digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Global Food Crisis :The Fury of the Poor watch!

spiegel.de — Around the world, rising food prices have made basic staples like rice and corn unaffordable for many people, pushing the poor to the barricades because they can no longer get enough to eat. But the worst is yet to come.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Inthenameofmine, on 04/15/2008, -5/+63Here are some more links about the looming food crisis:
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/hunger/relief/ ...
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/hunger/environ ...
    http://therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitc ...
    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article3782.html

    People in the developed countries still don't know what lies ahead. This is a new dimension of global war and corporatist dominance. When people are starving for food, they don't care anymore about borders, rules or any kind of government. The people who have brought our world to the edge of food wars are the same who brought us Americas (and the whole Wests) recession and the loss of democracy (at least what we had). Those people will definitely use this new crisis for their own terrible intentions...
    • galeninjapan, on 04/15/2008, -24/+6"corporatist dominance" lol
      • notque, on 04/15/2008, -3/+18Would you prefer corporate dominance? Are you laughing because you don't think that corporations dominate influence? Do you think that the populations do?

        I don't get it.
        • galeninjapan, on 04/15/2008, -18/+7I'm laughing cause its a ridiculous claim. I'm sure the original author is using it as a scare tactic with no basis.

          The boogie man corporation is gonna get ya!
          • smacksaw, on 04/15/2008, -3/+12The basis is the ***** article if you had cared to read it before spouting off.
          • smt12, on 04/15/2008, -6/+6I was gonna leave your first comment alone, but then saw this gem of a response and buried both.
          • Pixelante, on 04/15/2008, -7/+3The corporations sit in their corporate building, and they're all corporation-y... AND THEY MAKE MONEY!
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/15/2008, -5/+5Corporatist is the correct term, idiot.

        Corporations, in and of themselves are not the problem. However, there is an "ism", called Corporatism, that is overtaking our democracy, undermining the will of the people by buying influence and undermining competition in the marketplace.

        You should really look into this, unless you happen to own a very large corporation and have the economic power to make yourself immune to the influence and negative power of those corporatists who operate solely for creating a conglomeration of power and influence, for the purpose of profit.

        I know, you can't be bothered with thinking about anything besides American Idol, because it might make it hard for you to be a good little citizen. I know that as long as you are a good little obedient citizen, buying all the latest products, they won't let your 2 kids and your wife, who faithfully watch Nascar and Fox News Channel, to be foreclosed. You know that you can be a faithfull follower and as long as you don't question anything, your mortgage will be paid, and your kids can keep going to soccer practice.

        Don't cross the powerful people, don't ask questions. We want our kids to get into good schools, so just keep looking forward, don't ask questions, don't look at the problems all around us!
        • goforbroke, on 04/15/2008, -1/+5The corporations are not mindless entities, rather just a bunch of people with the same human weaknesses as the rest of us. They are at most amoral.
          • galeninjapan, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2B-b-but government is infallible.
  • notque, on 04/15/2008, -8/+60http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20070515.htm

    Starving the Poor by Noam Chomsky

    "The "free trade" regime drives Mexico from self-sufficiency in food towards dependency on US exports. And as the price of corn goes up in the United States, stimulated by corporate power and state intervention, one can anticipate that the price of staples may continue its sharp rise in Mexico.

    Increasingly, biofuels are likely to "starve the poor" around the world, according to Runge and Senauer, as staples are converted to ethanol production for the privileged — cassava in sub-Saharan Africa, to take one ominous example. Meanwhile, in Southeast Asia, tropical forests are cleared and burned for oil palms destined for biofuel, and there are threatening environmental effects from input-rich production of corn-based ethanol in the United States as well.

    The high price of tortillas and other, crueler vagaries of the international order illustrate the interconnectedness of events, from the Middle East to the Middle West, and the urgency of establishing trade based on true democratic agreements among people, and not interests whose principal hunger is for profit for corporate interests protected and subsidised by the state they largely dominate, whatever the human cost."
    • dleesgeetar, on 04/15/2008, -3/+19ok those are excllent points
    • omgTHEPATRIOTS, on 04/15/2008, -2/+16we need to ban growing of crops for fuel, this is ridiculous.

      using leftover cooking oil is one thing, but this... this is an incredible fraud.
      • 1randomguyO8, on 04/15/2008, -2/+4Its just the west being selfish, looking after their own needs and the poor being marginalised. its been happening forever.
        • masterm1nd, on 04/15/2008, -7/+1People! Looking after their own needs! Ludicrous!!113
          • 1randomguyO8, on 04/15/2008, -3/+1Exactly. Thats all it is? I could give like 1/4 of my income to a family in africa but I dont because I look after my own needs.(just like 99% of us)
    • BECoole, on 04/15/2008, -13/+5That's funny how the same people (like Chomsky) who demanded "Green Fuels" are now the ones complaining about that stupid idea.
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/15/2008, -2/+11Chomsky never demanded the use of food crops for "green fuels", but that sounds like a great talking point for Fox News, dude.

        Chomsky called for use of biodiesel, like used vegetable oil, or solar power, or nuclear energy.

        But, it is good that you recognize that making fuel from food crops is a boondoggle. I applaud you for being intellectually honest about that, at least.
      • Pixelante, on 04/15/2008, -10/+1Chomsky never worked a day in his life anyway. He makes money by writing drivel that gullible idiots gobble up while shouting "I HATE AMERICA" and masturbating in their feces.
        • PhilLesh69, on 04/15/2008, -2/+12So writing is not work?

          Only what you do for a living is work, right?

          Sounds like you are not only a ditch digger, but an elitist ditch digger. You believe that only people who work as hard and stupid as you do are worthy of being called "workers".

          We all earn our livings based on our intellect or skills or if we fail really badly in school, on our muscles.

          But we all work.

          You need to worry about the people who seek unearned advantage, who seek to prevent others from competing against them.

          A guy who writes a book, or works for a magazine, whatever, he still is working.

          I imagine that you believe that the architect who designed the construction project you are working on is "not really working" or "has never worked a day in his life", too. Right?

          Maybe the problem is, the architect, or the writer worked hard in school, when he was a kid, while you couldn't comprehend that there was any purpose to that, and you just had fun. Now that they work without exerting too much effort, while you are busting your ass to earn a buck, you assume that they just are not working.

          Don't worry, I was just like you, I blew school off. I was just lucky that schools never blew me off. I learned even though I was blowing it off. Granted, I have a fairly decent IQ of 149, so maybe it never mattered, because now the hardest I have to work is typing in PHP code to connect a database of news articles to a website, and more code to put journalists' articles into that database, and voila, when a journalist publishes his story to the wire service of the newspaper, it is also on the web site. My knuckles get more exercise than your forearms when you are digging a ditch. Yet, I still work hard.

          In fact, brain work is more exhausting than muscle work. You'll never know unless you do some mental task job. Your brain is the biggest organ besides your skin, and if you use it for 8 hours a day, it will wear you out.

          Laugh if you want, but that just means you've never had to use your brain.
          • Pixelante, on 04/16/2008, -0/+0There's writing and writing, and there's working and working. Messing up a pile of ***** to somehow resemble a penis could be considered "work" but sure as hell it ain't deserving the title. The same way, rehashing the same old ***** over and over so that some poor idiot will eat it since he has only taste for that ain't "working" in my book.
            By the way, I do not work in civil engineering, chump.
    • Picaroon, on 04/15/2008, -10/+3Free trade without excess government subsidization and interference is better for third world nations. Look to Europe to see who is the worst with food subsidization and such.

      Chomsky will spin anything toward socialism, whatever the reality is.
    • PhilLesh69, on 04/15/2008, -6/+6It isn't just Noam Chomsky who says this.

      Newseek has delved into this, writing about how food prices, and availability, are affected by the corn to fuel programs and subsidies, and how corn ethanol turns out to be worse as far as carbon release than regular oil. Ali Velshi of CNN even got into this.

      It isn't a "liberal" or "conservative" thing. The entire "global warming" agenda is to create false shortages, false threats and false answers that will ultimately cause the American people to willingly sacrifice their standard of living in order to achieve a false goal of "saving the planet."

      Too bad most people don't realize that we humans are so miniscule in regards to the planet that we can no sooner threaten it, then we can save it.

      This planet was here for millions of years before we had enough intelligence to contemplate it our our existence, and it will be here long after we have killed ourselves with wars of ignorance. This "man made global warming" story is just yet another war of ignorance we are waging against each other and ourselves.
      • roodammy44, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3Global warming is not a smokescreen.
        It is happening and it will be bad if it continues.
        The problem is with governments abusing this problem to put up taxes and starve the poor with bioethanol, and doing nothing to solve the underlying cause.
        If you think we're too minuscule to threaten the planet, I advise you to come to london, go up the london eye and look in all directions. Buildings, as far as you can see and further. Our need for living space is causing a mass extinction as animals that cannot fit in domestically are wiped out.

        The planet will be fine if it goes through a warming, species will adapt and thrive. It's humanity that will be *****.
      • BECoole, on 04/15/2008, -6/+1Global warming is a sham. Global Warming is actually a good thing. We should encourage it. Obviously, you have never lived anywhere there is a real winter. Cold is what shuts down economies and causes disease.
    • mempko, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Thank you sir
  • Inthenameofmine, on 04/15/2008, -3/+32Why the heck is this in Videos?! I clearly posted it in News... Sorry for that.
  • Look4Truth, on 04/15/2008, -3/+25This is just the beginning, store up now.
    • pintomp3, on 04/15/2008, -0/+16i've been cultivating my fat reserves for years.
    • Picaroon, on 04/15/2008, -4/+1Oh yeah? What exactly does that mean? If I were an American, I would figure that since we can easily afford to put significant food growing resources onto fuel production that we can easily grow enough for ourselves. Furthermore, since efficiency and trade has led to what was once a largely agrarian economy now spending very little of its resources on producing much more food, the last thing we have to worry about is running out of food.

      If your comment was directed towards the starving people in third world nations who are currently surfing Digg, I apologize.
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3You have a very limited understanding of the US and the world.

        Efficiency and trade has certainly led to an economy where only 1 or 2% grow the food for the other 98%. In the early 1900's, more than 39% were farmers.

        But you are overlooking so many things.

        Locally owned businesses have been put out of business by large corporations. Local restaurants have been replaced by chains like Chili's, Olive Garden, and so many other corporations that truck in preprepared processed foods. Local grocery stores are now replaced by Dutch Ahold, or whoever owns Safeway. General consumer goods are now being made in China, and the profits are funneled to Arkansas and shareholders. It used to be that a neighbor built up a profitable business locally, and he got rich, and he lived in your community, and he understood the needs of the community, and he donated locally, and he would sometimes lower prices if his neighbors hit a local economic rough patch, and he invested his profits and spent his profits locally. Now we have all these corporations funnelling money from all over the country into a single location, and they don't understand or care about what is going on in each region or locality. Sure, if the entire nation suffers economic hardship, they might contribute in some way, but if detroit, or cleveland is going through a rough patch, they don't care, they have to answer to their shareholders, and they will continue to bleed money from those local economies because it serves the bottom line and they have no direct relationship with them.

