Global Food Crisis, overpopulation and Cannibalism

[William Ashley]

Ok, so you guessed it, Cannibalism is an age old practice ranging from prehistory to present day. Yet the vast majority of the world population, doesn't practice it. What is the underlying reason why Cannibalism of humans who die of natural causes, as being unfit for the table?

I mean this in the gentlist, most unobscene and unvulgar way.

[bush_cheney2004]

Quite simply, because there is a readily available source of protein from other species. Under the right shortage circumstances, cannibalism is certainly on the table (pun intended), and is well documented. Cannibalism is not perceived as a viable solution to any systemic crisis because it represents the utter failure of existing social and economic processes.

Garn and Block (1970) argued that the meat yield from an average human body (50 kg) would only provide about 4.0 kg of protein, and that this would meet the daily minimum protein requirements of only sixty adults. However, Dornsteich and Morren (1974) presented a more convincing argument for New Guinea cannibalism in several highland populations. They noted that the consumption of human flesh by the Miyanmin people provided between 5 and 10 percent of the daily intake of protein, which was equivalent to or greater than the protein derived from domestic and feral pig consumption. This basic issue seems to relate to the primary motives that people have for consuming human flesh. It is probably not correct to state that some people practice cannibalism solely as a source of food. There are many other human motives for cannibalism. On the other hand, human tissue has the same nutritional value as any other mammalian tissue when it is eaten, whether by a human or nonhuman predator.

http://www.answers.com/topic/cannibalism

I would also note that human tissue and organs are readily accepted in other medical, cosmetic, and educational contexts.

Please pass the ketchup....

[William Ashley]

Ok so why don't we hear about this in places with familes and starvation going on?

For example in North Korea?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/57740.stm

You'd think the US media would be all over that one.

Edited December 26, 2009 by William Ashley

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok so why don't we hear about this in places with familes and starvation going on?

For example in North Korea?

We do "hear" about such instances off and on, mostly in a criminal context. Wiki say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism#Other_cases

You'd think the US media would be all over that one.

No more than any other western media. US reports would be very suspect for obvious reasons.

[William Ashley]

We do "hear" about such instances off and on, mostly in a criminal context. Wiki say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism#Other_cases

But it is clearly not as widespread as famine seems. Like if there were 10,000 people starving that would be 2000 bodies eaten each week. You don't see this number anywhere.

No more than any other western media. US reports would be very suspect for obvious reasons.

True enough.

Edited December 26, 2009 by William Ashley

[Guest TrueMetis]

You have any idea the deseases a human carries? I would rather eat raw pig than a cooked human. That is the reason it is not widespread.

[Pliny]

From the title I thought this was going to be an all bases covered sky is falling thread.

Pity! I would have ate it up.

[charter.rights]

You have any idea the deseases a human carries? I would rather eat raw pig than a cooked human. That is the reason it is not widespread.

You just have to make sure that it is cooked through and reaches an internal temperature of 180°C. And avoid human offal. That is where all the chemicals go. Baste with lots of butter - you can never have enough butter..... Otherwise "Bon appetite!"

[Oleg Bach]

There is no global food crisis. When you have part of the world skinny as a rail and the other part fat as gluttonous pigs this is not a shortage..when I see immigrants from China eating their weight in shrimp while having lunch in China town this is not a crisis...the planet will not generate more humans than it can support...Just because people feel that they should be able to eat food that is rare and found at the bottom of the ocean or a boiled bears paw from Sibera...just shows we are pigs and ungrateful to the earth for sustaining us...we eat to fu*king much...and we hord to much and starve those we consider inferiour...It is a moral crisis not a food crisis...we must stop plundering the earth for luxury food...eat a can of spam on occassion.

[GostHacked]

There is no food shortage on this planet. We do have a food distribution problem though.

[Oleg Bach]

There is no food shortage on this planet. We do have a food distribution problem though.

