christian grassroots advocacy organisation that lobbies on issues of hunger and poverty in the United States and around the world, said that rising global food prices are being driven by at least four structural changes.
According to Lateef, one factor is growing demand for food and diversified diets, including meat, in many developing countries as people have begun to escape poverty and seen a rise in their incomes.
Secondly, she pointed out the competition for land use and diversion of crops posed by biofuels; thirdly, weather-related crop failures possibly associated with climate change, for example, the decline in wheat production due to an extended drought in Australia; and lastly, rising oil prices, as all contributing to food inflation.
Lateef called on donors, including the U.S., to strive to get the maximum benefit out of food aid resources by reducing restrictions on the procurement and shipping of food aid.
She stressed that the current food aid system must be well resourced, efficient, and flexible because "the capacity of the food aid system is being severely tested as the world tries to cope with this crisis, the recent disasters in Myanmar and China and ongoing humanitarian efforts."
"Furthermore, countries need to be encouraged to relax or avoid export restrictions on food. This only exacerbates the global problem. We need to take a global approach," she said.
"Special lines of credit and guarantees should be also made available to enable net food importing countries to meet the needs of poor people and continue to purchase food on international markets, in ways that do not raise debt burdens or impose more than the minimum conditionality," Lateef said.
Alan Imai, co-director of Shumei International Institute, who shared his successful experiences working with a women farmers' cooperative in Zambia, added that in addition to immediate action, the international community needs to consider long-term solutions that will lead to sustainable food production and economic development.
He also stressed the importance of empowerment of local communities and involving them in decision-making. "The United Nations, governments and other involved organisations must consult with, trust, and listen to local farmers in order to empower them toward self sufficiency, instead of depending on a few scientists and companies, whose motives and perspective cannot be the same as those who are running out of food," Imai said.
Garcia-Delgado said that there is certainly the temptation to cry out "We told you so!"
"Years of foot-dragging, unkept promises, endless negotiations, a slow response to climate change, and the refusal to harness market globalisation -- these are some of the principal reasons which have brought us to the sorry predicament we find ourselves at the beginning of the 21st century," he said.
© 2008 Inter Press Service

75 Comments so far
Show AllWhen you burn food to run your Hummers and ATV's, this is what happens. Duh!
What a better world this would be if we spread population and birth control education instead of trying to see how many humans can fit on Spaceship Earth (I think we've reached our limit).
Between America's heavily subsidized farm exports (dumping) and IMF (loan sharking) control of 'free' markets we have put the world's farmers out of business one by one. The so called Green Revolution, GMOs and other toxic brews from Monsanto have exhausted our Mother Earth. A tiny few will be filthy rich while the rest of us starve. The world dies with a whimper.
Reminds me of books by Daniel Quinn. food is the deciding factor in population size. if the human species were smart, it would have limited its numbers long, long ago.
Truthmonger,
We've passed our limit. We reached 6.6 billion out of sheer momentum, even as the props were crumbling from under the whole misguided "be fruitful and multiply" enterprise. We were seduced decades ago by the "success" of the Green Revolution - and an expanding global "economy" - and put our recently-awakened concerns on the back burner.
I wish I had a dollar for every time I've read - during the past couple of months - a set of prognostications about what the world will be like when we reach 9 billion, or 12 billion. We'll never reach those numbers: the Malthusian catastrophe has begun. Once those 800 million in danger of starvation actually succumb to it (how long does that take?), we're a noticeably smaller population. And a perfect storm of confluences (environmental degradation, Peak Oil, global warming, aquifer depletion, rising tensions between nuclear-armed nation-states) guarantees that that reduced population will soon become even smaller.
There are contributors to this forum who will take issue with what I've said: "Malthusian" is a dirty word. To them, I offer the following recommendation: hide and watch. Or try to figure out how best to manage a humanitarian crisis that's going to dwarf everything the human species has had to endure so far. Be sure to share your insights with those of us who are scratching our bewildered heads.
Overpopulation is indeed a problem, but we have hungry people NOW and the fact that the earth's carrying load is too great doesn't fill a poor child's belly.
"Furthermore, countries need to be encouraged to relax or avoid export restrictions on food. This only exacerbates the global problem. We need to take a global approach," she said.
There is a problem with the free exportation of food. With the rise in food prices commercial farmers have every incentive to export, but to countries with many people that can pay the higher prices and not to populations at subsistence levels of poverty. In a lot of countries the big farmers are exporting more food rather than sell it to their own people at affordable prices. The logical solution is in intensive support for peasant agriculture for local consumption.
