Comments on: Sue Kedgley on Peak Food

By: SleepyTreehugger

SleepyTreehugger — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:10:29 +0000

Sam Buchanan,

“But aren’t you just arguing that it’s better to be upper class or middle class rather than lower class? People in developing countries are part of as global economic system and happen to be the current losers in that system – they aren’t in a different system.”

Not really, because even middle and upper class people don’t have the legal protections that even the poorest here does, not to mention that our govenments are accountable to the people so no kidnappings or summary executions here, well unless you’re a Muslim.

Theres noone to speak or campaign for your civil liberties in Third World Countries.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Sam Buchanan

Sam Buchanan — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:31:21 +0000

“Precisely why its preferable to live in the developed world. Because even our poorest should have access to food and affordable healthcare.”

I notice the “should”. But aren’t you just arguing that it’s better to be upper class or middle class rather than lower class? People in developing countries are part of as global economic system and happen to be the current losers in that system – they aren’t in a different system.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Wilbur

Wilbur — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:23:16 +0000

SleepyTreehugger – my comments re medical expectations is quite contentious and probably another thread. Look up the history of Trovin to see what our medical providers can get up to.

In regard to where best to live, my concern is that our satisfaction in living where and how we do may become short-lived and the fall from grace may be devastating to us due to our loss of food producing skills and associated dependence on imports of so much that we presently depend on, including our medical expectations.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: PaulHunt

PaulHunt — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:45:26 +0000

I agree wtih SleepyTreehugger, its definitely preferable to live in more developed part of the world because the poorest do have access to food. Especially in America. And as I was reading this article it reminded me of this article I read a little bit ago called Peak Food and it definitely harped on the same points this article did. Thanks Ya’ll

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: SleepyTreehugger

SleepyTreehugger — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 09:30:09 +0000

Sam Buchanan,

Precisely why its preferable to live in the developed world. Because even our poorest should have access to food and affordable healthcare.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Sam Buchanan

Sam Buchanan — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:25:16 +0000

Kids aren’t dying because of a lack of food – they are dying because they don’t have money to buy it. Likewise malaria – easily treated with artesunate if you’ve got the money (it doesn’t cost much). Doxycycline is pretty lousy as a prophylactic.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: fin

fin — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 08:00:53 +0000

Wilbur-
Interesting posts. I think I like your thinking.
SleepyTH-
“Why should millions of children die from easily preventable illnesses such as malaria or even hunger?” Kids die from hunger if they don’t have enough food. If there continues to be more and more kids, and not more and more food, then more and more kids will die from hunger.
I don’t know much about malaria, but it’s good to hear that’s it’s “easily preventable”. A friend of mine had to take doxycycline for 8 weeks (!) as a preventative when he visited the Phillipines for just a few days. I have heard that the best way to cost effectively prevent malaria deaths was to use DDT around villages. Is this how to easily prevent malaria deaths?

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Sam Buchanan

Sam Buchanan — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:51:52 +0000

How about China? Deeply nasty government, but where’s the death squads?

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: SleepyTreehugger

SleepyTreehugger — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 07:22:12 +0000

Sam,

Doh! I thought I’d deleted them. Copied the list from Wikipedia.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 05:43:06 +0000

There’s a simple solution: grow your own food, buy local produce, and place importance in the quality of what you buy, not just the price. If there is something you want which cannot be produced locally, or at an affordable price, then perhaps you can do without it.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Sam Buchanan

Sam Buchanan — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:38:45 +0000

United Kngdom, Ireland, South Korea, etc. – isn’t that stretching the definition of ‘death squad’ a bit? Not to mention the definition of ‘third world’ (OK – parts of south London maybe).

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: SleepyTreehugger

SleepyTreehugger — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 02:30:15 +0000

Sam,

“Don’t think death squads, disappearances and scraping a living from rubbish dumps are particularly normal occurences in developing countries.”

Are you kidding me? Death squads have been known to terrorise most Third World countries in the Third World in modern times. Routinely used to murder or kidnap and torture street children, drug users, indigenous and labour groups, and political dissidents.

Argentina, Algeria, Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, East Timor, El Salvador,Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Ivory Coast, South Korea,
Lebanon, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Thailand, Uruguay, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, and Vietnam have all suffered from the ravages of death squads and people who oppose the governements have routinely been “disappeared” by governement agents in recent times.

Wilbur

Medical expectation are the residues of the conquerers. Are you kidding me? Why should millions of children die from easily preventable illnesses such as malaria or even hunger? I hope you’re not alluding to the belief that they shouldn’t be able to expect to live through to adulthood with that question, because that is completely callous and uncaring. Not something I’d expect from a supposed Green.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Wilbur

Wilbur — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 02:09:45 +0000

I suspect death squads, rubbish dumps and medicinal expectations are the residue of conquerers and their developed world, not the lot of those who have been left untrampled.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Sam Buchanan

Sam Buchanan — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 02:06:18 +0000

Don’t think death squads, disappearances and scraping a living from rubbish dumps are particularly normal occurences in developing countries.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: SleepyTreehugger

SleepyTreehugger — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:08:36 +0000

Sam Buchanan,

Like I alluded to in my previous comments, life in the West isn’t perfect, but in alot of ways its far superior than that experienced in alot of the Third World.

No death squads, no being “disappeared”, not having to scrape a living from the rubbish dump, not having to die early because unavailable medicine, etc.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Sam Buchanan

Sam Buchanan — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:36:18 +0000

“Most want the clean drinking water, affordable healthcare, economic security, freedom of expression, legal protections, and freedom of oppurtunity that the West offers its citizens. ”

Not so sure that “the West” offers affordable healthcare and economic security these days, nor freedom of opportunity (whatever that is). Legal protections work reasonably well on the “preventing both rich and poor from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges” and the “I stole this land fair and square and I’ve got guns” principles.

Clean water I’ll give you (in general) and freedom of expression seems only mildly under threat, as long as you’re happy with the richest having the loudest voices.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Wilbur

Wilbur — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 05:07:11 +0000

SleepyTreehugger – in some ways I believe that we view their needs through our western eyes. My take on it is that most of those who have not experienced the western way, or have chosen to revert away from this way are very happy with their lot.
Despite viewing this from a position of comfort and privilege, I fear that much of what we value forms part of a mirage established by those who will profit from our holding ‘drinking water, affordable healthcare, economic security, freedom of expression, legal protections, and freedom of opportunity’ as inalienable rights. Whereas the “others” wonder what all the fuss is about and enjoy their simple life style and the patterns of living including birth and death and all the hardships and pleasures in between.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: SleepyTreehugger

SleepyTreehugger — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 03:57:33 +0000

Wilber, in a manner of speaking I’m sure they do. Most want the clean drinking water, affordable healthcare, economic security, freedom of expression, legal protections, and freedom of oppurtunity that the West offers its citizens.

Yes theres many problems in Western societies, but seeing the violence, suffering, and poverty thats indemic in the Third World I’d honestly prefer to live here.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: Wilbur

Wilbur — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 03:21:00 +0000

Does Africa want to “catch up” with the developed world? Is it not the developed world that is taking us to the brink?
Property rights only apply to the conqueror, who ignores such things during the conquering.
My concern is that the development of NZ is still going on and in time, the production specialisation of narrow ranges of primary production will lead the country into a state of paying for imported food against falling dairy prices, whilst waiting for the next primary product boom to pay the bills – all the while squandering our natural resources.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)

By: SleepyTreehugger

SleepyTreehugger — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 02:42:05 +0000

Fundamental changes must be made in order for Africa to “catch up” with the developed world.

Its a little unfair to claim that bad governance and corruption are responsible for the lack of development in Africa, when its indemic in all countries, whether developed or Third World nations. Only in the West its merely considered part of the political system. Pork barrel politics, political machines, and the “revolving door” phenomon. It doesn’t have a perceivable negative effect on their economies only because of the maturity of their capital markets and social/governance/economic institutions. Well it does, but most are oblivious to it.

Nor is it to claim that development came about, because governments respected “property rights”. You could hardly argue that the colonials in South Africa, South East Asia, the Americas, or Australasia, protected the property rights of the indigenous peoples, but those areas still managed to develop anyway. It can be argued to the contrary, that those regions developed precisely, because they didn’t.

Like or Dislike: 0 0 (0)