How can we fix world hunger /sci/?

File: 57 KB, 500x330, moar.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 17:37:52 2015 No.7030806 [DELETED]

How can we fix world hunger /sci/?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 17:38:33 2015 No.7030809 Kill the hungry.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 17:39:51 2015 No.7030810 File: 2.17 MB, 286x210, no.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7030806 With food

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 17:53:13 2015 No.7030836 >>7030806 either apply widespread sterilization in affected territories or perform large-scale genocide in affected territories

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 17:55:12 2015 No.7030841 >>7030806 >How can we fix world hunger /sci/? Why? So they can breed and produce even more hungry people and make their problem 10 times worse?

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 17:55:50 2015 No.7030842

It's funny how in some places people are struggling to get food and water to everyone and at the same time in America people are striving for a way to eat way too much without getting fat.

This world is full of shit I tell you. If people find a way to do latter earlier than the first, then I kill myself.

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 18:00:44 2015 No.7030853

What is the name for this again?

Like when I first upgraded my monthly internet cap from 5gb to 25gb all those years ago?

It's like that but with food.

If you make more food, then those having kids are going to see it easier to have more of them until you get to a point like it is now, not enough food for the amount of mouths.

You would hope that people would self regulate, but because of the mortality rate and low life expectancy in some countries, all they do is procreate.

You can't just tell people to stop fucking when there is nothing else to do, but trying to feed them is like feeding wildlife, they end up wanting more and you eventually have no more you are willing to spare.

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 18:31:29 2015 No.7030903

You can complain about overpopulation all you like but it is not causing world hunger at the moment.

There is a sufficient amount of food being produced it just isn't being distributed to those who need it most because of local political instabilities.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 18:31:30 2015 No.7030904 >>7030806 >How can we fix world hunger /sci/? End war. And Communism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine#20th_century The only famines of the 20th century were caused by Communism, war, or both.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 18:38:29 2015 No.7030917 >>7030904 interesting Anon. Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 18:42:06 2015 No.7030921 >>7030806 The dark truth is that all these countries have the resources to feed themselves; they just don't. Africa has the equivalent of Saudi Arabian Oil levels of mineral resources. Look at Zimbabwe. It's just sad.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 18:43:46 2015 No.7030925 >>7030921 I agree. It's so sad how white people have been exploiting africa for so long.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 18:50:31 2015 No.7030945 >>7030917 except it's not true. denial of assistance is pure capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 18:57:43 2015 No.7030957 >>7030945 >except it's not true. OK, show me an exception. Name a 20th century famine not caused by war, Communism, or both.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 19:00:33 2015 No.7030965 >>7030957 The IMF blames capitalism for the famine in Niger...

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 19:04:11 2015 No.7030977 >>7030925 What's China doing in Sudan then anon? Why has Africa been historically exploitable

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 19:04:44 2015 No.7030982 >>7030965 ugh could you not be so racist

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 19:13:49 2015 No.7031003 >>7030965 They named the country nigger Kek

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 19:16:33 2015 No.7031007

>>7030965
>The IMF blames capitalism for the famine in Niger...
According to Wikipedia, it was a "food security crisis", not a famine.
Also, it wasn't in the 20th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005%E2%80%9306_Niger_food_crisis#Background

The crisis had long been predicted after swarms of locusts consumed nearly all crops in parts of Niger during the 2004 agricultural season. In other areas, insufficient rainfall resulted in exceptionally poor harvests and dry pastures affecting both farmers and livestock breeders. An assessment carried out by the government of Niger, the United Nations and international Non Governmental Organizations reached a general consensus that the crisis, while locally severe, had not reached the level of famine according to famine scales.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 19:59:22 2015 No.7031077 >>7031007 bump Still waiting to hear about a 20th century famine that wasn't caused by war, communism or both.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 20:11:53 2015 No.7031098 >>7030806 Potatoes.

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 20:18:53 2015 No.7031115

>>7031077
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
you're dumb.
Lombok, drought and malnutrition, exacerbated by restrictions on regional rice trade
Famine in Somalia, brought on by the 2011 East Africa drought[
Famine in West Africa, brought on by the 2012 Sahel drought

>>7031007
I was talking about the current famine anon. You can redefine famine to fit your geopolitical perspective, but it doesn't change the fact of people going hungry while food rots, because they don't have money.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 20:28:01 2015 No.7031136 Make all the Africans cyborgs.

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 20:32:20 2015 No.7031147
File: 190 KB, 1268x1695, y4qTbOM.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7030806
We already produce enough food to end world hunger forever. The problem isn't making more, it's distribution. Even a lot of food given in aid just ends up rotting in a warehouse instead of ever being handed out. If you want to get rid of world hunger, first you have to get rid of world corruption.

So in short, there will always be world hunger. Which is why "hurr durr why we doing space stuff when we still got problems here?" is so retarded.

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 20:53:23 2015 No.7031193

>>7031115
>Lombok, drought and malnutrition, exacerbated by restrictions on regional rice trade
One exception, big whoop.

>Famine in Somalia, brought on by the 2011 East Africa drought[
>Famine in West Africa, brought on by the 2012 Sahel drought
Not 20th century.

>You can redefine famine to fit your geopolitical perspective
I'm not the one defining it.

Either way, most modern famine is caused by war and Communism.
Don't forget, "Communism" is a 20th century political movement, while "capitalism" is any system that's not communist. So when you blame "capitalism", you're really just blaming "anything that isn't communism".
Now who's jiggering definitions "to fit your geopolitical perspective"?

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 21:03:06 2015 No.7031216

>>7031193
P.S.
My original observation came from reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine#20th_century

Checking your link, I see the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
Somalia & West Africa, 2011-2012, no numbers given

Second Congo War. 3.8 million people died, mostly from starvation and disease
Famine in Ethiopia. The situation worsened by Eritrean–Ethiopian War
1998 Sudan famine caused by war and drought
North Korean famine.[87][88] Scholars estimate 600,000 died of starvation (other estimates range from 200,000 to 3.5 million).[89]
Famine in Somalia caused by drought and civil war[86]
1983–85 famine in Ethiopia (The famines that struck Ethiopia between 1961 and 1985, and in particular the one of 1983–5, were in large part created by government policies, specifically the set of counter-insurgency strategies employed and so-called "social transformation" in non-insurgent areas.[6][)
Uganda Caused by drought and conflict[86]
Khmer Rouge. An estimated 2 million Cambodians lost their lives to murder, forced labor and famine
Bangladesh famine of 1974 (not apparently caused by war or communism)
72-73 famine in Ethiopia (see above)
Sahel drought created a famine that killed a million people[85] (also not apparently caused by war or communism)
Biafran famine caused by Nigerian blockade
Lombok, drought and malnutrition, exacerbated by restrictions on regional rice trade (your example)
The Great Chinese Famine. According to government statistics, there were 15 million excess deaths.
...

There are several counter-examples, but clearly war and communism are the leading causes of famine in modern times.

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 21:04:08 2015 No.7031219
File: 108 KB, 625x482, 1416975192314.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7031193
>while "capitalism" is any system that's not communist
No it's not you retard. Capitalism is the private ownership of capital, distinct from socialism, feudalism, mutualism, and other economic models.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 21:05:43 2015 No.7031228 >>7031219 >implying " feudalism, mutualism, and other economic models" exist in the modern day

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 21:05:47 2015 No.7031230 "we" don't, the hungry have to help themselves.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 21:06:31 2015 No.7031233 >>7031228 Doesn't make the statement you made any less retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 21:13:26 2015 No.7031257 >>7031230 I agree with you, but how? What can you do when you live in a third world shithole and you have a low paying job and no money to buy the daily nutriments that your metabolism requires?

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 21:18:02 2015 No.7031263

>>7031233
>Doesn't make the statement you made any less retarded.
My point, dumbass, is that some anon in here (you?) is trying to demonize "capitalism" as though it were a political movement (like communism), while in reality "private ownership of capital" is the default state of humanity.

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 21:18:11 2015 No.7031265

>>7030806
Remember that population growth in developing countries is typically a function of available resources

So... one of four things:
Prevent populations from growing larger than their food production
Lower populations to manageable levels
Do nothing, it's self-limiting
Magically produce more and more food

One of these solutions doesn't raise direct ethical or humanitarian issues
One of these solutions isn't viable

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 21:21:32 2015 No.7031271

>>7031263
>(you?)
I'm a different anon, my first post in the thread was >>7031219

> "private ownership of capital" is the default state of humanity.
Not true, feudal societies existed in many areas at different times, and the classical economies that came before then wouldn't be called capitalist by any economist/historian. Many tribal societies have been described as primitive socialism.

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 21:21:39 2015 No.7031272

>>7031265
I'm counting on western hegemony to limit population growth.
If we can get the whole world to live the European/Japanese/American lifestyle, we can hope to achieve zero population growth.
Assuming we can all live this way without ecological disaster.

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 21:22:02 2015 No.7031276

i read recently that a farm of the future in japan produced food at substantially lower cost.

in terms of water and energy expenditure.

like a super efficient farm.. probably indoor also i imagine.

that would be something i think could make a change to food poverty.

its badly written but its late.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 21:23:29 2015 No.7031280 >>7031271 >, feudal societies existed in many areas at different times And how is feudalism distinct from "private ownership of capital"? Oh yeah, you've defined the King as "not private". semantics

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 21:25:07 2015 No.7031284 >>7031272 That won't work indefinitely either, those sorts of economies rely on growth to stay viable.

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 21:26:24 2015 No.7031287

>>7031280
So you think if a country confiscated every piece of private property and handed it to a single ruler it would still be a capitalistic society, since that ruler is still an individual person?

Feudalism and capitalism are distinct economic models, the only time they're compared is in criticism against capitalism.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 21:28:22 2015 No.7031291 >>7031276 Intredastin. Do you have a link, anon?

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 21:43:23 2015 No.7031316

>>7031284
>those sorts of economies rely on growth to stay viable.
I keep hearing this, but so far the only support for this argument seems to be "well, we have growth, and we're successful, so success must depend on growth".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 22:08:44 2015 No.7031346 >>7030965 pwned inb4 appeal to authority on a science board

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 22:11:09 2015 No.7031350 eugenics. specifically, genius sperm banks.

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 22:43:15 2015 No.7031408

>>7030806

Contraceptives in drinking water.

