Register or Login

Question

196 responses | 7 votes

view media
play

Sep 5, 2006 2:50:47 PM cite

If we produce enough food to feed everyone in the world, why don't we?

by aquariusamy

Please login to rate.

Dec 13, 2007 9:25:20 AM cite

Ever felt a need to express your voice and opinion but can't find an opportunity to do so? In a time of politcal and economic change, www.politomics.org allows you to exchange your ideas with other passionate individuals on virtually any social issue.

by worldonfire

Please login to rate.

Dec 3, 2007 8:24:15 AM cite

Because it is not a priority. If the developed nations of the world decided that a minimum education of 12 years, 3 bowls of rice a day, adequate clothing, potable water, a safe, warm, and dry shelter, some means of self-sufficiency and basic medical care were a priority, it would become a reality. The trillions of dollars spent in Iraq just as easily could have been spent bettering the lives of thousands of people. The war was deemed a priority, the betterment of the 'have' nots was not. Another reason is that there is no monetary profit to be made. When the welfare of our fellow man/women becomes a greater priority than profit margins some changes may be seen. Possible, but not very likely anytime soon. aries4548

by aries4548

Please login to rate.

Oct 3, 2007 9:09:29 AM cite

here's an answer I got from someone who works for cooperative extension service in Michigan when i asked the same question. i am still contemplating the answer, but it sounded true to me. Government's/countries, including the u.s., do have more than enough food. i asked why in particular government pays u.s. farmers to NOT grow food and pay them to do so, In part, the answer was to keep the price of agriculture foods where the government wants them (price control). The other half about not feeding the world has to do with some countries/gvnmnts do not WANT those people feed. If you think about it like I did later, it makes sense. What happens to people when not nourished by food? Brain and body becomes basically decayed. Those people no longer can think about anything like politically change or other important issues, just on ly think about food. That makes the governments stronger and can control the people. They use this power in whatever way they want, whether to keep control in the country, to 'state' on t.v. look our people are starving..so they get help..not that the help goes to the people. I still can't figure out why they would want to people to continue to starve. seems they'd want people who were stronger to support -grow stronger as a nation. cant answer that part-im not twisted like some government/countries.

by ljhlah

Please login to rate.

Mar 28, 2007 4:18:04 PM cite

Imagine someone else doing your job for free. You're out of work & there's no benefit money.How do you survive? In agricultural societies too much cheap food would cause the economy to collapse. Result: 3rd world countries stay dependant on the west?

by invisible

Please login to rate.

Mar 16, 2007 9:07:49 PM cite

Good Questions. In fact it costs some armies more to keep a man alive than to kill him. It is the wierdos ruling the world. The Control freaks. Gaz

by Gaz

Please login to rate.

Feb 12, 2007 11:10:53 PM cite

We don't because we are selfish. We have the means to but we don't because we are to caught up in our own rat race!

by KevinSean

Please login to rate.

Jan 27, 2007 5:09:25 PM cite

the reason is purely a political one which will always be denied by the politicians ,...if food was made available to to everyone,they would multiply faster and so use the resources that the west regards as so precious,and keeps for the "superior white races",100% true

by gazsel

Please login to rate.

Sep 18, 2006 9:17:39 PM cite

The countries that have so many problems with food supply should look at the choice of having a child that cannot be fed. Why have a child if a person can barely feed themselves. Citizens in these impoverished nations should spend more time in social revolution and economic reform. The governments that care should help the citizens trapped in the "I must have as many children as possible in order to have a few survive" and help them understand the limitations that they have placed on themselves. If a family unit only has a few children, then the child(ren) willhave better chances if its large scale change. Maybe use a condom!!! If you dont believe in it, then why do you ask for the help of those that do?

by burlyrdc

Please login to rate.

