Ethopian Bishop to Speak on “Global Food Crisis”
Next Monday, October 20th, Ethopian Bishop Abraham Desta will speak on the “Global Food Crisis” at 7:00 p.m. in the Monaghan Ballroom at the Union.
We frankly have no idea whether his comments on the “global food crisis” will make any sense. There really is no “global food crisis,” but rather a lot of poverty in the world.
But he is apparently a rather admirable fellow, and the talk should be worth seeing.
We frankly have no idea whether his comments on the “global food crisis” will make any sense. There really is no “global food crisis,” but rather a lot of poverty in the world.
But he is apparently a rather admirable fellow, and the talk should be worth seeing.
Labels: Abraham Desta, Global Food Crisis
posted by John McAdams at 10:13 AM
5 Comments:
Well, maybe...
If this isn't the standard "crisis" then there's the possibility which was raised last week, namely that 3rd world grain importers are not able to obtain letters of credit, thus unable to pay for shipments of grain from the US (inter alia.)
That's the bank-credit thing, again...
"There really is no “global food crisis,” but rather a lot of poverty in the world."
You're wrong, though it may be because you don't understand what "the global food crisis" refers to. There is absolutely no doubt that food prices have skyrocketed globally, and there is also no doubt that as a result many groups of people do not have food. This is fairly common knowledge and has been covered by the MSM (referred to as "the global food crisis"). There has also been news coverage of protests in response to this crisis in many places around the globe (e.g., Haiti and Egypt).
I think the snark about whether the talk will even make sense is unfair, given your own lack of understanding.
There is absolutely no doubt that food prices have skyrocketed globally, and there is also no doubt that as a result many groups of people do not have food.
Again, that's a poverty problem. There is plenty of food for people who can pay for it.
It's true that things like biofuels have increased food prices. But prices go up and they go down.
You need to lose the attachment to a particular sort of rhetoric (does it support some pet policy of yours?) and face the broader problem.
Well, anon, there is no "crisis," if by crisis you mean a naturally occuring phenomena for which there is a government-induced solution. The problem is chiefly that government has caused problems in the first place, not that problems mystically arose on their own.
If the Bishop is truly interested in reform, he should speak about the atrocity of Western subsidization of farm products and protectionism of the farming industry, which is the primary cause for so much poverty, lack of industry etc. in Africa today.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear him echo such a point.
"Again, that's a poverty problem."
And its being a poverty problem is consistent with there being a food crisis. I'm not denying there is poverty problem, nor even that it is a primary cause. But that problem is causing a genuine food crisis.
"There is plenty of food for people who can pay for it."
Yes, and for the people globally who cannot afford to eat, whatever the causes, it's a food crisis.
"You need to lose the attachment to a particular sort of rhetoric (does it support some pet policy of yours?) and face the broader problem."
I have no idea what pet policy you think the term "food crisis" might be supporting. When large groups of people are starving, that's a crisis. And I need not be committed to some pet policy to refer to this situation as a crisis. I think it's you who has a pet agenda in snarking about this guy who is actually trying to help people. And it seems like it's you who, feeling the need to deny that there is a food crisis, are committed to a certain sort of rhetoric. As for facing the larger problem, again, you seem to think facing the problem of hunger and facing poverty are mutually exclusive--which of course is ridiculous.
And Brian:
What is it I said that suggested that what I mean by "crisis" is a "naturally occurring phenomena [sic] for which there is a government-induced solution." Did I say it was naturally occurring or that there is a government-induced solution? No. And of course the food crisis has causes and didn't "mystically arise on its own," whatever that means. But why does its having causes and its not being natural, in whatever sense of "natural" you have in mind, imply that it is not a crisis?
And while governments may not be able to completely solve this problem, there are things governments could do to help. If, as you say, bad protectionist policies are primarily responsible for the crisis (poverty or food), why deny that different policies might have better consequences?
Post a Comment
<< Home