Humanity and its relationship with itself

[erebus]

Out of the total percentage of the 7.1 billion global population, apparently 870 million people do not have enough to eat. The total number of the starving, the number of people who will die of hunger this year is estimated at 7,615,360 out of which 1.5 million are child deaths out of a total 2.6 million deaths of children under five each year – which just happens to be one third of the global total. So with food prices rising, due to food being part of profit strategy, these figures in a decade will look very reasonable, so nothing to be concerned about. It also starts to make the extermination of peoples during WW2 of an upper average of 4 million a year, seem modest., especially when our against the 100 million killed through colonisation if the Americas.

 

But war is a favourite human pastime, with up to 105 million killed in WW2 as to a modest 39 million in WW1. But malaria kills around 2 million a year, which is just one of many non human caused of premature death. Famine killed up to 43 million in China in the later 1960’s, and in North Korea, their recent one 1996-8 killed 3.5 million but not really newsworthy, as communist.

 

So humanity as roughly outlined does not really care about itself, humans create their own problems, with politicians and financial elites decide for the rest of us our fate and their profit of course. So it good to know such caring people appear to share the same values regardless of race or cultural differences and always say they strive to want what is best for us, and make the world a better place for everyone.

 

Meanwhile the carnage continues, and the western war, I mean defence corporations work hard to make the world a safer place, spreading democracy, where convenient for corporate exploitation, the oil nations, so we can all rest assured all is well.

[Hillpig]

The world you describe is as it has always been. The only difference is scale and more advanced ways of killing people.

 

You seem to aspire to a world that is kind, where neighbor respects neighbor, where war is inconceivable, where profit is not necessary as all goods would be spread equally. You should continue to aspire to that, it is beautiful and as it should be.

 

It is also totally unrealistic.

[Vague_Boy]

So with food prices rising, due to food being part of profit strategy

 

Nothing to do heavy rain in the UK in 2012, droughts in the US and a heatwave in Russia? [LINK]

 

Why Are Food Prices Rising? Check the Weather

 

Those greedy capitalists are clearly causing climate change in order to drive up the price of crops. The fiendish swines!

 

Additionally, if we want to start growing crops for fuel so that soccer moms can carry on driving their fuel guzzling SUVs to the mall, guess what, that's land that isn't being used to grow food.

 

Since artificial pesticides and fertilizers are made from natural gas and oil, if oil and gas prices rise, guess what, the cost of growing crops rises as well.

 

And since most crops get shipped across the world, rising fuel costs make that more expensive as well.

 

It takes 10 calories of fossil fuels to produce one calorie of food

 

If inflation* is on the rise due to currency debasement, guess what, the cost of food will rise as well.

 

 

* I mean real world inflation here, not the phoney baloney figures the government comes out with.

[Phanerothyme]

It takes 10

 

The footnotes in the article referred to in the article referred to in the article you linked to are dubious to say the least, non-existent at times.

[jfish1936]

The aborigines had a comfortable situation in Australia. They seem to have learnt to "live in harmony" with the land, and to limit their population to a sustainable level.

Meanwhile, in another part of the world, unsustainable growth, partly driven by new and more productive farming, caused numbers of folk from there to invade Australia, and to destroy the Aborigines' lifestyles and economic systems.

 

Should we prevent famine, at the cost of growth in populations and consequent pressure on living space?

Should we "educate" some nations and religions to adopt population growth control, contrary to their present tenets?

 

There would be little need for war between a France with 1 milliion inhabitants and a Germany with 1 million, all other nations to be reduced in like proportion.

All nations could live at peace within their own boundaries, and mostly grow their own food.

[Hillpig]

The aborigines had a comfortable situation in Australia. They seem to have learnt to "live in harmony" with the land, and to limit their population to a sustainable level.

Meanwhile, in another part of the world, unsustainable growth, partly driven by new and more productive farming, caused numbers of folk from there to invade Australia, and to destroy the Aborigines' lifestyles and economic systems.

 

Should we prevent famine, at the cost of growth in populations and consequent pressure on living space?

Should we "educate" some nations and religions to adopt population growth control, contrary to their present tenets?

 

There would be little need for war between a France with 1 milliion inhabitants and a Germany with 1 million, all other nations to be reduced in like proportion.

All nations could live at peace within their own boundaries, and mostly grow their own food.

 

The aborigines aborted children by beating their women in the stomach, they murdered the old when they became unproductive.

 

When there were one million french and one million brits we were permanently at war.