Comment by Gareth321
12 days ago
This is a commonly stated aphorism which betrays a deep ignorance of the issue. Namely the logistics. If we had Star Trek transporter technology we could in fact solve world hunger. We could take the excess bananas grown in Colombia and drop them outside the doors of hungry people in Nigeria. But we don't. It is very expensive and difficult to transport food and water from one place to another. The world has sent Africa $1.5T over the last 50 years, and yet the number of undernourished people has almost tripled in that time, from 100M to 282M as of 2022. Why?
1. Corruption. I saw this first hand. For every $1M sent into Africa, a very large proportion is confiscated by tribes, gangs, militia, and the government. You can send all the excess food in the world, but there are thousands of people between production and the hungry person who is eager to violently steal it.
2. Africa's population is booming. Thanks, in part, to food aid. Half of Nigeria doesn't have access to toilets. 40% doesn't have electricity. 25% doesn't have running water. Their fertility rate is 5.2 children per woman. We are unintentionally propping up a future catastrophe.
3. Food aid has destroyed local farming and food production. Locals cannot compete with free.
4. Equitable allocation is impossible. There is no hunger score above each person's head. Even if there were, there is no supply chain anywhere in the world which can reliably and repeatedly deliver the necessary food aid to each person in the deepest African jungles. We rely on distribution hubs which are sparse, poorly run, intermittent, and subject to temperature and humidity extremes. This means food perishes fast unless it is ultra processed and packed for durability. Basically army rations. Even those expire after some time. Meaning we can't just take the Colombian bananas and send them around the world. Only certain foods work, and they need to undergo expensive and specialised processing. This entire supply chain is far more expensive than you can imagine.
I will close with my own opinion. While the world could sustain a higher population, it is clear to me that it will result in diminishing quality of life for everyone. Crowded conditions and increasing scarcity are not aspirational goals for humanity.
I understand the logistics very well. I'm not suggesting we move the food and water to the people. I'm suggesting we move the people to the food and water. Cities like New York have a population density of 50k/mile^2. We can build lots more cities at that scale much closer to where resources are easily available.
I'm choosing to ignore a lot of the problems with people from disparate backgrounds living together, people not actually wanting to leave where they live, people not wanting to share freely available resources, etc. Those are very hard to solve problems.
I'm only saying that over-population is not the cause of resource problems. If we can solve the other problems then a lack of resources stops being a problem, which proves population size is not the root cause.
I would like to challenge your suggestion - ignoring for the moment the practical issues like cultural and economic and educational roadblocks.
New York doesn't magically receive food. New York is a large net recipient of food imports. It produces value to society and exchanges some of that value for food farmed by others. The U.S. (and most of the West) is structured in such a way that productivity per capita is high, and it means everyone in the food supply chain can live a reasonable lifestyle with enough food. Most African nations do not structure their society this way. It's not an accident. This is the way they choose to live. I grew up in Africa and I'm happy to explain the many ways in which American and African cultures differ. For example, corruption isn't corruption in most of Africa. It's good manners. Gift giving has been happening in tribes for thousands of years. In business it is a common courtesy to provide a gift during negotiations. Of course the person with the largest gift is the most generous and the nicest person, so of course they get the contract. This is a fundamental difference in our cultural and social understanding of what is right and wrong.
What you appear to be exercising is a typical Western hubris: "if we can just get the savages to live with us, they would see the light and live like we do." This assumes that everyone want to adopt your values and way of living. They don't. The reason there isn't much food in Africa (relative to the population size) is not by chance. They live on some of the most fertile land in the world. Africa should be the breadbasket of the world. The issue is that they don't like the way you live and don't want to live that way. Any kind of mass migration strategy would merely result in lots of hungry people in America.
What I said is that the world produces enough food for everyone (and then some), so 'over population' is not the reason for people not having enough resources. I was careful to point out that was all I was saying in several places. I added caveats to say that there are lots of hard problems around moving people to the resources.
You chose to ignore all that, and argue against the point I explicitly didn't make. Congratulations on winning that argument. Your prize is a huge straw man.
This is why I favor tractors, tooling, and bulk material like steel and copper over sending food aid. Give a hungry man bread and he eats for a day, give a hungry man a tractor and a lathe and he will become a farmer/machinist/well driller.
Gangs can only want so many machine tools and steel plates, if you don't use them they are just in the way. But people who do use them and learn how to do it well become immensely valuable and beneficial to all.
I wish it worked like this. We have decades of examples of aid projects where we provide the means to produce food - machinery, fertilisers, irrigation equipment, water boreholes, processing and refining equipment, etc. Most of them fail. All of these machines and processes require training. Often extensively. Good luck convincing any of the locals to dedicate the next year of their lives to learning how to drive a complex tractor and PTO. They know that the tractor will break down soon and the parts will never arrive to fix it. That is, of course, assuming the tractor isn't stolen by next week. Which it usually is. Even if all the stars aligned and they managed to produce food, that will be stolen too. Either by someone else or by them.
Gangs don't use the farm equipment. They steal it and sell it. They will steal any equipment they can and there is an unlimited appetite for equipment on the black market. Especially in China and Southeast Asia.
I certainly agree that it isn't a cure-all, I just don't see how any other program could ever end the cycle without those things included, and that despite the current prevalence of such ideas and projects it probably still isn't enough. Machine technology is what separates total poverty in the modern era from atleast some semblance of prosperity.
One part of the problem could be sending them super cheap/crappy tools because it seems like a better value per dollar and also the constraints of total funding. Sometimes maybe getting ripped off by foreign suppliers because there is a LOT of really crappy steel out there disguised as tools and engines that are all but useless. But tractors and tools that break down that easily are a complete waste of money and time to people who will barely get to use them before they stop working and they likely are right that it is junk. We have the technology to make a tractor that is robust enough that you wouldn't expect any maintenance for years if not a decade and minimal even at that point. I definitely don't see many decent manual CNC machines and lathes or other machine tools getting sent over in numbers enough.
Of course a lot of this still ultimately comes down to cost which is not an easy issue to deal with.