• r0ertel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I read a paper a few years ago that basically said that food insecurity is not a problem with production, but is instead a problem with distribution. The USA throws away enough food to feed another good sized country. I don’t know the exact nature of the distribution problem and whether it’s a problem of resources or something else, like s political problem.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      9 months ago

      Sure it makes sense. You got some dairy making way too much milk, how are you going to get it around the world? The fuel spent is worth a lot more than you would get for selling it. Plus it has to be kept cold. That’s why all the cheap food we eat is made pretty close by and if you are getting something imported chances are it costs more. And that doesn’t even get into what if the place is unstable which would add more costs.

      The shit thing is the very people who need food the most are the ones who can’t afford it.

      So yeah the food is there but getting it where it needs to be is the tricky part.

    • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The biggest issue involves the logistics on the ground, and in places with extremely high food insecurity, there tends to be little to no legitimate government, and so getting anything done involves dealing with local gangs and warlords. It doesn’t matter how much money you have if every shipment you send will just be stolen at gunpoint and sold to fund the local thug’s next golden toilet. This is not a problem that can really be solved by throwing money at it.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The distribution problem in 100% of famines is that some government somewhere cracks down on the free transfer of food. They either physically stop food from moving, or they provide huge financial incentives for moving food outside the famine area.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Many grocery stores give expired food to charity. You will often see a Walmart truck making deliveries to the Homeless shelter

      • r0ertel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        This is a great thing. I didnt know that Walmart was doing it, I have only heard of local grocers in Europe doing this.

  • thezeesystem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    Remember, food insecurity Is a feature of capatilism and is designed to make people compliant, can’t revolt if they can’t eat.

  • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Most other mammals destroy their offspring if there’s a risk and there a chance of survival for themselves or a smaller amount of offspring.

    They can always mate again, that baby is gonna be dead before it has the chance.

    • hperrin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Most other mammals? Humans do this too. We’re just advanced enough to do it before it’s actually a baby.

      Edit: I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. How is it that people in this thread think humans are never selfish or immoral, and other animals don’t care for their young?

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        We don’t leave our babies for a predator, we protect them and sacrifice ourselves since others will care for them.

        We don’t kill 3 of our 4 offspring so the other can survive.

        We don’t eat our young for sustenance.

        Sure we cull obvious defects to prevent undue suffering, but at the same we don’t as well.

        • hperrin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I’m talking about abortions. Plenty of people have abortions because they can’t afford to have kids or have enough kids already.

          Also, people have gone to prison for killing their kids. Don’t think all humans are perfectly moral all the time. We’re still animals.

          Also, plenty of other animals sacrifice themselves for their kids. Morality and self sacrifice aren’t unique to humans.

          • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            I’m talking about abortions. Plenty of people have abortions because they can’t afford to have kids or have enough kids already.

            At the same time, people are also forced to carry.

            Also, people have gone to prison for killing their kids. Don’t think all humans are perfectly moral all the time. We’re still animals.

            At the same time, some people willingly take non-viable fetuses to term and let the “baby” suffer so they don’t themselves.

            Also, plenty of other animals sacrifice themselves for their kids. Morality and self sacrifice aren’t unique to humans.

            My first comment;

            Most

            Yes there are species that don’t kill their young, than there is hamsters who stress eat their young.

            • hperrin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              9 months ago

              I feel like you’re talking in circles. We can at least agree that some humans kill their young, just like other animals.

              • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Yes, but for vastly different reasons. Almost all mammals but humans destroy non-viable infants, so I don’t get what point you were trying to even discuss here?

                The topic being, most other mammals would destroy their young before they died of hunger or thirst, so it’s a uniquely human issue.

                • hperrin@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  If it’s not viable, you don’t need to destroy it. It’s already not viable. You also don’t know why an animal does something. I’ve seen a dog nurse a kitten before. I have no idea what it’s thinking and why it’s doing that.

                  My point is that you’re putting humans on some pedestal like our behavior is vastly different than the other animals when it’s not. We’re more social than other animals, but we have the same instincts and base behaviors. After all, we are animals.

  • Carvex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    9 months ago

    I can’t wait to see at what the rate per kwH unlimited fusion power is going to be sold to us.

    • KazuyaDarklight@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Don’t get me wrong, undue profits WILL be made, but at the same time it’s not really free either. Gotta pay for parts/equipment and the people maintaining the reactor and infrastructure.

  • spittingimage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    9 months ago

    I dunno. I think that not having to worry about having enough would change how people feel about resources. If it’s always going to be there, it just… doesn’t matter.

    • Uninformed_Tyler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      How does OP define unlimited? There’s hella diamonds but their release is controlled by a cartel inflating their value. Not unlimited surely but also not equally accessible so the price can be manipulated.

      One could argue we currently live in a universe with virtually unlimited resources. It’s accessibility that is the issue.

    • Entropywins@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      My thoughts exactly. We willingly and enthusiastically harm and kill our fellow man in the name of convenience and/or profit.

  • FunkyMonk@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    I would hope the need to feed the ego as a provider would overhwelm the need for ego as the denier. That or ego just goes out of the equation if apes had unlimited access to unlimited ressources.

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    9 months ago

    Only in a Communist Utopia

    Honestly we just need to be more proactive. It is fine to give tax breaks to the rich as long as they are actually sending most of the money saved to charity.