Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How is China able to provide enough food to feed over 1B people?

quora.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 356 posts

Re: How is China able to provide enough food to feed over 1B people?

#311

Post by kortilla »

jolmg wrote: post #167
einpoklum wrote: post #54

The question should really be "How are many national economies keeping innumerable people hungry, even though there's plenty of food to go around several times over?" In most places in the world it's easy and cheap enough to produce food and distribute it. Actually, it's so easy and cheap that many world states artificially subsidize agriculture/livestock farming/etc. to prevent them from collapsing due to low prices…

Doesn't the fact that they're subsidized to keep them from collapsing due to low prices mean the opposite of it being easy and cheap? If the subsidies were removed, the farmers/etc would need to raise their prices to pay for whatever the subsidies paid. That new higher price would reflect the real cost of production. The subsidies are there to keep prices low and accessible despite a higher cost of production.

Yep, but small nit. Farmers don’t really “raise their prices”. With commodities you can’t really raise your prices. You either sell at the market price or sit on it. And sitting on it is really dangerous with perishable commodities.

Look at mines, oil companies, etc for other examples of industries with participants lacking the ability to raise their prices.

Re: How is China able to provide enough food to feed over 1B people?

#312

Post by kortilla »

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #267
erikig wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any single food in inappropriate quantities can be called junk food, any food eaten in moderation and with variety can be appropriately nutritious...

In the world of abstract logic, perhaps. In practical reality, no. Some foods are just more nutritious than others, and some foods cause more trouble than the nutrients that they provide. There is junk food that is just based on empty calories and toxic elements that then have to be worked on by the body to just remove (much more so than other food). You could say that junk food is perhaps better than no food, if som…

FYI: “toxic elements” is a quack term when it comes nutrition. Everything is poisonous (i.e. “toxic”) at the right dosage level.

Also, a “nutrient” is just something that promotes growth and provides energy. That makes olive oil and sticks of butter a lot more “nutrient rich” than a pile of broccoli. Nobody will survive on the latter alone.

Re: How is China able to provide enough food to feed over 1B people?

#313

Post by kortilla »

jtolmar wrote: post #119
kartan wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "How are many national economies keeping innumerable people hungry, even though there's plenty of food to go around several times over?" I never see this question on TV. What I mainly see on Tv is talk about political strategies, result surveys and the like. Climate change is one of the few things that I see being discussed. And even that has a lot of this let's talk about politicians positions and poll results. I…

https://thebreadbook.org/ - Peter Kropotkin argues that there's now enough industrial capability to feed, shelter, and clothe everyone, but this capability is poorly distributed. Notably he wrote this over 100 years ago. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/no-shortcuts-9780190... - Jane F. McAlevey examines the difference between the ineffective activism of the last 40 years and successful movements like the Civi…

>Notably he wrote this over 100 years ago.

Is that notable in a good way or bad way? Anything written for the population densities and totals 100 years ago is woefully out of date.

100 years ago there were homesteaders in the western US who were given free acres of land just for being there.

Re: How is China able to provide enough food to feed over 1B people?

#314

Post by bad_user »

arcturus17 wrote: post #257
bad_user wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultra-processed food is "low quality food". That's because: (1) it's rich in toxins due to the industrial processing and (2) it has a poor proteins/nutrients to energy ratio. Nutrient hunger is a thing. Proteins are regulated by the brain. Micro nutrients might be regulated by the brain as well. When you eat ultra-processed food, you end up eating more food just to get the nutrients you need to live. Ultra-processed…

None of what you or the other comment say prove the claim that China (or Mexico) offer such limited nutritional choices that they are the cause of those health conditions, as opposed to unconstrained individual choice.

I'm not talking about China. I was just making an observation that "low quality food" is ultra-processed food. So if the Chinese are now eating ultra-processed food, like many of us in the US or Europe, then it's no wonder that obesity and diabetes is on the rise.

> "as opposed to unconstrained individual choice"

There's no such thing, you're not aware of many of the recent findings.

I recommend you go read: https://www.stephanguyenet.com/thehungrybrain/

Re: How is China able to provide enough food to feed over 1B people?