        It gets even worse when we start to ship our production and manufacturing overseas. Then it is just a bunch of old widows of industrialists who have hired MBA managers, and they will maximize profts by finding cheap, unorganized labor to circumvent unions, to make as much as they can.

        It is always better to find 10 cent a day workers when you have negotiated contracts with unions to pay $50 or $100 a day to your domestic workers.
        • mcquitty, on 04/15/2008, -2/+3Let me see. Katrina hit the Gulf Coast and wasn't it Walmart that got there first with basic necessities like water?

          Now, if I remember correctly, wasn't it small businesses that took the time to price gouge right before and anfter Katrina?

          And isn't our economy based increasingly on the concept of specialization. Is the same person who build your house the same one that works on your car and grows your food?

          If Detriot is having a rough patch, why should GM or Ford give money they don't have to the area? Corporations are, in most cases, effecient at logistics, production, sales, and marketing. Many have give-back to the community programs. The company I work for has 3 days a year where the employees are expected to give back, not through money, but works. We are paid to do so. We used to have a program to give money to causes.

          However, you are right, corporations are evil and never do any good. And as such, I would expect that you avoid them. But, you don't. Everything you touch in a day was created by a corporation, which means that someone was successful enough to create a product that was needed by so many people, they grew.

          Is Starbucks an evil corporation?
        • Picaroon, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2You have a very limited understanding of basic economics. Corporations donate tons of money, and help out their local communities as well. I have direct experience getting lots of construction supplies donated by Lowes and Home Depot to charitable causes. Corporations want to make money--if there's a need for food, they will supply.

          You sound like someone whose knowledge of economics comes from a combination of stupid blogs and even stupider morning news shows.
  • americangoy, on 04/15/2008, -3/+11Gee whiz bit late to the party aren't we Der Spiegel?

    http://americangoy.blogspot.com/2008/04/global-foo ...

  • caponumen, on 04/15/2008, -23/+8You global warming alarmists are much to blame for this.

    • notque, on 04/15/2008, -2/+15No, unless they specifically were for ethanol based transportation, and subsidies for corporations to produce that instead of food.
      • masterm1nd, on 04/15/2008, -3/+3Which would be like 3 people...
        • notque, on 04/15/2008, -1/+5That just so happen to make the decisions.
          • masterm1nd, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1I meant your excuse excuses about 3 people.
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/15/2008, -2/+4Well, considering that I argued here on Digg with all the global warming idiots when they announced subsidies for corn ethanol, "in order to create energy independence for America", and they all dugg me down or argued with me that I was an oil industry shill, that I was a heretic, etc, because I told them about how cutting down trees to grow crops for bio fuels would contribute to carbon emissions, or that taking up food crop lands to grow bio fuels would lead to mass starvation, or that there were ways to reduce USAGE by building all new homes, at a cost of only an extra 15 to 20% of the cost to build a new home would allow that home to be entirely off-grid and to use only 30% of the energy of an existing home. When I said all of those things, I was yelled at and argued against.

        I don't believe in man made global warming, but I believe we can make the world unlivable for ourselves, for the short term. And, if you live a normal human lifespan, shouldn't you be more concerned with that, than with some nebulous theory? I want to live as long as possible, I don't want to breathe poisoned air, drink poisoned water and eat poisoned food.

        Besides, if we focus on the more immediate threats, we will most likely not have to worry whether global warming is real or not. If we fix the things that are going to definitely decrease our lifespans, we will most likely mitigate anything they claim is causing global warming. But these pseudo-environmentalists have committed themselves to MMGW, so they cannot abide any dissenting voice.
  • phnx0221, on 04/15/2008, -5/+31Here we are callously spending hundreds of billions of dollars on death and destruction in a needless war and occupation, and we have hundreds of millions of people who can't get enough food to eat in order to survive.

    In Haiti, they are making their biscuits out of clay and even the cost for that is rising at an almost unbearable rate. In Sudan, there are refugees who cannot get food, due to either funds for the aid organization, or due to messes in bureaucracy where they cannot get registered as refugees, and thus cannot get any food for their families.

    With so much money that is flowing around the world, there is absolutely no reason that people should by dying of starvation! It's no surprise that violence is breaking out in these countries; you have presidential and government officials who are eating well enough to satisfy themselves and their families, and are making enough to afford such luxuries as automobiles, silks, and spices, yet the populace of these countries go without. Or make food from dirt.

    And we make easy claims that these are rogue nations, the protests and crisis' are based upon their evil leaders, or a mishap of climate, when those leaders are our friends. Yet, we fail to realize that our governments have a huge role in this crisis. With free trade agreements, international corporations setting up shop in lands while ruining the landscape, hindering the potential for agricultural growth, and then adding insult to injury by paying wages that would be an insult (not to mention illegal) in the countries where these companies operate, we cannot help but see the direct result now, of all of these actions, on the populations of these countries, and what they are facing now.
    • Picaroon, on 04/15/2008, -4/+4If you send hungry, overpopulated regions a ton of food (and it doesn't get seized by warlords), they eat and have lots of kids--who then don't have enough food.
      • sherrife, on 04/15/2008, -1/+5The reason you don't voluntarily commit suicide to ease the load on this planet is the same reason they shouldn't be left to die: life, and human life in particular, is intrinsically valuable.

        You're right that we shouldn't simply send them food, but any reasonable long-term strategy to allow the third world to develop in a truly independent and democratic way DOES require some short term stuff to ease the immediate and urgent crisis. The solution is not to let them die while western corporations make billion dollar profits, as you seem to be implying, but to get our governments and the corporations controlling them to stop ***** with them. You forget that those warlords were mostly created and propped up by US! (See Saddam etc)

        They were fine before the west came along, and they'd be fine if we'd just pay reparations, offer our assistance if it asked for, and otherwise butt out.
        • Picaroon, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2"They were fine before the west came along"
          This made me laugh. Hard.

          "You forget that those warlords were mostly created and propped up by US! (See Saddam etc)"
          And this made me realize that you're an uneducated buffoon not worth arguing with.
  • vik16, on 04/15/2008, -0/+15This is crazy. I read stories like this and appreciate what I have.
    The food distribution is very poor in this world.
  • BECoole, on 04/15/2008, -17/+9Venezuela is having something of a food crisis as well. Thanks to Hugo's price controls.
    Famine is almost always due to poor gov't policies like Chavez's.
    • galeninjapan, on 04/15/2008, -17/+5B-b-but socialism is supposed to solve all our problems.

      I mean "corporatist dominance" think about it man!
      • 1randomguyO8, on 04/15/2008, -7/+3Socialism rocks look at the soviet union, north korea and cuba etc.
        • badoli, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4Look at Austria. We have one of the best health service and are one of the richest states of the world.
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/15/2008, -5/+3Corporatis dominance IS socialism.

        Too bad the nascar fools don't understand that.

        What is socialism? What is corporatist ideology?

        They are both the control of labor in order to maximize profit for the elite.
        • datastorageguy, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2For those who work for a living and have a positive outlook, capitalism puts food on the table and provides excellent health care and standard of living. Not sure why these basic, and historically proven facts escape left wing dirtbags.
    • chicofaraby, on 04/15/2008, -6/+8"Venezuela is having something of a food crisis"

      According to whom?
    • badoli, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3http://www.socialistvoice.ca/?p=267
      "In Venezuela, 5% of landowners hold three-quarters of the land."
      "Venezuelan farmers cannot compete with highly subsidized U.S. exports"
      "attempts to protect producers are denounced as attacks on “free trade.” "

      It's not everywhere as easy as in the US, where every dork can become president nowadays.
      • twomeyw23334, on 04/15/2008, -4/+1Venezuela's farming industry used to be a major source of income for the country. Then Hugo forcefully took the land away from the "evil land owners" and gave it to his cronies, who happened to have no idea how to farm and crops went down the drain. It amazes me how you lefties come out of the woodworks to defend Hugo and bash Bush at the same time. Let me ask you something, if Bush came out and made a law giving him SOLE control over half of our countries oil profits, would you be upset or would you defend him also? What if he tried to shut down media outlets that were critical of him, like every outlet other than FOX, and then tried to change law allowing him to have infinite term limits? And please explain why farming is easier in the US because dorks can run for president.
    • datastorageguy, on 04/15/2008, -4/+2Well I guess the only countries that are having a food crisis are those third world countries being hosed by those bastard capitalists right? Cough..North Korea...Cough Zimbabwe.

      When will you idiot lefties grow up and learn that socialism and/or communism isn't the cure for the world's ills.
  • dukeeeey, on 04/15/2008, -2/+30USA is turning 25% of corn into ethanol to burn in cars. Way to go.
    Source: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinio ...
    • smacksaw, on 04/15/2008, -2/+7How much of it is edible corn?
      • looselips, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1I doubt they deal with less than top quality; I thought I heard that veg for fuel could equal a higher standard.
        You should have asked instead, How much of them are edible sugar beets?
        Or couldn't this lower quality corn be used for feed instead?
        • smacksaw, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1What I'm saying is that not all corn is edible in that you can use inedible corn for biofuels as well as edible corn. It's not an issue of quality as much as an issue of what is chosen to be grown and how edible corn should be used.

          Edible corn is better for biofuels. If we're growing more edible corn for biofuels and there's not a net loss of food, that's the problem. If we're growing more corn, it's less of an issue. Yes, we could be growing hemp or whatever for biofuels, but if we're growing more and not raising prices and harming supply, that 25% is taken out of context.

          I don't know. If we increase production by 200% but we use 25% for ethanol, what's the problem? But if we're reducing food supply by 25% it's a problem. dukeeeey's article has nothing to do with his claim, which is why I asked for clarification. He quoted an op-ed with his own stats, not the stats from the article.
        • tehnico, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Sugar beets, while producing 10x+ more energy than corn, require extremely high quality ground to grow in. Only heavily fertile and damp soil produce energy yields that are superior to corn.
      • PhilLesh69, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3It doesn't matter.

        First off, all corn is edible. Some might go to livestock feed, if it is of lesser quality, but that is only because it doesn't look as good, so buyers for foodstuffs turn it away, and it ends up in livestock feed.

        Secondly, there is a fixed amount of arable land suitable for crops. It shrinks every year due to residential growth, industrial land needs, etc. If there is 1,000 acres to grow corn, and 25% of that land is used to make ethanol, that means that only 750 acres are available to produce all the corn we eat. Increase the amount of ethanol corn to 35%, and we only have 65% of that same land to grow food crops.

        One of the biggest flaws of the scientists who came up with the studies that said corn ethanol was a good idea was that they didn't take into consideration the land needed and the land available. It was almost like they assumed the corn would be grown in parking lots.

