bugz
Fission Mailed
+3,311|6283

As the world faces its first global food crisis since World War II, even American consumers are starting to fret.

The World Bank estimates food prices have risen by 83 percent in three years.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ … age23.html

What do you expect to come from the rising cost of food and living? Increased poverty? Increased crime rate?

I personally think salaries and wages aren't keeping up with the cost of living.

I also think countries helping with the the development of third world countries are going to have a hard time providing aid with the rising cost of food and cost of living.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6678|67.222.138.85
Well I think a good start would be the government to stop paying farmers not to grow food, seeing as the prices should regulate themselves if there is truly a global food crisis.

I dunno though, that may be asking a lot. Competence seems to be something in high demand.
HurricaИe
Banned
+877|5932|Washington DC

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Well I think a good start would be the government to stop paying farmers not to grow food
Didn't we deem the Agricultural Adjustment Act (FDR's time) unconstitutional? He essentially paid farmers to not utilize all their land in order to balance the supply vs. the demand.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6500|Global Command
Three Choices


Considering the utter necessity of population reduction, there are three obvious choices awaiting us.

We can-as a society-become aware of our dilemma and consciously make the choice not to add more people to our population. This would be the most welcome of our three options, to choose consciously and with free will to responsibly lower our population. However, this flies in the face of our biological imperative to procreate. It is further complicated by the ability of modern medicine to extend our longevity, and by the refusal of the Religious Right to consider issues of population management. And then, there is a strong business lobby to maintain a high immigration rate in order to hold down the cost of labor. Though this is probably our best choice, it is the option least likely to be chosen.

Failing to responsibly lower our population, we can force population cuts through government regulations. Is there any need to mention how distasteful this option would be? How many of us would choose to live in a world of forced sterilization and population quotas enforced under penalty of law? How easily might this lead to a culling of the population utilizing principles of eugenics?

This leaves the third choice, which itself presents an unspeakable picture of suffering and death. Should we fail to acknowledge this coming crisis and determine to deal with it, we will be faced with a die-off from which civilization may very possibly never revive. We will very likely lose more than the numbers necessary for sustainability. Under a die-off scenario, conditions will deteriorate so badly that the surviving human population would be a negligible fraction of the present population. And those survivors would suffer from the trauma of living through the death of their civilization, their neighbors, their friends and their families. Those survivors will have seen their world crushed into nothing.

The questions we must ask ourselves now are, how can we allow this to happen, and what can we do to prevent it? Does our present lifestyle mean so much to us that we would subject ourselves and our children to this fast approaching tragedy simply for a few more years of conspicuous consumption?
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6678|67.222.138.85

HurricaИe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Well I think a good start would be the government to stop paying farmers not to grow food
Didn't we deem the Agricultural Adjustment Act (FDR's time) unconstitutional? He essentially paid farmers to not utilize all their land in order to balance the supply vs. the demand.
I thought some form of it was still being run because with modern agricultural techniques we could drown the world in corn.

edit: not economically, I mean literally have more corn than we know what to do with
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6500|Global Command
I thought it was because the top soil is jacked.
The Dust Bowl was created by farming.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6678|67.222.138.85

ATG wrote:

I thought it was because the top soil is jacked.
The Dust Bowl was created by farming.
Well, poor farming techniques, but I think the program was mostly to keep the price of food high. I don't know too much about the older program though.

edit:

meh

meh
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6500|Global Command
Mutantbear
Semi Constructive Criticism
+1,431|5936|London, England

Now with the rise in ethanol used for fuels, we're running out of corn to eat! What a joke
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ https://i.imgur.com/Xj4f2.png
beerface702
Member
+65|6664|las vegas
there may be a shortage of rice and wheat crops are going down. But get real alot of this for us american's is just fear to gouge prices to stimulate the falling dollor. They did this shit back in the 70's with every from tooth paste to shit paper, to beans. Same shit, so people go out and possibly horde more stuff. Although most americans dont eat rice..so this is a slow start to more shortages..you will see more item's on the shortage list in the coming months. Just like with the lead china toys..
PuckMercury
6 x 9 = 42
+298|6498|Portland, OR USA
While I fully and completely acknowledge a great many inequities and fundamental flaws in the agricultural system, we need to seriously re-evaluate our priorities.  As I've mentioned previously, we enjoy a ridiculously high standard of living here in the US.  I can't speak to other nations as I don't currently live there, but I do not mean to be completely ecocentric about this.  I'd like to address "basic" needs.

We have taken for granted the relatively low cost of goods and services and have acclaimated ourselves to that level.  We have to be just as willing to stretch down as we were to stretch out to accomodate the growth of available services.  Growth can be positive or negative growth in this context.  The fact is, gas costs more now.  We can argue all damned week about why or who's to blame, but at the end of the day - it's still there and it's still about $3.65/gal (~0.65 Euro/litre) in the US.  We can wish we weren't still a petro-society, but when the trains start moving and the trucks roll, they're running on petro fuels.

What I'm getting at is I think we need to seriously evaluate what we consider "basic" needs.  While I'm as addicted as the next Westerner to high speed internet, HD media and a wide selection of goods - these are not really basic needs.  In fact, these aren't any measure of needs.  They are luxuries.  We do not need a wide selection of goods, HD anything or high speed internet.  These are certainly things we've become accustomed to, but if we aren't willing to pay the premium - then we can't scream about their absence either.  In the US we purportedly live in a free market economy.  As such, there's really not much we should expect the government to do about the cost of goods and services.  I'm as irate as anyone about gas prices, but I choose to drive a car and not carpool.  I also choose to drive a more fuel efficient car to help mitigate the impact.  As a society, if the cost of gas becomes suitably out of reach, alternatives will then present themselves as viable alternatives.  There will certainly be a painful time, but sometimes it takes a little pain to get the bullet out.
twiistaaa
Member
+87|6639|mexico
with only a knowledge of the title (to tired to read, will tomoro) does this mean that americans will go from super sized portions back to large?

i don't see americans using ration books to get "basic" needs... sometimes less is more.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard