Is world hunger ineluctable

h.g.Whiz · 10th November 2012, 05:14 AM

Is world hunger ineluctable?

Delvo · 10th November 2012, 06:12 AM

If it can be elucted at all, the effective method certainly will not be by just producing and sending more food, even if the political & military situations in all starving areas were to settle down and allow that food to actually reach starving people. The result of that method of attempting to solve the problem is only to keep making it worse. Unfortunately, it's also the only method anybody is willing to try.

angrysoba · 10th November 2012, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by Delvo

If it can be elucted at all, the effective method certainly will not be by just producing and sending more food, even if the political & military situations in all starving areas were to settle down and allow that food to actually reach starving people. The result of that method of attempting to solve the problem is only to keep making it worse. Unfortunately, it's also the only method anybody is willing to try.

There have also been attempts to reduce the global population which didn't turn out very well.

Fortunately, there have also been trends unrelated to efforts to reduce the world's population which nevertheless point to a reduction in the world's population.

Beerina · 10th November 2012, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by Delvo

If it can be elucted at all, the effective method certainly will not be by just producing and sending more food, even if the political & military situations in all starving areas were to settle down and allow that food to actually reach starving people. The result of that method of attempting to solve the problem is only to keep making it worse. Unfortunately, it's also the only method anybody is willing to try.

Throwing money or food at regions dominated by lawlessness or warlords (or dictatorships) only temporarily helps things at best, and probably also lines the pockets of those in charge, which was their goal when seeking dominance to begin with.

The one way out -- freedom and security to produce and trade -- is the thing that's difficult to get implemented in these areas.

Big Les · 10th November 2012, 07:28 AM

I have to admit to only clicking this thread to find out what the word 'ineluctable' means.

angrysoba · 10th November 2012, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by Big Les

I have to admit to only clicking this thread to find out what the word 'ineluctable' means.

And did you find out?

Jorghnassen · 10th November 2012, 07:51 AM

Well, well, I was just looking for an excuse to post this TED talk.

People have to start liking pork and feeding pigs what they were domesticated for (not expensive corn). Then perhaps hunger and food waste might be less of a problem. But the peace and freedom bit needs to be taken care of first if we really want to fix world hunger. I think we might have to wait a while...

Jekyll's Guest · 10th November 2012, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Jorghnassen

People have to start liking pork and feeding pigs

So politicians and lobbyists have been fighting world hunger all this time?

EdG · 10th November 2012, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by Delvo

... the effective method certainly will not be by just producing and sending more food ... The result of that method of attempting to solve the problem is only to keep making it worse.

Any documentation available for these bold statements? Or should we just take your word for it?

Skeptical Greg · 10th November 2012, 11:22 AM

Is world hunger ineluctable?

No...

Some places will have plenty of food; others, not so much ..

Populations tend to grow and shrink depending on the availability of food..

ETA: Yes, I Googled that word.. No, I never plan on using it; spoken or written..

The Central Scrutinizer · 10th November 2012, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by h.g.Whiz

Is world hunger ineluctable?

Yes. In that, there will always be starving people.

ehcks · 10th November 2012, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

And did you find out?

The Scrabble dictionaries don't even have the word "eluct" in them.

Jorghnassen · 11th November 2012, 04:24 AM

Originally Posted by Jekyll's Guest

So politicians and lobbyists have been fighting world hunger all this time?

You cut the quote where you shouldn't have! Pigs were meant to eat garbage, no gigantic piles of money!

So no, they haven't been fighting world hunger at all, but they've been feeding their own world hunger, because they hunger for power over the world.

Delvo · 11th November 2012, 04:45 AM

Originally Posted by EdG

Any documentation available for these bold statements? Or should we just take your word for it?

There's nothing bold about it. It's standard basic stuff. Everybody in various fields of biology has known it for ages, and you'll find it in any introductory biology textbook with a chapter on basic beginner-level population dynamics, within the first couple of pages of such a chapter. In any population of any species in any given setting, from deer in the woodlands to fish in a pond to mold on/in a chunk of cheese, it always goes the same way, and the fact that it does so is put to use every day by the people who are responsible for managing those populations.

Quite simply, when a population is well fed, it grows until it isn't anymore.