        And, according to Newsweek:

        http://www.newsweek.com/id/130628

        "Perhaps the greatest folly, in time lost and dollars wasted, has been the push for ethanol to replace gasoline. In the United States, almost all ethanol comes from corn. When you tote up the carbon emissions caused by clearing land to grow corn, fertilizing it and transporting it, corn ethanol leaves twice the carbon footprint as gasoline."



      • tehnico, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2If you are stuck eating clay and dirt, then 100% of it is edible.
  • andreegal, on 04/15/2008, -0/+14Not even a daily bowl of rice? dang!
  • Dumbledorito, on 04/15/2008, -2/+7In other news, funerals soon to be renamed as "memorial barbecues" as a mysterious rash of pet disappearances continues to plague the country...
  • jmpeagle, on 04/15/2008, -0/+26this is the result of bad governance and horrible agricultural policies such as export restrictions. There is more than enough food grown in the world to comfortably feed everyone, yet it things such as export restrictions prevent food from reaching the global marketplace. Just earlier this year, Ukraine had to dumb 100 MILLION dollars worth of grain into the black sea because it had been allowed to rot due to their huge surplus and restrictions on exporting. A similar things is happening in Argentina with Farmers essentially rioting and blocking roads because of export restrictions.

    It's also being used as a foreign policy tool to curb exports. For example, t.ast month, when Kazakhstan threatened to limit wheat exports, some wheat prices soared by 25%.

    http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm? ...
    • jp12380, on 04/15/2008, -5/+2Truly sad indeed, makes me think that it's a big conspiracy to create a problem (not allowing surplus to be exported) and then blame it on global warming so they one world government can be formed to solve this "problem"
  • pagit, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3How much gold can a loaf of bread or 25 mud biscuits buy ?
  • blast_flame, on 04/15/2008, -8/+5I think this proves that we need to get over our petty fears and help the third world with genetically engineered crops.
    • smt12, on 04/15/2008, -1/+5Sorry, you think a bunch of GMOs in the hands of a few large corporations will help this problem? What about getting rid of the monoculture system, and going back to the days where farmers grew multiple crops, and were thus less susceptible to bugs, etc. Just wait till we're down to a couple varieties of corn and wheat worldwide and we get a nasty blight. Then you'll see a food crisis.

      The problem is we (North Americans especially) want dirt cheap food, and thus are happy to let this go on as it saves a buck here and there on the grocery bill, even though in the western world the ratio of food spending to earnings is at its lowest in a long time (if not ever): http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer780/aer780 ... (Old article, but still holds true).
      • blast_flame, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1I never said they needed to be in the hands of corporations had to be in control of them, only that we needed to use them. It could be like how third world nations are allowed to have "ripoffs" of our brand name medicines.
        This great age in the past where farmers never starved you speak of never existed. Plenty of people throughout history have died while using non-GMO, non-mono culture agriculture. While it is true that they are starving even more than many people throughout history, mainly due to warfare and corrupt governments, this shows that merely going back to an earlier form of agriculture like you are suggesting won't work. It seems to be a fallacy that us humans are prone to be nature, seeing the past as superior possibly a golden age, but this not true and life in the past compared to life in the present can be summed up by three words; nasty, brutish and short. Now I'm not saying they should be doing mono culture farming, just that whatever they end up planting be GMO.
        Oh and due to the law of supply and demand the way to decrease price is to increase supply which is what we need to need more people as they full well can't decrease demand.
        • PhilLesh69, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1The problems with GMO seeds are numerous.

          For one thing, no third world farmer needs RoundUP resistant crop seed, as they can't afford RoundUP in the first place. They can't afford to pay for designer crop seed, as well.

          One of the major goals of the GMO companies is to create crop seed that will not generate seed offspring. Third world farmers would always store seeds from this year's crop in order to grow next year's crop, and so on and so on. With GMO, the goal will be to force poor farmers to have to pay over and over again for something they used to buy only once (or received free from a friendly fellow farmer.) This is sort of like when Bechtel took over municipal water in Cochabamba Bolivia, and then forced Bolivia to make it illegal for citizens to collect rain water, forcing them to pay the prices for Bechtel's water. (Which, of course, they immediately jacked up. One resident, making $60 - 80 month, saw his bill go from $13.67 a month to $26.27 a month after Bechtel took over the water system.)

          Making the assertion that ALL of the past was nasty, brutish and short is an oversimplification and generalization. There were many times where a good mix of rational, beneficent public policy, proper land management and many other factors conspired to create periods of prosperity, good health and lifespans that meet or even exceeded modern lifespans. Just look back to pre-industrial America, like just prior to the civil war. Farmers were relatively affluent, they grew a variety of crops, raised pigs and cows and chickens, etc. They were well diversified, and never had to go into hock with a bank in order to produce next year's crops.

          GMO crop seed could create many other problems. Once a farmer in a region plants a crop of GMO seed, it is possible that his crop could cross-pollinate non-GMO crops nearby, causing unknown damage. For one, it could prevent subsistence farmers from being able to collect seeds from that crop to grow the next. Or it could make the non-GMO crop completely useless, or subsequent crops useless, etc.

          We CAN decrease demand. And it is funny that the Global Warming true believers can't see this. You'd think they would be appaled at the slashing and burning of rain forest in indonesia to grow soy beans for biofuels. We can decrease demand by not turning food crops into fuel for our gas guzzling SUVs. There are rational biofuels, like used vegetable oil, which every fast food and chinese restaurant disposes hundreds of gallons of each week. But these MMGW freaks are faith-based, not science-based. They were told ethanol would be the answer, so now there is no other alternative, and no going back on that promise.
    • benjpw, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3BTW I'm an anthropology student and have read some studies on this, so take it for what its worth. I just wanted to let you know - almost every major introduction of agriculture and crops has failed, because culturally it just doesn't work. The problem lies introducing in monocroping and other Western systems that just don't work well with other cultures.

