http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...917458,00.html

Fun facts about our food ystem:

1. "our energy-intensive food system uses 19% of U.S. fossil fuels,
more than any other sector of the economy."

2. "According to the USDA, Americans spend less than 10% of their
incomes on food, down from 18% in 1966." Which sounds good except fo:

3. "A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a
dollar could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875 calories of
soda but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh
fruit."

4. "When runoff from the fields of the Midwest reaches the Gulf of
Mexico, it contributes to what's known as a dead zone, a seasonal,
approximately 6,000-sq.-mi. area that has almost no oxygen and
therefore almost no sea life."

5. "The USDA estimates that Americans throw out 14% of the food we
buy, which means that much of our record-breaking harvests ends up in
the garbage."

Recommended reading.
--

modom

modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...917458,00.html
>
> Fun facts about our food ystem:
>
> 1. "our energy-intensive food system uses 19% of U.S. fossil fuels,
> more than any other sector of the economy."
>
> 2. "According to the USDA, Americans spend less than 10% of their
> incomes on food, down from 18% in 1966." Which sounds good except fo:
>
> 3. "A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a
> dollar could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875 calories of
> soda but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh
> fruit."
>
> 4. "When runoff from the fields of the Midwest reaches the Gulf of
> Mexico, it contributes to what's known as a dead zone, a seasonal,
> approximately 6,000-sq.-mi. area that has almost no oxygen and
> therefore almost no sea life."
>
> 5. "The USDA estimates that Americans throw out 14% of the food we
> buy, which means that much of our record-breaking harvests ends up in
> the garbage."
>
> Recommended reading.


I'd add "The Omnivore's Dilemma" to the suggested reading
if the Time article interested you.

gloria p

On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:47:55 -0600, Gloria P >
wrote:

>modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...917458,00.html
>>
>> Fun facts about our food ystem:
>>
>> 1. "our energy-intensive food system uses 19% of U.S. fossil fuels,
>> more than any other sector of the economy."
>>
>> 2. "According to the USDA, Americans spend less than 10% of their
>> incomes on food, down from 18% in 1966." Which sounds good except fo:
>>
>> 3. "A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a
>> dollar could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875 calories of
>> soda but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh
>> fruit."
>>
>> 4. "When runoff from the fields of the Midwest reaches the Gulf of
>> Mexico, it contributes to what's known as a dead zone, a seasonal,
>> approximately 6,000-sq.-mi. area that has almost no oxygen and
>> therefore almost no sea life."
>>
>> 5. "The USDA estimates that Americans throw out 14% of the food we
>> buy, which means that much of our record-breaking harvests ends up in
>> the garbage."
>>
>> Recommended reading.
>
>
>I'd add "The Omnivore's Dilemma" to the suggested reading
>if the Time article interested you.
>
Yes, I read and enjoyed it. Pollan is a good writer and an excellent
researcher. I haven't read his "In Defense of Food" yet. Pollan may be
preaching to the choir more than winning converts, though. I can't
really say, but that's soetimes what it looks and feels like. I liked
the book, but then I was disposed to like it going in.

What interested me about the article I linked to was that it was in
Time -- as mainstream as it comes in American media. I wonder if we
are at a tipping point in the economics and culture of food? I wonder
if we can expect changes in corn subsidies, for example that will
alter the price ratio of junk foods to fresh fruit?
--

modom

"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>
> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...917458,00.html
>
> Fun facts about our food ystem:
>
> 1. "our energy-intensive food system uses 19% of U.S. fossil fuels,
> more than any other sector of the economy."
>
> 2. "According to the USDA, Americans spend less than 10% of their
> incomes on food, down from 18% in 1966." Which sounds good except fo:
>
> 3. "A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a
> dollar could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875 calories of
> soda but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh
> fruit."
>
> 4. "When runoff from the fields of the Midwest reaches the Gulf of
> Mexico, it contributes to what's known as a dead zone, a seasonal,
> approximately 6,000-sq.-mi. area that has almost no oxygen and
> therefore almost no sea life."
>
> 5. "The USDA estimates that Americans throw out 14% of the food we
> buy, which means that much of our record-breaking harvests ends up in
> the garbage."
>
> Recommended reading.
> --
>
> modom

Have you considered the fact that this "energy intensive food system" of
ours also is responsible for feeding other countries through the massive
amounts of foreign food aid we ship out?

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:40:15 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>>
>> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...917458,00.html
>>
>> Fun facts about our food ystem:
>>
>> 1. "our energy-intensive food system uses 19% of U.S. fossil fuels,
>> more than any other sector of the economy."
>>
>> 2. "According to the USDA, Americans spend less than 10% of their
>> incomes on food, down from 18% in 1966." Which sounds good except fo:
>>
>> 3. "A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a
>> dollar could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875 calories of
>> soda but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh
>> fruit."
>>
>> 4. "When runoff from the fields of the Midwest reaches the Gulf of
>> Mexico, it contributes to what's known as a dead zone, a seasonal,
>> approximately 6,000-sq.-mi. area that has almost no oxygen and
>> therefore almost no sea life."
>>
>> 5. "The USDA estimates that Americans throw out 14% of the food we
>> buy, which means that much of our record-breaking harvests ends up in
>> the garbage."
>>
>> Recommended reading.

>Have you considered the fact that this "energy intensive food system" of
>ours also is responsible for feeding other countries through the massive
>amounts of foreign food aid we ship out?

Got some numbers on that assertion? Like dollar cost in total and
percentage of Federal budget and percentage of GDP? I'm curious.

And even if you do, isn't your assertion irrelevant to the thrust of
the article which was about how industrialized our food system has
become under the distorted economy of government subsidies and
factories churning out cheap calories and expensive nutrition?

You did read the article didn't you?
--

modom

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:40:15 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>>
>> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...917458,00.html
>>
>> Fun facts about our food ystem:
>>
>> 1. "our energy-intensive food system uses 19% of U.S. fossil fuels,
>> more than any other sector of the economy."
>>
>> 2. "According to the USDA, Americans spend less than 10% of their
>> incomes on food, down from 18% in 1966." Which sounds good except fo:
>>
>> 3. "A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a
>> dollar could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875 calories of
>> soda but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh
>> fruit."
>>
>> 4. "When runoff from the fields of the Midwest reaches the Gulf of
>> Mexico, it contributes to what's known as a dead zone, a seasonal,
>> approximately 6,000-sq.-mi. area that has almost no oxygen and
>> therefore almost no sea life."
>>
>> 5. "The USDA estimates that Americans throw out 14% of the food we
>> buy, which means that much of our record-breaking harvests ends up in
>> the garbage."
>>
>> Recommended reading.
>
>Have you considered the fact that this "energy intensive food system" of
>ours also is responsible for feeding other countries through the massive
>amounts of foreign food aid we ship out?

Here's yer numbers Bubba.

Total USA food aid to developing countries amounts to about $2 billion
a year on average. From the Center for Strategic and Indernational
Studies, http://forums.csis.org/africa/?p=104 :

"The U.S. Government is the world’s largest international food donor,
spending since 2002 an average of $2 billion per year on food aid that
benefits more than 65 countries, most of them in Africa. For all this
largesse, U.S. food aid barely makes a dent in the problem; it affects
an estimated 11 percent of the planet’s chronically hungry. Moreover,
a growing disconnect is occurring between spending and results. As
demand continues to climb, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
has found that “rising business and transportation costs” have lead to
a 50 percent decline in delivered U.S. food aid in the five years
preceding 2007."

That's a lot of moolah unless you consider the Federal budget. The
total budget request for the last year of the Bush administration was
$2.9 trillion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Un...federal_budget

Disregarding the $900 billion more than $2 trillion in that budget
number (because I'm lazy) USA food aid would seem to have totaled one
thousandth the total expenditures requested by the Bush Administration
in 2008. Unless you factor in the costs of a couple of wars that are
not in that budget, and in that case we got an even more miniscule
fraction to consider.
--

modom

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:13:41 -0500, modom (palindrome guy) wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:40:15 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...917458,00.html
>>>
>>> Fun facts about our food ystem:
>>>
>>> 1. "our energy-intensive food system uses 19% of U.S. fossil fuels,
>>> more than any other sector of the economy."
>>>
>>> 2. "According to the USDA, Americans spend less than 10% of their
>>> incomes on food, down from 18% in 1966." Which sounds good except fo:
>>>
>>> 3. "A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a
>>> dollar could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875 calories of
>>> soda but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh
>>> fruit."
>>>
>>> 4. "When runoff from the fields of the Midwest reaches the Gulf of
>>> Mexico, it contributes to what's known as a dead zone, a seasonal,
>>> approximately 6,000-sq.-mi. area that has almost no oxygen and
>>> therefore almost no sea life."
>>>
>>> 5. "The USDA estimates that Americans throw out 14% of the food we
>>> buy, which means that much of our record-breaking harvests ends up in
>>> the garbage."
>>>
>>> Recommended reading.
>>
>>Have you considered the fact that this "energy intensive food system" of
>>ours also is responsible for feeding other countries through the massive
>>amounts of foreign food aid we ship out?
>
> Here's yer numbers Bubba.
>
> Total USA food aid to developing countries amounts to about $2 billion
> a year on average. From the Center for Strategic and Indernational
> Studies, http://forums.csis.org/africa/?p=104 :
>
> "The U.S. Government is the world’s largest international food donor,
> spending since 2002 an average of $2 billion per year on food aid that
> benefits more than 65 countries, most of them in Africa. For all this
> largesse, U.S. food aid barely makes a dent in the problem; it affects
> an estimated 11 percent of the planet’s chronically hungry. Moreover,
> a growing disconnect is occurring between spending and results. As
> demand continues to climb, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
> has found that “rising business and transportation costs” have lead to
> a 50 percent decline in delivered U.S. food aid in the five years
> preceding 2007."
>
> That's a lot of moolah unless you consider the Federal budget. The
> total budget request for the last year of the Bush administration was
> $2.9 trillion.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Un...federal_budget
>
> Disregarding the $900 billion more than $2 trillion in that budget
> number (because I'm lazy) USA food aid would seem to have totaled one
> thousandth the total expenditures requested by the Bush Administration
> in 2008. Unless you factor in the costs of a couple of wars that are
> not in that budget, and in that case we got an even more miniscule
> fraction to consider.

that's because the rest of the budget is absorbed by welfare bums.

your pal,
blake

"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>
> "The U.S. Government is the world’s largest international food donor,
> spending since 2002 an average of $2 billion per year on food aid that
> benefits more than 65 countries, most of them in Africa. For all this
> largesse, U.S. food aid barely makes a dent in the problem; it affects
> an estimated 11 percent of the planet’s chronically hungry.

Yep, and this point to the issue that all the religious nuts hate -
population control. The fact is that all our continuing food aid (other
than that which is sent after a short event) is nothing more than an
enabler for population growth beyond what an area can support. The same
applies to our medical aid in such cases, all we do is create a larger
and larger problem. Prior to the advent of all this feel good foreign
aid (not just from the US), the population in a given area was held in
balance by the natural forces of what the area could sustain.

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:13:41 -0500, modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
=
> Total USA food aid to developing countries amounts to about $2 billion
> a year on average. From the Center for Strategic and Indernational
> Studies,

Is "indernational" a word? 26,000 hits on Google, mostly from
foreign directories, but no definition.

-sw

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:30:10 -0500, Sqwertz
> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:13:41 -0500, modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>=
>> Total USA food aid to developing countries amounts to about $2 billion
>> a year on average. From the Center for Strategic and Indernational
>> Studies,
>
>Is "indernational" a word? 26,000 hits on Google, mostly from
>foreign directories, but no definition.
>
Indernational is a typo. My apologies.
--

modom

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:11:00 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>>
>> "The U.S. Government is the world’s largest international food donor,
>> spending since 2002 an average of $2 billion per year on food aid that
>> benefits more than 65 countries, most of them in Africa. For all this
>> largesse, U.S. food aid barely makes a dent in the problem; it affects
>> an estimated 11 percent of the planet’s chronically hungry.
>
>Yep, and this point to the issue that all the religious nuts hate -
>population control. The fact is that all our continuing food aid (other
>than that which is sent after a short event) is nothing more than an
>enabler for population growth beyond what an area can support. The same
>applies to our medical aid in such cases, all we do is create a larger
>and larger problem. Prior to the advent of all this feel good foreign
>aid (not just from the US), the population in a given area was held in
>balance by the natural forces of what the area could sustain.

Whatever.
--

modom

"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:11:00 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
> >>
> >> "The U.S. Government is the world’s largest international food donor,
> >> spending since 2002 an average of $2 billion per year on food aid that
> >> benefits more than 65 countries, most of them in Africa. For all this
> >> largesse, U.S. food aid barely makes a dent in the problem; it affects
> >> an estimated 11 percent of the planet’s chronically hungry.
> >
> >Yep, and this point to the issue that all the religious nuts hate -
> >population control. The fact is that all our continuing food aid (other
> >than that which is sent after a short event) is nothing more than an
> >enabler for population growth beyond what an area can support. The same
> >applies to our medical aid in such cases, all we do is create a larger
> >and larger problem. Prior to the advent of all this feel good foreign
> >aid (not just from the US), the population in a given area was held in
> >balance by the natural forces of what the area could sustain.
>
> Whatever.

Yep, "head in sand" is an effective response to a rapidly approaching
global crisis...