Sep 9, 2006 7:25:44 PM cite

It would be better for developed nations to take the time to teach poorer nations "how to fish" - so to speak. However prosperity lives in the province of economic stimulation. Money making takes precedence in thriving nations so there is no interest or gain in developement of that nature. If food were oil or uranium it would be a different matter. So long as economics dictate our doings, urges and very lives the unfed poor must continue to depend upon the kindess of strangers. The only answer is to so change the concept and nature of economics wherein economics is dependent upon the welfare of all. Concurrently we would do well to educate the poor about the need to control population stress. Food and numbers.

by notcriswell

Please login to rate.

Sep 9, 2006 7:25:22 PM cite

I do not think that humankind was unable to produce enough food. We could if we wanted to. So what are blocking reasons? Let's look at what keeps me busy. I get up in the morning, go to work, do my thing and hope to receive a reward for my doing: financial (income) and otherwise (social rewards). I am not alone in the world; I am one piece in a bigger puzzle. So is everyone in the food chain. It starts with a farmer, a dealer who distributes food, a processor who does something with the food, a dealer again maybe and the end consumer in the finally. Since we have left stoneage we have introduced the above complexity in our human interactions. No the farmer does not trade an apple for 1 MB of data transmitted on the internet. We have introduced a couple of things: money for one as a place holder for physical goods exchange. A trust and rights system that enable everyone in the chain to trust that agreed contracts are honored, that money will be exchange back to goods when need be. For this work there needs to be freedom: freedom to use my own brain, to do my own thing and rules that tell me how far my level of freedom goes. Yes it is easy to blame those non-tangible bodies: the state, the rich, capitalism, multi-national companies, etc. for doing the wrong thing. But in my mind whatever happens in human interactions is done by human beings, in the end always by one individual. And we know every individual has their own internal world of values. How realistic would it be to convince millions and billions of people to change their internal values? We know it is totally unrealistic. It could be saddening and I could feel so terribly sorry that the world is so bad to me. Why not follow a different strategy and start changing my own behaviour? I have the option to buy products from fair trade. I have the option to buy from my local bakery or butcher. I have the option to buy a non-genetically modified apple. I have the option to elect a party that demonstrates believe in people and liberal thinking versus a party that openly says we go to war. Many more examples. To conclude: in my mind the question we started with is wrong. It should be something like "what barrriers in ourselves do we need to overcome to enable the world to feed themselves"

by Mr Process

Please login to rate.

Sep 9, 2006 5:42:33 PM cite

Hello Amy: Because most politicians are corrupted and interested in power, because business and industry leaders are interested in money, and because the ones that live far away from poverty and hunger are not conscious about this huge and unfair issue. That's why more and more of us have to speak out, spread the word and get active. One grain of sand is nothing, many of those make a beach. Companies have to become more social and environmental responsible. But the most important asset of companies are people. No people, no company. So let them get, one by one, conscious about peace and social and environmental responsibilities. Let's buy products from companies that go in that direction. And so forth. All the best. Alf Giebler

by alfgiebler

Please login to rate.

blem ur self before others

Feb 28, 2007 3:01:42 PM cite

Becoz of our freeness they r dominating on us, once we started to speard the awereness wt the world is? people won't here u voice becoz there maind has been captured by orthdex and rich people that mean there r psychologically slaves, even they dont know about there slavery. phisical slavery can stop by fighting but cant stop mental slevary. make them to realise the reality of society, they ill stand with us to fight for equality.

by siddarth

Please login to rate.

Sep 9, 2006 2:39:14 PM cite

Giving people food does not make things better. It makes things worse. That is how we came to be (possibly). I've read ISHMAEL by Daniel Quinn and it seems as if an increase in food production leads to an increase in population. Part of the problem in world is that developed nations give food to developing nations and think it is a good thing. They feel good about themselves. But GIVING them food only makes them more reliant on you GIVING them food. I'll be back later.

by newhaventeacher

Please login to rate.