And there is only one possible way to prevent it: introduce something which causes enough of the individuals in that population to die without producing enough offspring to replace themselves. However, every method of doing so among humans is either a pipe dream ("Just make everyone educated & rich, that'll do it!") or pretty horrific, so standard run-of-the-mill growth-until-resource-depletion it is.

h.g.Whiz · 11th November 2012, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by EdG

Any documentation available for these bold statements? Or should we just take your word for it?

Are you familiar with Thomas Maltus

Puppycow · 11th November 2012, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by h.g.Whiz

Is world hunger ineluctable?

You started this thread just as an excuse to use the word 'ineluctable', didn't you?

Loss Leader · 11th November 2012, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by h.g.Whiz

Is world hunger ineluctable?

There will always be outliers in any population. So long as there are people, there will always be some who are eating too much and some who are not eating enough. So, in that sense, yes.

However, in a more realistic sense, I see no logical reason why a static relationship between food production, population and sustainability cannot be achieved.

h.g.Whiz · 11th November 2012, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Jorghnassen

Well, well, I was just looking for an excuse to post this TED talk.

People have to start liking pork and feeding pigs what they were domesticated for (not expensive corn). Then perhaps hunger and food waste might be less of a problem. But the peace and freedom bit needs to be taken care of first if we really want to fix world hunger. I think we might have to wait a while...

Interesting TED talk, thanks.

h.g.Whiz · 11th November 2012, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Big Les

I have to admit to only clicking this thread to find out what the word 'ineluctable' means.

An Independent Candidate not getting elected is ineluctable.

joesixpack · 11th November 2012, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Delvo

There's nothing bold about it. It's standard basic stuff. Everybody in various fields of biology has known it for ages, and you'll find it in any introductory biology textbook with a chapter on basic beginner-level population dynamics, within the first couple of pages of such a chapter. In any population of any species in any given setting, from deer in the woodlands to fish in a pond to mold on/in a chunk of cheese, it always goes the same way, and the fact that it does so is put to use every day by the people who are responsible for managing those populations.

Quite simply, when a population is well fed, it grows until it isn't anymore.

And there is only one possible way to prevent it: introduce something which causes enough of the individuals in that population to die without producing enough offspring to replace themselves. However, every method of doing so among humans is either a pipe dream ("Just make everyone educated & rich, that'll do it!") or pretty horrific, so standard run-of-the-mill growth-until-resource-depletion it is.

Very odd that human population growth doesn't follow the model in all those biology texts. Population growth in the industrialized world has been defying your predictions for over 100 years now. Negative population growth in France before the first world war was cause for serious concern among the French Generals. Making people educated and rich isn't necessary, and no one actually advocates that. Making people educated and not poor is all that is needed, it seems.

Delvo · 11th November 2012, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Delvo

And there is only one possible way to prevent it: introduce something which causes enough of the individuals in that population to die without producing enough offspring to replace themselves.

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Very odd that human population growth doesn't follow the model in all those biology texts. Population growth in the industrialized world has been defying your predictions for over 100 years now. Negative population growth in France before the first world war was cause for serious concern among the French Generals.

Ya, because that part of what I wrote, and which you yourself included in a quote box before I just did it again here, wasn't really there at all.

Loss Leader · 11th November 2012, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Delvo

Quite simply, when a population is well fed, it grows until it isn't anymore.

This is wrong regarding humans and wrong regarding just about every species except maybe a few apex predators. Many, many factors influence population growth. Dismissing all of them except food supply is silly. The population of seals doesn't only depend on their food supply, but on the presence of killer whales. It doesn't matter how much food you give the seals if they're being eaten.

joesixpack · 11th November 2012, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Delvo

Ya, because that part of what I wrote, and which you yourself included in a quote box before I just did it again here, wasn't really there at all.

Roll your eyes all you want, but I find it odd that you had to take your own quote out of context to rebut me. Here's the rest of your quote for you, which I "included in a quote box before I just did it again here" for you;

Quote:

However, every method of doing so among humans is either a pipe dream...or pretty horrific, so standard run-of-the-mill growth-until-resource-depletion it is

which is actually not the case, as I said already. Affluence lowers birthrates, and it doesn't require making everyone rich, it just requires making everyone not poor. Uncertainty about the prospects of survival drives birthrates up, stability and material security drives birthrates down..

Delvo · 11th November 2012, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Delvo

And there is only one possible way to prevent it: introduce something which causes enough of the individuals in that population to die without producing enough offspring to replace themselves.

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

This is wrong regarding humans and wrong regarding just about every species except maybe a few apex predators. Many, many factors influence population growth. Dismissing all of them except food supply is silly. The population of seals doesn't only depend on their food supply, but on the presence of killer whales. It doesn't matter how much food you give the seals if they're being eaten.

Ya, because that part of my post, which both I and someone else have quoted now, wasn't really there.

Whenever you're all done pretending that I didn't already cover that, perhaps we could move along to exactly how to apply it to "(human) world hunger". What additional population-limiting factor shall we introduce to the parts of the world where this is a problem now, to counter the natural tendency for populations to grow if not prevented? The only one that's worked so far happened in places that didn't already have such a starvation problem at the time and had much lower population densities than places that are suffering now. What else does that leave? War? It tends to be rather troublesome and unpleasant, and it doesn't work; we've had lots and they didn't stop the growth. Plague? It tends to be rather troublesome and unpleasant, and it doesn't work; we've had lots and they didn't stop the growth. (And we aren't biologically able to create one anyway, although we might be someday.) Sterilization of some large fraction of the reproduction-age population? Nobody's going to try it, because it would be seen as a violation of people's right to contribute to overpopulation, and because enforcing it would require lots of violence against widespread passionate resistance. China-inspired (although stricter) reproduction limits? Nobody's going to try it, for the same reasons as with the last one.

Cain · 11th November 2012, 06:40 PM

I don't see the big deal. It's not like people are starving to death while others are stuffing their faces with ice cream.

h.g.Whiz · 11th November 2012, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

This is wrong regarding humans and wrong regarding just about every species except maybe a few apex predators. Many, many factors influence population growth. Dismissing all of them except food supply is silly. The population of seals doesn't only depend on their food supply, but on the presence of killer whales. It doesn't matter how much food you give the seals if they're being eaten.

Could you name the few exceptions. I assumed that humans were the pinnacle of apex predators.

joesixpack · 11th November 2012, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Delvo

Ya, because that part of my post, which both I and someone else have quoted now, wasn't really there.

I covered this above, eye rolling and all.

Quote:

Whenever you're all done pretending that I didn't already cover that, perhaps we could move along to exactly how to apply it to "(human) world hunger". What additional population-limiting factor shall we introduce to the parts of the world where this is a problem now, to counter the natural tendency for populations to grow if not prevented? The only one that's worked so far happened in places that didn't already have such a starvation problem at the time and had much lower population densities than places that are suffering now.

Which one is that again? I don't believe you mentioned it

Quote:

What else does that leave? War? It tends to be rather troublesome and unpleasant, and it doesn't work; we've had lots and they didn't stop the growth. Plague? It tends to be rather troublesome and unpleasant, and it doesn't work; we've had lots and they didn't stop the growth. (And we aren't biologically able to create one anyway, although we might be someday.) Sterilization of some large fraction of the reproduction-age population? Nobody's going to try it, because it would be seen as a violation of people's right to contribute to overpopulation, and because enforcing it would require lots of violence against widespread passionate resistance. China-inspired (although stricter) reproduction limits? Nobody's going to try it, for the same reasons as with the last one.

How about the ones that have already been shown to work?

h.g.Whiz · 11th November 2012, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Cain

I don't see the big deal. It's not like people are starving to death while others are stuffing their faces with ice cream.

How could you see anything past all those kittens?

Loss Leader · 11th November 2012, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by h.g.Whiz

Could you name the few exceptions. I assumed that humans were the pinnacle of apex predators.

There's no doubt we lucked out when we spun the evolution wheel, but we are not descendants of predators. Our natural state is that of scavenger and hider.

Lions, the American cheetah, orcas, black bears, wolves, raptors (the birds) - I think these are your typical apex predators.

Of course, over a very short period of time, we've virtually freed ourselves from predation. On the other hand, we also greenlit "Freddie Got Fingered," so it's kind of a mixed bag.

h.g.Whiz · 11th November 2012, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

There's no doubt we lucked out when we spun the evolution wheel, but we are not descendants of predators. Our natural state is that of scavenger and hider.

Lions, the American cheetah, orcas, black bears, wolves, raptors (the birds) - I think these are your typical apex predators.

