Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

World Hunger 'hits One Billion'

Recommended Posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8109698.stm

One billion people throughout the world suffer from hunger, a figure which has increased by 100 million because of the global financial crisis, says the UN.

The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) said the figure was a record high.

Persistently high food prices have also contributed to the hunger crisis.

The director general of the FAO said the level of hunger, one-sixth of the world's population, posed a "serious risk" to world peace and security.

The UN said almost all of the world's undernourished live in developing countries, with the most, some 642 million people, living in the Asia-Pacific region.

In sub-Saharan Africa, the next worst-hit region, the figure stands at 265 million.

Just 15 million people are left hungry in the developed world.

"The silent hunger crisis - affecting one-sixth of all of humanity - poses a serious risk for world peace and security," said Jacques Diouf.

"We urgently need to forge a broad consensus on the total and rapid eradication of hunger in the world and to take the necessary actions."

'Contradiction'

The increase in the number of hungry people was blamed on lower incomes and increased unemployment, which in turn reduced access to food by the poor, the UN agency said.

But it contrasted sharply with evidence that much of the developed world is richer than ever before.

"It's the first time in human history that we have so many hungry people in the world," said FAO spokesman Kostas Stamoulis, director of the organisation's development department.

"And that's a contradiction, because a lot of the world is very rich despite the economic crisis."

Mr Diouf urged governments to provide development and economic assistance to boost agriculture, particularly by smallholder farmers.

"Investment in agriculture must be increased because for the majority of poor countries a healthy agricultural sector is essential to overcome poverty and hunger and is a pre-requisite for overall economic growth," he said.

Urban poor would probably face the most severe problems in coping with the global recession, the UN warned, because lower export demand and reduced foreign investment were more likely to hit urban jobs harder.

Many migrants to urban areas would be likely to return to rural areas, it added, transferring the burden.

Incomes have also dropped "substantially" in some developing countries where families depend on remittances from relatives working abroad.

With the financial crisis hitting all parts of the world more or less simultaneously, developing countries have less room to adjust, the UN agency says.

Food prices

Among the pressures is the reality that borrowing from international capital markets is "more limited" in a global crisis, the FAO said.

Food costs in developing countries now seem more expensive, despite prices in world markets declining during the food and fuel crisis of 2006-08, it added.

They remained on average 24% higher in real terms by the end of 2008 compared to 2006.

"For poor consumers, who spend up to 60% of their incomes on staple foods, this means a strong reduction in their effective purchasing power," the FAO said.

“There’s little central banks around the world can do to prevent food prices from rising,†Mexico’s central-bank governor, Guillermo Ortiz

“Northern unemployment is an acceptable price to pay for curbing southern inflation†Eddie George former Governor of the Bank of England

Therefore:

World starvation is an acceptable price to pay for curbing global inflation.

The evil bankers plan is appearing to be developing nicely, people starving whilst they make millions.

Global stability is at threat, the last thing you need is hungry people, starving people aren't as malleable as those with a full belly.

This is one massive ticking timebomb.

The global population is a huge problem exponential growth is going to destroy us unless we manage ourselves better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The global population is a huge problem

The trajectory for world population is approximating that of the UN "Low Projection". Although this in itself will create its own problems.

22063001.JPG

Long slow march to a stable population - 1996

THE world's population will probably never double again, according to the latest projections of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna.

Link

Where have all the people gone?: The UN's demographic projections are predictably wrong - 1996

The truth is that many UN projections for cities are so much statistical garbage. Occasionally, demographers make a nonsense of their trends data by changing the boundaries round the areas they describe as "urban agglomerations", which may be very different from administrative boundaries. That is why Tokyo has apparently added 9 million people in the past decade, and why London has lost 2.5 million.

But usually the trouble seems to be demographers blindly extending existing population trends (often rather inaccurate guesstimates) into an improbable future. Most absurdly, back in the mid-1980s, the UN predicted that Ado Ekiti, which is a small town in the Nigerian interior, would be among the world's 25 biggest megacities by 2025, with more than 15 million people. No sign yet.