      I think the anti-GMO environmental stuff is BS, but its also BS to try to go into a culture and just assume they will welcome a different crop with open arms. We need to approach this on said cultures terms if we want it to work.
      • blast_flame, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2Half of the problem is anti-GMO people running around telling them it's poison and such so that it starts being called demon seed (see below link).
        http://www.reason.com/news/show/125722.html

        The great thing about GMO crops is they don't require them to introduce any western system. We just give them new seeds and then they farm them using traditional methods.
        • sherrife, on 04/15/2008, -1/+4Yea, and they have to keep buying those seeds from the company each year, hows that for independent development!
          • blast_flame, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1Not all GMO crops require that. We can choose to modify in such a way that they can continue to breed.
            Even if they did would it be different from the hybrid crops that require the same thing that some Africans choose to buy anyway as they increase crop yields to such an extent that they can afford to sell a portion of them to make up the cost?
  • 1randomguyO8, on 04/15/2008, -2/+9Give them cake.
    • looselips, on 04/15/2008, -2/+1and cake for them is what $100- 200.
      I have a feeling cannibalism would be closer to a reality.
      What they need is a dollar menu, i know i'll be there when our dollar collapses; or at least out back fighting with the rats.
    • Picaroon, on 04/15/2008, -1/+5Come on, you can't get "let them eat cake" wrong.
    • Hangly, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2Cake or death?

      Thank you for flying Church of England.
    • jpstanle, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1But the cake is a lie.
  • 1randomguyO8, on 04/15/2008, -2/+3Honestly the increase in the price of food here in Australia only means "damn I guess I would less of that or pay $50 more a week on food" but for people in these countries its life and death. =/
    I feel our governments should donate money and/or food to struggling people. Just as we did after natural disasters like the tsunami's.
  • coffee200am, on 04/15/2008, -9/+4The bitter people in Pennsylvania would love to have their taxes raised to feed other people in countries that have ***** governments...
  • jjive, on 04/15/2008, -2/+19To quote the big oil companies, "Let them eat cake".
    • looselips, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3I am sure they prefer sun baked clay cakes, over the "*****" which was originally implied there.
    • 1randomguyO8, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2I think you are referring to OPEC leaders. Ironically enough it was Chavez and others who said that $100/barrel was a "fair price" for oil.
    • datastorageguy, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1You realize that gasoline is cheaper than milk right? At least here in the United States. Those big oil pricks though..what about big milk? Oh wait, that's right, the dairy industry is government subsidized in the United States. Hmmm....
    • Abram730, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Africa has lots of cake... I've head it many times. Yellow cake for all. lol

      But really how much is Gas if you count the 3 trillion dollar Iraq war as a subsidy?
  • UltramegaOK, on 04/15/2008, -12/+16They can't haz cheezburgerz?
  • smacksaw, on 04/15/2008, -1/+18FTA: "The world's 200 wealthiest people have as much money as about 40 percent of the global population, and yet 850 million people have to go to bed hungry every night."

    It's only a matter of time before those people take their murderous rage and stop taking it out on themselves and instead upon the extremely wealthy. I'd hate to be that rich. If I was, I think I would invest 99.999% of it. It's almost like...the mega-rich go on vacations that are incomprehensible to me. Vacation from what? Having to know how screwed up the world is?
    • nastronomical, on 04/15/2008, -17/+1stfu asswipe. take ur commie bs somewhere else.
      • smacksaw, on 04/15/2008, -0/+5I believe you used the word "uneducated" in this thread, so allow me to educate you. First, I'm a libertarian. Have been all my life and have been a registered libertarian for 16 years. I think it's incumbent upon me to do the right thing, which means being concerned about the world I live in.

        Now...It's not commie bs. It's called "paying attention". Do you think Osama Bin Laden is a communist? Here is a man from a country where a small family controls all of the money. Millions of people are subjugated by religion, economic hardship or both. They look at their oil-rich neighbours like Kuwait and the UAE and see everyone benefiting from oil wealth while they live in virtual slavery to their wealthy sheik masters. Osama Bin Laden has no trouble finding both sympathy and support in his murderous ideas. Why? Because these people have nothing to live for. When you use wealth to create that sort of desperation, that's the powderkeg you get.

        Consider yourself educated now.
    • bosssmiley, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2True that wealth sleeps uneasy in a bed of poverty. But one good thing about starvation (from the perspective of the 'haves') is that it narrows the horizons of the 'have-nots' and sets them against each other for the scraps.
      Classic divide and rule tactics.
  • DonJohnTom, on 04/15/2008, -8/+4i just ate a 7 year old box of crackers, desperate times call for desperate measures.
  • buttspeak, on 04/15/2008, -8/+2I've been eating cat food for weeks since I lost my job, but damn if you cook them right cats taste soooo good.
  • tricks574, on 04/15/2008, -3/+5E-85, saving the planet from poor people one family at a time.....
  • alertstst, on 04/15/2008, -7/+0oh what a starvation for the poor fellows
  • AbsurdParadox, on 04/15/2008, -2/+3I dream of a day... a day when a large group of people in a far away land can't meddle in the business of others, setting arbitrary rules to help their friends, and enforcing these rules at the point of a gun.
  • mass922, on 04/15/2008, -7/+3The poor can die, then we can get land back for our plantations.
  • jie291, on 04/15/2008, -6/+1To quote the big oil companies,
  • theyerb, on 04/15/2008, -3/+7Me thinks the biofuels came at a bad time.
  • alertstst, on 04/15/2008, -4/+2oh such a painful video
  • kosser, on 04/15/2008, -9/+9we are not in a global food crisis. dont be fooled.
    • josabz2, on 04/15/2008, -2/+3fool!
    • PhilLesh69, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Too bad the haitians have been fooled. Someone should let them know that they aren't actually starving and resorting to making sawdust and mud pancakes.