Fewer mouths to feed in places that can't support endlessly rising population.

>They have a right to have children.

But not a right to demand other people feed them. So they end up exercising the right to watch their children starve. Still think messing with the drinking water is such a heartless crime?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 22:54:53 2015 No.7031422 >>7031263 Most communist societies were state capitalist anon. You're talking out your ass.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 22:57:30 2015 No.7031431 >>7031346 No he just claims its not a famine. And when we point out a famine caused by capitalism we get this >>7031193 >Lombok, drought and malnutrition, exacerbated by restrictions on regional rice trade >One exception, big whoop.

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 23:02:34 2015 No.7031441

>>7030904
Funny how your retarded ass went from

>The only famines of the 20th century were caused by Communism, war, or both.

To

>One exception, big whoop.

Then

>Bangladesh famine of 1974
>Sahel drought created a famine that killed a million people
>etc

Might reconsider not sounding like a moron and choosing words like "majority" in most of your statements to not like an imbecile who claims there are no exceptions, only to add some on his own later.

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 23:04:56 2015 No.7031447

>>7031316
Here's some support for this from the viewpoint of a corporation or individual.
>http://cje.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/1/25.short

Also, take a look at the divergence of actual production versus total cost of production - I know this is exactly what you were talking about, but bear with me.
This is the engine which drives a return on capital, and is fueled by minimizing production costs. Without this increasing disparity, investment and labor are equally profitable - why would anyone bother risking their capital?

Eventually, even with more advanced methods of production (especially automation, which tends to provide a lower return on capital, can replace skilled workers, driving down demand and prices), there will be no possible ways to keep production costs down. No more overseas expansion, no more wage cuts, no more shortcuts. Increasing efficiency by paying less in wages is self-limiting in a closed system and eventually this global economy will have to be considered just that.

Not saying I know any of this for a fact, just something to consider.

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 23:10:24 2015 No.7031460

>>7031447
Forgot to add:

Consider the wage/production gap in the context of loss of capital during the Great Depression and World War II.
Also consider capitalist economies that have adopted socialist economic policies when faced with limited growth. Or have eventually suffered too hard a reset

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 23:12:20 2015 No.7031467 >>7030841 Someone's been playing Black & White, I see...

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 23:24:45 2015 No.7031480 Farm insects and eat them

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 23:29:09 2015 No.7031488

In the US, factory farm cows consume 70% of the grain.

So, if we stop factory farming and instead just use the would-be surplus of crop we feed the animals with, we could just feed people in need with it.

Note, this may be a short term solution, probably a 6 months- 2 years

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 23:34:48 2015 No.7031501

>>7030806
>How can we fix world hunger /sci/?
Certainly not by any of current methods being employed.

So far as a global community we have only made emotional knee-jerk reactions to the problem.

While I am not talking about 'le overpopulation' as it were, the population of the third world is obviously unsustainable in any practical sense and it continues to grow. This is not to say they could not provide for themselves at such levels if they wanted but lets face it, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
As such I would say any emotionally driven attempts to wipe out disease and similar things which both extend life expectancy and birthrate are extremely dangerous at this point in time.

The only method I can think of which would genuinely be viable in fixing world hunger is apartheid where functioning white nations create viable societies which can sustain a viable population of natives.
>inb4 back to /pol/
The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows, don't be so naive to thing the solution to such fucked up problems is going to be all happy and nice.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 23:36:02 2015 No.7031503 >>7031488 If we keep feeding them (let's pretend it's ever properly distributed), they'll keep making more mouths and won't produce their own food

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 23:37:10 2015 No.7031505 >>7030903 So functioning nations produce a fuckton of food, ship half of it to Africa and create a welfare continent. Your not actually solving world hunger, your putting a band aid on it.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 23:38:25 2015 No.7031507 >>7031503 Seeing everything in black and white, I see

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 23:40:04 2015 No.7031510 >>7031507 Can we both agree that what you just said is not actually a legitimate response to anything?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 23:44:23 2015 No.7031514 >>7031505 No, Zimbabwe can produce enough food to feed itself. Then the white people left, black people took over the farms, and food stopped being produced.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 23:45:44 2015 No.7031516 Apartheid is the only proven and currently viable method of ending poverty.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 23:49:05 2015 No.7031517 File: 18 KB, 275x339, CIN790.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7031503 If we stopped feeding them, we would either have to find a new market for all the overproduction or cut the farm subsidies.

Anonymous Sun Jan 25 23:51:51 2015 No.7031519

>>7031507
Simply just shipping all of our grain to Africa for no profit, even if done out of the goodness of farmers' hearts, solves no problems, it simply creates dependence and more people to feed. The only solution to world hunger is teaching people to feed themselves.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 23:53:09 2015 No.7031522 >>7031276 Brilliant! Let us not stop until all the world is paved over with shopping malls, indoor farms, apartment buildings and solar panels!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 25 23:53:29 2015 No.7031524 >>7031517 I laughed No, really, I did >>7031510 I think he was implying racism in my assessment of dependence on foreign aid

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 00:00:19 2015 No.7031533

>>7030836
preety much
>be starving african
>get food
>instead of growing the food, eat it
>become international welfare queen
>since i'm healthy might as well procreate
>create more starving children
>repeat

as cruel, and edgy as it sounds people who want to be reliant on other's for food without bettering their countries and communities should only receive under the conditions that hey sterilize themselves.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 00:00:57 2015 No.7031535 >>7030806 Enpower women. Easier said than done, but works every time. Get the deserts to flourish again. See http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change?language=en

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 00:02:57 2015 No.7031540 >>7031535 Isn't 'empowering women' just a codeword for national self destruction?

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 00:03:08 2015 No.7031541

>>7030806
Anonymous 01/26/15(Mon)07:00:57 No.7031535 ▶
>>7030806 (OP)
Empower women. Easier said than done, but works every time.

Get the deserts to flourish again.
See http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change?language=en

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 00:06:56 2015 No.7031547 >Empower women >In Africa top kek Might want to wait before there are actually some resources and power structures in existence before you start trying to steal them...

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 00:08:27 2015 No.7031552 >>7031541 see >>7031540 no i'm not a seer he deleted a post.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 00:10:36 2015 No.7031557 >>7031547 It's possible http://www.aneki.com/women_parliament.html

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 00:12:00 2015 No.7031559 >>7031557 For what purpose?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 00:20:36 2015 No.7031570 File: 69 KB, 520x678, 1354829870260.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7031533 >Africa is a paradise continent full of "welfare queens" that live off the fat of the West

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 00:23:29 2015 No.7031577

>>7031570
never said it was a paradise, as animals, we humans can live by the minimal amount of survival. Of course there are great many who are starving, but most who do get aid in food, often don't plan for the future, and with the ability to eat to live another day, they reproduce and spawn new offspring with the same needs.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 00:26:11 2015 No.7031580 >>7031577 This is the same bullshit rationale that led to no one doing anything about the potato famine in Ireland. The island's population STILL hasn't recovered since then.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 00:31:13 2015 No.7031584 >>7031580 Well, with the Irish potato famine the English stole our potatoes and shipped them to England. In Zimbabwe, they just aren't making food on their farms.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 01:37:30 2015 No.7031657 >>7031584 You think Zimbabwe's the only country with famines?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 01:42:46 2015 No.7031665 >>7031657 Nope.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 01:42:50 2015 No.7031666 File: 10 KB, 250x253, sam-kinison-scream[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7030806 LIVE WHERE THE FOOD IS!!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 03:27:59 2015 No.7031786 >>7031570 If only they would listen to western experts and let the free market do its job. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/world/africa/02malawi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 04:37:11 2015 No.7031835

Food sovereignty
stop the jews from making cocoa farms in brazil and other shit in third worlds

instead let the 3rd poorfags farm something they are actualy allowed to grow and harvest and eat themselves instead of the jews forcing them to export their shit

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 05:19:52 2015 No.7031862

>>7031422
>Most communist societies were state capitalist anon. You're talking out your ass.
Oh.
_I'm_ talking out my ass.
OK.

>>7031431
>No he just claims its not a famine.
No, _I_ don't claim it's not a famine.
The U.N. (and lots of other people) claim it's not a famine.

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 05:53:48 2015 No.7031879

>>7031862
>Most communist societies were state capitalist anon. You're talking out your ass.
>hurr durr
The USSR was state capitalist. They had wages, centralized management, accumulation of capital etc etc, just controlled by the state. Even Lenin called the USSR state capitalist.

>No, _I_ don't claim it's not a famine.
>The U.N. (and lots of other people) claim it's not a famine.
Uhhh... you're claiming the Sahel Drought wasn't a famine.... I don't know how to deal with this. The UN calls it a famine. You're just lying.

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 06:07:31 2015 No.7031889

>>7031879
>The USSR was state capitalist.
Whatever you want to call it, most people call it communism. It (and war) were responsible for almost all famine in the 20th century.

>>7031879
>Uhhh... you're claiming the Sahel Drought wasn't a famine...
No, read the thread. I'm not claiming anything was or wasn't a famine, I'm just reporting what various governments are reporting.
>>7031007
>An assessment carried out by the government of Niger, the United Nations and international Non Governmental Organizations reached a general consensus that the crisis, while locally severe, had not reached the level of famine according to famine scales.

Look, I think we're all agreed the issue isn't that agriculture has failed us.
The issue is obviously political/social/economic.
The two biggest causes in this are war, and whatever you want to call the Soviet/Chinese/etc system most people refer to as "communist".

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 06:08:19 2015 No.7031890

>>7031879

>The USSR was state capitalist.

The USSR did not have private ownership of the means of production, which is the main trait of socialism. It was not capitalist at all.

If you want to argue that communism requires no wages, centralized management and accumulation of capital, then there was literally no communist economy ever and never will be. Which just shows the true absurdity of the idea.

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 06:24:07 2015 No.7031902

>>7031890
you meant to reply to this >>7031889 I assume
>The USSR did not have private ownership of the means of production, which is the main trait of socialism. It was not capitalist at all.
The main trait of Socialism is worker controlled means of production. Even Lenin (you know the guy who came up with the whole thing) called the system in Russia state capitalism. Now if you're going to claim that Lenin doesn't know what Socialism is, there is no point in this conversation.
>Segeway from Socialism to Communism
Socialism and Communism are not the same thing.
>Communism can't exist
What is proto-communism?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 13:37:18 2015 No.7032362 >>7031902 >Even Lenin called the system in Russia state capitalism and North Korea is called a 'democratic people's republic'. It means it's a democratic society, Kim Ill Sung surely knows what democracy is, m'kay?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 14:08:03 2015 No.7032421 >>7032362 North Korea doesn't fit the definition of a democracy just as the Soviet Union didn't fit the definition of a socialist one. Just like your own example shows just because they called themselves communists doesn't mean they were.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 14:08:14 2015 No.7032422 Ummm... cannibalism ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 14:12:42 2015 No.7032431 >>7030809 >>7030810 >>7030836 not even 3 posts before /sci/ has to let loose the aspergerfacism you folks are itching to sterilize something

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 14:22:45 2015 No.7032454

We need to keep in mind that overpopulation is a symptom of poverty, not the case of it.

One's best bet for survival in a condition of poverty is a large support system. This comes from a large family, more hands to work and if one of your children is successful, your family is saved. Not to mention, children are the only means of social security for most of the population of these countries.
We should continue to produce conditions for stability and provide humanitarian assistance.

The economy and population will grow, but with gradual development living standards will rise.

With rising living standards, economic incentives will transform against preference for larger families. If people have gainful employment and social security, their calculation will be to support fewer babies and focus on work / creative pursuits.

Believe it or not, in the West families of several children were once normal as well. The only preconditions that should be provided for aid money should be that governments reasonably demonstrate that it is being funneled toward social and economic progress.

Lastly, we must fight traditional culture that discourages use of contraceptives.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 14:41:52 2015 No.7032476 Look at those bellies, those kids are well fed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 14:56:36 2015 No.7032496 >>7030806 Mother Earth created Ebola so as long as we don't interfere with the effected regions and maybe quarantine them she will take care of everything. Who knows maybe all of the corpses will create more fertile land in the future!

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 15:42:45 2015 No.7032622 >>7032454 One would think though that if children are a net economic asset one would expect people to continue having children. I believe here in the west children are in fact net economic losses for families and hence why people have so few of them.

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 15:46:45 2015 No.7032631

>>7032622
Is there any doubt that children are loss in developed world? One will need to feed them for 18 years or so and there's no job for them anyway, pay for their education, and than if you lucky they will leave the house and live on their own no longer taking anything, but returning nothing either.

Society as a whole benefit from reproduction, obviously, but for every individual it's a mix of martyrdom and weird expensive hobby.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 16:02:29 2015 No.7032656 >>7032454 That's the long version of what I was getting at here >>7031272 >I'm counting on western hegemony to limit population growth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 16:51:31 2015 No.7032738 >>7032631 But given that people generally produce more than they consume (the basis of capitalism) should we not incentivise people having children?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 17:15:31 2015 No.7032766 >>7030806 sterilize africans

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 17:23:40 2015 No.7032778 File: 222 KB, 640x453, Young_theodore_kaczynski.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] we can just inject african children with some retrovirus carrying the gene for b1,4 glucosidase so they can eat grass like cows. or simply LESS PEOPLE.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 17:28:01 2015 No.7032784 >>7032778 Yeah, less people, so America can still afford to eat twice the amount of what's needed. Fat fucks.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 17:42:42 2015 No.7032802 >>7031514 not because they were black though, you retard

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 17:43:46 2015 No.7032804 >>7031522 okay. is that a problem?

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 18:01:52 2015 No.7032825

>>7032802
Of course not, because they were ignorant savage peasants stealing things from their betters with no knowledge of how to use them. The same would happen in any semi-industrial communist revolution, the only reason it didn't happen in Russia was at the time there was no industrial farm equipment in the country and all the work was still done by peasants with hand tools, and even then there was massive scale starvation.

Violent redistribution just doesn't work out.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 18:11:17 2015 No.7032836 So /sci/ gets butt-hurt when /pol/ says black people might be genetically dumb. But when it comes to world hunger, /sci/ wants to genocide/sterilize/genetically engineer them. Is this correct? This is an unexpected development.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 18:16:23 2015 No.7032844 >>7032836 Most of the "durr just let em starve" seem to be /pol/ types as well.

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 18:18:48 2015 No.7032847

>>7032836
It doesn't matter if they are genetically dumb or just dumb because there isn't a half decent public education system on the entire goddamn continent, they are billions of mouths to feed whose existence does absolutely nothing to enrich or improve any of our lives, it isn't racist or evil to want all of them to quietly disappear and remove the overpopulation problem for good, it is simply human nature and the fact that you are not capable of thinking of billions of people you will never meet as real people.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 18:23:22 2015 No.7032858 File: 832 KB, 694x642, 1359532811197.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7032847 Sub-Saharan Africa isn't "billions of people", and mass starvation of hundreds of millions isn't "a problem quietly disappearing"

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 18:25:08 2015 No.7032863 >>7032858 it is from our perspective

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 18:27:37 2015 No.7032867

>>7032863
No, because such a sheer number of people starving to death aren't going to just peacefully and quietly lay down and die. It will cause huge amounts of political and economic turmoil, raise prices for consumers elsewhere as supply lines are disrupted, and send waves and waves of refugees spilling over into neighboring countries and beyond.

This is past the fact that "I'm not the one suffering so why should I care?" is completely sociopathic.

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 18:30:11 2015 No.7032872

>>7032858
In the context of the overpopulation problem they do represent billions of people, not just the, what, like 800 million there are now but the 2-3 billion the population is expected to grow to before it levels off mid century.

And of course the actual starvation of hundreds of millions would be a big deal but having them all disappear quietly would be the ideal solution and letting them all starve off would be the closest thing to it. It also brings the moral absolution of it being their fault for not producing enough food for themselves, whereas war or genocide would obviously be pretty evil on the part of whoever's doing it and disease is too much to hope for. The idea of them 'disappearing quietly' isn't to be interpreted literally just from the point of view of a first worlder who doesn't read the news too much.

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 18:36:41 2015 No.7032882

>>7032872
>It also brings the moral absolution of it being their fault for not producing enough food for themselves
Which, and this is really far out there but bear with me, could absolutely be remedied by helping educate and equip the farmers on the continent and encourage political stability through open trade and not assassinating every democratic leader we don't happen to like. Not all "foreign aid" is in the form of raw food or clothes, and there are already programs to educate people and build infrastructure like wells for free water and irrigation and hospitals for medical care. Seems to be a better solution for long term growth and development than passively killing millions.

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 18:39:24 2015 No.7032888

>>7032867
>This is past the fact that "I'm not the one suffering so why should I care?" is completely sociopathic.
Nope, dude, your brain just plain doesn't work that way.

If there is some African child starving to death on the sidewalk in front of you and you don't give a shit and keep walking and munching on your apple then yeah that's pretty sociopathic.

When the same thing happens on the other side of the world and you never see the children or any of his friends or family or anyone who knows him or has heard of his friends or family or even is aware of his existence as an individual person and not just another unit of the abstract 'starving children in Africa', it isn't sociopathic, it is natural and rational. Your brain cannot process personal human emotions for someone who exists only as an abstract idea, it isn't wired that way. Because you have the power to affect people you personally meet, you have no power to affect untold billions on the other side of the globe and caring about them and feeling true empathy for their problems is unacceptable, you would be crippled with despair and absolutely miserable.

When it happens a thousandfold, the problem only gets worse, it's not an abstraction suffering on a personal level, it's an abstraction suffering an abstract fate since you can't even properly comprehend a thousand people you know starving to death. It goes from an abstract moral issue to an economic and political one that you can think of objectively, and your empathy just switches off unless you actively think to include it as a constraint in your reasoning.

If you claim to personally care about african children starving to death, you are lying, you're lying for social approval which is more sociopathic than ignoring the suffering of even an individual you know, which can have very much justified reasons.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 18:41:30 2015 No.7032893 >>7030806 in africa? "we", as in the western world, don't. the chinese are going to clean up that mess. its not colonialism if asians do it.

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 18:44:20 2015 No.7032898

>>7032882
This post just demonstrated that you are completely economically naive in addition to politically so.

We need miserably poor people to support the capitalist system. We just export our scarcity and human suffering to the third world rather than keep it here. We can't just invest in nice things and have Africa develop to first world status and everybody wins and is better off and sits in a circle holding hands and singing kumbaya, we would need to completely restructure western society.

I can't possibly explain the details of this in a 4chan post, you really just need a more mature and informed understanding of capitalism, of how it works, how the incentives work and what in practice is holding it together. But the reality is, a civilized developed Africa directly means less resources and a shittier quality of life for us in the first world. Aid will never be more than a bandaid because we need the problems to be there for our own well being.

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 18:49:45 2015 No.7032906

>>7032898
>We need miserably poor people to support the capitalist system
Capitalism isn't a zero-sum game. Watch some talks by economists like Milton Friedman on the subject. A developed Africa, or developed Asia, or any developed region will be providing huge new markets for goods and services, growing the world economy. It'll also be a much more efficient use of human potential. How many potential inventors, scientists, or artists were wasted because they died as a child from malnutrition, or instead lived without any education and lived to be nothing more than a child soldier?

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 18:55:38 2015 No.7032913

>>7032888
Someone isn't going to be caring about people on the other side of the world as much as they will their own countrymen, but then they aren't going to care about their countrymen as much as they will their friends, and they may not care for their friends as much as they will their close family.

The fact that someone's unable to care about distant problems as much as they do more personal ones doesn't mean they should be entirely indifferent to it either. The mere fact there's a myriad of private organizations dedicated to providing direct aid to distant countries, and backed by millions of donators, proves that some people most definitely DO care.

On top of this, as the world grows more and more globalized and interconnected the problem with people being too disconnected from it to care will also shrink.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 19:07:17 2015 No.7032936 >>7032804 Depends how you define 'problem' Personally I wouldn't want to live in such conditions, no.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 19:59:48 2015 No.7033029 >>7032906 Different anon. It depends on exactly what you mean by zero-sum. On one hand more markets means more people to sell to. On the other hand more production means more competitors. As long as there is scarcity there will be winners and losers.

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 20:04:45 2015 No.7033042

>>7032784
>Yeah, less people, so America can still afford to eat twice the amount of what's needed. Fat fucks.
The average adult needs about 2000 calories a day.
3500 excess calories become a pound of body fat.
If you ate an extra 2000 calories a day, you'd gain over a half a pound a day.
2000*365 = 730000
730000/3500 = 208.57
Unless the average American gains 200 pounds a year, you're full of shit.

