Here is a very interesting article regarding consumption, obesity, America, and some of the issues we face. I think it is important to note that we, as Americans, are all Fat and Obese in our own right. It may not be in the proverbial spare-tire waist that is so common throughout our country, but it may be in our consumption, attitudes, lifestyles, vehicles (read SUVs), clothing, enetertainment, etc. From the article, it states:
"According to the latest Pew Global Attitudes survey, a comprehensive opinion poll of public attitudes in America and 16 other countries, the USA is routinely seen as greedy by Western publics. For example, 67 per cent of the Dutch, 64 per cent of Britons and 62 per cent of Canadians see Americans as greedy. Perhaps most striking of all, 70 per cent of Americans see their fellow compatriots as greedy (10)."
This survey result is striking, yet understandable. I've travelled throughout Europe and Asia, and I've been in discussion with folks about our consumption. Our consumption is synonymous with greed in a lot of the world. And, I can't necessarily dispute that assertion. It is true, we, as a society, have become very greedy. We consume like there's no tomorrow. The amount of waste a given individual produces in a year in the U.S. is phenomenal. I don't know the exact numbers, but I recall articles I've read that cited the tonnage consumed per person, and it is high. However, I have to agree strongly with the article that consumption truly is the mark of a better standard of living, not worse. As such, as the article says, all should "aim to be fat Americans".
But, it is still critical that we ask ourselves if all our consumption is necessary. Can we curb it? Should we curb it? Is there an argument that an increase in consumption isn't necessarily bad; however, that increase needs to be in moderation. Excess consumption is not appropriate, regardless of our standard of living, and how Fat or Phat we try to live.
In reference to the issue of world hunger cited in the article (namely 815 million of the world populous received insufficient nutrition in 2002), I think the greater issue is not the ability to produce enough food to solve world hunger. World hunger will be solved, not by the developed world producing food and shipping it over (as there is an inherent flaw with this theory), but in growing the food in the respective countries, and teaching the local people proper farming techniques. The inherent flaw with shipping food over from the developed to the undeveloped world is the lack of infrastructure. The undeveloped third-world countries simply do not have the necessary infrastructure in place to distribute the food and get it to the people who need it most. And, until a better infrastructure is put in place, the problem will persist. When governments are corrupt, and guerillas intercept food supplies, and the roads simply suck, and there aren't sufficient vehicles to transport the food, and the heat spoils the food, and there is no orderly distribution network, how can we ever expect to solve the problem by growing more food in the developed world!? It doesn't make sense.
However, teaching proper farming techniques, and then empowering the farmers to implement the techniques, will have a lot more powerful effect on solving the problem of hunger. In addition, and I know this is a sore spot for many, GMOs promise a level of solution yet to be realized. Today, crops can be modified to be more resilient, stronger, more productive, in a shorter time through genetic modification and manipulation. But, the caveat with GMOs is the increased price of the seed. In these third world countries, farmers simply don't make the proper margins to be able to afford GMOs.
So, once again, the wheel continues to spin without moving forward or back.
The Article
No comments:
Post a Comment