The Possibility of Famine

[shaberon]

Posted by Ewan (here)
We should know better than to repeat the obvious errors of a 1,000 years ago or more. The situation in Ireland needs a lot more investigation to understand that in such a short comment as disappearing - though you are correct, it was a precarious time.

Yes -- the vulnerability there was monocropping.

By contrast, medieval Peruvian potato farms were built in individual terraces, using about twelve varieties in multiple colors. If a blight affected one kind, chances are that others would resist.

Another thing about Ireland is that the British found they could alter the birth rate by changing the price of bread a few pence.

That's like a precursor or trial run for everything up to the "ration of calories" in Gaza.

Our vision of America was to be an open door for the disaffected Irish -- and although it was, that didn't help everybody.

Incidentally, I imagine you are aware that modern fertilizers are effectively killing the very soils they are supposed to be boosting?

Yes, I file it in the category of cheap oil along with Rockefeller medicine. These are the reasons America is able to produce a lot of "extra" people, such as myself. I'm more of an industrial by-product than part of a growing herd.


Considering why this less-than-ideal petroleum dependency is so widespread, among the modern institutions, the IMF is there to install broad government controls on social spending and any other programs you can do. They have to serve the interests of the United States, or your assets will be confiscated, or you will be attacked.

The World Bank more specifically manages development, particularly what you can and can't do with agriculture. Similarly to the IMF, it is to increase dependence, not independence. This is a recent remark from Prof. Hudson on its operations:

I’m glad that Richard mentioned so many people of our generation who studied economics focused on development. I worked for the United Nations for three years in the 1970s with the United Nations Institute for Training and Research. And what I found very quickly was that there was one group of these development economists studied how do we prevent development from occurring in a way that does not favor the United States.

Well, the World Bank was the leader in fighting against development. They published a report called Partners in Development that I reviewed, and I included that in my book, Superimperialism, called Partners in Backwardness. The World Bank made sure that there would be no loans for any country that was using its agriculture to produce its own food and thereby compete with American agriculture. I wrote my master’s dissertation and had a whole chapter in superimperialism on how every economic country review by the World Bank said you have to have essentially what the United States did under Franklin Roosevelt with the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

You have to protect family farming. You have to develop public marketing services, public agricultural extension services to provide seed. You have to develop trade relations and support food dependency. Every actual behavior of the World Bank was to prevent exactly this because it would not reflect American national security.

That’s why the heads of the World Bank were heads of the military, starting with John J. McCloy, the first president, and peaking with Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense. The whole perversion of development theory to dovetail into U.S. national security of control sort of perverted the whole idea of development to saying development means you let American corporations come in and buy control of your oil, mining, forests, and other raw materials, and you have to privatize your public utilities and public infrastructure.

And that’s how you develop. You let American financial companies and firms come in and develop. The whole idea of development economics was hijacked. And at the United Nations, when I made these points, the bankers who were funding the Club of Rome, Agnelli, I think, and some others, insisted that they would pull out all funding for UNITAR if they didn’t fire me. So I mean, this was quite explicit at the time. The whole idea of the Club of Rome, there’s too much population of non-white people in the world, of less developed countries.

That is inefficient. That’s not how developed you have to have population control. And the irony is that it was the Catholic Church that popularized most of my criticism of the World Bank in what became liberation theology. And my first books were published by the Catholic Church on this precisely because of attacking this population theory that was part of the distortion of the whole development economics that essentially led to that subject no longer being of much interest to today’s economic students.

[David_K]

Better late than never:



I've got root crops going and am still in the process of digging up the yard. I live on a small suburban block with a couple of fruit trees. I know this won't be enough long term. I'm mostly growing because I've been growing vegetables most of my life, wherever and whenever I can. It takes a bit of skill to time everything right, and it takes more space than most people have. That said, anything is better than nothing.

Of all things, we've been stocking up on toilet paper for the last six months, just buying double with each shop. This is on top of having a bidet toilet, which helps to some degree.

Rice is another question. I hope it doesn't come down to that, because for diabetics that won't go down well at all. I suppose if the electricity stays on, cooking and then cooling rice to create resistant starch could help lower the spike a bit, though it is still a gamble. Most staples are high in carbohydrates, but I guess in small quantities, just enough to survive, it becomes less of an issue, at least for some. Lack of medicine will be a killer for many.

Water will probably be one of the biggest issues. Quality water more than anything. It is surprising how far people can get on very little food if they've got clean water, enough electrolytes, and know how to look after themselves. A bit of sensible sun at the right times of day can help too. Most people living with excess have never really had to think about any of that.