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 20:12:14 2015 No.7033056

>>7033042
>What is an ellipsis?
Seriously though your calculation is kinda flawed. First, an average adult does not need 2000 kcal. It's more like 1500 kcal (you may not be a body builder, but it's possible to survive). And 3000 kcal/day, I'd say that pretty much sounds like the intake of an average American. Note that with increasing body weight your body also needs more energy. So it doesn't go all the way up.

Doesn't really change the fact that it's still absurdly decadent.

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 20:21:45 2015 No.7033078

>>7033029
our standards of living won't decrease as other countries develop, and if anything our lot will improve since you're not creating more and more consumers and building up a wider industrial base to produce more and more. As education standards and infrastructure improves you'll also have more and more people to provide services, and all of these things will lead to increasing wages for these people in said countries as they develop.

A rising tide lifts all boats, so to speak.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 20:25:32 2015 No.7033083 >>7033078 except our standards of living are decreasing as other countries develope

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 21:12:17 2015 No.7033124

>>7033083
Decreasing in what metric? Life expediencies are rising, literacy rates have never been higher, crime rates are going down, median income is rising... the only problem is unemployment, but that's because we're still getting out of global recession.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 21:13:42 2015 No.7033129 >>7033124 Perhaps we could look to depression/anxiety disorder rate?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 21:15:47 2015 No.7033133 >>7033129 Perhaps you should become economically literate and learn what factors go into determining standards of living. Do you think standards of living are better in Bhutan than in Japan, simply because Bhutan has lower depression rates?

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 21:19:46 2015 No.7033142

>>7033133
Perhaps. As biological creatures access to high technology is not, and has never been a requisite for our happy and fruitful existence.

But of course the health of one's family and local community connections can't be enumerated as an economic metric and so is ignored.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 21:32:17 2015 No.7033158 File: 14 KB, 610x476, 7871.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] How feasible would be to process human corpses for sausage-like products?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 21:34:47 2015 No.7033161 >>7033142 here again. What I mean is essentially.. If your 'standard of living' rating system doesn't take into account how miserable people are then it seems like a misnomer.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 21:36:02 2015 No.7033164 >>7033158 It's actually a rather modest proposal

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 21:38:42 2015 No.7033170 File: 127 KB, 542x339, mynigga.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>7033164 >modest proposal

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 21:40:18 2015 No.7033173 >>7033056 Not disagreeing with any of this, but I think it's also worth noting that the human digestive system loses efficiency as more calories (especially fats and other lipids) are consumed.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 21:42:05 2015 No.7033179 >>7033170 I literally looked for the author of Gulliver's Travels to respond with his portrait and then facepalmed when I remembered it's the same person

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 21:49:20 2015 No.7033195

>>7030806
GMO's to improve crop yields during drought. Giving money to banks in the poorest nations in order for farmers to get microloans for good seed even after El Nino fucks up several growing seasons. Educating malnourished populations what nutrients they are most deficient in and instruct them in what crops would best solve the problem, like sweet potatoes for Vitamin A deficiency. Investing in poor regions in order to improve their buying power enough for them to purchase food from abroad during times of famine.

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 21:55:32 2015 No.7033205

Improve socioeconomic conditions globally to the point that individual standards of living are so high that population increase dropoffs occur at the slightest loss of growth as has occurred in many developed countries.

Impose global zoning restrictions to limit growth and force capitalist economies to adopt socialist policies to offset loss of growth based profit mechanisms - keep this within sustainable density/total population limits without reliance on fossil resources for long term viability

Eventually open up a new frontier for economic growth without excessive population growth - the social norm for reproduction must remain the same - whether it be previously non viable terrestrial biomes, oceanic, or extraterrestrial

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 22:12:32 2015 No.7033240

>>7033142
>>7033161
It's not taken into account because it's such a subjective thing that's hard to quantify and really measure in any meaningful way. It's safe to say, though, that it' easier to be happier with your life if you're not starving to death and have shelter to protect yourself and so on.

In either case. what does Africa developing have to do with depression in the first world? How does them having better standards of living make us sadder?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 22:13:32 2015 No.7033244 >>7033205 >Impose global zoning restrictions to limit growth and force capitalist economies to adopt socialist policies to offset loss of growth based profit mechanisms Sounds like a realistic goal and reasonable policy.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 22:18:01 2015 No.7033251 >>7033244 Not at all. But that's what it would take

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 22:22:57 2015 No.7033258 >>7030806 How did they make it pass three years old? I mean, they must have had a food source. What exactly happened to that food source and how was the previous generation able to thrive?

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 22:23:50 2015 No.7033260
File: 57 KB, 530x335, Edible_seaweeds-SPL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I was a fan of growing seaweed as a cheap food source that removes carbon from the ocean at the same time. Since Fukushima seaweed has become increasingly radioactive. Here's an idea, if the seaweed can eat up radioactive material, why not farm this shit and bury it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 22:24:51 2015 No.7033262 >>7033258 The Ethiopian famine was caused by drought, the place hasn't always been starving, and isn't even starving anymore today.

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 22:27:13 2015 No.7033265 >>7033260 Sequestration of unwanted elements is always good, but only if it coincides with economically viable practices That is, if someone can make a profit off of farming seaweed that nobody can consume.

>>	joker !xi8/JKFwzo Mon Jan 26 22:27:18 2015 No.7033266 Castration for the males. If they don't want to starve, the testicles have to go.

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 22:39:17 2015 No.7033292

>>7033265
I'm fairly ignorant about this but wasn't there some sort of global carbon tax, or was that just a pipe dream? Nations that produce carbon pay more and those that don't pay less?

>create micro nation (Sealand)
>farm algae
>calculate carbon adsorbed by algae
>receive carbon credits from Switzerland or w/e

>>	Anonymous Mon Jan 26 22:41:39 2015 No.7033298 >>7033292 I don't know. Carbon credit is a saleable commodity in the USA but I have no idea if it's part of the global economy in that sense.

Anonymous Mon Jan 26 22:46:32 2015 No.7033305

>>7031889
>Whatever you want to call it, most people call it communism. It (and war) were responsible for almost all famine in the 20th century.
No, war caused most of the famines. Drought kill more. Name a famine caused by Communism, not North Korea, we'll talk. NK has a god king for a leader. That's some other level shit.
>inb4 soviet famine is 1922
If peasants kill all their horses after 6 years of civil war because of fear of them being confiscated by either side leading to famine counts as caused by communism, you're a cherry picking piece of shit.
>No, read the thread. I'm not claiming anything was or wasn't a famine, I'm just reporting what various governments are reporting.
No the Sahel drought in the 1970s in Niger was a famine. No government disputes this. It's on the list of Wikipedia famines we're both ostensibly using.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 01:42:38 2015 No.7033475

>>7033305
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#Consequences

Despite the harmful agricultural innovations, the weather in 1958 was very favorable and the harvest promised to be good. Unfortunately, the amount of labour diverted to steel production and construction projects meant that much of the harvest was left to rot uncollected in some areas. This problem was exacerbated by a devastating locust swarm, which was caused when their natural predators were killed as part of the Great Sparrow Campaign. Although actual harvests were reduced, local officials, under tremendous pressure from central authorities to report record harvests in response to the innovations, competed with each other to announce increasingly exaggerated results. These were used as a basis for determining the amount of grain to be taken by the State to supply the towns and cities, and to export. This left barely enough for the peasants, and in some areas, starvation set in.

>During 1958–1960 China continued to be a substantial net exporter of grain, despite the widespread famine experienced in the countryside, as Mao sought to maintain face and convince the outside world of the success of his plans. Foreign aid was refused. When the Japanese foreign minister told his Chinese counterpart Chen Yi of an offer of 100,000 tonnes of wheat to be shipped out of public view, he was rebuffed. John F. Kennedy was also aware that the Chinese were exporting food to Africa and Cuba during the famine and said "we've had no indication from the Chinese Communists that they would welcome any offer of food."

but i'm sure you'll find a way to blame the ~20 million deaths on 'reactionary elements' or 'unreformed kulaks' among the peasants, too.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 02:06:11 2015 No.7033503

>>7033475
> Although actual harvests were reduced, local officials, under tremendous pressure from central authorities to report record harvests in response to the innovations, competed with each other to announce increasingly exaggerated results.
>competed with each other to announce increasingly exaggerated results.
Chinese "saving face" culture. That's like blaming the Irish potato famine on capitalism. There were enough potatoes in Ireland to feed all the people, but the gentile British who owned the land shipped potatoes off the land.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 02:14:05 2015 No.7033511

>>7033475
>but i'm sure you'll find a way to blame the ~20 million deaths on 'reactionary elements' or 'unreformed kulaks' among the peasants, too.
also. Fuck you. Russians have this thing called "scorched earth," where they just destroy everything instead of giving ground to the enemy. They did it to the Swedes, they did it to the French, and the did it to the Germans. You can be damn sure that the peasants did it to the various armies during the Russian civil war. This "muh unreformed kulaks," pro communist peasants probably killed horses when land was contested too.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 02:26:19 2015 No.7033522 >>7033503 more akin to blaming the irish famine on mismanagement by their rulers - the british. just as the chinese famine is blamed on the people ruling china at the time - the communists. which was the whole point of that poster.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 02:34:24 2015 No.7033531 >>7033522 Ah, but communists, are not communism. The famine of the great leap forward was caused by incompetent bureaucrats. Just as the Irish famine was caused by their "bureaucrats."

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 02:42:28 2015 No.7033537
File: 42 KB, 600x400, 06meat-span-articleLarge.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7030806
>how can we fix world hunger?

With this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o0MCZwL_VE

And also with GMO.