A courageous but unpopular policy would be food rationing, especially in industrialized countries where massive waste occurs. The alternative is misery and death for hundreds of millions of poor.
This is a money problem, not a food problem.
If the US Federal Reserve had not been on an interest cutting spree early in this decade and again since August 2007, the speculators would not have the boatlaods of cheap money they have been using to drive up food and energy prices.
If you are paying attention, (and I know you have) all the crisis are working together in multi tsunamis. Earthquakes, global warming, and this is just the beginning of our awareness of it.
No wonder those that live for distractions and entertainment are happier or maybe should be.
Add the problems of over population food and fuel shortages and economies based on more growth, and consumption and throw in corruption and delusions of supremacy and the War economy and our Fed Reserve system of more and more unpayable debt adding to the Falling dollar.... jeeeez We are Screwed! and they say I am the optimist in the crowd.
Does anybody recall the movie "Soylent Green" I do. And I'm
beginning to think the premise in the movie is closer than
anyone wants to admit.
I'm sorry if I missed something....
Pete is right we need those millions of small things... Now!
What just might happen if something isn't done about this is a world-wide communist revolution, with the poor finally taking back what the rich have stolen from them.
And the rich know it.
andersdl,
"This is a money problem, not a food problem."
There certainly is a money problem. There also certainly is a food problem.
Basic ecological science describes the natural relationships among different kinds of life forms on Earth. A top-of-the-food-chain predatory omnivore like Humans should have a vastly smaller population than it does.
The steps we have taken to keep the Earth supplying enough food to support our ridiculously over-extended population have turned the majority of the Earth's "net primary product" (the total mass of all living material on Earth) into fodder for our giant industrial food machine. Intertwined with our burning of fossilized hydrocarbons to power our food machine (and transport and manufacturing etc.), as well as the sheer impact of our spreading urban areas, our giant food machine is pushing the limits of its capacity to feed us, and is also disrupting and destabilizing the very living systems of the Earth that everything else is based on.
To focus on the very real money problem in an effort to assert that the food problem does not exist is a grave mistake.
It is true that there are steps that could be taken to fairly share the food that is being produced, which would immediately provide food to people who are starving. But it is also true that humanity is bumping up against real limits on the capacity of the Earth to supply enough food for our ridiculously over-extended population, and that the destabilized Earth will likely soon lose its capacity to even maintain current levels of food production for human use. Simply dismissing the "food crisis" as illusionary is not very smart as we head into this future of destabilized living systems on Earth.
The problem is not too many people. The problem is GREED, GREED, GREED. In a healthy state, Mother Earth is all about abundance for all.
Interesting. With half the world's population living on $1 per day we have...
Restaurant's $175 burger comes with cheese, truffles...and gold
...it must be time for another Great Flood or a little mad cow!
The 'housing/capital-Crisis' in the US was expressly-designed to insure worthless 'financial-instruments' would be 'happily-plentiful' for their wealthy/Deviant-Holders to palm them off on our Treasury as 'Collateral' for low-interest 'Loans' that would immediately find their way into Commodity-Investments -- guaranteed to sharply-raise the 'value'/costs of all "real-wealth" (meaning: wheat, corn, steel, iron, copper, oil, etc.).
Firstly, we were 'screwed' by lending-agencies which are supposed to 'pre-qualify' home/business-mortgages/loans' (then the actual 'Funds' for those 'liar-loans' came from our-Government...NOT from the lending-institutions, which just get to 'lay back, and collect what they can'). Secondly, at Fed-Reserve direction, those worthless-Loans were placed into 'worthless-instruments' that our 'Hedge-Funders' re-sold, everywhere (especially to vulnerable Pension-plans!), and our complicit Ratings-Agencies gave their 'Seal of Approval' to. Lastly, the Fed and Congress allow these worthless-instruments to be paid-for by the Taxpayer YET AGAIN, by allowing them as 'Collateral' against held-low-interest 'neo-Loans' to wealthy-assholes, who take the Good-money-after-Bad and run directly to the Commodity-Exchanges -- to buy-up (and jack-up the prices-for!) ALL the food/metals/energy that any 'civilization'-requires.
What a wonderful PLOT!
Beats the hell out of the British-inspired/Fed-Reserve-enacted "Great Depression" -- doesn't it?
Trillions 'lost' in-the-process, mostly so that a future-Administration can strip us all of SocSec, pensions, health-care, education, and everything-else that "made America great"...! AND kill-off most of the 3rd-World, to-boot!