I don't want to see any more people die than those who have already been lost through the wars we continue to fund and sustain. At the same time, I won't be too upset if I have to go without some of the things I've grown used to when there are still people trying to survive in the rubble. Those are the thoughts that got me out of my recliner and started me living on less now rather than later. They've made me think differently about what I actually need.

Part of me thinks we may not learn much while life stays comfortable. I don't say that because I want people to suffer. Far from it. I just wonder whether many of us in the West will ever question the lives we've built until the true cost of what we've taken for granted catches up with us. We often quote Eastern philosophy when it suits us, especially the parts about simplicity or detachment, but living those ideas is something else entirely.

It makes me wonder how much we actually learn from the ideas we talk about so often, including concepts like soul contracts and the idea that this existence is meant to teach us something. It is one thing to discuss those ideas, but another thing entirely to live them when things become uncomfortable.

What worries me most are people like my wife, who lives with a disability and depends on medication. If shortages do come, they'll be among the first to suffer. If that day comes, I won't be joining any lynch mobs or blaming whoever the latest narrative tells me to blame. I'll just do what I can for whoever needs help, regardless of what they look like or where they come from.

I've already seen how quickly fear can become prejudice. During COVID, some of my extended family experienced hostility simply because they looked Chinese. Here in Australia, many people could not tell the difference between someone from China, Korea, Singapore, Vietnam, or elsewhere in Asia, and for some, that did not seem to matter. Some of my own extended family includes people with Asian heritage, yet that did not stop assumptions being made based purely on appearance.

(I recently shared my Jewish heritage in another post, although I have never personally identified strongly with that beyond being human. My extended family is quite vast, and includes many different backgrounds.) Despite the claims we often make about multiculturalism in Australia, I could write a book on how alive racism and prejudice still are across many parts of society. The forms may change, and the groups targeted may change, but the underlying patterns of fear, division, and dehumanisation remain very familiar. Of course I can only say all this is my opinion and I would add that many of the campains we are forced to participate in are ... again... in my opinion... part of the programming. I digress and I dont. Is it what it is or as I have come to see.

Personally, I don't have an issue with any particular country. If anything, I've found myself becoming disappointed with humanity as a whole. I'm working on that though, because at the end of the day we're all in the same boat, or perhaps the same prison depending on how you look at it. Point is ... fear is going to be the thing that slowly kills us let alone lack of food.

This is what worries me most. Not just hardship itself, but what fear can bring out in people. When people become afraid to speak honestly, or start looking for someone to blame, division becomes much easier.

I'm not writing this to comfort people in their existing beliefs or to win approval. I'm writing it because I think we need to be honest about what fear, scarcity, and uncertainty can bring out in people. The danger is not only the hardship itself. The greater danger is how quickly people can be encouraged to turn on one another when they are frightened.

As more people wave their flags and choose their sides, I can't help but wonder how far that self-righteousness might go, and whether any of us are truly immune to it. I sometimes feel like waving my own banner or wearing strongly opinionated symbols, but that would just be playing into the same division.

Many may feel this way, but not many will say anything. Understandably so.

This is why I said in another post I have been somewhat misanthropic, but at the end of the day, I don't think famine is something to hope for. However, I do think we've become so used to living with excess that it may take genuine hardship before many of us begin to question it. I hope I'm wrong. I'd much rather we learned those lessons beforehand rather than wait for the consequences to simply show up.

I did Joeys, Cubs, Scouts, and Venturers, and even became a leader later on. Those years taught me a lot, and the motto always stuck with me. Be Prepared.

It is good to live by that, but I'd think twice before blindly following the hype or allowing fear to decide who deserves our compassion. The best we can do is help others when we can and have realistic expectations if and when such hardships land on our shores.

[Antagenet]

If a major global famine is indeed in store, the plan (I was told) was the following:

Billions would die.
Only the most able, most aware, most resilient and most well-prepared would make it through.
After all this, by eugenic 'natural selection' (a) the human population would be greatly reduced, (b) the survivors would be much easier to control and corral, and (c) the resulting human genetic quality would be raised.

