[eDebate] malgor is always hungry

Josh jbhdb8
Wed Apr 15 13:49:48 CDT 2009


Malgor,

Again, your problem is that these "arguments" are not comparative.  And none
of them respond to my multiple specific pre-empts to your arguments (there
was a list a-f as I remember).

You say:

I disagree that indigenous people can?t use their own cultural techniques to
feed themselves.  In fact, it?s one of the dumbest things I?ve heard in a
while (granted you haven?t been posting as much lately OH SNAP).

I say:

Indigenous people, where self-sufficient, should continue to be so....Most
places where the world is hungry indigenous methods are failing for a
multitude of reasons (changing weather patterns, increased populations, less
indiginous area, changing needs).  I actually said the opposite in a sense
(that where self-sufficient they should be left alone).

You say:

But I think you were saying that indigenous techniques alone couldn?t feed
everyone in the world to a level you feel is adequate. This may be true.  Of
course, in a world of capitalist markets and industrial ag (which has
definitely been very good for both our bellies, being portly fellows) we
have a few things:

>  ?  Every year 15 million children die of hunger
>

I say:

The answer is not less agriculture.  There is enough food presently to feed
every one of those people.  In addition, but for externalities like
governmental system, lack of investment in agriculture by central
governments, weather, and lack of a meaningful world emergency grain system
and prevention of speculative attacks there would be little to no hunger in
the world.  Good luck proving that in the absence of industrial agriculture
these people would be saved.  Organic agriculture is MUCH more land
intensive and produces much less yield.  In fact, for most of the world,
organic agriculture is something ONLY the rich can afford.

You say:

?  For the price of one missile, a school full of hungry children could eat
lunch every day for 5 years

I say:

Non-sequiter

?  Throughout the 1990's more than 100 million children will die from
illness and starvation. Those 100 million deaths could be prevented for the
price of ten Stealth bombers, or what the world spends on its military in
two days!

See above

>  ?  The World Health Organization estimates that one-third of the world is
> well-fed, one-third is under-fed one-third is starving- Since you've entered
> this site at least 200 people have died of starvation. Over 4 million will
> die this year.
>
See above

You say:

I will say it?s obvious you are frustrated with Ks.  You especially seemed
offended by the audacity of people to think that maybe the world we?ve
created is somewhat destructive.

I say:

No, misreading at best, I am frustrated with hippies thinking but for
industrial agriculture people would pass the organic peace pipe and everyone
would magically have food in bellies......I spent the entire year
researching global food and its just factually incorrect.  Does that mean we
should depict people as helpless in the face of famine - no...Does that mean
we should assume all people are hungry that arent capitalist - no....Does
that mean there are no problems in the present system - hell no....But your
argument is a solvency argument not a disadvantage and your alternative has
less than Zero chance of solving.....However, in many rounds the neg would
win.....ick.

You say:

 Just remember it?s easy to think that you have all the solutions when you
are always less than 5 miles from the nearest McDonald?s.  At the end of the
night, when an underpaid employee (likely a young woman or minority) lugs 10
bags of trash out to the dumpster (cause it?s more economical to throw
something away than give it away) behind the McDonald?s?.how many people
could that feed?

I say:

Actually this argument proves my point more than yours...its a question of
better safety nets, less waste, and better distribution.  There are real and
meaningful proposals for just this since oil spiked two years ago (please
read IFPRI's Virtual reserve proposals for instance). However, there would
be less food available in the world you propose for MORE people......You are
making solvency arguments not disadvantages.

I hate when it comes to this...But I was relatively poor for a good deal of
my life...I have seen a good deal of hunger...I totally understand I am
privledged but that is ONLY a warrant for supporting the system that has the
best chance of ending malnutrition and hunger....That system sure as hell
isnt hippy organics or becoming pre-capitalist through wizardy and magic.

Josh


>
>
> malgor
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090415/1f7cbfae/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list