>inb4 muh unnatural food
Beggars cannot be choosers.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 02:58:46 2015 No.7033551 >>7033503 same exact thing happened in Russia for the same exact reasons.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 03:04:38 2015 No.7033556 >>7033531 Obviously these two famines were caused entirely by human bureaucratic error. Robot bureaucrats when?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 03:07:07 2015 No.7033558 I don't for a nation like Africa, isn't education an equally pressing issue? The fuck is the point in providing a nation with food (and the infrastructure to produce their own) if it's only going to be squandered/destroyed.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 03:16:59 2015 No.7033566 >>7033558 True, Bill Gates talked about this recently, food is the first step but there're other important things, farmers need education to learn how/when to rotate crops etc.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 03:19:51 2015 No.7033567 >>7033537 Sweet. It's like super-tofu.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 03:29:21 2015 No.7033574

>>7033566
Well yes, but i also meant in general education. You can't teach someone the importance of farming if they don't understand the basic concepts of an economy. Why would they bother? Furthermore, there is a correlation between education (amongst other things, including religion funnily enough) and lower crime rate. People look and nations like Africa and think throwing in some food, farms and law enforcement will fix everything.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 03:30:22 2015 No.7033576 >>7033558 Yeah, they need geography lessons asap.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 03:40:00 2015 No.7033580

>phrases like "feed the hungry" and "starving children" are now almost always shorthand for "help the Africun chillins"

I don't even care if it's considered racism. Educating the population so that they aren't producing fucktons of dirty kids holding out their hands like OP pic would be ideal. But "send money, we feed chilluns" is not a solution. If the population problem is ever going to be controlled, it requires a lot of pragmatism and understanding. So put some emotionless aspie with a mind for economics and logistics in charge and in a few decades maybe there won't be as many chilluns.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 03:46:07 2015 No.7033584

>>7033580
Which do you think the average TV jockey is going to pay money to? An advertisement with big eyed starving children, which you being a superhero, can personally save. Or "we need money to provide infrastructure and education so we can resuscitate this countries dead economy". The children are going to win more donations.
> So put some emotionless aspie with a mind for economics and logistics in charge
Right, which is why all western governments are run by professional with degrees right? Oh wait.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 03:59:14 2015 No.7033590 >>7033551 when?

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 06:44:46 2015 No.7033665

>>7033056
>First, an average adult does not need 2000 kcal. It's more like 1500 kcal

Nope
http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/estimated-calorie-requirement
2000-2400 for a sedentary adult male
up to 3200 if active

> Note that with increasing body weight your body also needs more energy. So it doesn't go all the way up.
True, but it's only about 2kcal/day per pound of fat.

> And 3000 kcal/day, I'd say that pretty much sounds like the intake of an average American.
So you think the average American (using YOUR numbers, not webmd's) eats 1500 excess calories a day?
That would mean they'd gain 3 pounds a week to start, and it would take 750 excess pounds to "balance out" those excess calories.
A little averaging, and you're claiming they'd gain those 750 pounds over about ten years.
hmmm...

p,s.: Why the >What is an ellipsis?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 06:55:12 2015 No.7033676 >>7033556 >Obviously these two famines were caused entirely by human bureaucratic error. >Robot bureaucrats when? Obviously (during the 20th century at least) bureaucrats that self-identify as communists are far more incompetent than the status quo.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 06:58:15 2015 No.7033679

>>7033665
>Nope
>http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/estimated-calorie-requirement
>2000-2400 for a sedentary adult male
>up to 3200 if active
You don't have to be active to survive. If you eat 1500 kcal a day your body will get a little more economic and it will be enough. You are not going to die with 1500 kcal/day.

Also, it's not like your body has this exact need for x kcal/day and if your intake is y kcal/day you will gain (y-x) kcal/day in form of body fat. The human body is not that simple.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 07:16:11 2015 No.7033696 >stop world hunger >overpopulate >resources become scarce >world hunger emerges >people fight wars World hunger cannot "be solved". Neither can world peace.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 07:17:27 2015 No.7033698 >>7033696 This x 10000000

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 07:22:38 2015 No.7033707 >>7033696 >>7033698 or overpopulation isn't a thing as more and more regions adapt a industiral and educational social system, as Korea and China did

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 07:39:28 2015 No.7033714

>>7033679
>You don't have to be active to survive.
>>2000-2400 for a sedentary adult male

>Also, it's not like your body has this exact need for x kcal/day and if your intake is y kcal/day you will gain (y-x) kcal/day in form of body fat. The human body is not that simple.
Not every single day, but in the long run, yes, it is that simple.

Regardless, it should be clear that almost no-one eats twice what they need to, let alone a whole nation. Besides, Mexico is now fatter than 'Murica, and the UK's not far behind. Go pick on them instead.

And even if anyone does eat twice what they need, "world" hunger isn't caused by global food shortages.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 07:43:26 2015 No.7033718 You can't. we humans are never happy if we do not have more than other's. and if they have less, the better we feel. That said, i wish we were different.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 07:51:16 2015 No.7033728

>>7033718
You aren't normal.
Please don't paint the rest of us in the same gloomy light.
Also, being more cynical than normal people doesn't make you deeper, or smarter.
and... in "have more than other's", "other's" is plural, not possessive, so it doesn't need an apostrophe.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 07:58:34 2015 No.7033730 >>7033728 Thanks for the grammatical clarification. I do hope you are right. maybe it just looks and feels gloomy to me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 09:03:26 2015 No.7033763 >>7033730 >maybe it just looks and feels gloomy to me. Go study history. I'd far rather be a poor man in a first world country today than the richest man on earth a hundred years ago. We're all far better off today than people were in the past.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 11:19:44 2015 No.7033933 >>7030842 What are you gonna do about it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 11:49:02 2015 No.7033977 >>7033933 Seriously fuck america you do fucking nothing and expect money.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 12:06:16 2015 No.7034000 >>7033977 >Seriously fuck america you do fucking nothing and expect money. >implying we don't feed Africa Go shitpost your anti-Murrican agenda on /b/.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 14:45:21 2015 No.7034154 >>7033707 Don't bother, half the thread doesn't seem to actually understand human trends or economics.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 15:06:04 2015 No.7034177 Robots building pipelines and nutrient fungus vats. Food on tap.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 15:17:41 2015 No.7034193 >>7033551 >>7033590 When anon? The world is waiting.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 15:19:25 2015 No.7034200 let nature sort it out

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 15:21:36 2015 No.7034208 >>7033933 I really don't know. It's fucking disgusting nonetheless.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 15:23:58 2015 No.7034213

Not sure if this has been said, but solving world hunger has never been about increasing food output. It's been about stabilizing it. We need to prevent famine by either giving all nations the means to import food from abroad during poor harvests or by preventing poor harvests altogether.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 15:31:14 2015 No.7034229

>>7033522
It wasn't mismanagement. They deliberately were allowing the Irish to starve because they believed inferior peoples naturally tended to multiply until they began dying in droves. They saw it as God's punishment and that if the English helped in any way then they would only be prolonging the suffering of the Irish.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 15:37:05 2015 No.7034243 >>7034229 post facto justification. The English just cared more about profits, like the Chinese cared more about their pride.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 15:38:40 2015 No.7034246 >>7030806 Sterilize niggers.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 15:43:15 2015 No.7034253

>>7030925
>South Africa
>blacks don't live there at all
>whites colonize, set up infrastructure and excel
>blacks move in
>"gibsmedat"
>terrorists like Nelson Mandela end apartheid
>blacks take over
>economy in the shitter, corruption galore, becomes just another African wartorn country
>"WHY ARE WHITES EXPLOITING BLACKS SO MUCH"

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 16:09:54 2015 No.7034288 >>7034253 >>blacks don't live there at all The Khoisan, Xhosa, and other groups had been there a long while before any whites arrived... And you're entirely forgetting the racist policies Apartheid entailed.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 16:24:57 2015 No.7034308

>>7034288
>The Khoisan, Xhosa, and other groups had been there a long while before any whites arrived...
Not in South Africa, friend. Only after they saw the white man actually doing something with the once-useless land did they move in.

>And you're entirely forgetting the racist policies Apartheid entailed.
I didn't forget shit. Apartheid is what made South Africa a successful country where the natives had failed. This is evident in their economy going to shit after apartheid ended and the blacks took over. Also the surrounding countries that didn't have whites come and colonize and put systems like it in place. They're too fucking stupid to run an empire wholly given to them on a silver platter, let alone build one themselves.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 16:28:07 2015 No.7034313

>>7034308
>Not in South Africa, friend
>The Xhosa are part of the South African Nguni migration which slowly moved south from the region around the Great Lakes, displacing the original Khoisan hunter gatherers of Southern Africa. Xhosa peoples were well established by the time of the Dutch arrival in the mid-17th century, and occupied much of eastern South Africa from the Fish River to land inhabited by Zulu-speakers south of the modern city of Durban.[4]

>From the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic period, hunting and gathering cultures known as the Sangoan occupied southern Africa in areas where annual rainfall is less than a metre (1000 mm; 40 in),[3] and today's San and Khoi people resemble the ancient Sangoan skeletal remains. These Late Stone Age people in parts of southern Africa were the ancestors of the Khoisan people who inhabited the Kalahari Desert.

And you're calling other people too fucking stupid?

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 16:40:34 2015 No.7034328

>>7034313
Okay, you got me. People lived within the borders of what is established today, through the establishment of governments sustained under technological advancements in agriculture and engineering brought there via the colonials, as South Africa. They moved from the fringes down to Cape Town and other places when they realized they could get gainful work to be able to feed their kids.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 16:58:43 2015 No.7034360

>>7034328
>They moved from the fringes down to Cape Town and other places when they realized they could get gainful work to be able to feed their kids.
Yes, every population moves towards cities to find work, this has been a trend all over the planet now.

Waves of Filipino and Indian workers congregate to places like the United Arab Emirates where they're treated like literal shit at best, slaves in all but name at worst. Yet they still keep coming, simply to find work. Doesn't mean they're being treated any less like shit.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 17:09:41 2015 No.7034379

>>7034360
But those people are foreigners finding work in a foreign land built by foreigners (foreigners to them, they're the foreigners when they move there).

The point I'm making here is whites colonized South Africa, made a virtual wasteland into a rich metropolitan and successful country, blacks slowly moved in for work. DASS RAYCISS, gibsmedats, and terrorism overthrew the local social hierarchy. The natives, who had centuries to fucking develop the land, take over, then proceed to fail, corrupt, and kill their economy that was given to them on a silver platter because they're too big of failures, corrupt, and killers to have a functioning society.

Complaining about whites exploiting Africa is laughable at best. They settled land that would probably be unsettled to this day because no one thought it was possible until the settlers came in, and built empires for the native peoples. They didn't exploit anything. They earned it. And the blacks come in and exploit it from them.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 17:16:53 2015 No.7034397

>>7034379
>made a virtual wasteland into a rich metropolitan and successful country
South Africa, even under Apartheid, was never a majority white utopia people seem to obsess over. It looked decent on paper because most of the native and black populations were relegated to "bantustans" that weren't considered in national census information. It's like if America only counted its best areas for statistic information and completely ignored places like West Virginia or Detroit to make itself seem better than it really is.