Have a Banker over, for Dinner -- tonight! [Really...have one FOR dinner!!!]
Or, a Bilderberger, a G-8-member, a Think-Tanker, anyone from the IMF or World Bank or CoFR, a hedge-funder, a Congress-critter, a 'Realist', anyone with a "seat on Wall Street"...or 'fill in the Blank'! [I hear they taste like Pork-belly's ...which are getting rapidly-unaffordable, also...]
The problem is that the ruling class don't need us anymore.
They have taken our land, our resources, and our labour, and soon they will take back the wealth they "granted" the middelclass and the "developed" countries for their cooperation. As they have done many times before. Now it's time to get rid of the excessive population - first by starvation and then by diseases and of course war and different other kinds of genoside.
Welcome to the New World Order.
Annebrit, Ruling elites ALWAYS need slaves, serfs, low wage earners, etc. in order to survive as they do.
Urban and rural poor are both created by the "laissez-faire" dismantling of public institutions that protect the people from the parasitic elites. Who is the government is going to benefit - the people or the elites? The elites will answer "let's split it down the middle", which means the elites will suck half of the people's blood instead of all of it.
Even with perfect food distribution, a large reduction in meat consumption, more sustainable agricultural practices, the food and transport base is still greatly dependent on fossil fuels and irrigation. Climate change is happening because we have to grow food and eat. There is maybe room for sustainability with less than 1 billion people. More than 6 billion is a plague. Given our propensity for not getting along with each even in times of resource plenty, and not caring for the environment, the apocalypse is coming none to soon.
I'm going to plant a garden next week. If I can afford seeds.
Web walk has it right it's both, the metaphor I use to scale this complex situation down to human size is the following. Suppose someone is selling lemonade out of a hundred gallon tank on a warm summer day at a festival for 1.75 per cup.. In the morning life is good, the temperature is cool, the lines are short, everyone gets more than enough lemonade even in the giant gulp cup (only 2.25). As the day goes on the lines get longer and people want more, and for many hours it's provided, then people get cocky, I can wait they think, there will be lemonade forever, they say "that's the way it's always been why should it change." Around 6:30 in the evening for the dinner rush the lemonade stand's owners notice, hmmm 10 gallons left, 3 hours of festival to go, it's still hot with a long line, I'll jack prices up to 3.50 a cup for the small cup and make bank. People grumble and pay it and start yelling about profiteering which is 100% true, but notice it's BOTH profiterring and limited supply. Now the profiteering will cause people to say he's just jacking prices and must have another 100 gallon tank and that scarcity is a scam, no reason then not to get the big cup forever, oops. Lemonade stand apologists OTH will say supplies are truly low and that's "what the market will bear" why shouldn't I make bank even if people suffer, oops. BOTH are wrong the lemonade IS running out and also it COULD be sold cheaper. And in the meantime why is no one brewing solar Sun tea ice tea? Could it be the Hexxon Lmonadearchy won't make as much on Sun tea? Could be...
Now apply this same model to food. oil etc. To those Libertarians who would say well competition wouldn't allow that to happen there is more than one lemonade stand, I'd respond yes and if collusion between the lemonade stands means they all profit (i.e. it's in their self interest) then they will collude. This is not mysterious or conspiratorial BTW, OPEC ring a bell? And that's even assuming no lemonade stand monopoly...
Freefood EVERYONE should have a garden at this point not only is it a MUCH more ecologically sound both in terms of transport and production method of obtaining food, but a useful survival skill to boot.
Annebrit has it right and if you think the oligarchy is going to give up because we wave a few signs around you are kidding yourself. THAT is why as a hard lefty I agree with "conservatives" that gun control is a terrible idea (though for different reason of course).
"The United Nations, governments and other involved organisations must consult with, trust, and listen to local farmers in order to empower them toward self sufficiency, instead of depending on a few scientists and companies"
Most of these people who advocate corporate control over agriculture have never known independence. They and their social networks have always been tethered to the corporation or similar organization. They might buy a ranch and clear brush for the camera, but they have no idea what land, water and food rights for all means. They are kind of like the guy Americans would like to have a beer with.
But now we're going to have pizza with an urban minority kid and let God bestow blessings on us for that. Most urban minority kids can't afford the pizza now that Exxon is taking 50 cents profit per dollar on its embedded energy. But this kid is special - he has corporate sponsors. Maybe all the kids and farmers will have corporate sponsors some day. Naaaa. Instead of that, we had better start demanding land, water and food rights for all.