My Question Is: If only the most able will survive, then how will they be much easier to control? Since they will be the most resilient and probably some of the smartest? Woudlnt this be a group of people harder to control? Just because of a reduced population? Hmmm... reduced population means more places to hide and not be found. ;-)

[grapevine]

I planted some dwarf fruit trees just over two years ago, mostly in very large pots. The reason for this was because I live in a small east facing townhouse, where the sun comes into the garden at around 10am and then is gone, over the roof, at around 2pm, leaving the garden mostly in shade. I've been able to put the pots in the "best" positions through watching the sun's path. Fruit trees don't fruit for around 5 years, although one apple tree in particular has been quite abundant but the apples are too large and heavy for the branches atm and have been heavily pruned. I'm learning as I go along.

Before getting the fruit trees I wrote to our local MP asking for more fruit trees to be grown in common ground, Lambeth being one of the poorer boroughs in London. I recalled my mother telling me that everyone grew food/fruit in war time and nearly everyone had a well in their garden and some reared chickens, and this got me looking around my immediate vicinty. I recently found a heavily laden apricot tree and another plum tree, also full of fruit, much of which had fallen and been trodden into the pavement. In retrospect this is probably why there aren't many fruit trees in common ground (although these were in people's front gardens). By the time a food shortage is finally felt, most people will have lost opportunities to plant fruit and veg and will probably turn to scrumping, at which time I might bring the pots in and get some daylight light bulbs.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Antagenet (here)
If a major global famine is indeed in store, the plan (I was told) was the following:

Billions would die.
Only the most able, most aware, most resilient and most well-prepared would make it through.
After all this, by eugenic 'natural selection' (a) the human population would be greatly reduced, (b) the survivors would be much easier to control and corral, and (c) the resulting human genetic quality would be raised.

My Question Is: If only the most able will survive, then how will they be much easier to control? Since they will be the most resilient and probably some of the smartest? Wouldn't this be a group of people harder to control? Just because of a reduced population? Hmmm... reduced population means more places to hide and not be found. ;-)

This is exactly what I was told, too. (And yes, I had the same question)

[grapevine]

Provisions with long use by dates

I was amazed to see a use by date of August 2028 on the pack of Halloumi I opened yesterday and asked chatgpt for a list of other long food expiry dates which you may find of interest (especially the white rice :/). Presumably if frozen immediately then the relevant date can be added on when it's defrosted . . .

Chat gpt list:
"Here are some of the champions:

Honey 🍯 – The undisputed winner. Proper honey has been found in ancient Egyptian tombs that is still edible after 3,000 years. It may crystallise, but that's not spoilage. Warm the jar gently and it becomes runny again.

White rice – Kept dry and in an airtight container, it can last 25–30 years or even longer. Brown rice doesn't, because its natural oils go rancid after about 6–12 months.

Dried pasta – Usually has a best-before date of 2–3 years, but if kept bone dry it's often perfectly usable for much longer.

Canned foods – Things like beans, tomatoes, tuna and corned beef can remain safe for many years beyond their best-before dates if the can is undamaged. Quality may decline, but safety is often unaffected. (Never use a can that's bulging, leaking or badly rusted.)

Freeze-dried foods – The meals sold for expeditions or emergency supplies often have shelf lives of 25–30 years.

Salt – Effectively lasts forever. It's a mineral, so it can't spoil.

Sugar – White sugar also lasts indefinitely if it stays dry. It may go hard in lumps but is still fine.

Soy sauce – Thanks to its high salt content, unopened bottles can keep for years.

Hard spirits (whisky, gin, vodka) – Unopened bottles can last for decades. Once opened, they're still safe for years, though the flavour slowly changes.

Then there are foods that seem immortal but aren't quite:

Peanut butter – About 1–2 years unopened.
Maple syrup – Years unopened; once opened, it should be refrigerated.
Chocolate – Often several years, although it develops that harmless white "bloom."

One of my favourite examples is hardtack, the flour-and-water biscuits sailors took to sea. Properly kept, they could last for decades. They became so hard that soldiers supposedly joked they were more dangerous as weapons than as food! One old joke was: "The biscuits were so hard you had to soak them in coffee before you could hit someone with them." Another was that if you dropped one on the deck, you'd chip the deck rather than the biscuit.

The less amusing part was that they often came with extra protein in the form of weevils. Sailors would tap the biscuits on the table to encourage the insects to crawl out before eating them. Some reportedly ate them anyway, reasoning that the weevils were the freshest part! 🤢

It reminds me of another wonderful food story. During the Antarctic expeditions of Ernest Shackleton and Robert Falcon Scott, tins of food left behind over a century ago have been found in remarkably good condition because of the freezing climate. Some have even been analysed and found to be surprisingly well preserved—though no one's recommending them for lunch! "