>DASS RAYCISS,
Yes, despite moving in for work people also tend to not want to be treated like shit. "I'm here to find work for my family, I'd also like to be treated equally by the government while I'm here working" isn't a hypocritical sentiment.

>corrupt
>Apartheid South Africa wasn't corrupt
AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

http://opensecrets.org.za/investigations-of-apartheid-corruption/

> whites exploiting Africa
Look I don't know about other people, but it's a common sentiment that whites today aren't responsible for what happened in the past. What my forefathers didn't doesn't reflect on me. But I'm sure as hell not going to try and white-wash it, Europeans bent the rest of the world over and fucked it long and hard for a long time.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 17:25:57 2015 No.7034421

>>7030806
stop food aid and exports of food from developed nations to the underdeveloped countries that have famine problems. Food aid and cheap subsidized food from developed countries suppress prices in famine regions.

Prices of food in the affected markets will raise and allow farmers to turn a profit big enough to reinvest into productivity improvements. Allowing them to grow more food and make more money to invest back into more productivity. Eventually local farmers and distribution networks will be able to produce enough at an affordable price, that no one is starving.

Any aid should be limited to selling them farming equipment and materials. Then eventually developing their own domestic production of farm equipment.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 17:27:43 2015 No.7034426 >>7033537 meat has always been a luxury item in human diets. It is also one of the largest polluters on the planet.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 17:51:28 2015 No.7034509

>>7034397
>South Africa, even under Apartheid, was never a majority white utopia people seem to obsess over. It looked decent on paper because most of the native and black populations were relegated to "bantustans" that weren't considered in national census information. It's like if America only counted its best areas for statistic information and completely ignored places like West Virginia or Detroit to make itself seem better than it really is.
This part of my post had nothing to do with race. They took empty land not inhabited by anyone and built their empire. The locals had centuries to do the same and they didn't. That was the settler's empire and the locals moved in and exploited it.

>Yes, despite moving in for work people also tend to not want to be treated like shit. "I'm here to find work for my family, I'd also like to be treated equally by the government while I'm here working" isn't a hypocritical sentiment.
See above. It was the colonials' land, jobs, etc. The other people moved in and yeah, probably got treated as second class. If they didn't like it, they could go back to eating whatever they stumbled across because they were hunter and gatherers that couldn't into agriculture.

1/2

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 17:52:50 2015 No.7034514

>>7034509
>Apartheid South Africa wasn't corrupt
>AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
>http://opensecrets.org.za/investigations-of-apartheid-corruption/
Hey I'm sure it was corrupt. What governments aren't? I also think it's pretty hard to argue a lot of the governments in Africa are some of the most corrupt governments. They're run by drug cartels and warlords and give no fucks about the poor people starving to death. Fuck helping those guys, I need to hire more drug runners and buy a few more crates of AKs.

>Look I don't know about other people, but it's a common sentiment that whites today aren't responsible for what happened in the past. What my forefathers didn't doesn't reflect on me. But I'm sure as hell not going to try and white-wash it, Europeans bent the rest of the world over and fucked it long and hard for a long time.
The original post I replied to said they feel sad that whites have been Africa for so long. Present tense. But that aside, I don't know how to interpret this post. Should I feel bad? That's how the world worked.
>Nice resources and land there. I'm going to take it.
>no
>stop me
>okay
>BANG
>pls no more. Here it is.

I don't give a shit if those people couldn't defend themselves from invaders. They don't deserve the land if they can't defend it. And it's not like Europeans didn't constantly wage war and kill each other off all the time. Same with the people that they "bent over". They fought amongst themselves all the fucking time.

2/2

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 17:55:13 2015 No.7034520 They get more than enough money and food over there. If they can't work with that, then they aren't meant to be saved.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 17:55:58 2015 No.7034521 >>7034520 see >>7034421

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 17:57:14 2015 No.7034525

>>7034509
>hey took empty land not inhabited by anyone
This has already been proven wrong, stop spouting this point.

>yeah, probably got treated as second class
And yeah, people throughout the world, throughout history, especially modern history, don't like being second class, even if they're forced into it by necessity.

>>7034514
>What governments aren't?
Yes most African countries today are corrupt... what does this have to do with Apartheid South Africa? Why romanticize them when they were just as shit as everyone else on the continent?

>Should I feel bad?
No, that was the point I was making. No one should feel bad for what their ancestors did, or what other people are currently doing. Doesn't mean you should whitewash history and claim said ancestors "DIN DO NUFFIN WRONG, DEY BROT CIVILIZATION N SHIT, DEY WAS GOOD BOYS".

Trying to claim Apartheid South Africa was better than it is now is severe whitewashing.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 18:06:12 2015 No.7034539

>>7034243
It wasn't after the fact. There is always a rationalization used when doing something otherwise seen as morally wrong. The Spanish justified the colonization of the Americas as a means of saving the souls of natives by converting them. Neither rationalization was thought up after the fact. We do the same thing today, like America saying it is invading Iraq because of WMDs and tyranny instead of propping up the petrodollar.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 18:20:56 2015 No.7034569

>>7034525
>This has already been proven wrong, stop spouting this point.
No it hasn't. People weren't by Cape Town when they settled it. They were out up on the fringes of what is today called South Africa.

>And yeah, people throughout the world, throughout history, especially modern history, don't like being second class, even if they're forced into it by necessity.
Don't know what your point is.

>Yes most African countries today are corrupt... what does this have to do with Apartheid South Africa? Why romanticize them when they were just as shit as everyone else on the continent?
Because they built up the nation from nothing and kept it going, you dense motherfucker. Now that it's down, South Africa's economy is going to shit because the politicians now are more corrupt than the ones under Apartheid.

>No, that was the point I was making. No one should feel bad for what their ancestors did, or what other people are currently doing. Doesn't mean you should whitewash history and claim said ancestors "DIN DO NUFFIN WRONG, DEY BROT CIVILIZATION N SHIT, DEY WAS GOOD BOYS".
What's the takeaway? Acknowledge that some people settled some land but don't feel bad? Okay. Don't have to tell me twice not to give a shit. This line of thinking is stupid. "Hey this bad stuff (in my personal fucking opinion but I'll project it onto you because muh feels) happened. See? But don't need to feel bad! It wasn't your fault!" That makes no sense to think like that. You're projecting a sense of tragedy, making the listener/reader/whatever feel bad, then telling them not to feel bad.

>Trying to claim Apartheid South Africa was better than it is now is severe whitewashing.
It was better economically. Your feelers about meanie head raycissts are irrelevant. The people that took over after Apartheid are retarded that cannot into running a country.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 18:25:38 2015 No.7034580

>>7034569
>Don't know what your point is.
People weren't "chimping out" for nothing. People don't like being second class citizens, plain and simple.

>the politicians now are more corrupt than the ones under Apartheid.
Citations?

> You're projecting a sense of tragedy, making the listener/reader/whatever feel bad, then telling them not to feel bad.
No I'm saying you don't have to feel bad about something to acknowledge it. Fucked up shit went on in South Africa, doesn't mean we're responsible for it, doesn't mean we should deny it happened.

>It was better economically.
Like how America would have been better off economically on paper if it happened to exclude places like Mississippi and West Virginia and Detroit, then suddenly the averages spiraled down when they started counting those places in census and statistical data. I already explained the bantustans to you.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 18:30:14 2015 No.7034588 >>7034580 >Continuing to argue with someone who spouts off pol tiered buzzwords like "dats rayciists", "gibsmedat" and so on. Why waste your fucking time.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 18:44:01 2015 No.7034622
File: 737 KB, 2080x1544, Malabar_Farm_Main_Dairy_Barn.JPG.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7034426
Exactly because it requires many resources to be produced:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production

That's why lab-meat will help a lot in reducing the negative impact: impurity-free, fat-free, top-quality, bone-free, no animal killing, no feces to dispose of and many other things related to classic animal farming won't be needed anymore, isn't it great?

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 18:45:51 2015 No.7034627 >>7034622 b-b-but what about the cows, man?

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 18:49:22 2015 No.7034641

>>7034580
>People weren't "chimping out" for nothing. People don't like being second class citizens, plain and simple.
Okay. What'd your point? What's this have to do with apartheid being a net good on the economy of South Africa?

>Citations?
Their economy going straight into the shitter once apartheid was lifted and blacks started taking over.

>No I'm saying you don't have to feel bad about something to acknowledge it. Fucked up shit went on in South Africa, doesn't mean we're responsible for it, doesn't mean we should deny it happened.
So again. "Hey this bad stuff happened, but it's not your fault!" What bad stuff by the way? Racism?

>Like how America would have been better off economically on paper if it happened to exclude places like Mississippi and West Virginia and Detroit, then suddenly the averages spiraled down when they started counting those places in census and statistical data. I already explained the bantustans to you.
What the fuck are you talking about? By ignoring places like Detroit on census papers, America had a better economy? How's that work?

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 19:03:58 2015 No.7034661

>>7034588
Because then other people see those points being made unopposed and think there's any truth in them.

>>7034641
>Okay. What'd your point?
That the movement for civil rights in South Africa was fueled by people who didn't want to be second-class citizens, instead of the "gubsmedat das raycist" bullshit you claim.

>What bad stuff by the way?
Institutionalized racism and segregation, censorship of free speech, imprisonment without trial, and lack of many civil rights for a large part of the population.

>Their economy going straight into the shitter once apartheid was lifted and blacks started taking over.
>What the fuck are you talking about?
See I'm making this weird thing called an analogy. If America ignored all of its shitty places it'd look amazing on paper, then as soon as it started to count said shitty places into statistical information the average would seem to plummet down. The bantustans in South Africa were not counted as part of the country proper in the census, and as far as the Apartheid government was concerned were separate countries when it came to statistical data.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 19:06:37 2015 No.7034667 Stable governments, developing infrastructure, and high yield crops.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 19:09:11 2015 No.7034671

>>7034397
> "I'm here to find work for my family, I'd also like to be treated equally by the government while I'm here working" isn't a hypocritical sentiment.

But immigrating to another country by choice because of their management, then demanding they change the way a country is managed, is.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 19:16:19 2015 No.7034686 >>7034671 Because if your choice is between starving or being treated like shit, people will choose to be treated like shit, doesn't mean they'll have to enjoy it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 19:29:25 2015 No.7034710 >>7034313 Yeah but the areas the whites colonized weren't populated when they colonized them. Which is the point

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 19:31:22 2015 No.7034714

>>7034710
The original Cape Town colony and other coastal settlements like it may have been empty when the Europeans arrived, but the subsequent governments that ruled southern Africa extended far beyond those initial settlements, subjugating native populations as they moved inland. They were colonized.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 19:53:41 2015 No.7034740

>>7034525
>>7034580
Different anon, you're so wrong it's funny
>>hey took empty land not inhabited by anyone
>This has already been proven wrong, stop spouting this point.
No the land white people settled was empty. They specifically settled areas without native populations so this shit wouldn't happen to them.

>Like how America would have been better off economically on paper if it happened to exclude places like Mississippi and West Virginia and Detroit, then suddenly the averages spiraled down when they started counting those places in census and statistical data. I already explained the bantustans to you.
No it's more like if we counted Indian reservations, except instead of us taking their land, we took land they weren't on, and then didn't tax them or demand anything of them, and protected them from invasion based on international borders that had to be drawn somewhere.

>Institutionalized racism and segregation, censorship of free speech, imprisonment without trial, and lack of many civil rights for a large part of the population.
they weren't citizens. This is like illegal immigrants demanding the right to vote, them getting it, and then voting away all the native's property.

>>7034588
but that's what happened. The exact same thing happened in Rhodesia.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 19:55:50 2015 No.7034741

>>7034661
>See I'm making this weird thing called an analogy. If America ignored all of its shitty places it'd look amazing on paper, then as soon as it started to count said shitty places into statistical information the average would seem to plummet down. The bantustans in South Africa were not counted as part of the country proper in the census, and as far as the Apartheid government was concerned were separate countries when it came to statistical data
because they WERE separate countries for all actual purposes. That's the point

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 19:58:07 2015 No.7034744

>>7034714
>The precursors to the establishment of the South African Republic happened in 1837 after the commandos of Potgieter and Piet Uys successfully defeated a Matabele raiding party of Moselekatse and drove them back over the Limpopo river.
What like when the blacks raided their settlements and the white people pushed them back and took over the land?

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 20:15:31 2015 No.7034764

>>7034740
>No the land white people settled was empty.
Pretoria, Johannesburg, and Bloemfontein were all settled on empty coastal land now? Like Rhodesia that you mentioned was completely uninhabited?

> and then didn't tax them or demand anything of them
Do you get paid to spout bullshit or do you just do it for free?
https://books.google.com/books?id=r93HAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA203&lpg=PA203&dq=bantustans+taxation&source=bl&ots=6cL4cXVCaL&sig=q9paNo-1obLj25fCpzxKZCPzS9o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MjbIVPLIMoP0asSPgpAO&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=bantustans%20taxation&f=false

>No it's more like if we counted Indian reservations
Which don't make up the majority of the country, which was South Africa's case.

>>7034741
>because they WERE separate countries
Ones that weren't recognized by any other country, and all ultimate authority on foreign affairs, banking, and legislation was handled by the central Apartheid government.

>>7034744
Yes, the centuries of colonialism can be seen as a continuous war between settlers and natives which the settlers invariably won.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 20:25:20 2015 No.7034778

>>7034764
>Pretoria, Johannesburg, and Bloemfontein were all settled on empty coastal land now? Like Rhodesia that you mentioned was completely uninhabited?
>Yes, the centuries of colonialism can be seen as a continuous war between settlers and natives which the settlers invariably won.
Originally the land they'd settle was empty. Then the Africans raided them and got pushed back.
>Do you get paid to spout bullshit or do you just do it for free?
Bro it says that the bantustans were allowed to tax themselves in the source you just sourced
>Which don't make up the majority of the country, which was South Africa's case.
Made up the majority of the economy

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 20:51:09 2015 No.7034822

>>7034778
>Originally the land they'd settle was empty.
Yes, originally, like I said in my own posts. But they DID push in from there and settle over inhabited lands. The settlers didn't "set up in uninhabited territory".

>Bro it says that the bantustans were allowed to tax themselves in the source you just sourced
They collected local taxes, but they were not "completely independent, nothing demanded of them". Like it says right in the source at one point 77% of KwaZulu's entire budget was dictated by the central Apartheid government.

>Made up the majority of the economy
The majority of the country, both in terms of territory and population, lived in the shitty bantustans and were not counted towards general statistics. Post-Apartheid they WERE counted. This is why there was such a dramatic drop in the average national standards post-Apartheid.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 22:05:57 2015 No.7034916

>>7034822
>Yes, originally, like I said in my own posts. But they DID push in from there and settle over inhabited lands. The settlers didn't "set up in uninhabited territory".
But they only pushed in after they were raided and did so for their own protection, acting like they "took advantage" of them is disingenuous. They wanted almost nothing to do with them.
>They collected local taxes, but they were not "completely independent, nothing demanded of them". Like it says right in the source at one point 77% of KwaZulu's entire budget was dictated by the central Apartheid government.
what did they spend the budget on?
>The majority of the country, both in terms of territory and population, lived in the shitty bantustans and were not counted towards general statistics. Post-Apartheid they WERE counted. This is why there was such a dramatic drop in the average national standards post-Apartheid
But they weren't really part of the country, they were indigenous people living in the bush.

The main point is that the South African government wanted nothing to do with these people, and these people forced themselves on them. They spent 200 years raiding settlements destroying the things whites were trying to build. 100 years being half citizens destroying everything and demanding more and more. And about 15 years putting burning tires on the people that built the country. Now even the areas that were nice are shit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 22:11:43 2015 No.7034926 >>7034622 still a waste of resources. People should have a mainly vegetarian diet with some times eating meat. while avoiding grains at all cost.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 22:12:38 2015 No.7034930

>>7034916
>But they only pushed in after they were raided
Every single settlement? This is just moving goalposts anyway, the original claim was that only "uninhabited areas were settled", which is plain false.

>what did they spend the budget on?
Again you're missing the point. The bantustans weren't independent entities, they were territories ruled over by the central Apartheid government and part of the South African nation.

> they were indigenous people living in the bush.
Who were ignored for statistical data and now aren't, hence the fucking drop in averages post-Apartheid.

>The main point is that the South African government wanted nothing to do with these people,
The original main point was that South Africa was somehow uninhabited and that the Apartheid government "din do nuffin". I've already proven both those points clearly wrong.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 22:25:22 2015 No.7034937

>>7034930
>Every single settlement? This is just moving goalposts anyway, the original claim was that only "uninhabited areas were settled", which is plain false.
You're talking to multiple people anon. And I believe it may have been that white originally settled uninhabited areas.
>Again you're missing the point. The bantustans weren't independent entities, they were territories ruled over by the central Apartheid government and part of the South African nation.
Originally they ruled themselves, then there was a humanitarian crisis and South Africa had to step in.You need to understand WHY these things happened, not just what happened. Your understanding of history is naive at best.
>Who were ignored for statistical data and now aren't, hence the fucking drop in averages post-Apartheid.
Who were not part of the fucking country. This whole "free South Africa" thing has been a push to unify areas that shouldn't be unified. If those areas wanted to develop they had numerous opportunities. The fact that there was a net transfer of wealth from the white areas to the black areas during apartheid shows exactly what the situation was.
>The original main point was that South Africa was somehow uninhabited and that the Apartheid government "din do nuffin". I've already proven both those points clearly wrong.
No the original point. Was that whites settled unpopulated areas. Blacks raided their settlements for ~200 years, demanded handouts for ~100 years, put burning tires on white people for ~20 years, and have now driven EVEN THE AREAS THAT WERE NICE, into the ground. So this whole "O it's the statistics," is crap, because even the nice areas are now shit.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 22:34:39 2015 No.7034949

>>7034937
Watch he now avoids the main points. I've been lurking this thread hard. Even economists agree the end of apartheid ended South Africa as a serious economic entity. The country is badly run. There is a congresswoman in charge of the sciences demanding to know why lightening is racist. It's really sad

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 22:36:20 2015 No.7034953

>>7034937
>And I believe it may have been that white originally settled uninhabited areas.
>>7034253
>>blacks don't live there at all
>>7034710
>Yeah but the areas the whites colonized weren't populated when they colonized them

>Originally they ruled themselves
Originally before white settlers came, or as part of the South African government? If the latter, no, they didn't.
http://www.sahistory.org.za/dated-event/first-bantustans-or-homelands-comes-existence-when-transkei-regional-authority-institute
The bantustans were established to cement the segregationist policies of the government. People who WERE South African citizens before had their citizenship revoked and we designated to one of the said bantustans.

>Defence, internal security, immigration, money and banking and several other departments remained under control of the South African government.
And like the book I linked earlier said, most of their own internal affairs were controlled by the central government through control of their budget.

>>7034949
>Watch he now avoids the main points.
You, or the handful of others in the thread, have been doing just that.

>The country is badly run.
And was badly run under Apartheid, if not moreso. This is the entire fucking point being drilled in over and over again, the Apartheid government was shit.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 22:48:17 2015 No.7034964

1/10th of the USA's annual "defense budget" could feed everyone on the planet, by UN cost estimations.

OR every citizen of a first-world nation could give ten cents per year; same result.

The problem isn't cost or food supply (3x as much food as is needed to end world hunger rots unused every year) - it's a distribution problem.

