• BodyBySisyphus [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    How do you reconcile that with the fact that before the slave trade and colonialism, famine and malnourishment in Africa were comparatively rare? Why, despite the increase in technology and food production capability do these problems exist now when they didn’t then?

    Don't peek at the answer before you've tried to solve it yourself
    Seriously, just google Jason Hickel first, the work's been done

    It’s because the departing colonial powers stuck Africa with a bunch of debt and export-oriented modes of production, which means that food and goods that could provide a sustainable existence for Africans is being taken off the continent at fire sale prices, leaving them without the funds to adequately supplement at global prices.

    • narwhal@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I am well aware of what you are talking about. I am just trying to create a general understanding without resorting to ideology. I already assumed we had enough technological capability, and then i assumed further (even though i’m not entirely convinced) that humanity as a whole shares the interest to solve this problem. What else remains? The inability to translate those capabilities into achieving the desired goals. How else would you be able to make sense of the results without resorting to specifics of human history? I’m not saying history is not important. But if you manage to work this general model, whatever answer you get albeit general would apply to every context. We could work the specifics after that too, and they should make sense.

      • BodyBySisyphus [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I am well aware of what you are talking about. I am just trying to create a general understanding without resorting to ideology.

        Why are you assuming that hunger has ideologically neutral solutions?

        I already assumed we had enough technological capability

        We do

        that humanity as a whole shares the interest to solve this problem

        It most certainly does not

        What else remains?

        The fact that some very powerful and very rich people stay powerful and rich by keeping other, less powerful and less rich people hungry

        The inability to translate those capabilities into achieving the desired goals

        We have the ability. The cost of addressing global hunger is in the billions. We could do it tomorrow with the stroke of a pen. The calories are there, the funds exist.

        How else would you be able to make sense of the results without resorting to specifics of human history?

        I don’t understand the question. How do you make sense of the results without resorting to the specifics of human history? Everything is the way it is now because of things that happened then.

        But if you manage to work this general model, whatever answer you get albeit general would apply to every context.

        There isn’t a model here. There’s a very facile understanding of the problem that leaves out its major driver. Researchers have already progressed well beyond this level of thinking and have proposed solutions. The reasons the solutions are still not being implemented is obvious, and people have pointed that out as well. This whole train of thought is like walking into a dark room and trying to figure out why it’s dark without looking at the switch. “Gosh, we’ve changed the bulb, we replaced the fixture, we’ve checked all the wiring, we’ve ensured the house has power, we’ve done everything! Why won’t the light turn on?” If you insist on leaving ideology out of it you’re never going to get to the answer because ideology is the answer.

        • narwhal@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          I think those two aproachs do not contradict. Yours is just very pragmatic and i respect it. But I think you didn’t understand the aspect of rationality as distinct from capability. This would be the inability to solve world hunger despite having the means to, that is just inconsistency in making good decisions. I think your analogy with the dark room even works here. You have all the tools to make the room bright and you certainly want to be able to see, but your decisions do not consistently bring about the desired result, which is an illuminated room. Edit: Well. I tried my best to explain. But looks like you are not interested in a discussion here. I grow tired of personal attacks.