J. Clarke > wrote:
>In article >,
>> Your argument is very very weak. If you want to attack the original
>> source (the 40% figure) then fine, but given that result and the
>> absence of contrary evidence, I have stated the logical conclusions.
>> You're just resisting those conclusions because you don't want to
>> believe them.
>You might want to look up the numbers for US vs world agricultural
>production and US agricultural imports vs exports. You'll find that US
>agricultural production is a small percentage of the whole and that the
>US is a net exporter of food. The US isn't "starving" _anybody_. Their
>local governments are the ones that art starving them. Remember
>"Blackhawk Down"? Remember why that Blackhawk was there to begin with?
This isn't particularly related to anything I'm talking about.
Economic activity generally results in pollution (chemical/microbial
/radiological) that results in human mortality. This is the
case regardless of whether anyone is starving to death, and I
haven't claimed that the U.S. is starving anyone.
The questions I have posed that you might want to consider are
the following: how much human mortality is the result of pollution?
(One source says 40%). How much of this is the U.S. responsible
for? (My position is the U.S. is responsible proportionately to our
consumption; Landon disagreed with this but he did not say why.)
That the U.S. might be starving people through its policies is
highly plausible but I haven't been asserting that in this thread.
(A lot of pollution is traceable to agriculture, so if the U.S.
has a disproportionately large agricultural industry as you state,
that might make the U.S. more responsible rather than less responsible,
depending on specifics.)
Steve