About food inequality
28/9/15 09:53![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
airiefairie.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThere was a recent discussion here which touched on the subject of food deprivation. The question was, do we really think we could feed 7 billion people (and counting) without industrial agriculture - or provide them with anything resembling "first world"quality of life without plentiful electricity?
The obvious false dichotomy in that question notwithstanding (industrial agriculture is not necessarily to be automatically presumed detrimental to the environment, or at least certainly not to the extent it currently is; and electricity production does not necessarily have to be as demanding on the environment as it currently is), I would like to reiterate a point about the food question.
First of all, perhaps we could start by looking into the problem that nearly half the food the industrialised world consumes, actually ends up at the trash heap. The problem here is that the whole production-distribution-consumption chain is messed up. Not the efficiency of food-freezing systems (I have occasionally heard the argument that it is cheaper to overproduce food and then throw away half of it, than try to freeze and transport the excess food to those in need - which is wrong on too many levels to even begin going into too much detail about it). The true problem is the fact that the business bottom-line (profit) governs food production - that is what really exacerbates this problem. Because let us face it, it is simply not profitable to feed poor people living thousands of miles away. The income inequalities within and between countries are not helping in that respect, either.
That still does not mean that working (both at a personal and international level) in a direction that would at least help mitigate the problem, is not preferable or desirable to simply doing nothing about it - and then wondering how come economic migrants keep flocking to our gates, or how come social and political turmoil keeps generating conflicts that ultimately backfire on us.
If we really care about our so called developed economies, we should be asking ourselves the question, which is less costly, ultimately - providing conditions that would allow a larger number of people to feed themselves (not just pouring food onto them, granted) - or pretending that the current situation is acceptable, and then dealing with the negative economic impact of social, economic, and even nutrition inequality.
It is not a perfect word - yes, I am aware of that. Everyone is aware of that. But it is not a world where we live isolated from all the rest, either. Our own inaction or improper action would always reflect back on us eventually. And indeed, it is currently doing just that.
The obvious false dichotomy in that question notwithstanding (industrial agriculture is not necessarily to be automatically presumed detrimental to the environment, or at least certainly not to the extent it currently is; and electricity production does not necessarily have to be as demanding on the environment as it currently is), I would like to reiterate a point about the food question.
First of all, perhaps we could start by looking into the problem that nearly half the food the industrialised world consumes, actually ends up at the trash heap. The problem here is that the whole production-distribution-consumption chain is messed up. Not the efficiency of food-freezing systems (I have occasionally heard the argument that it is cheaper to overproduce food and then throw away half of it, than try to freeze and transport the excess food to those in need - which is wrong on too many levels to even begin going into too much detail about it). The true problem is the fact that the business bottom-line (profit) governs food production - that is what really exacerbates this problem. Because let us face it, it is simply not profitable to feed poor people living thousands of miles away. The income inequalities within and between countries are not helping in that respect, either.
That still does not mean that working (both at a personal and international level) in a direction that would at least help mitigate the problem, is not preferable or desirable to simply doing nothing about it - and then wondering how come economic migrants keep flocking to our gates, or how come social and political turmoil keeps generating conflicts that ultimately backfire on us.
If we really care about our so called developed economies, we should be asking ourselves the question, which is less costly, ultimately - providing conditions that would allow a larger number of people to feed themselves (not just pouring food onto them, granted) - or pretending that the current situation is acceptable, and then dealing with the negative economic impact of social, economic, and even nutrition inequality.
It is not a perfect word - yes, I am aware of that. Everyone is aware of that. But it is not a world where we live isolated from all the rest, either. Our own inaction or improper action would always reflect back on us eventually. And indeed, it is currently doing just that.
(no subject)
Date: 28/9/15 17:03 (UTC)It would be a lot of money to set up, but think of what it could provide.
I honestly think hydro/aquaponics will be the farming wave of the future, and this is coming from someone whose family living is provided by traditional grain farming. There simply isn't enough ground to grow food for everyone indefinitely, but if we could start farming upwards... well, who knows?