Of course, over a very short period of time, we've virtually freed ourselves from predation. On the other hand, we also greenlit "Freddie Got Fingered," so it's kind of a mixed bag.

I am confused. Does the definition of predator include that the species depends solely on predation?

Darth Rotor · 12th November 2012, 07:42 AM

angrysoba, the tools necessary to significantly reduce world population are very available. There are many of them. The problem with using them is one of getting a good sense of the short, medium, and long term impact of so doing. (I do not refer to nuclear weapons. There are a wide variety of ways to ensure massive die offs will be more, not less, common in the next generation.)

who is willing to apply such measures?

23_Tauri · 12th November 2012, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Big Les

I have to admit to only clicking this thread to find out what the word 'ineluctable' means.

Same here. In the end I looked it up in dictionary.com. It's rare that I come across a word I've never seen before.

schplurg · 23rd November 2012, 02:04 PM

Don't know how to embed a video.

Sam Kinison had the answer to world hunger decades ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN7ehccspao

ETA: not safe for work

h.g.Whiz · 16th December 2012, 12:10 PM

http://www.worldometers.info/

Beerina · 16th December 2012, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by EdG

Any documentation available for these bold statements? Or should we just take your word for it?

Debates were held on this in the 70s -- if you pour food into a starving region, which is also usually a pre-industrialized area where people breed like rabbits instead of nice western 2.1 kids per, you just set yourself up for an inevitable worse famin some years down the road.

Feel free to pretend the effect doesn't exist.

The real solution is to save lives and end warlordism, or dictatorship, at the same time. This should increase stability and thus econmic dynamism, reducing problems of want in the future.

GlennB · 16th December 2012, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Delvo

There's nothing bold about it. It's standard basic stuff. Everybody in various fields of biology has known it for ages, and you'll find it in any introductory biology textbook with a chapter on basic beginner-level population dynamics, within the first couple of pages of such a chapter. In any population of any species in any given setting, from deer in the woodlands to fish in a pond to mold on/in a chunk of cheese, it always goes the same way, and the fact that it does so is put to use every day by the people who are responsible for managing those populations.

Quite simply, when a population is well fed, it grows until it isn't anymore.

And there is only one possible way to prevent it: introduce something which causes enough of the individuals in that population to die without producing enough offspring to replace themselves. However, every method of doing so among humans is either a pipe dream ("Just make everyone educated & rich, that'll do it!") or pretty horrific, so standard run-of-the-mill growth-until-resource-depletion it is.

This. I don't know if it's too late to nominate, but never mind that.

psionl0 · 16th December 2012, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Delvo

Quite simply, when a population is well fed, it grows until it isn't anymore.

It was ignorant self-serving theories like this that lead to the rise of work houses. One of the aims of these institutions was to prevent the poor from breeding like rabbits and competing with the rich for scarce resources.

angrysoba · 17th December 2012, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

It was ignorant self-serving theories like this that lead to the rise of work houses. One of the aims of these institutions was to prevent the poor from breeding like rabbits and competing with the rich for scarce resources.

Yeah, I still don't understand what's going on in places like Japan. Somehow, the population is now in decline and much of Western Europe has fertility rates that are set to put the population in decline before long. This, apparently, goes for most of the world, in fact.

Mark6 · 17th December 2012, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Yeah, I still don't understand what's going on in places like Japan.

I am sure Delvo can explain it to you

He might even have an explanation to why Brazil's fertility rate went from about 6 children per woman in 1960 to 1.83 in 2010.

joesixpack · 17th December 2012, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by Mark6

I am sure Delvo can explain it to you

He might even have an explanation to why Brazil's fertility rate went from about 6 children per woman in 1960 to 1.83 in 2010.

They ran out of food there. Hadn't you heard?

10th November 2012, 05:14 AM	#1
h.g.Whiz Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Egoville Posts: 3,083	Is world hunger ineluctable Is world hunger ineluctable?
	__________________ Reading this sentence is ineluctable.

10th November 2012, 07:26 AM	#4
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by Delvo If it can be elucted at all, the effective method certainly will not be by just producing and sending more food, even if the political & military situations in all starving areas were to settle down and allow that food to actually reach starving people. The result of that method of attempting to solve the problem is only to keep making it worse. Unfortunately, it's also the only method anybody is willing to try. Throwing money or food at regions dominated by lawlessness or warlords (or dictatorships) only temporarily helps things at best, and probably also lines the pockets of those in charge, which was their goal when seeking dominance to begin with. The one way out -- freedom and security to produce and trade -- is the thing that's difficult to get implemented in these areas.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

10th November 2012, 07:28 AM	#5
Big Les Not so much a medium as a large Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 5,004	I have to admit to only clicking this thread to find out what the word 'ineluctable' means.
	__________________ "Feeling you’ve done something is not quite the same as the empirical scientific proof." -Stephen Fry The BS Historian

10th November 2012, 07:51 AM	#7
Jorghnassen Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The realm of ideas Posts: 3,881	Well, well, I was just looking for an excuse to post this TED talk. People have to start liking pork and feeding pigs what they were domesticated for (not expensive corn). Then perhaps hunger and food waste might be less of a problem. But the peace and freedom bit needs to be taken care of first if we really want to fix world hunger. I think we might have to wait a while...
	__________________ "Help control the local pet population: teach your dog abstinence." -Stephen Colbert "My dad believed laughter is the best medicine. Which is why several of us died of tuberculosis."- Unknown source, heard from Grey Delisle on Rob Paulsen's podcast

10th November 2012, 11:22 AM	#10
Skeptical Greg Agave Wine Connoisseur Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Just past 'Resume Speed' Posts: 12,873	Is world hunger ineluctable? No... Some places will have plenty of food; others, not so much .. Populations tend to grow and shrink depending on the availability of food.. ETA: Yes, I Googled that word.. No, I never plan on using it; spoken or written..
	__________________ " Somewhere between Jesus dying on the cross, and a giant bunny hiding eggs,there seems to be a gap in information. " Stan - Southpark Prove your computer is not a wimp ! Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Last edited by Skeptical Greg; 10th November 2012 at 11:52 AM.

10th November 2012, 06:12 AM	#2
Delvo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Posts: 3,885	If it can be elucted at all, the effective method certainly will not be by just producing and sending more food, even if the political & military situations in all starving areas were to settle down and allow that food to actually reach starving people. The result of that method of attempting to solve the problem is only to keep making it worse. Unfortunately, it's also the only method anybody is willing to try.

10th November 2012, 06:27 AM	#3
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by Delvo If it can be elucted at all, the effective method certainly will not be by just producing and sending more food, even if the political & military situations in all starving areas were to settle down and allow that food to actually reach starving people. The result of that method of attempting to solve the problem is only to keep making it worse. Unfortunately, it's also the only method anybody is willing to try. There have also been attempts to reduce the global population which didn't turn out very well. Fortunately, there have also been trends unrelated to efforts to reduce the world's population which nevertheless point to a reduction in the world's population.

10th November 2012, 07:44 AM	#6
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,541	Originally Posted by Big Les I have to admit to only clicking this thread to find out what the word 'ineluctable' means. And did you find out?

10th November 2012, 09:27 AM	#8
Jekyll's Guest Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,948	Originally Posted by Jorghnassen People have to start liking pork and feeding pigs So politicians and lobbyists have been fighting world hunger all this time?

10th November 2012, 10:51 AM	#9
EdG Scholar Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Arizona, USA Posts: 108	Originally Posted by Delvo ... the effective method certainly will not be by just producing and sending more food ... The result of that method of attempting to solve the problem is only to keep making it worse. Any documentation available for these bold statements? Or should we just take your word for it?

10th November 2012, 11:29 AM	#11
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,277	Originally Posted by h.g.Whiz Is world hunger ineluctable? Yes. In that, there will always be starving people.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

10th November 2012, 12:42 PM	#12
ehcks Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,693	Originally Posted by angrysoba And did you find out? The Scrabble dictionaries don't even have the word "eluct" in them.
ehcks Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,693	__________________ Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

11th November 2012, 04:24 AM	#13
Jorghnassen Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The realm of ideas Posts: 3,881	Originally Posted by Jekyll's Guest So politicians and lobbyists have been fighting world hunger all this time? You cut the quote where you shouldn't have! Pigs were meant to eat garbage, no gigantic piles of money! So no, they haven't been fighting world hunger at all, but they've been feeding their own world hunger, because they hunger for power over the world.
	__________________ "Help control the local pet population: teach your dog abstinence." -Stephen Colbert "My dad believed laughter is the best medicine. Which is why several of us died of tuberculosis."- Unknown source, heard from Grey Delisle on Rob Paulsen's podcast

