Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Irina Yasina: First of all it’s not true. We don’t produce food enough to feed the whole humanity. Secondly, it’s one thing to produce and other thing to dispense. The point is that it’s impossible to feed people who don’t make anything and who don't produce anything. We would have then the unstable structure of the whole world. That's why only such an exchange is possible: somebody produces food, someone else produces machines, and somebody produces technologies or ideas. Therefore we should understand that if the world chooses some hungering people and simply starts to give them something to eat; we will just create corruption, larceny, and the same poverty because we should give people the fishing rod. Do you remember the old story, the old fairy story about what is better: to give someone a fish or to give him the fishing rod and to teach how to catch fish. I think that we human community should teach people who have serious lack of food and other necessary products how to produce it by themselves, because simply to feed means again and again corruption, stealing and poverty, poverty, poverty. Thank you.

by Irina Yasina

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Jerry Mander: Answertext will be available soon.

by Jerry Mander

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Jesper Green: Well, it is a fact that we produce enough food to feed everyone in the world, or that we could do it, but the situation is like that those who produce the food, they are, have some terms that they, they want money for their corn and they want money for the feed, so we don’t feed those who can’t pay. It’s sad, but it’s, that’s why we don’t feed them. That’s why we can’t ship the food to them. And if we just, if we just feed those who, of course, it’s a dilemma. If we want to, we could feed everyone in the world but they should learn or we should help them learn, we have to serve them, we have to educate them so that they could produce their own food, but in the meantime we should feed them, but, so there’s the education issue. That’s why we don’t feed them, and there’s the issue that we have, or the food producers or manufacturers, want money for their food.

by Jesper Green

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Jodie Evans: So actually this year is, they say, is one of the first years where we won't produce enough food for everyone in the world to not go hungry. This idea has been true and we're kind of coming at a place where that's not true anymore, which is even more frightening than the fact that we don't feed everyone that's hungry. And that's because it's not about feeding people. Food is about food distribution and the accumulation of wealth. If we wanted to feed everyone that was hungry, that's quite possible to do, but that's not the driving force. We haven't made a value that we hold people to or hold people responsible to the basic needs of humanity. We're not responsible to that. That isn't what is a driving force or what we've decided to make a driving force. So until we can actually do that we won't feed everyone that's hungry. But the power structure -- I have an interesting story from when I was in Baghdad, right after we invaded, the head of intelligence for the U.S. said ,,you know, we've taken a page from Saddam Hussein's book, keep a dog hungry and he'll follow you anywhere''. And so the strategy of keeping people hungry is that you have them as slaves. And so by not creating the situations where everyone can eat, by actually creating the, what we've created in development is making people hungry, because we've taken away from them their capacity to feed themselves. We then create the situation of power. And so to create the possibility of everyone eating is to try to understand the power relationship and how we can use it against itself. So that it can understand that actually feeding people gets it to where it wants to go and that's where it wants to go is the total extermination of our planet which is what will happen in that process.

by Jodie Evans

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

John Gage: We produce food locally, we produce food globally, we produce food in individual small patches of land tended by someone who has been on that land for a long time, we produce food in giant factory farms fed by inputs from the petroleum industry, from the corn industry, fed by gigantic simplified agricultural structures. We produce food in many forms. The concentration of factory production generates an agricultural product, a simplified agricultural product that is at a very low price. That means that those that can invest in that technology of mass factory food production can in an era of economic globalization undercut local production. What we desire is the ability for every one of us globally to produce food adequate for local sustenance. Technology is localized for local production, the ability to be self-sufficient, not dependent upon intricate supply chains. So, why is it, if we can produce food adequate for everyone and we don’t, it’s because the allocation of resources, the existence of the markets, the ability for the transfer of the knowledge about how to do these things and the fundamental investments in the world’s poorest countries in seed, in water, in the capabilities of agricultural production, have not been made. That’s where we receive the largest return for an investment, is a reallocation of our resources to production at the local level in Rwanda, in Kenya, in the areas where drought strikes, populations unable to resist since they have inadequate economic resources to resist, unable to resist the hammer blow of drought, cattle death, crop death. If we invest there, we can reallocate the sources of production, depend less upon massive industrial food production, benefit in all ways by increased self-reliance of those that create the foundation for all society adequate food.

by John Gage

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Jonathan Granoff: We do produce enough food to feed everyone in the world. We don't distribute the food to nourish everyone in the world. And the reason is we don't view food as a fundamental human right. We don't view food in the same way as we view, say, air. We have not commodified air. Ah, to some extent we’ve commodified water, but for the most part, at least in the developed water, people presume the human right to water, that water's free because it's the water of life, it's the wherewithal through which we live. And air is not commodified, air is ah, everyone has a right to breathe, nobody would propose that you have to buy air to breathe. But we have fully commodified the food chain. And so the distribution of food is dependent on the economic arrangements that we have. So you know we hear people talking about with better genetic engineering we could feed everybody. But in fact that's not the problem. Now I'll take an example: Brazil. In Brazil, less than 5% of the farmers produce all of the food that the people in the country eat. The rest of the agri-business produces feed stock for animals, to feed animals to turn them into meat, to eat them, abroad. But the capacity to feed everybody is met by a fairly small amount of the farming. But the distribution network works and so you don't have starvation there. The problem therefore is in my opinion not one of the capacity to grow, but again the issue of our sense of justice, and the way in which we arrange power. And a sense of what right people have. I mean, do people have a right - does everyone have a right to a minimum health? Does everyone have a right to decent shelter? The issue is that we have enough to satisfy everybody's needs, we do not have enough to satisfy everybody's greeds. And greed is the organizing principle for our economic engine and it's great that we've harnessed greed into a useful dynamic, but it's not enough. We also have to harness generosity, justice, caring, love, compassion. When we begin to harness those powerful human dynamics, we will not only have enough food, we will have enough justice and everybody will be fed.

by Jonathan Granoff

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Jonathan Meese: What is food? What is the world? What is a human being? What is food? What is repletion? We don't know anything. All these phenomena have nothing to do with each other, see [Zardoz announcement for harvest production of cereal]. All of these questions are more elementary than the links, which we don't know. The system is a spider's web. Who is the spider? Who is the victim? Who is the pupation? Nobody knows. Art is going to regulate it because art is a net in which no human being can stay. Human beings are not able to share and that's just fine. We just have to realize this than the division will take place on its own according to its own rules, just the way it should be. If we give food the possibility to distribute itself than food is going to do it according to its own logic and estimation. As long as we are involved there will be injustice. What is everything? What is food? Food is love, humility, power. Announcement for harvest production, see Zardoz, see Clockwork Orange, see the eyes of Alex DeLarge. There you will see food. Look in the eyes of Martin von Essenbeck, The Damned. Are we the damned of food? Yes or no, this is about self-accusation, self-denunciation. This is the only possibility to move on. We will only move on if we stick to one point of view forever. The eternal distance to ourselves. Than food will emerge on ourselves like it wants to be, like it wants to. This is not about our will. What I want is insignificant. Food wants. Division wants. Repletion wants. We are suppressed by our condition. This does not make us human beings.

by Jonathan Meese

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Jonathan Stack: We do in fact produce enough food for everybody in the world. And so, the question is, that's sort of like asking why aren't we better to each other, why aren't we kinder, why aren't we better? And maybe the answer is we are becoming that and that -- it is a progression of things. We are going to move in that direction, but trying to figure out why human beings don't behave in the way that they are capable of, is something I ask everyday and ask of myself everyday. Why aren't I the person that I am capable of or why don't I share more of what I have with other people? And that question and that desire to transcend my own limitations, my own flaw is what motivates me everyday to better. So, how do we reach that point where we collectively produce enough so that everybody can live well on this planet is one of those mysteries of the material world that we are going to have to constantly grapple with. And until we figure out the actual answer, we just got to do better everyday in the ways each of us can do something.

by Jonathan Stack

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

José Manuel Prieto: Behind this matter of the possibility or impossibility to feed every country and the entire population of our planet, there is a clear political background. There is a necessity of political willingness to ensure that the produced food reaches those in need and that the design of its distribution allows the needy to have access to the food, and not only access to the food but to generate production mechanisms so that they can actually feed themselves. It’s a challenge to feed [everybody], and I think it’s something that eventually will be achieved relatively soon, because there is a possibility, there are all the means , as said in the question, to feed the planet. And it’s a question of [developing] politics, what is in my opinion the main component, as shown in his investigations, by the Noble laureate in Economics, Amartya Sen, who dicovered or pointed out or determined the fact that many of the famines under which have suffered various countries, have been provoked by political and economic reasons, not because of the lack of food, but owing to the blindness of their political leaders.

by José Manuel Prieto

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Jwan M. Aziz: Because the economic containment of the countries requires that. For example, in some years in USA, the grist superabundance has been destroyed to keep the market prices. In addition to that, there are some countries which damage crops like tomatos in order to keep the prices constant,so such countries do not care about the need and the hunger of the others. Thanks.

by Jwan M. Aziz

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Kailash Satyarthi: Well, the intention of producing food is not always to feed the hungry stomachs. The purpose normally to grow more and more food is basically to profit out of it and to gain money out of it, not to feed the hungry poor. And, that’s why as more and more inventions are made to grow more food, some people who control the food business are benefited out of it and the food does not go to the people who need it. Secondly, in the developing world where the farmers produce food, the production expense sometimes is more than what they are able to sell in the market. And, that’s why they are not the one who can preserve the food material properly and then further distribute it when it is needed. So, the preservation is also a big thing. Again, the whole control of keeping the food in their houses is in the control of rich people and they know when to take it out and when the market demands. So, it is market-driven, not driven by the need of the hungry people. And, thirdly, the distribution. In many countries, there is no proper distribution of food material in time. The transportation, the communication is a major problem. And, that is also resulting in the scarcity of food in some parts, as well as overproduction in other parts.

by Kailash Satyarthi

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Kamal Boullata:

by Kamal Boullata

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Kigge Hvid: It’s basically a problem of distribution because we do produce enough food; we do produce enough food to feed the whole world. So, basically what we have here is a problem of distribution. It’s a problem of choice. It’s a problem of political choice. And, I think most of all, it’s a problem of fear. We would be able to with our technology and our knowledge right now, our ways of logistics, our insight in the world, we would be able to feed the whole world. It is in fact one of the UN 2020 development goals that we should be able to feed the whole world. So, why don’t we do it? Basically, it’s about some people in part of the world fearing losing instead of sharing. I think that what we should do concerning this question is that we should get a lot of people around the world to look into the overall system of distribution of economics and find out ways to distribute without fear. It is may be also a problem of the states where you are not able to feed your people of choices there. The question could be put in a way that you would put blame on some part of the world, which would be the Western world. I think to blame is uninteresting. I think to look into developments and possibilities are interesting. So, it is not a question of blame. It should be a question of development.

by Kigge Hvid

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Kurt Weidemann: It is hard to understand that food cannot be distributed in the world in a way, which gives everyone enough. But human egoism exists and it is very large. In Germany there is the saying "Holy Saint Florian (among other functions the patron saint of fire fighters), spare my house, put fire to another house". This means egoistic behaviour and the drive for survival make sure that there is too much in one place and too little in another place. I really wonder why mankind is not able to distribute their sources and means in a way to provide enough for every human being.

by Kurt Weidemann

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Lesego Rampolokeng: We produce more than enough food in the world to feed everybody. But, the human animal is much more concerned in the world today with the exploitation of its own self. So, we have food getting dumped. We have food getting tossed overboard ships. This world is not at all interested in feeding itself because the human animal has become so predatorial, has become so governed by self-interest where the ego supersedes every single thing else in the world. We are not at all interested in feeding those among ourselves who might be needy because then that takes away from us that which makes us believe that we rule over fellow beings. Human beings are governed by greed; human beings are governed by avarice. Human beings are much more concerned with making themselves stand above the rest of those who might be like them because then that takes away their own sense of importance, their own sense of being in control of the destinies of others. Human beings have contributed to genocide, to holocaust, to the decimation of entire populations of human being. So then, we are not at all interested in the feeding of other human beings because that would take from us, I would believe, our sense of being able to determine the faith and the destinies of others. I think that there is absolutely no reason for any member of society, for any sector of the human race to go hungry. But, I believe that until such a time comes when expansionism, when colonization, when the need to create poverty and starvation in order to prop ourselves up becomes an entire aberrance and abomination and a thing that is seen as being purely and completely inhuman and de-humanize. Perhaps all over these days, we can learn first to respect life, to respect ourselves and to see it is only by promoting world peace that we can all of us survive.

by Lesego Rampolokeng

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Leung Ping-Kwan: I think this has to do with profit for the businessmen that will be able to produce food. They will be more interested in getting imported rather than to helping to feed everyone in the world. So they argue, who will be to produce food to feed everybody in the world, but impacted the people who will be able to do that will be concerned with their own profit and therefore not so [ethical]. And also like unequal treaties, so the way of doing business with food are not really doing and looking in a very equal way that the typical different treaties in limiting or promoting trade that will lead to equal distribution of food.

by Leung Ping-Kwan

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Lijun Fang: The key is what is the standard of "enough". If it is considered as the basic needs for people to survive as animals in the nature, the food we are producing is already enough. However, food is always distributed unfairly in this world. Thus, some people may have possessed too many resources and food, while some other people do not have enough. For example, obesity exists in many areas; the large amount of food wasted in China everyday could possibly be enough to feed everyone in Africa.

by Lijun Fang

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Lillian Holt: Yes, I think this is a very good question. It's something that I've thought about as a child. A little girl in Africa used to think that why is it that some people go hungry and others don't? It's almost something about one half of the world [slims] and the other half starves. I don’t know why we can't feed everyone. I come from a culture, an [original] culture in Australia, which says, you know, you always give something to each. You always share what you've got and you certainly your meal. That's the traditional background I came from and that is being lost of course in some ways, but as we live in a more competitive society. But this idea of why don't we feed other people I guess it's got to do with distribution. It's got to do with wars. It's got to do with greed and maybe people aren't in the position to buy food. There's draughts. There's all sorts of things. Sometimes I feel helpless about this but I'm actually not hopeless. I think the fact that this question is being raised in a forum like this and many people are listening and will be part of them will be participating in it all over the world raises my hope. I see it comes from a woman who is almost half my age and today by today it would have been nice if I could actually give a really positive answer to this question.

by Lillian Holt

Sep 9, 2006 10:10:00 AM cite

Livingstone Maluleke: It’s a very interesting question. The production of food in the country is important because people can’t live without food. But, then, when we come to the real production of food, the question here is who is responsible for the production of food? Can we all stand up and go out there and start producing food? And if we do that, what is the implication thereof? And of course, here we find a lot of elements, the elements of, can all of us really produce food? You’ll find two dynamics here. There are external factors that [binds] the people from the real production of food, which of course include other – amongst other factors, do people have skills, do they have capacity enough to produce enough, do they have resources, do they have knowledge of production? And if they does have this knowledge, are they able to implement and put these functions into practice? Are they able to get there and have this thing of food production in place? And the other element is, if they are able to produce this food, are they having enough capacity to – can put the food on the market? Who are the consumers of our food really? Because, there’s another thing, all these things come to us all. It means, if we – if all people of the world are able to produce food, it is imperative for us to dwell on this food production so that we are able to deal with poverty. The country as a society is food really is really going to be affected by poverty, and there would be no prosperity if there is no food. And therefore, we all need food for our livelihood and this will as well open up lot of opportunities for communities to participate in the different levels. And therefore, it is important that we be able to produce this food. Let’s join hands. If all are able to do that, let’s join hands and produce this food for the benefit of everybody in the society.

by Livingstone Maluleke