"Jim Webster" wrote in message ...
"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...
"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...
"pearl" wrote in message
...
except that they are still eating more and more meat
Some are. Others, many millions, are starving because land that had
supported them sustainably for generations was expropriated by and
for a meat-eating 'wealthy elite'. You ignore it, because -you- 'profit'.
sure, and explain how I profit out of meat production in china?
I didn't say that you profited from meat production in China.
and now explain why more chinese eating meat, many getting a decent diet
for
the first time makes them a wealthy elite
".. diseases of affluence are found in the more densely populated
rural areas nearer the seacoast where industrial activity and literacy
rates are higher ..."
don't tell me, tell the Chinese,
You asked me why eating meat makes them a wealthy elite. Clearly
those in wealthier, more industrial counties can afford to buy meat.
(They can't feed the animals many times more calories in the form
of grain/land/energy/etc and then sell meat at a fraction of the cost.)
Your industry is subsidised. Your 'product' is subsidised too.
The true cost is paid by animals, the environment, and people.
they have tried the diseases of poverty and weren't happy with them, so they
have obviously decided to give the others a go
'The decline in infectious and communicable diseases follows an
increase in, and more equitable distribution of, economic resources.
An extensive investigation of mortality rate trends in England and
Wales in the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries
(McKeown and Record, 1955; McKeown and Record, 1962;
McKeown et aL, 1975) indicates that the nineteenth century decline
in mortality rates for the most prevalent infectious diseases was
wholly attributable to environmental control, not to intervention
with curative medicines and vaccines.
...
In contrast with the communicable and infectious diseases affecting
the rural poor, the more economically privileged urban sectors in
these countries suffer from a rising prevalence of chronic degenerative
diseases appropriately referred to as 'diseases of misdevelopment' by
Dumont (1989)
...'
http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/rep...ll_china2.html
"misdevelopment", jim.
'In Central and South America, ever-increasing amounts of land
are being used to grow soya beans and grain for export - to be
used as animal feed.
exactly, because these people are determined to eat more meat.
We're talking about -your- profits here, jimmy.
exactly
All those biofuel plants will produce all sorts of byproducts that make
excellent animal food. I suppose we could turn maize gluten into kibble for
vegetarians, but cattle love it.
Why are those Chinese planners worried then, if that's the case?
Obviously it
will mean they have less to export to those whinging in Europe who cannot
be
bothered to grow their own food, but don't moan to me, go on line to the
Latin American groups and moan at them
You buy their produce.
No, actually no, not in the last twelve months.
You've quit raising livestock? Go look at a bag of concentrate.
Sadly for you, the meat-eating 'wealthy elite' now includes the massive
majority of the people in these countries, and they are going to have
their
meat and you are the one who is going to have to pay more for your food.
They now have three choices
They can eat meat
They can convert grain to fuel
they can sell it to you at an increasingly expensive price
"While soybean exports boomed in Brazil to feed Japanese
and European livestock - hunger spread from one-third to
two-thirds of the population"...."Where the majority of people
have been made too poor to buy the food grown on their own
country's soil, those who control productive resources will, not
surprisingly, orient their production to more lucrative markets
abroad."
boy you are out of touch
No, webster, you are.
work it out on your fingers
The Argentinians stopped exporting beef in 2006 to allow the price at home
to fall to ensure Argentinians had plenty of beef
SOME Argentinians.
'The new poor
Despite being considered the breadbasket of South America, recent
national headlines have highlighted the plight of more than 200,000
children suffering from severe malnutrition in the impoverished
province of Tucumán in the north. Yet, Argentina is the world's
fifth largest exporter of agricultural products, including soybeans
and lemons, which Tucumán produces in large quantities. Ironically
the current economic crisis has made exporters wealthier as exports
are priced in dollars and, despite export taxes, farmers are finding it
more profitable to export than to sell to domestic markets. As a
result, local food prices have soared, by over two-thirds in twelve
months, and much of the food produced is now beyond the reach
of the poor.
Many Argentineans feel that the country has sunk as low as it can
go with little prospect of recovery in the near future. 90% of
Argentina's population live in and around urban areas and the poorest,
a growing number of 'cartoneros', struggle to make a living. Their only
option is to scavenge through the rubbish to sort out recyclable waste,
as even this has increased in value since the collapse of the peso.
...'
http://www.new-agri.co.uk/03-1/countryp.html
As for Brazilians, their growth forecasts are that as their country develops
the amount of meat eaten by the local population will increase as they get
wealthier
They will get wealthier because Brazil is self sufficient in food and
converting a lot of it into energy to reduce its dependence on imported oil
They also are developing a pretty good manufacturing industry.
So their population is pretty well guaranteed enough to eat and enough fuel
to shift the food.
'The developing world hasn't always been hungry. Early explorers
of the 16th and 17th centuries often returned amazed at the huge
amounts of food they saw there. In parts of Africa, for example,
people always had three harvests in storage and no-one went
hungry. The idea of buying and selling food was unheard of.
...
It is common for people to be thrown off the land, often going to
the towns where there is little other work. About 160,000 people
move from rural areas to cities every day (5). Many migrants are
forced to settle in shanty towns and squatter settlements.
...
The sad irony is that the world produces more than enough plant
food to meet the needs of all its six billion people. If people used
land to grow crops to feed themselves, rather than feeding crops
to animals, then there would be enough to provide everyone with
the average of 2360 Kcal (calories) needed for good health (7).
If everyone were to take 25 per cent of their calories from animal
protein then the planet could sustain only three billion people (8).
In simple, brutal terms, if we were all to imitate the average North
American diet, we would only be able to feed half the world's
population.
...'
http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/feedtheworld.htm
Bottom line, jim. There simply aren't adequate resources to
sustain your hideous nightmare. The destruction must stop.
On the other hand, you have to explain exactly what you have to offer that
means the Brazilians will sell food to you.
Why should they worry about you and your need for soya?
All these interesting imported protein sources beloved of many vegetarians
are going to become awfully expensive
So it is about time people woke up to the changing world and decided what
they are going to do about it.
The Brazilians are under no obligation to reduce their standard of living
for the privilege of selling us food. What have you got to sell them in
exchange?
It is YOUR need for soya that is driving people off land and
destroying rainforest, farmer jim. Profit before anything else.
'As the market responds to money and not to actual need, it can
only work to eliminate hunger when purchasing power is widely
dispersed, says the book. As the rural poor are increasingly
pushed from land, they are less and less able to demand for food
on the market. Promoting free trade to alleviate hunger has
proven to be a failure. In most developing countries exports have
boomed while hunger has continued unabated or actually worsened
according to the book.
"While soybean exports boomed in Brazil to feed Japanese and
European livestock - hunger spread from one-third to two-thirds of
the population"...."Where the majority of people have been made
too poor to buy the food grown on their own country's soil, those
who control productive resources will, not surprisingly, orient their
production to more lucrative markets abroad."
Pro-trade policies like that of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT) promotes export crop production and suppresses
basic food production. Foreign aid from industrialised countries
has supported such free trade and free market policies.
...'
http://www.psrast.org/nowohu.htm