August 9th, 2008: Mark Hawthorne writes that meat production is a major contributor to world hunger. Here is an example he cites:
Jeremy Rifkin, president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington, DC, states it succinctly: “People go hungry because much of arable land is used to grow feed grain for animals rather than people.” He offers as one example the Ethiopian famine of 1984, which was fueled by the meat industry. “While people starved, Ethiopia was growing linseed cake, cottonseed cake and rapeseed meal for European livestock,” he says. “Millions of acres of land in the developing world are used for this purpose. Tragically, 80 percent of the world’s hungry children live in countries with food surpluses which are fed to animals for consumption by the affluent.”
It is now 2011, and nothing has changed except there are even more people starving to death every day. I heard a guy on NPR the other day being interviewed and when asked what could be done to help the current starvation, and he said that many more tons and tons of food would be needed. But here is the kicker: he ended with this “but it is never enough. It will never be enough.” This from an advocate of feeding the starving masses.
Just what the hell will be enough, you ask? Will you give up meat and cheese because they are feed intensive? Beer uses grain. Will the world stop brewing and drinking beer? What about vodka? And bourbon. And Scotch whisky? Dog and cat food? The list of products that are not strictly needed and are made from grain of some kind goes on and on.
Now add to the problem the propensity for humans to reproduce every time they get a full belly and “it is never enough” comes into sharp focus. What is really needed is a dramatic drop in population coupled with an increase in world cooperation in food production and distribution, all without corruption. How likely is that? (Think the Catholic church, the Church of JC of LDS, and the rest of the churches that think more is better, and ignorant people who say stupid things like “we just wanted 4 to even out the family” and crap like that.) OK, so not very likely. What is the alternative? A slow degrading of the ecosystem of the world in an effort to produce ever more food for the ever more people ending with an environmental and political collapse of horrendous proportions.
Then we start again. Hopefully in a world not glowing from nuclear (pronounced new-cle-er not new-que-ler) fallout and freezing in nuclear winter.
Image of family in 1998: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/387/sudan2.jpg
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Feast-or-Famine-Meat-Prod-by-Mark-Hawthorne-080808-523.html
Multiplier Effect: When you spend a buck somewhere, that buck gets spent again and again, so the effect of you spending causes more spending. Look, say you hire a painter to paint your house. You pay the painter, who then gets his car fixed. The mechanic then buys a new tool, and the tool company buys material to make more tools. That is what every government does every time when there is a downturn in a country’s economy. Except the Tea Party Republicans. They insist on cutting spending. So the result is less money in people’s pockets, less spent, and less multiplier, fewer jobs, longer recession.
Posts
