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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Anthony Arnove: I think discussion gets at the heart of what is the matter with capitalism in the world today. That the question of food is a question not of human need in our world, but it's a question of profit. It's a question of how companies, how corporations can make money from the distribution and sale and production of food, and we routinely confront the fact that in our world there's more than enough food to feed everyone in the world adequately; to house and clothe everyone in the world; to eliminate diseases of poverty that kill hundreds of thousands and millions, in fact, of people every year and that limit and stunt the growth and life of so many people beyond that. And we find that the reason that these ills are not dealt with, the reason these basic needs are not met, is that it's not profitable to do so. Corporations would rather warehouse goods than distribute them under conditions where distribution of food, distribution of other basic services would cut into their profit margin, or cut into their ability to make money. And the decisions in our society are made on that basis; the basis of profit, the basis of short-term profit regardless of the economic; regardless of the human; regardless of the social; regardless of the environmental consequences. It's not a question of individual will. It's a question of a basic framework of economic distribution and decision making, which is now a global system that's in place and it's threatening the sustainability of the planet, and which every day is leading to growing inequality and is leading to millions of people going without food, going hungry, when there's absolutely no need to do so. And I think really this exposes so much about what is wrong with capitalism, with the system of profit making, rather than making decisions based on human need, cooperation, democratic sharing, taking care of the needs of people, the basic fundamental human needs. And indeed, I think we have to be clear that the right to food is a fundamental, basic human right that has to be fought for today.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Ashok Gangadean: Again, to follow-up with the previous question, our cultures are dominated by powerful egocentric forces that go against the global wisdom that have taught us to cross into a more integral holistic whole systems approach. An egocentric cultures and economics and productivity tend to be myopic and fragmented and not tend to the whole, the welfare and well being of the whole. So, we get gross distortions. So, we might find certain cultures, certain economics, overproducing great amounts of resources and food in particular, while other cultures, other people in the world are in starvation and poverty and in inequity. This is because the consciousness that dominates our productivity and production in market economies is not the integral whole systems consciousness that’s grounded in the wisdom -- collective wisdom of the planet, which comes out of connectivity and mutual care and tending to the welfare of the whole. So, we are going to find deep distortions and inequities to the extent that our economies and ways of life are governed and dominated by egocentric patterns that do not and cannot tend to the whole picture. And, to the extent that we can really cross into a more awakened culture in which we tend to the welfare of the whole, in that kind of economy, that kind of productivity, we will tend to the poverty and the starvation and the hunger and the imbalances and the distribution of our resources and productions. And in that kind of economic marketplace and culture, all people will be cared for and there will no longer be starvation and there will be a proper distribution of wealth, productivity and all of our resources in a shared way as one human family on this planet.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: Lack of food, lack of access to resources really, ultimately, are, is a political issue, a political question. We do have sufficient capability and capacity to feed everyone in the world. But it's really the politics of the country as well as the market that dictates ultimately food distribution and the processes of that distribution. So we have to look at ultimately the entire geopolitical as well as economic structure that we currently exist under in the world to see how we can have disproportionate populations that on the one hand spend billions of dollars trying to lose weight, reduce obesity, while on the other hand, you have greater numbers of people who are starving, who are malnourished, and children who are dying from lack of proper nutrition. So it's not a matter of capacity to feed everyone. We have that capacity. It's a matter of politics, and it's a matter of the current economic structure under which we live.

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: We do produce enough food in the world to feed everyone. It is a political reason why we don’t distribute it. And there’s many diversity of reasons, if their political reason for those who produce are strategic to whom they ate and how? But we must also look at how this food is produced with a multinational corporation that want to be in control. And they are at the helm, and the interest is in the bottom line not in the common good, nor in saving life, nor the planet. We are a global nation that can produce food in a very responsible and localized way. But in order to do so, it uses huge corporations, must allow for local people, the local people to grow their own food, and not privatized or control, to control their lands that which is theirs. They have no reason to control their lands and most of this land is being used to grow export crops of high value to bring the country out of its increasing debt that it is in because of this privatization. If we will return the power back to the indigenous people of the land to grow their own food, and power them with the right seeds and the right information, because there is a need to remember the techniques and the ways in which to grow the food, for we have seen a loss in this information in this knowledge because of the privatization, because of the control over the land and the property. We need to design ethically responsible systems that hold ethics and practices that will create an abundance of food. This is a very simple thing; it's cutting edge of 10,000 year technology, to be good land stewards and indigenous people of this world have that information and they know. We need to listen and be receptive.

by Benjamin Fahrer