It's astonishing to watch the end of life on Earth as we know it. Time to decide what happens when you die. Time to quit being a selfish hypocrite. Time to say goodbye.
Goodbye!
THE USA DECLARED THAT CORN WAS WORTH MORE FOR FUEL THAN FOOD AND THE WORLD RESPONDED.BIO-FUELS WERE THE ONLY CROPS WORTH GROWING AND WHEN FARMERS AROUND THE WORLD STOPPED PLANTING FOR FOOD, NOT A WORD WAS SAID. NOW WE HAVE PLANTS WORTH AS MUCH AS OIL, POLLUTE MORE THAN OIL, AND NO ONE CAN AFFORD FUEL OR FOOD. GREED IS MORE POWERFUL THAN REASON,
AND WHEN THE DIRT IS USELESS FROM OVER PLANTING WE WILL HAVE NEITHER FUEL OR FOOD AND AN AWSWER WHY EVERYONE IS STARVING.
Over population is not the problem. There are enough crops produced to provide everyone in the world with a diet consisting of at least 3,000 calories a day, which is above the recommended amount. Although production can be improved, distribution is clearly part of the problem.
One component that seems to be missing from the numerous articles I've read on the food crisis, is the need for land reform in developing nations. While large scale production is more productive in terms of output per labor unit, small scale farming is more productive in others. Small farmers tend to cultivate a larger percentage of their land, grow more crops per year on a given amount of land, grow higher value crops and produce greater yields per acre. Additionally while land ownership in developing nations is often very concentrated, large segments of privately owned land remain idle.
MEG
you are correct. the operative word here is GREED. and another word we might apply, (which is sorely lacking) is SHARING...............
Obama has yet to mention "The New World Order"
If candidates running for office have not noticed the destruction of our economy and the distruction of our industrial base, who in
Washington knows about it?
We need someone with backbone who is not afraid
to address the issue, Bring back
Father Coughlin!!
Coco absolutely right, now what are we going to do about that? Hint the oligarchs aren't going to wake up with an epiphany one morning and say "gosh I sure have been a bad person, I renounce my multiple vacation homes, Ferrari, yachts, and bank vault full of gold and diamonds, and henceforth resolve to live like mother Theresa or an eco-hippy." While we might all wish that to happen it won't and denial won't make it any more likely, for there really are people like "Mr. Burns" on the Simpsons in this world who can sleep 100% soundly as total heartless greedballs. That leaves 2 options:
1. Put in a garden, shop at co-ops, ride bikes, non violent protest, etc.
2. Storm the Bastille...
For now I am sticking to #1 but I am not so naive as to think that #2 might not be necessary or even inevitable. I for one recommended keeping the axles of the catapult greased even if you aren't going to use it next week or even next year...
joseph paquette Father Coughlin was anti Semitc fascist, another reason I recommend keeping your powder dry folks, is asshat straight up racist brown shirts like this fool. Unfortunately economic depressions are not just an opening for the left but for real fascists who co-opt the rhetoric of populism for their own evil ends. Remember the Lincoln Brigades in Spain!
McFood, McPeople, McSolution, McProblem, McDemocracy, McBiofuel, McSoybeans, McEconomy, McFuture, McYou and McMe.
What a choice: to be burned up in a nuclear war or to starve to death? Look both have advantages and disadvantages.
If you slowly starve to death then, for a period, you will lose all that obesity and become slim, taut and terrific just like the magazine show. You'll also have less chance of a heart attack.
If you get burned (but not liquefied) for a period you'll have that suntan you've always wanted. As well, the radiation could kill any tumors that may be growing in your body.
I guess the disadvantage is that, in both cases, your life will be short. Some people however might see this as an advantage.
Humans are fickle!
P.S. Should all holy books be shot? Check my blog.
It is my understand the Abraham Lincoln Brigades fought against the fascist in Spain.
People's needs should not be for profit. As many have stated B4 me, we have enough food in the world and the technology to expand food production, but the problem is distribution. Distribution should be based on people's needs.
We are part of a class. The working class. Individual solutions will not solve our problems. As a conscious class, with our own program, our own class interests, we must unite as a class with workers in all countries, and demand distribution of the worlds resources be based on people's needs.
I mentioned the Abraham Lincoln brigades because asshat "joseph paquette" was schilling for straight up old school 40s fascist: Father Coughlin.
medic6869 "People's needs should not be for profit. As many have stated B4 me, we have enough food in the world and the technology to expand food production, but the problem is distribution. Distribution should be based on people's needs."