11th November 2012, 04:45 AM	#14
Delvo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Posts: 3,885	Originally Posted by EdG Any documentation available for these bold statements? Or should we just take your word for it? There's nothing bold about it. It's standard basic stuff. Everybody in various fields of biology has known it for ages, and you'll find it in any introductory biology textbook with a chapter on basic beginner-level population dynamics, within the first couple of pages of such a chapter. In any population of any species in any given setting, from deer in the woodlands to fish in a pond to mold on/in a chunk of cheese, it always goes the same way, and the fact that it does so is put to use every day by the people who are responsible for managing those populations. Quite simply, when a population is well fed, it grows until it isn't anymore. And there is only one possible way to prevent it: introduce something which causes enough of the individuals in that population to die without producing enough offspring to replace themselves. However, every method of doing so among humans is either a pipe dream ("Just make everyone educated & rich, that'll do it!") or pretty horrific, so standard run-of-the-mill growth-until-resource-depletion it is.

11th November 2012, 03:27 PM	#15
h.g.Whiz Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Egoville Posts: 3,083	Originally Posted by EdG Any documentation available for these bold statements? Or should we just take your word for it? Are you familiar with Thomas Maltus
	__________________ Reading this sentence is ineluctable.

11th November 2012, 04:14 PM	#16
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,761	Originally Posted by h.g.Whiz Is world hunger ineluctable? You started this thread just as an excuse to use the word 'ineluctable', didn't you?
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

11th November 2012, 04:20 PM	#17
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885	Originally Posted by h.g.Whiz Is world hunger ineluctable? There will always be outliers in any population. So long as there are people, there will always be some who are eating too much and some who are not eating enough. So, in that sense, yes. However, in a more realistic sense, I see no logical reason why a static relationship between food production, population and sustainability cannot be achieved.
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW>

11th November 2012, 04:29 PM	#18
h.g.Whiz Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Egoville Posts: 3,083	Originally Posted by Jorghnassen Well, well, I was just looking for an excuse to post this TED talk. People have to start liking pork and feeding pigs what they were domesticated for (not expensive corn). Then perhaps hunger and food waste might be less of a problem. But the peace and freedom bit needs to be taken care of first if we really want to fix world hunger. I think we might have to wait a while... Interesting TED talk, thanks.
	__________________ Reading this sentence is ineluctable.

11th November 2012, 04:36 PM	#19
h.g.Whiz Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Egoville Posts: 3,083	Originally Posted by Big Les I have to admit to only clicking this thread to find out what the word 'ineluctable' means. An Independent Candidate not getting elected is ineluctable.
	__________________ Reading this sentence is ineluctable.

11th November 2012, 05:14 PM	#20
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,406	Originally Posted by Delvo There's nothing bold about it. It's standard basic stuff. Everybody in various fields of biology has known it for ages, and you'll find it in any introductory biology textbook with a chapter on basic beginner-level population dynamics, within the first couple of pages of such a chapter. In any population of any species in any given setting, from deer in the woodlands to fish in a pond to mold on/in a chunk of cheese, it always goes the same way, and the fact that it does so is put to use every day by the people who are responsible for managing those populations. Quite simply, when a population is well fed, it grows until it isn't anymore. And there is only one possible way to prevent it: introduce something which causes enough of the individuals in that population to die without producing enough offspring to replace themselves. However, every method of doing so among humans is either a pipe dream ("Just make everyone educated & rich, that'll do it!") or pretty horrific, so standard run-of-the-mill growth-until-resource-depletion it is. Very odd that human population growth doesn't follow the model in all those biology texts. Population growth in the industrialized world has been defying your predictions for over 100 years now. Negative population growth in France before the first world war was cause for serious concern among the French Generals. Making people educated and rich isn't necessary, and no one actually advocates that. Making people educated and not poor is all that is needed, it seems.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't. Last edited by joesixpack; 11th November 2012 at 05:15 PM.

11th November 2012, 05:50 PM	#21
Delvo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Posts: 3,885	Originally Posted by Delvo And there is only one possible way to prevent it: introduce something which causes enough of the individuals in that population to die without producing enough offspring to replace themselves. Originally Posted by joesixpack Very odd that human population growth doesn't follow the model in all those biology texts. Population growth in the industrialized world has been defying your predictions for over 100 years now. Negative population growth in France before the first world war was cause for serious concern among the French Generals. Ya, because that part of what I wrote, and which you yourself included in a quote box before I just did it again here, wasn't really there at all.
	Last edited by Delvo; 11th November 2012 at 05:54 PM.

11th November 2012, 05:50 PM	#22
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885	Originally Posted by Delvo Quite simply, when a population is well fed, it grows until it isn't anymore. This is wrong regarding humans and wrong regarding just about every species except maybe a few apex predators. Many, many factors influence population growth. Dismissing all of them except food supply is silly. The population of seals doesn't only depend on their food supply, but on the presence of killer whales. It doesn't matter how much food you give the seals if they're being eaten.
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW>

11th November 2012, 06:05 PM	#23
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,406	Originally Posted by Delvo Ya, because that part of what I wrote, and which you yourself included in a quote box before I just did it again here, wasn't really there at all. Roll your eyes all you want, but I find it odd that you had to take your own quote out of context to rebut me. Here's the rest of your quote for you, which I "included in a quote box before I just did it again here" for you; Quote: However, every method of doing so among humans is either a pipe dream...or pretty horrific, so standard run-of-the-mill growth-until-resource-depletion it is which is actually not the case, as I said already. Affluence lowers birthrates, and it doesn't require making everyone rich, it just requires making everyone not poor. Uncertainty about the prospects of survival drives birthrates up, stability and material security drives birthrates down..
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

11th November 2012, 06:12 PM	#24
Delvo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Posts: 3,885	Originally Posted by Delvo And there is only one possible way to prevent it: introduce something which causes enough of the individuals in that population to die without producing enough offspring to replace themselves. Originally Posted by Loss Leader This is wrong regarding humans and wrong regarding just about every species except maybe a few apex predators. Many, many factors influence population growth. Dismissing all of them except food supply is silly. The population of seals doesn't only depend on their food supply, but on the presence of killer whales. It doesn't matter how much food you give the seals if they're being eaten. Ya, because that part of my post, which both I and someone else have quoted now, wasn't really there. Whenever you're all done pretending that I didn't already cover that, perhaps we could move along to exactly how to apply it to "(human) world hunger". What additional population-limiting factor shall we introduce to the parts of the world where this is a problem now, to counter the natural tendency for populations to grow if not prevented? The only one that's worked so far happened in places that didn't already have such a starvation problem at the time and had much lower population densities than places that are suffering now. What else does that leave? War? It tends to be rather troublesome and unpleasant, and it doesn't work; we've had lots and they didn't stop the growth. Plague? It tends to be rather troublesome and unpleasant, and it doesn't work; we've had lots and they didn't stop the growth. (And we aren't biologically able to create one anyway, although we might be someday.) Sterilization of some large fraction of the reproduction-age population? Nobody's going to try it, because it would be seen as a violation of people's right to contribute to overpopulation, and because enforcing it would require lots of violence against widespread passionate resistance. China-inspired (although stricter) reproduction limits? Nobody's going to try it, for the same reasons as with the last one.

11th November 2012, 06:40 PM	#25
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 6,937	I don't see the big deal. It's not like people are starving to death while others are stuffing their faces with ice cream.
	__________________ *Arrested Development* is coming back! Michael (to GOB): Get rid of the Seaward. Lucille: I’ll leave when I’m good and ready.

11th November 2012, 06:42 PM	#26
h.g.Whiz Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Egoville Posts: 3,083	Originally Posted by Loss Leader This is wrong regarding humans and wrong regarding just about every species except maybe a few apex predators. Many, many factors influence population growth. Dismissing all of them except food supply is silly. The population of seals doesn't only depend on their food supply, but on the presence of killer whales. It doesn't matter how much food you give the seals if they're being eaten. Could you name the few exceptions. I assumed that humans were the pinnacle of apex predators.
	__________________ Reading this sentence is ineluctable.