      Someone should tell the people in Mexico rioting over the rising cost of corn.

      Someone should tell the people in Africa where wheat prices have gone up 250%.

      "We" are not in a crisis, if you confine your "we" to just the people you identify with.
  • DuffyDirect, on 04/15/2008, -3/+1dollar menu! :thumbsup:
  • CowCow, on 04/15/2008, -5/+3Look, idiots, the Malthusian nightmare has NEVER passed: not once since its inception in the mid 1800s. Take a guess what: IT IS A LIE. It is the largest piece of elitist bull-sh*t to ever see the light of day. To see how it is elitist, look at the title, "Blah Blah... POOR.. Blah Blah." Look out rich people, the poor are finally here and going to take all of our money, run for the hills! This same type of argument helped to fuel such things as sterilization programs in the 1920s. It is sad to see history is so forthright in replying itself, remembering the options trying to be passed to go on to face many prisoners today.

    It is sensationalism like this garbage that creates many of the same people who had posted above, to then go on to accept much more awful acts. Go and read the NY Times, in their archive papers, and look in between 1900 to 1920 or up to 1940. You will see three things:

    1) Malthus as the hero of the day for seeing the struggle that lies beneath America: the race for food to mouth. And it faces not only America but the world, like England and Europe. Its carp the world never ran out of land to plant on, nor did it run out of food. We adapted because technology and we were nowhere near what those blow hards were saying.

    2) immigration from Western Europe is a Problem (National Origins Act of 1924...) - only now its Mexico (hint, hint: they are no more of a problem than was Western Europeans)

    3) mentally ill / sterilization (Margret Sanger)- All of this really had an endgame called Eugenics. It is crap theory that is baseless, as is the article.

    Screw the Germans for trying to start ***** again.
    • Pixelante, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1"Look out rich people, the poor are finally here and going to take all of our money, run for the hills!"
      Why should rich people be scared? What are the poor people, or the average citizens, going to do? All the world over, the governments have efficiently disarmed the commoners, while wealthy individuals can and do retain a sizable number of armed private bodyguards. Any uprising by the "poor" would be quashed very quickly, with the willing participation of the state police.
      Screw public opinion: the press is firmly in private hands. They will not talk against their masters.
      So you see, rich people have nothing to fear.
      • CowCow, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1I am not saying they have anything to actually fear, necessarily. Instead, what I am saying is that they, in fact, have nothing to fear -nor does anyone else- because the argument is wrong. The reason it is wrong is because the premise of the argument is not true; both in that, food shortage is bringing about the destruction of the world/nation(s), all caused by the dissolving of societies, which suffer the most from acting on vice.

        Second, that no one is then safe if one portion of society begins to act upon vice and the vice is not then controlled, as it will spur stagnation of our creativity, resources and thus will ultimately make everyone worse off.

        Here is how the rich then figure in: the person who is poor will remain to be poor even after such events happen. The rich, however, have the greatest to loose because their resources that they once had in abundance, are now depleted. Thus, they are now poorer. It is then from this fear of the depletion of resources that we, as a society, should then be spurred to action to disengage the situation. Since the rich have the power to then motivate society through monetary means, then they need to do so. The will to do so is caused by the aforementioned fear from the depletion of said resources caused by stagnation. And that is why it is important for everyone to then take note of such a need: in order to spur action of the rich.
    • megarobotguy, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3FYI, "Malthusian catastrophe is a return to subsistence-level conditions as a result of population growth outpacing agricultural production." - wikipedia
      • CowCow, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1What you fail to then realize/contemplate is: what then is the result of such conditions. The result is the depletion of resources, as you had mentioned. What does that then cause? It causes for everyone to be worse off, had we not solved the problem to begin with.

        Where the nightmare comes in is prolonged stagnation of resources. Since we as a society are not growing in any meaningful way, we then become animals by the fact we just act upon vice. When we as a society become the animalistic group of people, we are then at the hands of Darwinian control. However, we are always at the hands of Darwinian control, except now we are not growing and adapting caused by stagnation. Since we are not growing and adapting as a society, then we become doomed to be wiped off the face of the earth, eventually, because we will be unable to adapt to our surrounds. That is the Malthusian Nightmare's result: the ending of our species.

        You should really get more education and not rely so much on damn Wikipedia. But you would realize the use of the term had you done the investigation that I had asked you to (reading the NY times historical section), jackass.
    • PhilLesh69, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Only, this time the game has been refined, tweaked, updated and perfected. This time, all of the things they are sensationalizing are REALLY HAPPENING.

      All of those nefarious ideologies from the turn of the last century have gradually aligned with each other; communism, world government, corporate control over laws and regulations, ethnic and cultural purity -- all of the elitist mentalities have joined forces and are probably 2/3 of the way towards achieving thier ultimate goals.

