The idiom of "doesn't grow on trees" as a metaphor for scarcity falls apart when you realize that food does grow on trees yet is still very scarce.
Extremely not-fun fact: collectively, humanity currently produces more than enough food for every person. But a huge part of it is either wasted or inaccessible by people that need them, which usually results in them not going to anyone and being wasted, which is why we still have food scarcity.
Food is far from scarce in the developed world. There’s so much food that people can easily become obese, and millions of tons of food are destroyed each year.
Uhhh, yeah, no idea where the “food is scarce” came from, we’ve got so much food in developed countries that we could easily feed the whole world with it.
Not easily, nor safely. Most food waste is from retail and Healthcare. It’s very hard to repurpose that already consumed scrap for others to eat. Let alone ship it across the world.
There’s a lot to be said for encouraging self sufficiency. See the damage done to African textile industries from a glut of charity clothing.
Of course, in an industrial age “encouraging self sufficiency” also means making competition, and a lot of dummies start talking about bootstraps instead of supporting education and investment.
It’s entirely a logistic issue. African countries are insanely difficult to traverse. You can have all the food in the world but we don’t have a way to move the food to everyone.
Under capitalism, food isn’t produced to eat but to make profits. When it’s not profitable to sell, they will rather dump foods, starving the people rather than to plainly donate.
We produce enough foods to feed the entire population. But the sole purpose of food is to not feed the people, but to feed the greed of the producers, the farmers, the corporates.
Capitalism created an artificial scarcity of food where we produce too much food for the obese and throw the rest away to rot in front of the poor.
In general yeah, but let’s not blame the farmers. They’re shit on from so many directions it’s wild - they’re often locked into deals with specific companies with contracts that can sometimes cost them more money than they make. Tyson is especially notorious for this, requiring the farmers to build specific chicken houses that the farmer pays for, on land that the farmer pays for to raise chickens they’re only allowed to sell to Tyson, all while Tyson can and regularly does choose not to buy the chickens if they’re not selling enough. Farmers have managed to find themselves indentured servants on their own land.
More crops go to feed in animal agriculture, than crops to humans. And farmers tend to monocrop instead of utilising all the possible crops that would do well in that environment. (Retooling, investment, skills, time, industry experts, …)
The works of the roots of the vines, of the trees, must be destroyed to keep up the price, and this is the saddest, bitterest thing of all. Carloads of oranges dumped on the ground. The people came for miles to take the fruit, but this could not be. How would they buy oranges at twenty cents a dozen if they could drive out and pick them up? And men with hoses squirt kerosene on the oranges, and they are angry at the crime, angry at the people who have come to take the fruit. A million people hungry, needing the fruit- and kerosene sprayed over the golden mountains. And the smell of rot fills the country. Burn coffee for fuel in the ships. Burn corn to keep warm, it makes a hot fire. Dump potatoes in the rivers and place guards along the banks to keep the hungry people from fishing them out. Slaughter the pigs and bury them, and let the putrescence drip down into the earth.
There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success. The fertile earth, the straight tree rows, the sturdy trunks, and the ripe fruit. And children dying of pellagra must die because a profit cannot be taken from an orange. And coroners must fill in the certificate- died of malnutrition- because the food must rot, must be forced to rot. The people come with nets to fish for potatoes in the river, and the guards hold them back; they come in rattling cars to get the dumped oranges, but the kerosene is sprayed. And they stand still and watch the potatoes float by, listen to the screaming pigs being killed in a ditch and covered with quick-lime, watch the mountains of oranges slop down to a putrefying ooze; and in the eyes of the people there is the failure; and in the eyes of the hungry there is a growing wrath. In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage. :::
Then what would you suggest? If getting rid of food costs say $5 and sending to a different area costs say $10 then between both selections which one is better for the economy?
I thought we we were close to a breakthrough. Just for fun imagine a situation where eliminating a food product costs 100 pesos, but packaging and shipping that same food product to another location costs 200 pesos; which of these is more economical?
Probably smart. Blocking me costs you about one minute of time, whereas continually responding to me has already cost you several minutes. Way more efficient.
Food isn’t even poorly distributed. Almost everybody eats, and the only places people don’t eat it’s from other people with weapons actively preventing them from getting food, and actively preventing others from bringing it to them.
I’ve been homeless in America, twice. Both times I had all the food I could eat, as soon as I was willing to accept it.
The first time I relied on strangers and I ate like a king. The people of Cambridge MA just straight up gave me more food than I could eat when I asked.
The second time I stayed in a shelter in Denver. I had three square meals a day available to me, though I only ate dinner since my job didn’t permit me to attend the other meals. It was good food, donated and prepared by volunteers.
I am sick of people trying to perpetuate the myth that we have starvation in America. It’s one area we succeed in beyond the wildest dreams of anyone even 50 years ago, but haters just can’t stop hating on our society.
The person I replied to replied to a comment solely talking about food accessibility in the US, sharing his experiences as someone who experienced homelessness.
And the reason it doesn’t happen in the US is because nobody in the US is using guns to actively prevent people from acquiring food, or from others giving food to them.
You’re replying to a comment thread about access to food in the US, I’m not sure why you’re trying so hard to derail the conversation. Just make a new comment instead of arguing off topic to others.
First of all, that means food is poorly distributed. You are just disputing the cause.
And yes, conflict if a major cause of hunger. But what is a major cause of conflict? Fucking poverty. Al Qaeda doesn’t recruit from fucking Beverly Hills. Another major cause: US intervention, for the sake of profit and geopolitical dominance, with the dominance ultimately also being for the sake of profit. The world economic system functions as a huge siphon that extracts wealth from the global south and funnels it to wealthy countries where the major institutions of finance are located. Western financial instruments like the IMF and World Bank, alongside direct political and economic pressure, enforce austerity in poor nations, dismantle social safety nets, depress wages, and privatize resources, and this very predictably results in underdevelopment and poverty, which fucking benefits the west because lower wages mean larger profit margins, lower prices and greater market share for the western companies that source their labor there. It’s a fucking global sweatshop economy. And there are consequences to this, when everyone is fucking poor and uneducated and young men see no future for themselves except to become soldiers. It means conflict, which means starvation.
If the world economic system is as you claim, how is it that people in the southern hemisphere are getting steadily more wealthy?
The problem with people who criticize the free market is they’re so focused on distribution they don’t think about production. The answer is that as wealth is funneled north it is also generated at an even higher rate resulting in all humanity getting more wealthy as a result of the system that “concentrates” wealth.
Like if I had air in a bottle and concentrated it all to one corner, that would result in no air everywhere else.
But if I were to create an incredibly sense section of air while increasing the density of air throughout the bottle, it would be misleading to use the word “concentrate” for the action generating that air distribution.
As for big rich countries causing conflict I agree 100%. In fact as far as I know al qaida isn’t causing nearly as much hunger as the House of Saud, which is the richest organization in human history.
And I’m not talking about “there’s war and that makes the market break down” as the men with guns thing. I’m talking about “armies are actively blockading food”.
So “poorly distributed” is really better described as “actively withheld”. It’s like putting a plastic bag over a prisoner’s head then claiming their suffocation was due to “poor distribution of air”, then trying to criticize the building’s HVAC system.
There’s no HVAC system in the world that can solve the problem of a person being suffocated by a plastic bag, and there’s no economic system in the world that can solve the problem of armies actively blockading food from populations. That’s not an indication the economic system has failed; it’s an indication the political system has failed.
Food grows on trees if your ancestors planted and cared for those trees. An apple tree that’s been uncared-for for fifty years may produce nothing but nasty bug-ridden rotting inedible fruit.
Most crops are very different from the wild plants they evolved from. In general, the domesticated varieties are softer - they need fertilisers and pesticides, sometimes even manual pollination. Without this they would be outcompeted by wild plants.
Its not as general as that, no. Theyre often bred to be more naturally pest and disease resistant. If youve ever tried growing heirloom tomatoes vs hybrids. They dont have higher soil nutrient needs either.
There are exceptions, but a general rule is that if you invest more resources in growth your investment in pest defence will go down. So plants bred for yield often have reduced pest tolerance. But yes, they are in many cases interbred with more resistant varieties to (partially) compensate.
Add comment