In today’s New York Times article, “Experts Worry as Population and Hunger Grow,” there’s some Green Revolution mythology propagated about how the policies “staved off famines affecting millions.” As has been pointed out, though food production did increase, hunger actually increased as well just about everywhere affected by the Green Revolution; the reason the overall numbers showed hunger down was because China, as part of its own revolution including land reform, managed to reduce hunger dramatically. But the overall framing of the article is what bothers me more–the idea that it’s “scientists and development experts” who are responsible for “feeding the world’s growing population.”
There are hints at the real problem, as when reporter Neil MacFarquhar notes that “the conundrum is whether the food can be grown in the developing world where the hungry can actually get it, at prices they can afford.” He also notes legitimate concerns like the effect of climate change, which is worsening droughts in some areas, and the growth of biofuels, which gobble up available farmland. But he quickly returns to the main angle, explaining, “The track record of failing to feed the hungry haunts the effort.” He quotes one official who explains the current problem in terms of a lack of aid money from the West: “Nobody has 20 billion and spare change in their sock drawer.”
As Frances Moore Lappé and Anna Lappé pointed out in Extra! (11-12/08), the problem is extreme inequality and lack of power for poor farmers; the hungry don’t need experts and the G-8 to “feed” them, they need the opportunity to feed themselves, whether that be in the form of more equitable land reform, the ability to adopt their own sustainable agricultural methods, or freedom from the market distortions created by those very G-8 countries and experts. Even the climate change and biofuel concerns are primarily the result of damaging first-world energy policies that remain unaddressed–by those countries as well as by MacFarquhar. But it’s no surprise those root causes go missing in a hunger story whose hook is a meeting of “development experts” and every source but one is either a government or aid official.
One hand giveth …
And the horde of other hands taketh away far more
This is the link to the WSJ op-ed piece by Gregg Easterbrook, its title being “The Man Who Defused The Population Bomb”. Let us ignore the racist suggestion that too much of “them” is a threat, or that “they” cannot feed themselves without help from their Western superiors — given the disproportionately negative impact that the United States alone has on international relations, the global enviromental situation, the consumption of the Earth’s resources, and so on, relative to its tiny number out of the total world population. We haven’t even brought up the historically significant impact of centuries of Western colonialism perpetrated against “them”. I only wish to suggest that the points raised in your blog entry are all given ample illustration in the Easterbrook piece, with that piece’s developmentalist rescue fantasy by the Lone White Savior, Norman Bourlaug. I recommend that FAIR’s readers run — don’t walk — to the nearest Vandana Shiva book at your local library or independent book store. Upon sight, read immediately!
This is the link I tried to send. I hope it shows this time. If not, just google “The Man Who Defused The Population Bomb”.
The problem with world hunger is that the worlds ability to produce food grows arithmetically. Population grows geometrically.
Until those who are charged with fighting hunger join with those who are serious about reducing population there is no real solution. The numbers of hungry people will grow. We Need Negative Population Growth(NPG)! Or it won’t be long before the next world war will be about controlling food resources and production.
~;^}>
Population growth IS expopnentially increased, right? For a given small input here LARGE output there, and that’s not arithmetically? If I may, http://www.mesacc.edu/~pikeu/mat120/notes/exponential/graphing/graph_exp_intro.pdf
If food grown to feed cattle were redirected to humans without putting the cow in the middle, people would do a great deal better, while consuming fewer resources than at present… eg if the anchovy fishery wasn’t dedicated to become protein supplements for American feedlots & Canadian salmon farms, but went into the diet of South Americans, instead, a host of “problems” would shrink in magnitude. ^..^
Mind if I ramble a bit? There’s a current 80% decrease in cod in Massachusetts Bay. The business mind should be called criminal, as instead of giving Bluefin tun a time to restock its numbers, there’s this insane mad dash to get the very last one.
Feed the world? How’s about shelter in our old age?In 1990, 11% of homeless adults were over 50 years old, today 40% homeless are over 50 years old. So, old folks are back to dying in a ditch on the side of the road after a long work life? People forget why certain gov’t programs were created, to address a need that society at large is not paying attention to, i.e., chuirches, charity groups philanthropists, etc. And gov’t is always there to take up the slack, or rather it should be, cuz gov’t actions are collective actions for the common good.
Lastly, I think I received a compliment today, when I was told,’You’re a gentleman in a squalor.’ And with a dystopia just around the corner, if it’s left up to the GOP.
AND for heaven’s sake can we all stop saying, pull yourself up by yopur own bootstraps? It’s impossible to do that, same as kissing your own elbow…it cannot be done. No man is an island should be the National Anthem, not some stupid song about war and the favored panaramo
Hopefully Paul Diamond is not the misanthrope that Malthus seemed to be, even preacher that he was. There is definitely enough food being produced to feed all. It’s just not profitable. I do agree with him that family planning is a good thing & something well worth putting our efforts & the great wealth of the United States into helping promote.
Mr Diamond, AgriBusiness is already trying to control world food production. Monsanto, in particular, is trying to spread GMO seed all over the world. These products do not live up to their promise of increased yield and in fact produce LESS than non modified seed does, not to mention that they contaminate and forces out other varieties of crops. This, obviously, only contributes to the hunger problem and loss of biodiversity in our food supply.