And a money distribution problem - and a power distribution problem. It is done with clear intent to maintain some sort of control over others...look at a the poor in this country - they are denied protein and get stupider generation after generation..they expect them to thrive on Craft Dinner..cut off the protein to an individual and you shrink the brain. Then you can justify your controling greed by saying the poor are stupid and deserve what they get. That it is human nature and the survival of the most fit, is what rules the world- like the hypocritical socio-economic Darwinism that the super rich practice..when they show themselves not to be fit and beg for a bail out...it's fine for them but not for the poor who are equally unfit.

[blueblood]

There is no food shortage on this planet.

Correct

We do have a food distribution problem though

No, we have a nutbar tin pot dictator governments in Africa problem that would rather have their people killing each other than setting up an environment that encourages commerce.

We also have a European socialist problem where they feel that they should give food away and drive 3rd world farmers out of business which puts the brakes on developing an African economy.

No money=no demand.

[Michael Hardner]

[quote name='blueblood' date='05 January 2010 - 12:16 PM' timestamp='1262710122' post='496746

No, we have a nutbar tin pot dictator governments in Africa problem that would rather have their people killing each other than setting up an environment that encourages commerce.

We also have a European socialist problem where they feel that they should give food away and drive 3rd world farmers out of business which puts the brakes on developing an African economy.

No money=no demand.

Abject poverty has many causes, including the first one you identified and not including the second one as far as I know.

As far as the food crisis go, let's ask what the metrics are for determining a crisis. World hunger is on the decline.

[blueblood]

Abject poverty has many causes, including the first one you identified and not including the second one as far as I know.

As far as the food crisis go, let's ask what the metrics are for determining a crisis. World hunger is on the decline.

The second one is as big as the first one. During the 1990`s-2007-8 Europeans were and are producing a huge quantity of grain at below the cost of production world wide, including africa, which sends prices down. Essentially European taxpayers are footing the bill and there`s a big reason why Europeans get soaked at tax time. Even with shipping costs, a producer in a third world country cannot produce at the same cost, and essentially folds. This results in people waiting on shipments. Essentially the market is flooded. If the African`s had money, this would be a dream scenario, but the problem is they don`t even have enough money to pay for that, so there is scores of left over grain and starving people. No money = no demand.

However, with the recent spike in commodity prices, there is more demand for food. This raises prices making grain production a possibility in Africa. The producer there is then able to spend his money and thus the local economy gets going. Having an economy based on gov`t handouts is madness, case in point the first nation reserves in Canada vs. the first nations in New Zealand.

Then to top it all off, we have tin pot dictators over there hoarding all this food and manipulating their economy so that they become ridiculous rich.

In short you have a big portion out of any nations economy essentially being forced out of business, which also is a national security concern. And then tin pot dictators capitalizing on those same handouts. Nigeria could be a wealthy country, but the government spends the oil royalties on extravagance rather than providing an environment for economic growth.

Fortunately now, with higher commodity prices, there is investment on agricultural production in Africa to cash in on higher prices. Higher prices = more players in that area.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I wonder what effect no longer subsidizing food growth would have?

[blueblood]

I wonder what effect no longer subsidizing food growth would have?

a wealthier africa.

[Michael Hardner]

The second one is as big as the first one. During the 1990`s-2007-8 Europeans were and are producing a huge quantity of grain at below the cost of production world wide, including africa, which sends prices down. Essentially European taxpayers are footing the bill and there`s a big reason why Europeans get soaked at tax time. Even with shipping costs, a producer in a third world country cannot produce at the same cost, and essentially folds. This results in people waiting on shipments. Essentially the market is flooded. If the African`s had money, this would be a dream scenario, but the problem is they don`t even have enough money to pay for that, so there is scores of left over grain and starving people. No money = no demand.

Ok. How much grain does Europe produce compared to Asia and the Americas ? How much do they affect price ? What are the components of price, such as fertilizer, land costs, and labour ? I would think Africa could compete favourably on two of those elements.

However, with the recent spike in commodity prices, there is more demand for food. This raises prices making grain production a possibility in Africa. The producer there is then able to spend his money and thus the local economy gets going. Having an economy based on gov`t handouts is madness, case in point the first nation reserves in Canada vs. the first nations in New Zealand.

You mean rising oil prices include demand for food ?

Then to top it all off, we have tin pot dictators over there hoarding all this food and manipulating their economy so that they become ridiculous rich.

In short you have a big portion out of any nations economy essentially being forced out of business, which also is a national security concern. And then tin pot dictators capitalizing on those same handouts. Nigeria could be a wealthy country, but the government spends the oil royalties on extravagance rather than providing an environment for economic growth.

Fortunately now, with higher commodity prices, there is investment on agricultural production in Africa to cash in on higher prices. Higher prices = more players in that area.

I concur with your point about misspent resources, but the other part is more complex and I need to understand it more.

[blueblood]

Ok. How much grain does Europe produce compared to Asia and the Americas ? How much do they affect price ? What are the components of price, such as fertilizer, land costs, and labour ? I would think Africa could compete favourably on two of those elements.

US comsumes what it produces as does China/india. Europe has very favorable weather and produces a lot, along with its very genorous subsidies. What Europe is doing is flooding the market with "cheap product". The taxpayers are paying for the cost of production, not the producers, what that does is signal the producers to produce more, when in fact they should not be. This results in African's being forced out of business. Think of smaller operating systems competing with microsoft.

With the rise in prices, Africa has opened itself up to investment/production. It will take some time to get Africa ag production online. Africa needs a base industry to get its economy going, and for security reasons, europe however thinks that since they are poor they should get handouts, which is essentially killing them with kindness.

You mean rising oil prices include demand for food ?

Food is a commodity like oil. Grains however are correlated with oil due to transport costs, and the biofuel phenomenon.

I concur with your point about misspent resources, but the other part is more complex and I need to understand it more

Lets use the smart phone market as an example. Right now it is red hot and there is a huge demand for them. Naturally there are going to be people who want to get in on the action. That is why there is a large amount of cell/smart phone manufacturers. Same goes for the oil patch. Numerous companies large and small out there. However when demand peaks and levels off, we get consolidation and the big guys start competing with the little guys and eventually force them out, like the auto industry in the 40's to the 70's. So ideally in ag production you want to find ways to increase the demand for your product, like animals for meat production and biofuels in order to keep the party going. With the increase of commodities (grains, oil, metals, other materials) africa can now join the party. It's why they are drilling for oil there, and why countries such as Saudi Arabia are throwing money at Africa to produce food.

It's sort of a myth some leftists have with the right (that the right wants to keep poor people poor). Rightists want people as wealthy as they can get so they have more money to spend which results in us getting more wealthy which then results spending money on them and so on and so forth.

[Michael Hardner]

US comsumes what it produces as does China/india. Europe has very favorable weather and produces a lot, along with its very genorous subsidies. What Europe is doing is flooding the market with "cheap product". The taxpayers are paying for the cost of production, not the producers, what that does is signal the producers to produce more, when in fact they should not be. This results in African's being forced out of business. Think of smaller operating systems competing with microsoft.

I understand the concept of subsidies.

Why is it that Asia can produce wheat but not Africa ? How about other crops ?

With the rise in prices, Africa has opened itself up to investment/production. It will take some time to get Africa ag production online. Africa needs a base industry to get its economy going, and for security reasons, europe however thinks that since they are poor they should get handouts, which is essentially killing them with kindness.

For security reasons ? And again, what about other crops ?

Food is a commodity like oil. Grains however are correlated with oil due to transport costs, and the biofuel phenomenon.

You said, though, that "with the recent spike in commodity prices, there is more demand for food."

Why does demand increase when commodity prices increase ?

Lets use the smart phone market as an example. Right now it is red hot and there is a huge demand for them. Naturally there are going to be people who want to get in on the action. That is why there is a large amount of cell/smart phone manufacturers. Same goes for the oil patch. Numerous companies large and small out there. However when demand peaks and levels off, we get consolidation and the big guys start competing with the little guys and eventually force them out, like the auto industry in the 40's to the 70's. So ideally in ag production you want to find ways to increase the demand for your product, like animals for meat production and biofuels in order to keep the party going. With the increase of commodities (grains, oil, metals, other materials) africa can now join the party. It's why they are drilling for oil there, and why countries such as Saudi Arabia are throwing money at Africa to produce food.

That doesn't make sense to me, because we have always been getting resources from Africa.

It's sort of a myth some leftists have with the right (that the right wants to keep poor people poor). Rightists want people as wealthy as they can get so they have more money to spend which results in us getting more wealthy which then results spending money on them and so on and so forth.

I don't think the right wants to keep people poor, nor as wealthy as they can get.

Since this is about poverty, I think poverty happens, and that the right/left debate on that surrounds the best way to deal with poverty. The right says that poverty is a fact of life, and that the left just wants to throw money away. The left says that poverty can be eliminated and that the right doesn't care. Neither side is right.

[blueblood]

I understand the concept of subsidies.

Why is it that Asia can produce wheat but not Africa ? How about other crops ?

Asia has more capital and a more stable environment to grow wheat than Africa. Tin pot dictators and death squads are not a good environment to grow crops. That and Asia has money to grow in spite of subidies and Africa does not. Asia also plays games with the trade of grains. Also the fact that Asia is further along in its economic development than Africa. Zimbabwe used to be a grain exporting country and the breadbasket of Africa, that changed when Mr. Tinpot arrived and when the Europeans capped that off with grain produced lower than the price of production. It's a one-two punch.

For security reasons ? And again, what about other crops ?

Food is a big national security issue. It's why Europe subsidizes ag production because of the scare they got in WW2 with having to have it shipped from North America and rationed off. That and having to rely on imports is not a good thing. It's like that States and it's foreign oil problem. Other crops are irrelevant because the base needs to be established with food crops to start and then progress to others, because of the starvation issue.

You said, though, that "with the recent spike in commodity prices, there is more demand for food."

Why does demand increase when commodity prices increase ?

Speculators also invest in grains by betting on which way the market goes and takes a profit from that. Also when commodity prices increase that means there is increasing demand as there is more wealth generated to buy commodities, and more competition to acquire the commodities. More money = more demand. A producer unless he's European is not going to give his grain away to someone because they can't afford it no matter how bad they want it.

That doesn't make sense to me, because we have always been getting resources from Africa.

We get resources there when the price is right. We haven't been getting enough resources from Africa to get them to move up from a 3rd world set of countries (Except South Africa). That and their governments are horrible. A select few get cheap food from Europe (which affects worldwide grain prices with their proposterous subsidies) and their farmers get pushed out of business. Plus the fact that Africa is a gong show to begin with.

If Europe wouldn't flood Africa with cheap food, it would force their governments to look at stabilizing their countries in order for ag production to take place. That has only happened recently because the price of food has gone up and the Africans can finally be able to financially justify growing a crop.

[Michael Hardner]

Speculators also invest in grains by betting on which way the market goes and takes a profit from that. Also when commodity prices increase that means there is increasing demand as there is more wealth generated to buy commodities, and more competition to acquire the commodities. More money = more demand. A producer unless he's European is not going to give his grain away to someone because they can't afford it no matter how bad they want it.

Are you talking about 'demand' for the product, i.e. wheat, or price spikes from speculation.

Demand grows when people want more wheat right ? And during a recession, people have less income so there is less demand, right ?

We get resources there when the price is right. We haven't been getting enough resources from Africa to get them to move up from a 3rd world set of countries (Except South Africa). That and their governments are horrible. A select few get cheap food from Europe (which affects worldwide grain prices with their proposterous subsidies) and their farmers get pushed out of business. Plus the fact that Africa is a gong show to begin with.

If Europe wouldn't flood Africa with cheap food, it would force their governments to look at stabilizing their countries in order for ag production to take place. That has only happened recently because the price of food has gone up and the Africans can finally be able to financially justify growing a crop.

Your arguments seem to end with 'Africa is a gong show' and 'the governments are bad'. It seems to me that subsidies from the western world may undercut their prices (I have also heard this type of argument from hard left commentators) but in the end a bad government undercuts everything.

[blueblood]

Are you talking about 'demand' for the product, i.e. wheat, or price spikes from speculation.

Demand grows when people want more wheat right ? And during a recession, people have less income so there is less demand, right ?

demand grows when people who can afford wheat buy wheat. And yes, during a recession there is less demand for wheat among other things due to less income. That's one of life's cruel realities. The speculators are also creating demand as well, even though they trade it like people go through socks.

Your arguments seem to end with 'Africa is a gong show' and 'the governments are bad'. It seems to me that subsidies from the western world may undercut their prices (I have also heard this type of argument from hard left commentators) but in the end a bad government undercuts everything.

Yes, the subsidies have undercut their prices and ran them out of business. And yes coupled with a bad government undercuts everything.

[ZenOps]

Just to add:

Tibet is prime prime wheat growing country. They actually sheaf wheat by hand (scythes) and still enjoy a certain amount of prosperity (at least for the ruling class). Alberta is horrible wheat growing land by comparison.

As with most African nations, water is usually a problem as well as political and pure will.

[Oleg Bach]

Food makes you smart and strong. If you want to conquer the world just make sure that everyone other than you and yours is hungry all the time..It works. If the rich and fat west really wanted competition they would allow it..but they do not like competators. "we are the world we are the people...la la la la - nothing more delluded than a group of millionare rock stars singing about feeding the people. For example - the royality cheaques have dwindled and now even my own kids are attempting to starve me out...just goes to show you that the concept of engineered hunger to gain power can be grasped by the simplest of minds...what pisses me off is that I fed the little bastards for 18 years.

[August1991]

During the 1990`s-2007-8 Europeans were and are producing a huge quantity of grain at below the cost of production world wide, including africa, which sends prices down. Essentially European taxpayers are footing the bill and there`s a big reason why Europeans get soaked at tax time. Even with shipping costs, a producer in a third world country cannot produce at the same cost, and essentially folds. This results in people waiting on shipments. Essentially the market is flooded. If the African`s had money, this would be a dream scenario, but the problem is they don`t even have enough money to pay for that, so there is scores of left over grain and starving people. No money = no demand.

This logic has always astonished me.

According to you blueblood, if we get free sunlight, that's bad for us because then we don't produce candles and lightbulbs.

However, with the recent spike in commodity prices, there is more demand for food. This raises prices making grain production a possibility in Africa. The producer there is then able to spend his money and thus the local economy gets going.

Huh? High prices are good?

Having an economy based on gov`t handouts is madness, case in point the first nation reserves in Canada vs. the first nations in New Zealand. Then to top it all off, we have tin pot dictators over there hoarding all this food and manipulating their economy so that they become ridiculous rich.

If government handouts are bad, then why do governments pay for so much in successful societies?

Blueblood, there is so much nonsense in what you post. Your clap-trap is a mish-mash of inconsistent modern, leftist conventional wisdom.

====

If you want to understand this question better: think of incentives. Too many people want governments to adopt a policy or give money to certain people or causes to help them. Instead, one should think of how the change/money will affect incentives.

For example, if Europeans sell cheap food to Africans, then that's an incentive for Africans to get out of the food business. And so on.

Edited January 7, 2010 by August1991