Link

The rise of the wrinklies . . . 1998

A growing number of demographers now believe that the world is settling onto the path that follows recent UN "low range" estimates. These make startling reading. According to the latest version, published earlier this year, the world population will peak in about 2040 on 7.7 billion and then go into long-term decline. Not just a small decline, either. By 2100 we could be back under today's population, and by 2150 the projection is for a world population of 3.6 billion, less than two-thirds of today's.

It is worth noting that this doesn't assume any global catastrophe, just couples carrying on doing what they have always done, making rational decisions for themselves about how many children they want. As the Australian demographer John Caldwell told the UN population conference in Cairo in 1994: "The experience of the past 20 years makes it much more likely that we will end up with a declining population"

Link

Counting Down - 1999

But delve behind the words of the doom-mongers, say some demographers, and you'll find evidence that in the not-too-distant future, the world population may actually start to shrink.

According to this very different picture, the world's population will peak some time in the 21st century, then start falling.

"Over the past five years, fertility has declined in all major parts of the world," says one of the heretics, Wolfgang Lutz, head of population research at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria. "All changes point to lower population forecasts." And on his most recent forecasts, the upward path of population growth, which has been accelerating ever since the Black Death killed as much as a third of Europe's population in the 14th century, will stall and go into reverse in about 70 years.

Demographers had predicted a downturn. But it is happening much faster and more widely than they anticipated. Twice in the past three years, the UN's statisticians have lowered their projections of future populations. On the second occasion, late last year, they postponed by four months the "six-billion day" and reduced their forecast of the world population in 2050 by half a billion, from 9.4 billion to 8.9 billion.

The main reason for these changes is the dramatic fall in fertility rates, particularly in the developing world. Across Africa and Asia, hundreds of millions of people are confounding predictions by reducing family sizes. It used to be said that, without the Draconian imposition of birth control, only countries with rising prosperity and increasingly literate and urban populations could go through what demographers call the demographic transition - the switch to smaller families and stable populations.

But in the 1990s, a number of countries have disproved this. Bangladesh, once in the world's demographic doghouse, has cut its fertility rate from 6.2 children per woman to 3.4 in a decade, thanks to contraception, and despite extreme poverty and illiteracy. Fertility rates in many African countries, though still very high, are falling fast as contraceptive use grows there as well.

According to the UN's population division in New York, fertility rates are now below the long-term replacement level of 2.1 in 61 countries, including most of Europe, the Caribbean and eastern Asia, including China. American women have 2 children on average, British women 1.7 and in Catholic countries such as Italy and Spain, the figure is as low as 1.2 children.

Some senior UN demographers think this pattern is unlikely to continue. They say fertility rates will eventually return to higher levels. However, they fail to provide a detailed explanation of why they believe this, although some note that many modern women may simply be postponing having children rather than not having any at all. Based on these assumptions, the UN predicts that some time towards the end of the 21st century, the world's population will stabilise at between 10 or 11 billion.

But Warren Robinson, at the Pennsylvania State University, says: "It requires a leap of faith to assume that replacement-level fertility will be the average procreational goal of all couples in the world for generations to come."

Nafis Sadik, executive director of the UN Population Fund, admitted last week: "No country in history has ever succeeded in raising birth rates over a long period once they have started to decline." Lutz predicts that around 2070, the world's overall population will begin to fall. Many UN demographers quietly agree. And less trumpeted is the UN's low projection, the latest of which makes sobering reading. It predicts that the world's population will peak in 2040 at around 7.7 billion people and then go into a long-term decline. By 2100, it could be back below today's figure of six billion and by 2150 the projection is for just 3.6 billion people.

Link

Global population to peak in 2070 - 2001

The world's population may reach a peak of nine billion as early as 2070 and then start to shrink, according to a new analysis by Austrian researchers.

Wolfgang Lutz, of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, and his team created thousands of simulations of the future world population and evaluated them, assigning probabilities to each range of possibilities.

They think there is an 85 per cent chance that the global population will stop growing before the end of the century - most probably by 2070.

Lutz thinks declining fertility rates around the world are the main driving force behind the slowing in population growth.

"We hope these findings will help people get away from the apocalyptic view that the population will explode in the future," he told New Scientist. "Humankind can control the future by controlling fertility."

Link

Global population forecast falls - 2003

In new forecasts released on Wednesday evening, UN demographers cut 400 million from their best estimate of the world's population in 2050. Joseph Chamie, the head of the UN population division in New York, said he now expected 8.9 billion people on Earth in 2050, rather than the 9.3 billion that he forecast in 2002. The current figure is 6.3 billion.

The new population projections stretch to the year 2050, but not beyond. However, he warned that "fertility rates will be below replacement levels in three-quarters of the world by 2050". The great majority of women worldwide will be having fewer than two children.

In fact, the new projections assume that most countries will eventually approach a fertility rate of 1.85 children per woman. This represents a clear break with past thinking - demographers had always assumed countries would settle down to replacement fertility levels.

Chamie agrees that it has "momentous" implications for humanity.

Link

The Population Paradox 2008

The righteous intensity surrounding this debate has obscured the fact that the story has changed. The "population bomb" has already gone off.

Traditionally, human societies needed high birth rates to balance high death rates. As they start defeating famine and disease, death rates drop. Then population soars until birth rates eventually fall too. Countries passing through this "demographic transition" have caused the global population to more than double since 1950.

The first societies to industrialise - Europe and its colonies - were first to make the switch. Now everyone is doing it, and for the same reason: if you're fairly sure they'll survive, two well-fed, well-educated kids make more economic sense than six starving, unemployable ones.

So birth rates have fallen dramatically - and voluntarily. Coercive birth control, including "paying people not to have babies", was discredited and abandoned decades ago (though it may still sometimes happen in China). Nearly two-thirds of couples in poor countries now use birth control, and not because some patriarchal westerner told them to. In the 1970s, the government of Bangladesh offered people in the Matlab region low-cost contraceptive supplies and advice. Birth rates promptly fell well below neighbouring regions. So Bangladesh extended the service nationally and its birth rate plummeted from six children per woman to three. Given the choice, people want fewer children.

So do governments, whose own life expectancy falls when people multiply faster than they can be provided with food, water, medicine, schools and jobs. In 1989 Iran introduced free contraception nationwide. It experienced the fastest fall in birth rates ever seen: from five births per woman to two by 2000.

But here's the rub. For countries making the transition, high birth rates in the recent past mean there are far more young people than old. So if these young people have only enough babies to replace themselves, there are still more births than deaths. Even when birth rates fall, this lag means populations keep growing for decades until birth and death rates even out.

On current trends of birth and death rates, the UN predicts that world population will hit 9.2 billion by 2050, before it stops climbing. Because of the time lag, even if everyone moved to birth rates of around two children per woman tomorrow, we would still hit 8.5 billion. This means the population explosion will continue.

We can't solve the problem by forcing all those over-fertile poor people to stop reproducing, because they've mostly already done it. However, we can at least try to make sure that population peaks closer to the lower figure. There is most work to do in Africa, which has high birth rates that even AIDS deaths don't dent. Women still want large families, for the old reasons: high infant mortality and desire for sons, field hands and support. Educating girls changes this by delaying marriage and raising both child survival and women's power. Providing this basic human right will bring Africa through the transition, like everyone else.

Meanwhile many who want birth control can't get it. In most of Asia and Latin America, women average 2.5 babies each. Still, people there say they want fewer. There is a huge unmet demand for birth control; 1 in 5 births - and 36 million abortions - in developing countries would not happen if people had more choice.

The UN Population Fund published a report last week pointing out that population efforts must be "culturally sensitive". This is crucial, as the most effective way to bring down birth rates is to empower people to control their own reproduction, free of coercion from within their society or outside.

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest มร หล&#3

I just got 10 big bags of rotted pig sh1t off the farm!

I'm going to start my new tomato plants in the back garden.

Happy days!

Again, my big fear with QE is it ending up in commodities markets to leverage a bubble in basic human needs to off-set the losses in the burst real estate bubble.

Such grotesque, macabre criminal acts would make Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot look like Mother Theresa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just got 10 big bags of rotted pig sh1t off the farm!

I'm going to start my new tomato plants in the back garden.

Happy days!

Again, my big fear with QE is it ending up in commodities markets to leverage a bubble in basic human needs to off-set the losses in the burst real estate bubble.

Such grotesque, macabre criminal acts would make Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot look like Mother Theresa.

Aint it so - the rabbit hole is long and very deep and each step down is paved with good intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest มร หล&#3
Aint it so - the rabbit hole is long and very deep and each step down is paved with good intentions.

If I could find my bloody camera I'd show you my new compost. Lovely stuff. Rotted down perfectly, friable with a perfect moisture content. Going to make some lovely tomatoes.

Yes, the QE monster, left in the hands of this shower of sh1te could kill millions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The trajectory for world population is approximating that of the UN "Low Projection". Although this in itself will create its own problems.

22063001.JPG

Excellent so either way we are screwed.

Forward planning at it's finest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats most depressing is the lack of compassion from the rich to the poor. Ironically allowing so many to fall into starvation is not good for world trade. That's 1 billion people with nothing productive to do and no money to spend. For a system that relies on infinite growth the least you would expect is some sort of global plan to deal with this economic holocaust. All we get is vulture lending, a few crumbs of aid, and a brick wall of trade tariffs. This truly is an evil system.

How can the elite justify creating potentially trillions from QE, while apparently not being able to spare a couple of hundred million for the world food program ? They are no better than concentration camp guards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8109698.stm

“There’s little central banks around the world can do to prevent food prices from rising,†Mexico’s central-bank governor, Guillermo Ortiz

“Northern unemployment is an acceptable price to pay for curbing southern inflation†Eddie George former Governor of the Bank of England

Therefore:

World starvation is an acceptable price to pay for curbing global inflation.

The evil bankers plan is appearing to be developing nicely, people starving whilst they make millions.

Global stability is at threat, the last thing you need is hungry people, starving people aren't as malleable as those with a full belly.

This is one massive ticking timebomb.

The global population is a huge problem exponential growth is going to destroy us unless we manage ourselves better.

I wouldn't worry about it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k1RzFsvn7E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExzTkzzVtnI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest มร หล&#3
Whats most depressing is the lack of compassion from the rich to the poor. Ironically allowing so many to fall into starvation is not good for world trade. That's 1 billion people with nothing productive to do and no money to spend. For a system that relies on infinite growth the least you would expect is some sort of global plan to deal with this economic holocaust. All we get is vulture lending, a few crumbs of aid, and a brick wall of trade tariffs. This truly is an evil system.

How can the elite justify creating potentially trillions from QE, while apparently not being able to spare a couple of hundred million for the world food program ? They are no better than concentration camp guards.

No physical energy to do anything in fact.

Good post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whats most depressing is the lack of compassion from the rich to the poor. Ironically allowing so many to fall into starvation is not good for world trade. That's 1 billion people with nothing productive to do and no money to spend. For a system that relies on infinite growth the least you would expect is some sort of global plan to deal with this economic holocaust. All we get is vulture lending, a few crumbs of aid, and a brick wall of trade tariffs. This truly is an evil system.

How can the elite justify creating potentially trillions from QE, while apparently not being able to spare a couple of hundred million for the world food program ? They are no better than concentration camp guards.

Perhaps they should turn themselves into a bank then the money would come flooding.

The system is corrupt, we can give money to prop up banking bonuses but can't give money so people can eat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest มร หล&#3
THe global scramble for lucrative farmlands: http://www.countercurrents.org/urquhart170609.htm

The fear here was the middle east buying farmland via proxy. Stamped on by the government.

Prices are down a bit as people scramble to find the cash for that new pick-up they bought on HP when rice prices went berserk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can only print the QE to buy the commodities by using force; we must pay taxes and they can ask for it in legal tender which creates the artificial demand, they also allow people to think that the Government guarantee of bank deposits is sound enabling the banks to issue credit out of thin air that people will buy. They (the State, the ones with the guns) also protect landowners that have more land than they can justify, which prevents people from growing their own crops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Parry
They can only print the QE to buy the commodities by using force; we must pay taxes and they can ask for it in legal tender which creates the artificial demand, they also allow people to think that the Government guarantee of bank deposits is sound enabling the banks to issue credit out of thin air that people will buy. They (the State, the ones with the guns) also protect landowners that have more land than they can justify, which prevents people from growing their own crops.

Now it's you, me and Injin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   292 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.