#315

Post by kortilla »

behringer wrote: post #137
TimTheTinker wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Politics is how the nations allocate resources to problems. That's a hard pill to swallow, but I fear you're right. Shouldn't government's priorities be establishing rule of law, courts & justice, national defense, and regulating commerce? How did massive taxes, a huge budget, and political fights over resource allocation ever get thrown into the mix? A historian once said that democracy fails when people begin vot…

Because rich people don't get rich by spending money. With unfettered capitalism taxation is the best system available to keep the wealth from pooling at the top, so the government is needed to decide what to spend the money on.

>Because rich people don't get rich by spending money

That’s an oft-repeated but incorrect trope. You can’t save your way to being rich. Rich people are either born rich or they spend lots of money on investing into businesses (their own and others).

You also made no supporting argument for why the government is needed to decide what to spend some peoples’ money on. If we eliminated the top 1% and gave everyone else in the US the resulting few thousand dollars each, do you think that would eliminate the need for taxation going forward?

Re: How is China able to provide enough food to feed over 1B people?

#316

Post by Iv »

jdboyd wrote: post #271
Iv wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make sure the Bengali alphabet is working in whatever software you are doing.

How does that help? I'm being serious in asking.

It makes IT tools more accessible to the common person in Bangladesh. More likely to use it correctly, to master it.

Re: How is China able to provide enough food to feed over 1B people?

#317

Post by jtolmar »

kortilla wrote: post #313
jtolmar wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://thebreadbook.org/ - Peter Kropotkin argues that there's now enough industrial capability to feed, shelter, and clothe everyone, but this capability is poorly distributed. Notably he wrote this over 100 years ago. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/no-shortcuts-9780190... - Jane F. McAlevey examines the difference between the ineffective activism of the last 40 years and successful movements like the Civi…

>Notably he wrote this over 100 years ago. Is that notable in a good way or bad way? Anything written for the population densities and totals 100 years ago is woefully out of date. 100 years ago there were homesteaders in the western US who were given free acres of land just for being there.

A huge part of Kropotkin's arguments are about what's possible with the technology of the time. This is even more relevant now with 100 years of improvements. It's a strong contrast to the futurist "everything will get better by default because technology."

Population densities are higher now but Kropotkin was writing before the green revolution. Our capability to feed everyone has grown dramatically in the intervening time

Re: How is China able to provide enough food to feed over 1B people?

#318

Post by D_Alex »

abledon wrote: post #251

The author has other great answers in a similar structure too! https://www.quora.com/profile/Janus-Dongye-Qimeng

The author writes well, but presents an unbalanced, Mainland-Chinese-Propagandist views. This does not make for "great answers".

Also.... who is asking the questions?

Re: How is China able to provide enough food to feed over 1B people?

#319

Post by seanmcdirmid »

tepidandroid wrote: post #263
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn’t really work for the British, it didn’t work for the Afrikaners, it didn’t really work for the Americans, why do the Chinese think they will get it right?

If I understand the point you’re trying to make correctly, you’re likening China’s claim to Xinjiang to that of the historical colonial powers? Because if we’re going to go down that road, I have to warn you that the Xinjiang story is not nearly as black and white as the British, Dutch or American stories.

I’m pretty aware of the history: the Qing brought the Uighurs into north Xinjiang to genocide the Mongolians, who already killed a bunch of Han living there already. Still, again, nothing in history has shown that China is any better at colonizing lands than the west (or even the Russians).

Re: How is China able to provide enough food to feed over 1B people?

#320

Post by [deleted] »

kortilla wrote: post #311
jolmg wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the fact that they're subsidized to keep them from collapsing due to low prices mean the opposite of it being easy and cheap? If the subsidies were removed, the farmers/etc would need to raise their prices to pay for whatever the subsidies paid. That new higher price would reflect the real cost of production. The subsidies are there to keep prices low and accessible despite a higher cost of production.

Yep, but small nit. Farmers don’t really “raise their prices”. With commodities you can’t really raise your prices. You either sell at the market price or sit on it. And sitting on it is really dangerous with perishable commodities. Look at mines, oil companies, etc for other examples of industries with participants lacking the ability to raise their prices.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN