this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
229 points (84.2% liked)

Showerthoughts

30023 readers
617 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    • 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    • 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    • 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Extremely not-fun fact: collectively, humanity currently produces more than enough food for every person. But a huge part of it is either wasted or inaccessible by people that need them, which usually results in them not going to anyone and being wasted, which is why we still have food scarcity.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 114 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Food isn't scarce. It's just poorly distributed.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Food isn’t even poorly distributed. Almost everybody eats, and the only places people don’t eat it’s from other people with weapons actively preventing them from getting food, and actively preventing others from bringing it to them.

I’ve been homeless in America, twice. Both times I had all the food I could eat, as soon as I was willing to accept it.

The first time I relied on strangers and I ate like a king. The people of Cambridge MA just straight up gave me more food than I could eat when I asked.

The second time I stayed in a shelter in Denver. I had three square meals a day available to me, though I only ate dinner since my job didn’t permit me to attend the other meals. It was good food, donated and prepared by volunteers.

I am sick of people trying to perpetuate the myth that we have starvation in America. It’s one area we succeed in beyond the wildest dreams of anyone even 50 years ago, but haters just can’t stop hating on our society.

We feed people. We feed them extremely well.

[–] mycorrhiza@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

9 million people starve to death every year

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Globally, not solely in the US.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, and only when people with guns are actively preventing them from getting food, and actively preventing others from bringing it to them.

[–] mycorrhiza@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

First of all, that means food is poorly distributed. You are just disputing the cause.

And yes, conflict if a major cause of hunger. But what is a major cause of conflict? Fucking poverty. Al Qaeda doesn't recruit from fucking Beverly Hills. Another major cause: US intervention, for the sake of profit and geopolitical dominance, with the dominance ultimately also being for the sake of profit. The world economic system functions as a huge siphon that extracts wealth from the global south and funnels it to wealthy countries where the major institutions of finance are located. Western financial instruments like the IMF and World Bank, alongside direct political and economic pressure, enforce austerity in poor nations, dismantle social safety nets, depress wages, and privatize resources, and this very predictably results in underdevelopment and poverty, which fucking benefits the west because lower wages mean larger profit margins, lower prices and greater market share for the western companies that source their labor there. It's a fucking global sweatshop economy. And there are consequences to this, when everyone is fucking poor and uneducated and young men see no future for themselves except to become soldiers. It means conflict, which means starvation.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the world economic system is as you claim, how is it that people in the southern hemisphere are getting steadily more wealthy?

The problem with people who criticize the free market is they’re so focused on distribution they don’t think about production. The answer is that as wealth is funneled north it is also generated at an even higher rate resulting in all humanity getting more wealthy as a result of the system that “concentrates” wealth.

Like if I had air in a bottle and concentrated it all to one corner, that would result in no air everywhere else.

But if I were to create an incredibly sense section of air while increasing the density of air throughout the bottle, it would be misleading to use the word “concentrate” for the action generating that air distribution.

As for big rich countries causing conflict I agree 100%. In fact as far as I know al qaida isn’t causing nearly as much hunger as the House of Saud, which is the richest organization in human history.

And I’m not talking about “there’s war and that makes the market break down” as the men with guns thing. I’m talking about “armies are actively blockading food”.

So “poorly distributed” is really better described as “actively withheld”. It’s like putting a plastic bag over a prisoner’s head then claiming their suffocation was due to “poor distribution of air”, then trying to criticize the building’s HVAC system.

There’s no HVAC system in the world that can solve the problem of a person being suffocated by a plastic bag, and there’s no economic system in the world that can solve the problem of armies actively blockading food from populations. That’s not an indication the economic system has failed; it’s an indication the political system has failed.

[–] mycorrhiza@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

To my knowledge, pretty much all of the wealth gains have been in China.

[–] Lemmylaugh@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It’s actually efficiently distributed, to where the profit is

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nothing efficient about throwing away food. Not even from a profit perspective.

[–] blackbirdbiryani@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That depends. If discarding food costs $X and distributing it to another market costs $2X guess which option is economically favourable?

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The only reason that would occur would be inefficiency in distribution of product.

[–] TheMauveAvenger@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wow you solved it. We just need to make distribution efficient.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That is literally the first comment in this thread, gtfo. Not going in circles with you.

[–] TheMauveAvenger@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then what would you suggest? If getting rid of food costs say $5 and sending to a different area costs say $10 then between both selections which one is better for the economy?

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I stated a fact, I didn't suggest anything. wtf are you still talking for?

If you're paying to get rid of something you paid for, you fucked up.

[–] hudson@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In many cases, it’s not that, either.

[–] Blamemeta@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, hard to truck food when the roads are in bad shape, especially since food can go bad easily.

Logistics are harder than many people think.