      First, destroy the middle class or at least greatly undermine their political power. Second, convince the remaining rabble that drastic measures need to be taken for survival (invent global warming and create actual food crises) Third, make the remaining rabble subservient to the wealthy elite by completely destroying their economic bases.

      The wealthy never fear economic unrest and inflation and food shortages. It is one thing for a family of four living on $50,000 a year to be able to survive when it costs $2,000 a month just to eat. For a person with a billion dollars in the bank, even if it cost $1,000 a day to eat, they'll do just fine and still have money left over to buy up all the foreclosed houses and shuttered small businesses.

      The Great Depression was a manufactured event to transfer wealth to the top 1% of wealthy. They build the Empire State building during the depression, using desperately cheap labor. Someone could afford to build the tallest building of the time when over two thirds of the country was destitute.

  • GeorgeClayton, on 04/15/2008, -2/+6The statement below is a gross misunderstanding of economics. Supply and demand, food is grown, food is eaten, more food is grown. If some rich guy buys a bunch of food and sends it to poor people, now there is a decrease in supply. The only way to really combat hunger in many of these countries is population control & improved farming techniques.


    "Food is become increasingly scarce and expensive, and it is already unaffordable for many people. The world's 200 wealthiest people have as much money as about 40 percent of the global population, and yet 850 million people have to go to bed hungry every night. This calamity is "one of the worst violations of human dignity," says former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan."

    • 1randomguyO8, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2I blame India.
    • omegared, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2So wait you think the west should get food and have no population controls? Wow, how about the wests and corporations stop exploiting the resources and people in these countries.
    • PhilLesh69, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1So what are you saying? We should allow the population control maniacs (eugenicists) to eliminate four-fifths of the world population so that the 200 wealthiest people can continue to lock up the majority of the money and resources on this planet?

      Because that is what the whole population control agenda is actually about. More for the rich, and fewer poor to contend with. Poor people, in their minds, are very inefficient consumers of resources.
  • nastronomical, on 04/15/2008, -11/+4Of course the overly emotional liberals, dumb idiots and paranoid uneducated masses whom infect digg like herpes will foam at the mouth and spout the usual gallons of rampant sh*t rather than taking a clear and logical look at "CAUSE and EFFECT".
    • Kapitaine, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3Please explain then...
    • graddatadda, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3been listening to Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter again? oh wait, must've been town hall
    • PhilLesh69, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1So what is your "cause and effect"?

      If you are a Fox News idiot, I'm guessing it goes something along the lines of "the poor just refuse to stop being poor, so no wonder when food prices rise, they can't afford to eat".

      However, the real cause is biofuels, especially ethanol from corn.
  • cuckoogaff, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1Paging Robinhood...
  • Hangly, on 04/15/2008, -0/+3Let them eat Soylent Green.
    • MrTea, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2I'd rather just "go home" than live through that.
  • 1randomguyO8, on 04/15/2008, -0/+41.Buy a tonne of rice
    2.Store it
    3.????
    4.Profit?
  • coffee200am, on 04/15/2008, -8/+3I just had a thick steak, with onions, mashed po-taters, corn on the cob and iced tea....Do I feel the least bit guilty? NO.
    • graddatadda, on 04/15/2008, -1/+3Well God bless your smug little ass.
      • coffee200am, on 04/15/2008, -2/+2Your being religious and that's like racism!.../s
    • amalagaura, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2Cause of global hunger is meat eating, your lack of guilt is not a big accomplishment nor a redeeming factor.
    • PhilLesh69, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1I'm sure you don't feel quilty.

      However, the lack of remorse is common among sociopaths.
  • coffee200am, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2 EU defends biofuel goals amid food crises
    The EU Commission on Monday rejected claims that producing biofuels is a "crime against humanity" that threatens food supplies, and vowed to stick to its goals as part of a climate change package.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080414/sc_afp/euunfa ...
  • Nosocialism, on 04/15/2008, -1/+2LOOMING Food Crisis, it's already here!, it's ALREADY causing food shortages and high prices. The cure is worse than the disease!
    http://www.nosocialism.com/2008/04/global-warming- ...
  • manzoire, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1Blame ethanol. ethanol doesnt do anything. It should be stopped, but our government is pushing it. all it is doing, is increasing food prices. Do you know why the government is pushing it? Its because they want to look like they are doing something about the environment. But they're only making it worse.
  • Truzseeker, on 04/15/2008, -0/+2A world revolution against the new world order ? That would be interesting, but they don't even know the faces of these crooks from which to take action, however I think that day is about to pass, and we shall see either self distinction or a major correction.
  • je12u, on 04/15/2008, -0/+0The cake is a lie!!
    • Abram730, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Everybody wants to buy cake from Africa. They have lots of yellow cake.

      The cake is not a lie.
  • siktath, on 04/15/2008, -1/+1Look at what the environmentalists and totalitarians have caused. Wait, that's most of digg! How do you all feel knowing that you're starving poor people with your support for ethanol subsidization which is driving up the costs of grains and your trade barriers that are keeping people from getting the food they need?
    Sleep well.
    • randumbusername, on 04/15/2008, -0/+0you know... the oil companies .... the rich .... the greedy.

      forget that government is pushing burning food as fuel, it's the rich people's fault.
  • habenneas, on 04/16/2008, -0/+1Fast text mirror: http://www.lynxcache.org/usr/1/Global_Food_Crisis_ ...
  • Silvbird, on 04/16/2008, -1/+1UNSUSTAINABLE WORLD?

    Food crisis? £8bn of waste The facts
    A series of Newsnight films and debates on global uses of natural resources and the problems we face.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/73 ...
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.