At Sunday School this morning the speaker brought out how we Mennonites tend to talk a lot about money. (Only too true!) While elaborating, he mentioned the economic condition of our nation and how we can expect costs to rise, singling out the cost of food. Another brother picked up on this, wondering how we will afford to "buy our food". Somewhere recently I came upon a book written about the foods of the Bible, and while they were discussing economics I was wondering why is it that we think in terms of "buying" our food instead of growing most of it ourselves? Why do Mennonites eat so much junk - just like "the world" whom they are not shy in criticizing in other areas? It is all so simple as eating only what grows, with only natural additions.
Is anyone interested in discussing this topic?
Feeding the families of North America began to take on new economic realities in the twentieth century. The population moved from rural to urban areas as the industrial revolution exerted its power. Time became synonomous with money. It took a lot of time to grow, harvest, preserve, and prepare enough food for an entire family. It proved to be more economically feasible to buy food rather than grow it.
These are market forces that are still in effect today. Feeding ourselves and our families still requires either a lot of time or a lot of money. However, we, compared to many in the world, still have the freedom of choice. It is entirely up to you what you eat, how you eat, and where you eat.
I too like the taste and the concept of home grown food, although I admit we don't do enough of it.
For us here in N America to start hoarding food and actually worrying about "how can we afford food?" is pretty rediculous and even a slap in the face of many people in poor countrys. What do we work and make money for? To put in in a bank??? or is it to buy the nessesities of life? food, medicine, clothing? We make money... so we can buy food! Somehow we have gotten into the luxury of life to the extent that food is waaay down the list of what we spend our dollars on.
Lets get our heads on straight.
We spend a tiny percent of our income on food. I have CGCM brethren in other countries that I personally know, that are right now spending everything they have on food... and they are still slowly getting thinner and thinner and the little kids are crying because their tummies hurt... so momma takes a handfull of flour and mixes it with dirt... and makes little dirt cookies just to fill the childrens stomachs so they can sleep.
Xep, I agree with you. A canadian takes until Feb 6 to pay for his/her food. He/she takes until Jul 1 to pay the taxes. Just over 1 month to pay for food, 6 months to pay for infrastructure, healthcare, education, welfare. That leaves 5 months to pay for housing, clothing, transportation, leisure, and investing.
In developing nations the majority of income of most people goes to food. They are the ones that will be hurt by food shortages. People in developed countries are much more able to compete for the food that is grown.
It appears that the world is swiftly drawing down its food supplies. I write to inquire if the UN or its FAO have reached a similar conclusion.
Every six years, the world adds the equivalent of a North American population. The world's cropland area, however, is nearly static. The UN's FAOSTAT database shows only a 1% total increase in the area of arable and permanent crops over the past ten years. Further, that data shows that that area has been declining since 2001. With population increasing and the cropland area static or declining, per capita cropland area is fast declining.
The graph that is attached to this letter is compiled from United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) data covering the most recent 45 years. It depicts a chilling situation: In five of the last six years, our global population ate significantly more grains than farmers produced. In those six years, we have drawn down global supplies from a 116-day supply in 1999/2000 to a 69-day supply today. It is almost certain that the current decline in global food supplies is steeper than at any time since the Second World War, perhaps steeper than at any time in the past 100 years.
World food supplies have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. In the 1970s, however, our oceans were teeming with fish. In the 1970s, crop production in North America and elsewhere was much less intensive, with less fertilizer used and some of the land left fallow. Today, we are using unprecedented amounts of fertilizers and chemicals, farming nearly every acre every year, irrigating a record area, and generally maximizing production. We are pushing our land to produce, and even so, our production is not keeping pace.
Most critically, today the world food production system is facing multiple threats from climate change, water shortages, and unstable fossil fuel supplies (nitrogen fertilizer-key to our global food system-is synthesized from natural gas).
Mr. Annan and Dr. Diouf, it appears to us that global population is rising rapidly, our cropland base is static or shrinking, production is struggling (and failing) to meet consumption, and that there is growing uncertainty over water and energy supplies and the stability of our climate. Taken together, these factors indicate we may be risking a calamitous shortfall in the world's grain supplies; global food security is rapidly eroding.
I request that you immediately make public the UN and FAO's assessments of current agricultural production and its ability to keep pace with a growing population. If your assessment is in accord with ours, I ask you to convene, with all possible haste and urgency, a summit of the world's leaders to address the massive challenges to the ability of humanity to continue feeding its growing numbers.
I thank you for your attention to our concerns, and I urge you to act rapidly.
Sincerely, Stewart Wells, President, National Farmers Union, Canada
I have no facts or statistics to back me up here....just a few thoughts. It sort of gets my goat when the civilized western world is painted as greedily scarfing up the food supply. The world's problem is not a shortage of food, it's a shortage of freedom. If freedom could be unleashed on the world in general I think we would see prosperity and economic growth that we can't even dream of today. Isn't a lot of the world's hunger today quite closely related to the amount of corruption in governments and lack of freedom. How many free nations have a starvation problem among their populace?
This message has been edited by RM_ on Apr 29, 2008 7:22 PM
I think of the end of a monopoly game as what is happening right now, the "bank" is broke, (derivative meltdown) and the game can only be prolonged by sending out newly printed money, and giving it to everyone (economic stimulus checks) which has as much a chance of helping in the long run as giving people a book of blank checks and telling them to just write one out if they need something, but don't worry about putting anything in it first.
Our system is in trouble, much more than most believe and hunger is going to hit here, food riots and general chaos are coming. We are fixing to have an "attitude adjustment" that will make us look at our big cars with wonder as to why we have them!
RM wrote:
>>I have no facts or statistics to back me up here....just a few thoughts. It sort of gets my goat when the civilized western world is painted as greedily scarfing up the food supply. The world's problem is not a shortage of food, it's a shortage of freedom. If freedom could be unleashed on the world in general I think we would see prosperity and economic growth that we can't even dream of today. Isn't a lot of the world's hunger today quite closely related to the amount of corruption in governments and lack of freedom. How many free nations have a starvation problem among their populace?<<
Wealth is a prerequisite for freedom, not the other way around. There is no freedom in a country where everyone is poor. Corrupt governments are a direct result of poverty, as poverty actually breeds corruption. A prime example is Adolph Hitler and his Nazis could never have emerged if Germany had not been impoverished, and kept impoverished, after the first war. Good governments that allow freedom are a product of rich countries, where people have the resources and time to create and perpetuate good governments. Good government, and the freedom that goes with it, is built on a foundation of wealth, not the other way around.
Canadee, I have not thought about this much, but what about countries like China and Viet Nam. Communist countries that have opened up and allowed more freedoms have prospered as a result. Give us more explanation of your position on this.
I'm not sure about that. Is it because they gave more freedom or is it because the increased wealth brought about by more economic exchange with the developed world (have you taken note lately of how many of your consumer goods come from China or Vietnam?) brought about increased standards of living, which then brought about more freedoms for the populace, which would be consonant with Canadee's thesis?
Steven; I tend to lean towards RM's view, that it is the freedoms given, that create the atmosphere for people to put their energy to work and use the system to create profits. It is this wealth that creates further wealth; if freedom is stifled or outlawed, then it is only illegal activity that garners wealth. This takes away the initiative from society which then functions with corruption.
Hank,
What was behind the post, is it is too simplistic to suggest that we can ignore the day to day realities of life and suggest that it is a simple matter to create freedom.
Freedom and prosperity often go hand in hand but we cannot ignore that fundamentally there is no real freedom until a persons needs are more than met. You can tell a man he is free to travel from Uganda to America, but if he is thirsty or hungry it means nothing to him. He is ripe to comply with the first person to offer to satisfy his immediate need of thirst and hunger. The first person to make a concrete offer, is often a corrupt one and the hungry man may end up toting a gun or supporting in some way someone else who totes a gun on
behalf of the corrupt man.
It is not just enough to "toss some freedom" to a people. Look at Afghanistan for an example of the difficulties involved.
The freedom we have today is something that has taken centuries to produce, but the great gains in both personal and societal freedom have happened in the last century and are a direct result of our increasing ability (through science and technology) to utilize the wealth that the earth contains. There is a synergy between the availability of wealth and freedom, they do feed off one another. But it looks to me like the wealth comes first, which in turn begets freedom, which begets more wealth, which begets ...
When I look at China, it appears to me, that the freedoms have been allowed when it became obvious that it was the way to extract wealth from the already wealthy North America and Western Europe. So the real "seed" that has driven the change in these countries lies in the wealth of these other countries.
Note though, that I mention increasing the availability of wealth, I cannot go so far as to say "create" wealth. It seems that we have simply become much more clever at extracting the wealth that the good Lord's earth has held in store for us. Freedom is nothing without this underlying store.
I agree, Canadee; that it is too simplistic to say one is the entire answer to the issues.
However, a further case in point. Take Cuba... what will happen as this society opens up and allows more freedoms ? Wealth is available for the taking (from the good Lord's creation and from others' who are looking for goods)... so what is missing in Cuba's society to make it happen ? Wealth or freedom ?
Canadee, my personal opinion is that your "wealth is a prerequisite to freedom" theory is completely 180 degrees out of whack. Was the United States a wealthy nation when they fought and won their independence? We are free because noble men and women gave their lives to secure victory from an oppressive government....not because of wealth.
>Canadee, my personal opinion is that your "wealth is a >prerequisite to freedom" theory is completely 180 degrees out of >whack.
Could be. I think the discussion is worthwhile & healthy
>Was the United States a wealthy nation when they fought and > won their independence?
Well, yes it was wealthy and that is why those people were here instead of in Europe, to exploit that wealth. I realize the history books like to write about religious freedom and the pilgrim fathers, but this was only the case for a fraction of the new immigrants. The combination of comparatively greater wealth available here in America vs. Europe and the desire to have a greater share of that wealth and the freedom naturally gained as a result of the great distance between here and London both contributed to the war of independance.
>We are free because noble men and women gave their lives to >secure victory from an oppressive government
Yes and no. Fighting was the route taken in the United States, However, we enjoy very similar freedoms in Canada today. Canada's freedoms were gained from the same oppressive government by patient negotiation.
....not because of wealth.
In any event, this whole discussion started, because it would appear from things we are seeing today, like depletion of fish stocks, petroleum supplies, and water for human consumption and irrigation, that there is a finite supply of wealth available to us and discussion of how we as Christians should respond in sharing what wealth exists is a healthy and good thing. It pleases me, when people such as yourself take the time and effort to consider and discuss these things.
<<Yes and no. Fighting was the route taken in the United States, However, we enjoy very similar freedoms in Canada today. Canada's freedoms were gained from the same oppressive government by patient negotiation.>>
You really think Canada would be freer or better off than Mexico if the United States wasn't in existence? Look, I appreciate Canada and all, but the fact is that your country probably would not exist as it does today if there was no big brother to the south of you.
We are quite accustomed to the misguided arrogance and closed-minded intolerence coupled with visceral hatred of all things different that is often demonstrated by our neighbors from the One True Visible Republic.
RM, have you ever considered that your little brother to the north may have saved your cocky backsides a time or two?
Check into the History of World War Two... You guys are the typical big brother, you pretend your sooo much better, but deep down you love us, sheesh you might even get a little protective if someone picked on us. We know cause we can pick on you guys, but if someone else did, you know we would be there to defend you, (and have been)
This message has been edited by Zontya on May 1, 2008 2:26 PM
There are many people spend much much more at Tim Horton's here in Canada every day on there way to or from work or at noon than many families in this world get to spend on Grocieries for a week. And this can be looked at more than one way. They could give that to charity, or they could give half of it to charity and invest the other half so that they could feed more people next year. Riches is not that bad expecially if one can tithe. In fact God wants us to be rich, But he also wants us to use our talents to his work.
Here are the reasons for the food crisis from what I've read and heard.
1. Farmers in developing countries cannot afford to buy seeds, fertilizer, and irrigation. If developed countries, like Canada, had assisted with these things it would have made a difference. Instead aid to agriculture was cut back while aid to education and health was increased.
2. Subsidizes to crops grown for biofuel.
3. Droughts, floods, and other natural disasters due to eratic weather.
4. The growing global demand for food and feed grain brought on by swelling populations and incomes. e.g. The demand of the chinese middleclass for meat, which is a inefficient use of grains.
Caution: This forum may contain statements and comments that are offensive. If you are easily offended, please exit this forum now.
By using this forum you agree to be accountable and liable for your post's. All postings are the responsibility of the posting participant. The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the management.
