Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
I think good choice making is a much better way to approach population size issues.

---

Quote:

---

all of the leftover energy would be enough to bring the ENTIRE undeveloped world up to Costa-Rican/ Cuban standard, which isn't too shabby.

---

Quote:

---

Tony, you're thinking of the Cuba that your grandpa told you about.

---

Quote:

---

If the same thing had happened to the USA, we would descend to barbarism and chaos within weeks, don't tell me we wouldn't.

---

Quote:

---

I thought the government response to a true economic crisis was humane. Hard to imagine THAT in your grandfather's day... or here either, for that matter.

---

Quote:

---

This government's current inspirational role involves reversing most of the agricultural reforms it instituted to begin with

---

Quote:

---

The factor that allowed the Cubans to avoid chaos was the inhumanity of a government that assured the populace had no avenue for misbehavior.

---

Quote:

---

Multinational corporations are buying up swathes of land in underdeveloped countries in an unchecked scramble towards new-age colonialism. So-called “land grabbing” sees western powers vying for economic control of the developing world’s resources.

---

Quote:

---

So what are you saying? That "the populace" as a whole is so sociopathic that everyone would have misbehaved en masse and only the inhumane government deserves credit for pulling everyone together and saving lives? There are too many contradictions in that thought for me to even follow!

---

Quote:

---

If the same thing had happened to the USA, we would descend to barbarism and chaos within weeks, don't tell me we wouldn't.

---

Quote:

---

but we BOTH agreed that starving, unhappy populations can be expected to revolt and riot

---

Quote:

---

Well, it starts with a couple of ideas that seem pretty true to me.

1) All animals live on the edge of available resources in nature. It doesn't matter whether they're herbivores, carnivores, scavengers or omnivores. It doesn't matter if they fly, swim, walk or crawl. To illustrate this, imagine a lush evergreen veldt. For simplicity’s sake there are no predators. Now imagine two lucky grazers, male and female, that come upon this resource. They'll reproduce at their top rate until there are too many grazers for the vegetation to support. Even under initially ideal circumstances, sooner of later an animal species will hit the limits of necessary resources.

---

Quote:

---

2) Humans escaped resource insecurity caused by fluctuating water and food supplies and weather through simple technology. The bowl or waterskin was probably the most critical as people die fastest without water (except air, but air isn't going to run out soon). The pounding rock and stick were probably next as they were tools that let people get food from normally unavailable sources. Animal skins for shelter were probably next. At some point a sufficient accumulation of simple technology freed humans from immediate threat of running out of resources.

At that point people were like the two grazers in the middle of the evergreen veldt. Absent globally catastrophic events like super-volcanoes or large meteorites, they were in the environment that they were adapted to, but buffered against local adversity by their technology. They were in a relative Eden.

There were only 2 things that could bring that to an end. One was expanding their population to the new limits of their resources. The other was accumulating far more than they needed, and so mimicking a much larger population.

I think that if people had understood that they had passed into a new type of existence and created a philosophy of 'just enough' humanity would have been guaranteed not only indefinite survival, but individual survival and even comfort and ease. Using just enough resources to meet your needs and having just enough children to replace your numbers would have meant humanity could have lived indefinitely in abundance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

but we BOTH agreed that starving, unhappy populations can be expected to revolt and riot

---

No, we don't both agree. If "the government" is doing what is fair, necessary and right, why would people revolt and riot? The only reason I would expect revolts and riots is because of inequity. Revolts and riots might also occur because of ineffectiveness. For example, maybe everyone is equal but the response is inadequate... "We sacrificed 10,000 foreigners but the rain STILL didn't come"... but usually people revolt because of inequity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:

In Cuba there was both inequity and also ineffectiveness. The top down responses were all the wrong ones and put the people in peril.

In any event, you seem prepared to persist in your assertion that Cuba has a humane government, which boggles me but does not seem to be something you and I are likely to agree upon. Cuba may be an excellent example of how to survive an energy crisis, but it has not been an excellent example of how humans should be treated in a society, nor the type of standard the world should be striving for.

---

Quote:

---

You simply cannot believe that the Cuban government might actually have done something... even several somethings... that were reasonable and good.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
MAGONS, 6IX: It is very easy to say that the problem is not food when you live in a nation awash in it. But the reality is that if you were to distribute food evenly across the planet and were able to eliminate most of the waste there still wouldn't be enough good food for everyone. And at THIS level of production, we're already ruining the planet.

BTW- as far as water in concerned, the biggest user of water is agriculture.... 80-90%. So a water crisis is still a food crisis- if we didn't have to produce so much food we wouldn't be running so short of water.

---

Quote:

---

Consider the following:

Over 9 million people die worldwide each year because of hunger and malnutrition. 5 million are children.
Approximately 1.2 billion people suffer from hunger (deficiency of calories and protein);
Some 2 to 3.5 billion people have micronutrient deficiency (deficiency of vitamins and minerals);
Yet, some 1.2 billion suffer from obesity (excess of fats and salt, often accompanied by deficiency of vitamins and minerals);
Food wastage is also high:
In the United Kingdom, “a shocking 30-40% of all food is never eaten;”
In the last decade the amount of food British people threw into the bin went up by 15%;
Overall, £20 billion (approximately $38 billion US dollars) worth of food is thrown away, every year.
In the US 40-50% of all food ready for harvest never gets eaten
Of the food that does eventually reach households, some 14% is wasted, resulting in something like $43 billion of wastage
If food reaching supermarkets, restaurants and cafeterias is added to the household figure, that wastage goes up to 27%.
In Sweden, families with small children throw out about a quarter of the food they buy
In some parts of Africa a quarter or more of the crops go bad before they can be eaten. More generally, high losses in developing nations are mainly due to a lack of technology and infrastructure as well as insect infestations, microbial growth, damage and high temperatures and humidity.
The impacts of this waste is not just financial. Environmentally this leads to:
Wasteful use of chemicals such as fertilizers and pesticides;
More fuel used for transportation;
More rotting food, creating more methane — one of the most harmful greenhouse gases that contributes to climate change.
Reducing wastage in the US by half could reduce adverse environmental impacts by 25 percent through reduced landfill use, soil depletion and applications of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.
The direct medical cost of hunger and malnutrition is estimated at $30 billion each year.
Sources»

In a world of plenty, a huge number go hungry. Hunger is more than just the result of food production and meeting demands. The causes of hunger are related to the causes of poverty. One of the major causes of hunger is poverty itself. The various issues discussed throughout this site about poverty lead to people being unable to afford food and hence people go hungry.

There are other related causes (also often related to the causes of poverty in various ways), including the following:

Land rights and ownership
Diversion of land use to non-productive use
Increasing emphasis on export-oriented agriculture
Inefficient agricultural practices
War
Famine
Drought
Over-fishing
Poor crop yield
Lack of democracy and rights
etc.

---

Quote:

---

In many cases where food is grown, it is often for exports. In some cases, while local people may be going hungry, they are growing food to export for the hard cash that would be earned. The increasingly export-oriented economies are being promoted by the wealthier Northern countries and the international institutions that they have strong influence over, the IMF and World Bank, as detailed in the Structural Adjustment section on this site. The result of this is that the wealthier nations tend to benefit while poorer countries generally lose out.

---

Quote:

---

World hunger exists because: (1) colonialism, and later subtle monopoly capitalism, dispossessed hundreds of millions of people from their land; the current owners are the new plantation managers producing for the mother countries; (2) the low-paid undeveloped countries sell to the highly paid developed countries because there is no local market [because the low-paid people do not have enough to pay] … and (3) the current Third World land owners, producing for the First World, are appendages to the industrialized world, stripping all natural wealth from the land to produce food, lumber, and other products for wealthy nations.

This system is largely kept in place by underpaying the defeated colonial societies for the real value of their labor and resources, leaving them no choice but to continue to sell their natural wealth to the over-paid industrial societies that overwhelmed them. To eliminate hunger: (1) the dispossessed, weak, individualized people must be protected from the organized and legally protected multinational corporations; (2) there must be managed trade to protect both the Third World and the developed world, so the dispossessed can reclaim use of their land; (3) the currently defeated people can then produce the more labor-intensive, high-protein/high-calorie crops that contain all eight (or nine) essential amino acids; and (4) those societies must adapt dietary patterns so that vegetables, grains, and fruits are consumed in the proper amino acid combinations, with small amounts of meat or fish for flavor. With similar dietary adjustments among the wealthy, there would be enough food for everyone.

---

Quote:

---

Where was the inequity? Were there a few multi-billionaires and a vast majority of starving? And the top down responses were wrong? Should the government have NOT distributed food? Should it NOT have invited the Australians to teach about permaculture? Should it NOT provide free education to all? Or free medical care?

You seem to criticize the government for doing it's best, including changing long-standing policies, in order to keep each and every person from starving.

That boggles me.

---

Quote:

---

I have no problem understanding that good things were accomplished, but I do not let that then blind me to the inhumane practices of oppression the government enforces upon the populace. The good end result does not wash away the bad means to the end.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
ello,

I don't think you'll find multi-billionaires in Cuba, but you will indeed find the have plenty's and the don't have jack alls.

On the way to 'doing its best' the government did a lot of terrible things that exacerbated the situation for the people. So I am not going to look at the current end result and say, "Wow, what a wonderful humane government." Rather, what I see is a government that finally came to term with its epic failures and reversed a great number of its failed policies. There are certainly things to learn about surviving an energy crisis from Cuba, but it is in no way the model for a humane government.