11th November 2012, 06:44 PM	#27
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,406	Originally Posted by Delvo Ya, because that part of my post, which both I and someone else have quoted now, wasn't really there. I covered this above, eye rolling and all. Quote: Whenever you're all done pretending that I didn't already cover that, perhaps we could move along to exactly how to apply it to "(human) world hunger". What additional population-limiting factor shall we introduce to the parts of the world where this is a problem now, to counter the natural tendency for populations to grow if not prevented? The only one that's worked so far happened in places that didn't already have such a starvation problem at the time and had much lower population densities than places that are suffering now. Which one is that again? I don't believe you mentioned it Quote: What else does that leave? War? It tends to be rather troublesome and unpleasant, and it doesn't work; we've had lots and they didn't stop the growth. Plague? It tends to be rather troublesome and unpleasant, and it doesn't work; we've had lots and they didn't stop the growth. (And we aren't biologically able to create one anyway, although we might be someday.) Sterilization of some large fraction of the reproduction-age population? Nobody's going to try it, because it would be seen as a violation of people's right to contribute to overpopulation, and because enforcing it would require lots of violence against widespread passionate resistance. China-inspired (although stricter) reproduction limits? Nobody's going to try it, for the same reasons as with the last one. How about the ones that have already been shown to work?
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't. Last edited by joesixpack; 11th November 2012 at 06:46 PM.

11th November 2012, 06:46 PM	#28
h.g.Whiz Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Egoville Posts: 3,083	Originally Posted by Cain I don't see the big deal. It's not like people are starving to death while others are stuffing their faces with ice cream. How could you see anything past all those kittens?
	__________________ Reading this sentence is ineluctable.

11th November 2012, 07:03 PM	#29
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885	Originally Posted by h.g.Whiz Could you name the few exceptions. I assumed that humans were the pinnacle of apex predators. There's no doubt we lucked out when we spun the evolution wheel, but we are not descendants of predators. Our natural state is that of scavenger and hider. Lions, the American cheetah, orcas, black bears, wolves, raptors (the birds) - I think these are your typical apex predators. Of course, over a very short period of time, we've virtually freed ourselves from predation. On the other hand, we also greenlit "Freddie Got Fingered," so it's kind of a mixed bag.
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW>

11th November 2012, 07:20 PM	#30
h.g.Whiz Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Egoville Posts: 3,083	Originally Posted by Loss Leader There's no doubt we lucked out when we spun the evolution wheel, but we are not descendants of predators. Our natural state is that of scavenger and hider. Lions, the American cheetah, orcas, black bears, wolves, raptors (the birds) - I think these are your typical apex predators. Of course, over a very short period of time, we've virtually freed ourselves from predation. On the other hand, we also greenlit "Freddie Got Fingered," so it's kind of a mixed bag. I am confused. Does the definition of predator include that the species depends solely on predation?
	__________________ Reading this sentence is ineluctable.

12th November 2012, 07:42 AM	#31
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,257	angrysoba, the tools necessary to significantly reduce world population are very available. There are many of them. The problem with using them is one of getting a good sense of the short, medium, and long term impact of so doing. (I do not refer to nuclear weapons. There are a wide variety of ways to ensure massive die offs will be more, not less, common in the next generation.) who is willing to apply such measures?
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

12th November 2012, 08:18 AM	#32
23_Tauri Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: UK Posts: 4,947	Originally Posted by Big Les I have to admit to only clicking this thread to find out what the word 'ineluctable' means. Same here. In the end I looked it up in dictionary.com. It's rare that I come across a word I've never seen before.
	__________________ Little Miss Witchcraft, she's not made of straw.

23rd November 2012, 02:04 PM	#33
schplurg Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 923	Don't know how to embed a video. Sam Kinison had the answer to world hunger decades ago... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN7ehccspao ETA: not safe for work
schplurg Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 923	Last edited by schplurg; 23rd November 2012 at 02:05 PM.

16th December 2012, 12:10 PM	#34
h.g.Whiz Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Egoville Posts: 3,083	http://www.worldometers.info/
	__________________ Reading this sentence is ineluctable.

16th December 2012, 12:23 PM	#35
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Originally Posted by EdG Any documentation available for these bold statements? Or should we just take your word for it? Debates were held on this in the 70s -- if you pour food into a starving region, which is also usually a pre-industrialized area where people breed like rabbits instead of nice western 2.1 kids per, you just set yourself up for an inevitable worse famin some years down the road. Feel free to pretend the effect doesn't exist. The real solution is to save lives and end warlordism, or dictatorship, at the same time. This should increase stability and thus econmic dynamism, reducing problems of want in the future.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?