To solve hunger you have to solve all the corrupt, ineffective, and exploitative governments in the world, or get them all to agree with an international program funded by meagre amounts of charity.

gooooood luck

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 22:49:04 2015 No.7034965

>>7034953
>>7034937
>And I believe it may have been that white originally settled uninhabited areas.
>>7034253
>>blacks don't live there at all
>>7034710
>Yeah but the areas the whites colonized weren't populated when they colonized them
This just proves my point. The original settlements were in unpoopulated areas. Then blacks moved in after whites built stuff to either raid, steal, demand gibsmedats, or put burning tires on white people when they didn't get what they wanted.
>Originally before white... muh feeelings.... blah blah
Lol, they ruled themselves before 1963. People like Matanzima (a black guy) were put in charge. White South Africa had a net loss of wealth to the black areas, under all of apartheid.
>And like the book I linked earlier said, most of their own internal affairs were controlled by the central government through control of their budget.
which they did through black ministers, because they literally couldn't manage their areas before 1963 which is why they were joined.
>You, or the handful of others in the thread, have been doing just that.
There are at least 5 different anons posting this. This is not a handful.
>And was badly run under Apartheid, if not moreso. This is the entire fucking point being drilled in over and over again, the Apartheid government was shit.
Except it was excelling, and now it's lagging. The apartheid government was very successful.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 22:49:38 2015 No.7034968 >>7034953 Called it

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 22:54:39 2015 No.7034977

>>7034965
>This just proves my point.
No, the two quotes I posted implied whites ONLY settled uninhabited areas, which isn't the case. The "w-well the FIRST ones were uninhabited" is just moving goalposts.

> White South Africa had a net loss of wealth to the black areas, under all of apartheid.
Please, I want a thorough source for this, I really do.

>which they did through black ministers
I doesn't matter if they were black or not, it's about the central South African government controlling them or not.

>The apartheid government was very successful.
Thanks in part to the exclusion of bantustans from statistics and heavy use of things like censorship and imprisonment without trial.

The two original point that:
>the whites only settled in uninhabited areas
and
>the Apartheid government did nothing wrong

Have been themselves proven wrong.

Anonymous Tue Jan 27 22:59:22 2015 No.7034986

>>7031514
So Zimbabwe was perma-starving before colonial subjugation by those godly whites, without whom nothing could function.
And it wasn't the home of several powerful, densely populated and self-sustained empires I guess?

gb2/pol/, jesus fuck I'm getting tired of the *science* board being filled by delusional race-obsessed idiots.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 23:05:53 2015 No.7034999 >>7032847 You're a sociopath. Kill yourself for the good of humanity.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 23:08:11 2015 No.7035007 >>7032888 >everyone who claims to have any empathy for strangers or net humanity is LYING >LIARS It's scary how fucked up you are.

>>	Anonymous Tue Jan 27 23:17:44 2015 No.7035023 >>7033665 It's interesting how UN guidelines put recommended daily calories at 2000 for developed nations and yet 800 for third-world nations. Also how you're full of shit.

Anonymous Wed Jan 28 00:53:16 2015 No.7035217

>>7034977
I don't think you know what proof is.
>No, the two quotes I posted implied whites ONLY settled uninhabited areas, which isn't the case. The "w-well the FIRST ones were uninhabited" is just moving goalposts.
No they settled uninhabited areas and then moved in for gibsmedats when the whites built stuff. Was what was said. What do you think raids are? No goalposts have been moved. You don't understand what the word 'settle' means. They expanded in response to raids. Pushed them out, and then built stuff in those regions. That's how war works. Is anyone crying because tribes were displaced by other tribes in Congo and other areas during that time as well?

>Please, I want a thorough source for this, I really do.
I'm not google, Go to /pol/ and ask, I don't run around with X1000 sources. They are incredibly well sourced.

>I doesn't matter if they were black or not, it's about the central South African government controlling them or not.
In 1963, after they had ~10,000+ years to build a functioning government and farming. Why didn't the areas just go for independence? Why'd they have to take over the country?

>Thanks in part to the exclusion of bantustans from statistics and heavy use of things like censorship and imprisonment without trial.
Because that's like Isreal including Palestine.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 28 00:55:19 2015 No.7035220 >>7035023 It's almost like they've changed the definitions for political reasons...

Anonymous Wed Jan 28 01:00:01 2015 No.7035229
File: 80 KB, 640x573, 1339220221448.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>7035217
You're moving goalposts because, again, the two main points were that

>Europeans settled only in uninhabited areas
>the Apartheid government did nothing wrong

Even the original anon to make the first point conceded it and admitted he was wrong. And if you bother to go to any of the many sources I've posted since the start, you'll see the Apartheid government did plenty wrong. That alone prove the two above central points wrong.

>I'm not google,
So you can't actually post any sort of source to back up any of your claims while I can.

>Go to /pol/ and ask
PPPFTTTTTTTTT AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHH

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 28 01:06:28 2015 No.7035237 >>7030809 kek

Anonymous Wed Jan 28 01:35:51 2015 No.7035287

>>7035229
>So you can't actually post any sort of source to back up any of your claims while I can
I've quoted Wikipedia multiple times, Wikipedia is sourced. You're just lying about what happened. It's pathetic. I can't source one claim, you've not sourced a bunch of things.
>Europeans settled only in uninhabited areas
You don't know what settled means. They expanded in response to raids. If they lost during the raids, whites never would have settled the region. Pretty much all the tribal regions in Africa are determined by things like this. Then they allowed African tribal populations to come in and work on a pseudo-citizen basis. Whites had a right to determine citizenship. What if all of Poland moved into Germany and demanded citizenship?

>Even the original anon to make the first point conceded it and admitted he was wrong. What this? >>7034328 Yeah he "conceded" sure. You lack reading comprehension. Once again, whites settled in unpopulated regions, and expanded in reaction to raids.

>the Apartheid government did nothing wrong
I don't really stake a ton of claim on, I just think you're misrepresenting exactly how South Africa, and Apartheid came into being. For the entirety of human existence no one could farm on that land, the Dutch and English came in and made it work. Then they got tires put on their necks for this.

>Even the original anon to make the first point conceded it and admitted he was wrong.
You suck at writing What this? >>7034328 Yeah he "conceded" sure. You lack reading comprehension.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 28 01:41:19 2015 No.7035294 >>7035229 >Go to /pol/ and ask >PPPFTTTTTTTTT AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHH You wouldn't last a second buddy. Cuz there's gunna be a guy with data for every year fully itemized or some shit.

Anonymous Wed Jan 28 01:46:10 2015 No.7035304

>>7035287
>You don't know what settled means
A population of people moving from one area to another. My point was never how they got there or why they settled it, it was simply that the notion they only settled uninhabited lands is flat out wrong. There is literally no reason to go this far to defend it and move goalposts to "yeah well they rightfully conquered it".

>I don't really stake a ton of claim on
Then why defend it to death. South Africa today is a poor corrupt shithole, Apartheid South Africa was still poor and corrupt. It's become a trend on here for some reason to romanticize them (and Rhodesia) as some kind of white utopias.

The two points that I've been making this entire thread, that 1) inhabited areas WERE settled in as well as uninhabited ones, and 2) Apartheid South Africa was still mostly poor and had many problems of its own, are both demonstratively correct.

>Yeah he "conceded" sure.
>>7034328
>Okay, you got me.
He admitted inhabited areas were settled, he just moved the goalpost from there that said settlements were justified.

>>7035294
No I'd be called a JIDF SJW cuck and given epic le happy merchant memes as sources.

Anonymous Wed Jan 28 02:37:35 2015 No.7035381

>>7035304
I would call moving 10 miles that way expansion. I just think settling requires a bit more movement. Also the other guy gave you a "technical" win. Most of the bantunized regions were ancestral to the people who lived there. So white people never even settled there in the first place it's just part of the borders because international borders are needed. That's one of the largest problems in Africa, there are tonnes of countries that just exist because someone needs to interact with America or China, but really it's just a bunch of tribal people in areas away from cities.

Like I said, I dispute the extent of what you're saying not the basis, sure, someone lost land. But why? When? The facts paint a much different picture than you. This mass exploitation you claim didn't happen. This is why you are wrong. You keep going "muh two points, muh two points." You find solace in this technical win as if that changes the fact that no one set up proper settlements with farming in the region until the Dutch and British showed up. The tribes didn't copy this, they just latched on. You're "right" but far from truth.

Anonymous Wed Jan 28 02:41:01 2015 No.7035385

>>7035381
>I would call moving 10 miles that way expansion.
Settlements like Pretoria, Bloemfontein, and Johannesburg are MUCH, MUCH farther away from Cape Town than just a few miles.

> the fact that no one set up proper settlements with farming in the region until the Dutch and British showed up
If you read my posts you'll notice I never disputed this or argued about it. It's simply an extraneous detail that's besides the point.

If you believe it justified said settlements and colonization, that's fine. Just call it what it is and don't insist it was only uninhabited lands settled.

Anonymous Wed Jan 28 03:19:01 2015 No.7035432

>>7035385
Like I said, I don't care about you're magical two points.
I'm arguing with you because you're refusing to put it into context. Those settlements were made as a result of wars and raiding. That's not exploitation.

> the fact that no one set up proper settlements with farming in the region until the Dutch and British showed up
you missed a part. Again the important part.
>The tribes didn't copy this, they just latched on.
Why didn't they just separate?

The whole "magic white man bringing civilization to the natives" meme is overplayed sure, but so is the "poor exploited black man suffering under the white man's whip" meme.

Anonymous Wed Jan 28 03:21:43 2015 No.7035441

>>7035432
I never brought up exploitation in my own posts, and personally don't care. All of human history is one group exploiting another. I've just been trying to clarify very simple facts.

>I'm arguing with you because you're refusing to put it into context.
And again, context doesn't change the fact that many of the settlements made were NOT in uninhabited areas. That is all.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 28 03:30:29 2015 No.7035456 >>7035441 Being patronizing doesn't mean that you're glossing over what he's trying to say

Anonymous Wed Jan 28 03:32:05 2015 No.7035459

>>7035456
I'm not being patronizing. I stated from the start that this has nothing to do with "muh white guilt" or "muh exploitation", it's simply a fact that the settlers DID settle in previously inhabited areas, and that the Apartheid government established much later on wasn't a paradise or great nation.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 28 03:32:09 2015 No.7035460 >>7035441 >I've just been trying to clarify very simple facts No you just want to dissemble. >context doesn't matter k boss.

Anonymous Wed Jan 28 03:45:23 2015 No.7035482

>>7035460
Whether settlers came into the lands to push out attackers or because they thought cottoncandy sprouted up from the ground doesn't matter. The point is that they settled in inhabited areas, which is something you and/or other posters don't seem to get.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 28 03:53:23 2015 No.7035495 >>7035482 >context doesn't matter ok

>>	Anonymous Wed Jan 28 03:55:09 2015 No.7035497 >>7035495 Not when you're arguing over whether or not they settled into uninhabited territory, not WHY they did so. Good to see /pol/ are still the masters of logic and debate.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math