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:42:28 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:11:00 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "The U.S. Government is the world’s largest international food donor,
>> >> spending since 2002 an average of $2 billion per year on food aid that
>> >> benefits more than 65 countries, most of them in Africa. For all this
>> >> largesse, U.S. food aid barely makes a dent in the problem; it affects
>> >> an estimated 11 percent of the planet’s chronically hungry.
>> >
>> >Yep, and this point to the issue that all the religious nuts hate -
>> >population control. The fact is that all our continuing food aid (other
>> >than that which is sent after a short event) is nothing more than an
>> >enabler for population growth beyond what an area can support. The same
>> >applies to our medical aid in such cases, all we do is create a larger
>> >and larger problem. Prior to the advent of all this feel good foreign
>> >aid (not just from the US), the population in a given area was held in
>> >balance by the natural forces of what the area could sustain.
>>
>> Whatever.
>
>Yep, "head in sand" is an effective response to a rapidly approaching
>global crisis...

Nope. It's discussing the fate of millions with a deeply uninformed
person that leads me to dismiss you.

Anyhow, I linked to an article about food policy in the first post,
and you want to discuss some benighted blend of Darwinian politics and
Malthusian theory. These hold no interest to me.

Did you read the article?
--

modom

blake murphy wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:13:41 -0500, modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:40:15 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...917458,00.html
>>>>
>>>> Fun facts about our food ystem:
>>>>
>>>> 1. "our energy-intensive food system uses 19% of U.S. fossil fuels,
>>>> more than any other sector of the economy."
>>>>
>>>> 2. "According to the USDA, Americans spend less than 10% of their
>>>> incomes on food, down from 18% in 1966." Which sounds good except
>>>> fo:
>>>>
>>>> 3. "A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found
>>>> that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875
>>>> calories of soda but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170
>>>> calories of fresh fruit."
>>>>
>>>> 4. "When runoff from the fields of the Midwest reaches the Gulf of
>>>> Mexico, it contributes to what's known as a dead zone, a seasonal,
>>>> approximately 6,000-sq.-mi. area that has almost no oxygen and
>>>> therefore almost no sea life."
>>>>
>>>> 5. "The USDA estimates that Americans throw out 14% of the food we
>>>> buy, which means that much of our record-breaking harvests ends up
>>>> in the garbage."
>>>>
>>>> Recommended reading.
>>>
>>> Have you considered the fact that this "energy intensive food
>>> system" of ours also is responsible for feeding other countries
>>> through the massive amounts of foreign food aid we ship out?
>>
>> Here's yer numbers Bubba.
>>
>> Total USA food aid to developing countries amounts to about $2
>> billion a year on average. From the Center for Strategic and
>> Indernational Studies, http://forums.csis.org/africa/?p=104 :
>>
>> "The U.S. Government is the world's largest international food donor,
>> spending since 2002 an average of $2 billion per year on food aid
>> that benefits more than 65 countries, most of them in Africa. For
>> all this largesse, U.S. food aid barely makes a dent in the problem;
>> it affects an estimated 11 percent of the planet's chronically
>> hungry. Moreover, a growing disconnect is occurring between spending
>> and results. As demand continues to climb, the Government
>> Accountability Office (GAO) has found that "rising business and
>> transportation costs" have lead to a 50 percent decline in delivered
>> U.S. food aid in the five years preceding 2007."
>>
>> That's a lot of moolah unless you consider the Federal budget. The
>> total budget request for the last year of the Bush administration was
>> $2.9 trillion.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Un...federal_budget
>>
>> Disregarding the $900 billion more than $2 trillion in that budget
>> number (because I'm lazy) USA food aid would seem to have totaled one
>> thousandth the total expenditures requested by the Bush
>> Administration in 2008. Unless you factor in the costs of a couple
>> of wars that are not in that budget, and in that case we got an even
>> more miniscule fraction to consider.
>
> that's because the rest of the budget is absorbed by welfare bums.
>


I don't know why in the hell *anyone* is still sending food aid to black
Africa, it's a "hopeless case" scenario, 50 years of independence and
billions/trillions in aid from governments and NGO's and the place is
*still* a ********. Every place in black Africa is basket case, why can't
any of those places even *remotely* get their acts together
somewhat...!!!???

Even a number of black Africans think that the kibbosh should be put on all
incoming aid, as it fosters a culture of dependency and corruption.


--
Best
Greg

modom (palindrome guy) wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:30:10 -0500, Sqwertz
> > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:13:41 -0500, modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>> =
>>> Total USA food aid to developing countries amounts to about $2
>>> billion a year on average. From the Center for Strategic and
>>> Indernational Studies,
>>
>> Is "indernational" a word? 26,000 hits on Google, mostly from
>> foreign directories, but no definition.
>>
> Indernational is a typo. My apologies.


No need, Steve's spelling lame is, well, just so *lame*...


--
Best
Greg

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:11:00 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> "modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>>
>> "The U.S. Government is the world’s largest international food donor,
>> spending since 2002 an average of $2 billion per year on food aid that
>> benefits more than 65 countries, most of them in Africa. For all this
>> largesse, U.S. food aid barely makes a dent in the problem; it affects
>> an estimated 11 percent of the planet’s chronically hungry.
>
> Yep, and this point to the issue that all the religious nuts hate -
> population control. The fact is that all our continuing food aid (other
> than that which is sent after a short event) is nothing more than an
> enabler for population growth beyond what an area can support. The same
> applies to our medical aid in such cases, all we do is create a larger
> and larger problem. Prior to the advent of all this feel good foreign
> aid (not just from the US), the population in a given area was held in
> balance by the natural forces of what the area could sustain.

famine for thee but not for me!

blake

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:11:00 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > "modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
> >>
> >> "The U.S. Government is the world’s largest international food donor,
> >> spending since 2002 an average of $2 billion per year on food aid that
> >> benefits more than 65 countries, most of them in Africa. For all this
> >> largesse, U.S. food aid barely makes a dent in the problem; it affects
> >> an estimated 11 percent of the planet’s chronically hungry.
> >
> > Yep, and this point to the issue that all the religious nuts hate -
> > population control. The fact is that all our continuing food aid (other
> > than that which is sent after a short event) is nothing more than an
> > enabler for population growth beyond what an area can support. The same
> > applies to our medical aid in such cases, all we do is create a larger
> > and larger problem. Prior to the advent of all this feel good foreign
> > aid (not just from the US), the population in a given area was held in
> > balance by the natural forces of what the area could sustain.
>
> famine for thee but not for me!
>
> blake

How about population held to the level that the area can sustain?

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:59:59 -0500, modom (palindrome guy) wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:30:10 -0500, Sqwertz
> > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:13:41 -0500, modom (palindrome guy) wrote:
>>=
>>> Total USA food aid to developing countries amounts to about $2 billion
>>> a year on average. From the Center for Strategic and Indernational
>>> Studies,
>>
>>Is "indernational" a word? 26,000 hits on Google, mostly from
>>foreign directories, but no definition.
>>
> Indernational is a typo. My apologies.

I wasn't trying to be a smartass again, I was just curious. You
don't need to apologize for typos. Especially on Usenet. You wimp!
;-)

-sw

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:38:39 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:11:00 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>> "modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "The U.S. Government is the world’s largest international food donor,
>>>> spending since 2002 an average of $2 billion per year on food aid that
>>>> benefits more than 65 countries, most of them in Africa. For all this
>>>> largesse, U.S. food aid barely makes a dent in the problem; it affects
>>>> an estimated 11 percent of the planet’s chronically hungry.
>>>
>>> Yep, and this point to the issue that all the religious nuts hate -
>>> population control. The fact is that all our continuing food aid (other
>>> than that which is sent after a short event) is nothing more than an
>>> enabler for population growth beyond what an area can support. The same
>>> applies to our medical aid in such cases, all we do is create a larger
>>> and larger problem. Prior to the advent of all this feel good foreign
>>> aid (not just from the US), the population in a given area was held in
>>> balance by the natural forces of what the area could sustain.
>>
>> famine for thee but not for me!
>>
>> blake
>
> How about population held to the level that the area can sustain?

does that mean all food imports to the u.s. must cease?

blake

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:38:39 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > blake murphy wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:11:00 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
> >>
> >>> "modom (palindrome guy)" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> "The U.S. Government is the world’s largest international food donor,
> >>>> spending since 2002 an average of $2 billion per year on food aid that
> >>>> benefits more than 65 countries, most of them in Africa. For all this
> >>>> largesse, U.S. food aid barely makes a dent in the problem; it affects
> >>>> an estimated 11 percent of the planet’s chronically hungry.
> >>>
> >>> Yep, and this point to the issue that all the religious nuts hate -
> >>> population control. The fact is that all our continuing food aid (other
> >>> than that which is sent after a short event) is nothing more than an
> >>> enabler for population growth beyond what an area can support. The same
> >>> applies to our medical aid in such cases, all we do is create a larger
> >>> and larger problem. Prior to the advent of all this feel good foreign
> >>> aid (not just from the US), the population in a given area was held in
> >>> balance by the natural forces of what the area could sustain.
> >>
> >> famine for thee but not for me!
> >>
> >> blake
> >
> > How about population held to the level that the area can sustain?
>
> does that mean all food imports to the u.s. must cease?
>
> blake

How about equal trade?