Sep 9, 2006 1:41:38 PM cite

The national and international industries are not interested for third world problems. If this countries loose their problems, the big concerns of the world loose their own power.

by MoeDaHool

Please login to rate.
view media
play

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva: This depends on people and government, who have taken over and unfortunately are interested in the fact that there are poor people, because most of countries which are members of G8 – America, Europe – produce much more products per head than Africa for instance, where food gets distributed unequally. There is such a term as biological «footprint», which means, that people consume much more than they really need to and their biological print is much bigger than necessary. I think that all depends on people’s conscience, and unfortunately it didn’t reach yet that level, when they understand, that we all are human and we are dependent on each other. And human compassion, and human consciousness they have not reached a stage to understand, that if they hunger, if someone is hungering, this means their soul is hungering too. It is not a matter of Africa or India or other countries not producing enough products to nourish their population. The problem is that these products get withdrawn from there, they get distributed unequal.

by Antoschka - Ekaterina Moshaeva

Please login to rate.
view media
play

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Abbas Beydoun: [missing part of the video].. the west and we can blame the rich people and the rich societies and countries for not providing help for the poor people. There are even poor and hungry people inside the rich countries. Hunger is a shame and immoral and I think that mankind can not be proud of itself and it will not have a good future if there are still hungry people.

by Abbas Beydoun

Please login to rate.
view media
play

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Alvaro Restrepo: This question is particularly hard for a country like mine. I come from Columbia, which is a country that has enormous possibilities to produce the food for its people and to produce wealth for everybody. But, for one reason or another that is the core of this question, we are blind enough to deny other people the possibility of feeding each other. And, I think sometimes we speak about food in the material sense. We have to speak of different kinds of food or different kinds of nourishment. I think that we are very concerned about the nutrition of the body, but we have to think that simultaneously the body and the spirit have to be nourished at the same time. Why don’t we produce enough food for everyone in the world if we have the possibility of doing it? I think, it is very much in the spirit of self destruction of humanity and may be it has to do also with the sense of superiority of some individuals over others that we are denying others the possibility of surviving. I’ve always referred to my country for example as a country of blind of blindness, the same way as H.G. Wells defined it many years ago. We have the possibilities. We have the richness. We have everything. We have the wealth. And, we simply deny ourselves the possibility of being.

by Alvaro Restrepo

Please login to rate.
view media
play

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea:

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Please login to rate.
view media
play

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Andries Botha: It would seem to me that food production is simply an economic vector. Food is a marketable commodity, not a human essentiality. Not only don’t we feed people, but when we do feed them, we overfeed them. I am not exactly sure how to answer that properly. I guess we don’t feed enough people in the world because the impact of people’s hunger never seems to touch those who are well fed. The hungry -- those who are well fed never understand what it feels like to be hungry. I suppose if we were able to work on that, the urgency to distribute food around the world would become more urgent. We need to understand about the nature of our surplus in order to understand the politics of deprivation.

by Andries Botha

Please login to rate.
view media
play

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Here we are again in terms of being able to feed the world. It is true, maybe, that we feed enough food to feed everyone but we don’t distribute the food that we produce. Everything is based on being able to sell it. And the governments do not allow to sell it if they don’t get the money. So all that extra productions goes to waste and do not arrive into the homes who need it most. And thus we have so many thousands and thousands of young people, children actually, who die of starvation every single day. Every single year. So what did we do? Nothing, really. We have excesses beyond belief in North America and Europe and other parts of the world whereas we have tremendous needs everywhere else. So where is the equality of those food we produce? Yes, the Earth has enough food but the man needs to be able to distribute it equally to everyone. And if he doesn’t do it, yes, we see the results. Right now in Darfur, in Sudan, look at the starvation, and many other parts of Africa. And look at the excesses I have witnessed here in Germany in the last few days. Food unlimited to be eaten by those who stay in hotels. Far beyond the capacity of the stomach or the need of the body. Still today thousands of people will starve to death. Isn't it sad, Amy? For me it is so.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Please login to rate.