If you are intent on giving credit where credit is due, please do remember to credit them with their sins as well as their accomplishments.

--Anthony

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:


And yet you turn a blind eye to the VAST inequities in other countries - say, the US - where 1/3 of children go to bed hungry, while multi-billionaires get tens of billions more in taxpayer bailouts. You turn a blind eye to the record number of people incarcerated by a justice system where people can get all the justice money can buy. You turn a blind eye to a system that is on the verge of writing off education, healthcare for the elderly, and infrastructure and leaving them to the mercy of 'market forces' and the wealthy.

I'm not naive. I know a PR piece when I see it. But if you look back in the history of Cuba - before the god-awful Castro - you'll find vast wealth in the hands of a few, grinding poverty of the very very many - and brutal political oppression, mass torture, and murder at the behest of the rich and powerful. Like under Batista.

Remember, being anti-socialist doesn't make you pro-freedom.

---

Quote:

---

but rather because people's freedoms are quite severely curtailed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
To be fair to Anthony, he often comments on the flaws and failings of the US.

---

Quote:

---

To be fair to Anthony, he often comments on the flaws and failings of the US. - MAGONS
I must have missed them in my time away, b/c I don't recall having read any.-KIKI

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
MAGONS, 6IX: It is very easy to say that the problem is not food when you live in a nation awash in it. But the reality is that if you were to distribute food evenly across the planet and were able to eliminate most of the waste there still wouldn't be enough good food for everyone. And at THIS level of production, we're already ruining the planet.

BTW- as far as water in concerned, the biggest user of water is agriculture.... 80-90%. So a water crisis is still a food crisis- if we didn't have to produce so much food we wouldn't be running so short of water.

---

Quote:

---

But even still, with our knowledge of agriculture and genetics, food should NEVER be a problem, even with 7 billion mouths to feed.

---

Quote:

---

The FACT that in 2012, there is even one single starving child in the world is the end result of behind-the-scenes decisions from people in power that we couldn't even contemplate without knowing more of the full picture.

---

Quote:

---

Did you ever think, for a second, that the Powers that Be maybe decided the best way to curb child birth and promote abortions was to make this all the more sustainable until we can figure out a way to exploit a 3rd world..... world????

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
OK, I looked it up. As it turns out, the world produces roughly 2700 Kcal per person per day's worth of food. That is enough to feed everyone, although maybe not enough to feed everyone a good diet: the typical macronutrient deficiency is protein so some of the Kcal may need to be converted to protein with the inevitable loss of conversion. In addition, the typical micronutrient deficiencies are vitamins A and D, iodine, omega-3 oil, and the amino acid taurine, all of which can best be obtained from ocean fish and seaweed. Considering we're already strip-mining the ocean (as well as strip-mining our topsoil) that particular cupboard may be bare.

But the point of the thread was not how we can feed the planet and lay it to waste (which we're doing) but how we can feed the plant without destroying it.

Quote:

---

The FACT that in 2012, there is even one single starving child in the world is the end result of behind-the-scenes decisions from people in power that we couldn't even contemplate without knowing more of the full picture.

---

Agreed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"The whole lesson of Batista/Castro is that trading one pig for another does nothing to benefit the Animal Farm."

Unless of course one pig makes sure all the other pigs are starving, uneducated, lack medical care, and are subject to mass torture, while the other pig is the opposite.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quite honestly, Tony, I don't recall you condemning the actions of the good old USA. I DO recall you condemning the atrocities of the banking system, with which you're well-acquainted. So refresh my memory, and tell me which freedoms you think we are trampling and the injustices you think we're perpetrating.

---

Quote:

---

You have your corrupt, oppressive Capitalist flavor and your corrupt, oppressive Communist flavor. Why condemn one and cheer the other?

---

Quote:

---

The freedom to do what?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh dear.

My mom, going on 90 and still alive bless her heart. But she smoked for many years and now she has emphysema and heart failure and she can't even get up out of her chair to go pee. I guess you have to die of something. A friend and I were talking about how the very elderly just kind of hung on in constant pain and humiliation or dementia, and we both agreed "Always have an exit plan".

I just hope to settle my responsibilities and do some good for the world before I go.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
TONY, let me give you my answer, altho it may not be Kiki's:

Because despite what you say about Cuba being the equivalent of the United States, or Batista being same as Castro, Cubans manage as a whole to have a rather high standard of living while being placed in economic solitary confinement. The lifespan is just as long, the education levels are better, and overall people are happy.

Or- to look at this another way- despite the fact that the USA has killed millions of brown and black-skinned people all over the world in its quest for dominance and resources, and despite the fact that the USA has amassed tremendous wealth overall, we have people dying very young for lack of simple medical care, our infant mortality sucks, we have the highest per capita murder and incarceration rate, and people are fearful of the future and isolated from each other. Which model sounds better?

---