h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

...all the usual caveats

'It is not too little food which keeps half the world starving, but too much politics.'

Enjoy

Not politics. Greed. The majority of the world's wealth is held by a minority of people. It's always been this way, and as long as it remains this way, there will always be starvation and poverty. I never was a big fan of Marx, but voluntary socialism could solve the hunger and poverty problems the world faces. But nobody wants to give up their wealth. Sure many people make charitable donations, but who would really agree to divide up all their assets among everyone evenly? Certainly there are some, but in order for it to work, everyone would have to cooperate. Here in the U.S. we take pride in "all men are created equal" but who really believes it? Even if you discount the bigots, it is still apparent that some people are valued more than others. How many people would consider a convicted murderer to have as much worth to society as a world-renowned heart surgeon? Even in the Soviet Union people were still payed more than others depending on their occupation. So if we refuse to give up our wealth to the less fortunate, which inevitably most people will refuse (at least to the degree necessary to even out the wealth level) the less fortunate certainly aren't going to give what little they have to those even poorer than themselves. Sorry to cross threads, but even if GM foods could make food cheaper and more plentiful, it will also mean more profit to be had, and it will be exploited to the limit. Unless we give up that competitiveness that seems to be typical of the human species, and to be fair, all life, there will always be hunger and poverty.

Don't worry about crossing threads The comment in the GM thread was what prompted me to start this one. My gut feel, and it is only a gut feel, is that there is probably enough food in the world, it's just all in the wrong place.

Well, yes, I suppose that's a more concise way of putting it.

Greed is a huge factor in all this, but I firmly believe that can be changed. And I also think it is not politics that keeps the world hungry, it is lack of politics. Politics is power and power translates into wealth. I'd like to see more politics in poor countries *from the bottom up.* Democracy is too often connected with capitalism and not enough with an active role by citizens. I am not a fan of abolishing capitalism, but it does need reform. And I don't think Marxism is a logical choice since it does not take into account the huge service industry. We can't all be producers of goods and enjoy the fruits of our labor if our labor is the care of the elderly, or creation of software, or maintaining the peace. Equality is not needed in level of pay or importance as much as it is in quality of life. Finding a way to eliminate the zero-sum game of this world (the competitiveness Zarquon comments on) is the way to insure quality of life for the world's population. A huge challenge to be sure. But what is the alternative. Just sit back and let things go the way they are?

I'm still teeter-tottering on the GM thing. Still reading about it.

I'm minded to agree with your statement about it not being politics (per se) which keeps the world hungry, within the boundaries of your definition. In wanting to produce a short, snappy statement for discussion I picked on politics but I think what I was trying to say was too much politiking and economical constraint. As in, 'Why do we have huge food surpluses in some parts of the world? Because it's not economically viable to give them away/transport them to the parts of the world that need them.'. I think we need to rise above that sort of thinking. I agree Marxism, certainly in any of the forms implemented to date, is not the answer, but the general principle of 'from each according to ability, to each according to need' should be viewed on a global level. You are right, we have to rise to the challenge .

*and ioreth enters*

My point about feeding the hungry wasn't really serious, because it wouldn't work. Similarly a vegetarian diet uses on average one-twentieth the amount of agricultural land that a meat-based diet does. But even if we all went veggie, world hunger wouldn't end. Because too few people have too much money. And there's gotta be a better way than communism to change that.

I totally agree. But so far we haven't thought of a solution. Without forcing people to share the wealth, we need an incentive to make them WANT to do it. And that's a real toughie.

It may well be difficult to persuade people to share wealth for purely altruistic motives, but there's another way of achieving the same end which works with human nature instead of against it. It's no coincidence that the biggest contributors of humanitarian aid are the biggest capitalist economies and the reason, clearly, is that a free-trade based economy is the most efficient way of creating wealth. Once created, it can be redistributed, but you have to create it to start with.

I view the problem with a mix of cynicism and idealism. It would be great if we were all really nice people and willingly gave up a large share of our income to help the less fortunate - but we aren't and there's little point wishing we were. We're not really built that way. But so long as we feel ourselves to be a little better off this year than last, or a little better off than Joe down the street, we are more likely to pay our taxes and maybe even make some charitable donations on top. So I would favour a very 'hands-off' form of government in a free-trade based society which encourages trade and free enterprise, much like the US model, the most successful wealth-creating economy in the world. And then, individual selfishness and the profit motive having had their effect, the resources created can be redistributed.

It's true that in a capitalist society, some individuals will accumulate relatively huge amounts of wealth. But only in a very few cases will that wealth stay undistributed for long. It will either be spent, or taxed, or inherited. And the processes by which that individual fortune was generated will almost certainly have resulted in much more wealth going back into the economy at large.

It might also be worth pointing out that things are in fact better than they've ever been. Global per capita GDP rises steadily, indicating the process of wealth creation at work. On a down to earth level, indicators such as life expectancy and live-birth rates are also improving. So while there are still huge problems to address, progress is being made, and maybe we need to remind ourselves that it's because of that progress that we have the time, energy and resources to even consider the problems and discuss them here, instead of trudging off to the waterhole for the fifth time today.

Ahh....Adam Smith lives and breaths. Okay...I am not going to go off on a rant of "invisible hand" economics because that is thread creep in the extreme, but I cannot agree with Morgan's perspective when the less developed states are falling deeper into unrest and poverty and do not look the least bit improved by liberalization. Even "industrialized" states like Romania are failing. I am not well versed in economics, but it seems clear that the global economy rests on multinational corporations, which are treated as individuals and have individual rights and protections, but do not have a conscious.

I do agree, however, that progress has been made and it may be the result of free-trade, but only in a roundabout way. More and more people in wealthier states are realizing their good life is at the expense of others and they are demanding a change. And I think progress will continue to be made in that area, mostly because of the Internet. I certainly would rather be discussing global issues with people in faraway lands than trudging off to the waterhole I should hope one follows discussion with action, though.