Interesting... maybe this food 'shortage' is a ploy to get Americans to accept the North American Superhighway and the Amero. Gas too, probably.
Howard Zinn recounts that the view from a bomber at 20,000 feet eliminates any sense of the human destruction in the city below.
I'll bet that the view of human destruction from the cockpit of a B2 over Tehran is not that different than the view of human starvation from the luxury seating on any corporate jet over any third-world city.
Collect enough bonus points on your rewards card and you have your choice between a free tank of gas or a shotgun.
The reality is that the earth is in overdrive and it's sucking us up with it. If anything survives this mess, in the long run, it won't be us!
Old Hippy,
Yes, the same thought has previously crossed my mind more than once; though it hasn't for some time now. Still, the analogy to 'Soylent Green' is fitting to consider for people like the ruling elites of the West. Whether or not they ever do resort to such acts is yet to be seen, and I don't think, and hope, they ever will; but they've already proven to us that they are this [evil], nevertheless.
As for the people posting about overpopulation being a real and serious problem; it's apparently a MYTH.
Now, and assuming that it is a myth, this is different from saying that it was ever right for, f.e., the churches to demand of their flocks to keep producing children (some adding, 'or else you'll go to hell when you die!', too), which was a dead wrong thing of them to demand. It was the imperialist, world conquest and domination schmucks of the churches that made such religiously unfoundable, anti-Christ demands.
Some people had large families because they were poor and figured that the more chilren they had, the more likely one would make it out of poverty; when logic, imo, would teach the opposite.
Nonetheless, overpopulation is not the present problem. Western Imperialist GREED [is] the problem.
I'm really tired of all the propaganda, we can feed ourselves we just can't do it the way we have been taught. Most people have lost the ability to provide their own food and depend on greedy corporate interests for thier basic needs. We don't use resources that are right in front of our noses because we have been taught not to, we even have laws that prevent attending to care for ourselves and our earh home. You cannot sell the land the people walk on, but I guess you can rent it to them.
As lily said above, Daniel Quinn has a lot to say about food and population. His books, "Ishmael" and "The Story of B" are great reads, also.
Very briefly, he makes the point that under pretty much all conditions, population is directly proportional to food supply. So, when food supply is increased, population increases. If food supply stays the same, population stays the same. These seem to be rather iron rules of biology. Nothing about these rules means that people shouldn't try to find "progressive" ways to help people lower population -- projects like raising female education and empowerment, encouraging condom use, and so forth, may be very helpful and humane. But what this rule suggests that may be harder for many to come to terms with is that it may not be a good idea to keep increasing the food supply, as much as that appears in the short run to be a necessary humane effort.
I think that the crux of it is to decide what the result would be in human terms to maintain a constant or even gradually lowering food supply. In the first case it means that population would stay the same. People who are sure we need to produce more food at present must think that keeping food supply tomorrow the same as today would necessarily result in some form of human disaster, so they would say, "Yes, the population will stay the same by many infants starving, whole groups of people dying of famine, etc." But would this be the case? Why can we not have a steady state (or slowly decreasing) population without it being some kind of horror? Imagine a pond of koi where the same amount of food is provided year after year and the number of koi stays the same year after year, you would not be necessarily imagining koi starvation or die-off. You would just be thinking that some koi are dying and others are being born, and that in general things were working out fine. Why would the human world not be the same if food were constant? (And by the way, notice that the koi population stays the same without the need of providing them with little condoms or sending in UNESCO teams of advisors. All that is necessary is to keep the food supply constant.) I know some people will bristle to hear humans and koi being compared, but the point is that both are biological organisms subject to the same rules of nature, no matter what their brainsize may be. What we need to find out is what it would really mean in human terms, and not in a koi pond, to keep the food supply constant. And if we investigate it and decide that it doesn't equate to mass starvation or die-off, then we should agitate for the food supply to NOT be increased. Perhaps we would find it could be reduced without disastrous effects, and then we would really be on a path with some possible positive outcome.
Sorry to be so long winded, but it's not so simple to explain. Read Daniel Quinn!
I cannot believe all the disinfo in this article. What dangerous rubbish is being spread here!
This food crisis is being orchestrated and is the result of a genocidal mindset.
Please read ALL 12 hunger myths: http://foodfirst.org/en/12myths
And then please visit http://allinharmony.org because humans are NOT omnivores but rather herbivores who need 1/50th the amount of land to remain healthy as is currently being used to supply the typical Western style meatarian diet.
This entire article is propaganda to justify policies of genocide by starvation.
I simply cannot believe all the disinfo in this article. What rubbish is being spread here!
And please see this video, The World According to Monsanto. Its message is urgent. http://100777.com/node/1805
Tree Frog, I like your approach. Simple and straight forward.
Look folks, all of you are right. Every one has an angle on the elephant in the room. Only the thing is so huge, none of us can seem to envision the whole animal we are trying to describe.
For me it all goes back to what Mother Nature gives us in return for sustainably manageing the gifts of the this planet. It is true that there is currently enough food to feed the current human population of the earth and that distribution is a huge problem in the current situation. It is also true that any population number that cannot be maintained by the limited resources of the planet is a major problem. It is also true that the richfilth's never ending greed and pursuit of power at the expense of everything and everyone else on the planet is a major cause of the mess we are in.
So, given that everyone has a small piece of the problem, how do we figure out where to go from here with the tools that we have? This may sound really stupid, but I think we have to think small. As in local/regional.
We really don't have any control over where we have been and all the mistakes that have been made. So pointing fingers isn't really going to help much. We really don't have any control over the richfilth, the power brokers, the governments, the war machines, or any of those that have brought us to this point and don't give a damn about us wage slaves anyway. And we certainly can't rely on these evil entities to provide any meaningful long term solutions to the problems we face. We really can't stop the corporations from rapeing the earth and its people for profit in time to really have an impact on the extinction of life as we have come to know it. The only thing we really have control of is ourselves, individually, and how we purposefully choose to act or react.
So if you accept that there is no existing power that is going to deliver us from this disaster, what are we supposed to do? Well, people react differently when faced with reality. Some choose some form of denial. Some are like deer caught in the headlights and become numb and unable to act. Some chose to end their lives one way or another. Some withdraw entirely and become survivalists. Some will prey on the weak and profit from the whole thing for as long as they can.
And then there are those that know that the only way to get through this thing is to accept that we cannot ever have the lifestyle we have been blessed with for a few short years. The last 100 years have just been a weird blip in the human experience that was brought to us by carbon fuels that were developed over thousands of years. And when they are used up or just start running short of demand, life is going to change forever for all future generations that manage to survive. Survival now means decentralization and relocalization. It means learning how to get together with neighbors to cooperatively meet the needs of the local cummunity. And providing food and water are right up there on the top of the list.
This problem of a food crisis is going to come to America faster than you might think. Even if some food is available, it is going to be unaffordable for many of us. And because America imports over 40% of its food, distribution is going to become a huge problem very quickly. So, work with your neighbors and your city/county governments for solutions.
We really do need to work together and share. Our survival depends on it.
Gardening can be a relaxing form of meditation and it feeds you at the same time. Too many humans spoil the planet. Think globally shop locally. Other options are pestilence, famine, war, and everbodies favorite DEATH! Get ready for a new way of life, or else.
CROOKED7 said it right, and this UN committee is only talking about "four structural negative changes" that make a bad situation worse.
Land Reform is THE solution.
Add to this problem is the fact that regional wars and internal power struggles cause a great majority of the hunger in Africa.
These "four structural changes" that might make things even worse for the world's poor are still minor compared to the basic reasons for their plight:
WAR and what MEG MAY pointed out greed..greed...greed...
IF American NRA members were starving, and living right next door to vast plantations of Cotton, Coffee, Cacao, Tea, what would they do??
Also MIKEPETERS: I agree with most of what you say, but drop the "teach everyone to grow wheat..." is just wrong.
There are traditional grain crops for most third world areas that work for their climate - forget the wheat.
How the Cubans dealt with a food crises
I have posted this elsewhere but think it is food for thought, excuse pun:
In 2002 an Oxfam America report found that the US embargo of Cuba has turned a food crisis into a sustained recovery of food production. By decentralizing agricultural production, initiating ecological practices and opening farmers markets, Cuba has been able to turn around the severe crisis of the 1990s. While the World Health Organization recommends an intake of 2,700 calories
per day, the caloric intake in Cuba reached its low point of 1,863 calories per capita in 1994. However, the caloric intake in Cuba has since climbed 40%. Cuba has a unique model for agriculture, with land reform laws limiting the size of private landholdings and the government mixing market mechanisms with state controls. According to this report Cuban farmers are also doing more with less, imports of pesticides and herbicides actually dropped from 1995 to
1998, yet food production rose over the same period. Animal traction has replaced tractors in many farms and organic fertilizers and pest controls are used instead of expensive chemical-based inputs.
Ticonderoga, that isn't necessarily communism; it is Justice.