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

Food security and the coming storm

eurasiagroup.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 427 posts

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#341

Post by guerrilla »

Auracle wrote: post #226
guerrilla wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would kill them and cause massive suffering, so... no? I don't understand how people can be both this cruel and want to propagate such a norm: What happens when it's your turn to starve outside the gate? This kind of rhetoric is _not_ in your self-interest. Nobody is immune to the potential to need to migrate.

They wouldn’t come if they knew they would be stopped. We can (and do) send aid when needed, even though our countries are under no obligation to do so.

Sometimes the aid needed is a place. I have no idea what you mean by obligation or what axioms you base that conclusion on but it seems somewhere in all of that we disagree. I think we should provide people a place if they need it when we can afford to. I think, for one, it's cruel not to do so, but secondly it's good to promote a norm of doing so. We may be in need of a place some day (think war, climate change, economic crisis, etc.) We can't do more than we can do but I think we should do what we can to help.

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#342

Post by guerrilla »

usrn wrote: post #284
guerrilla wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would kill them and cause massive suffering, so... no? I don't understand how people can be both this cruel and want to propagate such a norm: What happens when it's your turn to starve outside the gate? This kind of rhetoric is _not_ in your self-interest. Nobody is immune to the potential to need to migrate.

We have a first responsibility to our own people. Furthermore if we don't take care of them everyone else will just export their unsustainable configuration to us and everyone will starve.

Our people are doing pretty well here in northern Europe. We've taken good care of them and of course we can always do better and I'm sure we will do so in the future. In the meantime, I think we should also help other people when we can afford to do so. I think it's cruel not to do so and I think it's in everyone's self-interest to promote the helping of others when we can afford to do so because we may some day need such help (because of war, plague, famine, climate change, economic crises, etc.) Promotion of such a norm is insurance.

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#343

Post by guerrilla »

tomp wrote: post #178
fennecfoxen wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> solving these problems... where they happen (would also be much cheaper) You assert that it's much cheaper to solve these problems without moving the people. It is not nearly so cut-and-dry. When someone seeks to flee their homeland for Europe or America, it's generally because something is very wrong where they are coming from. Often, the problem includes some sort of kleptocratic, warmongering, authoritarian, or…

There's 1.2 billion people in Africa. Good luck moving all of them. The only realistic solution is reforming institutions where the people are.

Just curious, did you read the article before responding? Then I'm wondering, why do you expect all 1.2 billion Africans to flee Africa? That seems very unrealistic.

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#344

Post by guerrilla »

lotusmars wrote: post #183
guerrilla wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only time they made a major retreat was when they overstretched and Kyiv offensive that was expected to be quick failed. Yeah, that's false. Google is your friend on this one. Next time pay attention to the war you want to comment on. > No connection to anything related to NATO. If anything "NATO enlargement" rhethoric is just a coverup. Estonia is part of the NATO and it's bordering Russia with travel distance…

> Google is your friend on this one. Petersburg shills are lazy these days.

"Everyone I disagree with is a Russian troll."

No I don't support Putin, the fascist, the Russian overclass or any of their fans. At the same time, it's pretty easy to verify what I said. I believe in you, you can do it. It doesn't lend us any credibility to lie or be ignorant about what's actually been happening. We can do our best to present the truth and oppose the Russian state, it's propaganda and it's invasion at the same time. You don't need to choose between the two.

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#345

Post by guerrilla »

glogla wrote: post #236
guerrilla wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of it is bluff. You don't know that and I don't want to risk that. Don't be arrogant. Everyone said his buildup on Ukraine a bluff. It wasn't. I don't think we should ever trust people like you again. > Russian army is in corrupt disarray and even tacticals nukes are not guranteed to work. He will probably be disobeyed by his staff. Yet still winning... > Speaking of ships, the flaghsip of Black Sea Fleet Mosk…

> You don't know that and I don't want to risk that. Don't be arrogant. Everyone said his buildup on Ukraine a bluff. It wasn't. I don't think we should ever trust people like you again. No, most Western intelligence services were saying the invasion is going to happen. It was Putin-supporters like you, who claimed that it is Western warmongering and nothing will happen.

> It was Putin-supporters like you,

Can you stop with these accusations? Not everyone that disagrees with your warmongering supports the other warmongers.

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#346

Post by ls15 »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #325
Sylveste wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Of course, if your child is literally starving, you should look to a less than ideal, short term solution. Yes. That's the issue we're having here. People are encountering that situation of being unable to find formula, meaning that their children are literally at risk of starving, asking for alternatives and being told 'there's just no viable alternative' by the media as though that information will make formula ap…

> 'there's just no viable alternative' by the media This isn't the media's job. Their recommendation is to talk with your doctor. This is realistically the only safe suggestion since all of the alternatives are bad. > Famine relief, missionary and other charities do have reliable and nutritious recipes for baby formula alternatives that can be made in bush conditions and over open fires in metal pots. Please, please,…

> This isn't the media's job. Their recommendation is to talk with your doctor. This is realistically the only safe suggestion since all of the alternatives are bad.

I wish people would lay this blanket advice to rest, unless they are doctors themselves and can give relevant advice immediately. I live in Germany, a country that everyone praises for its healtcare system and it is incredibly hard to get a doctor's appointment here that is not months down the road. Sure there are emergency options, like the hospitals that you mention, but imagine what happens if millions of deperate people try to tap into the strategic formula reserves of hospitals...

During a catastrophic event, I absolutely expect the media to spread ideas for creative solutions. You can always say that talking to an expert is the best option, but what is plan B if plan A is no realistic option?

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#347

Post by guerrilla »

lotusmars wrote: post #181
guerrilla wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of it is bluff. You don't know that and I don't want to risk that. Don't be arrogant. Everyone said his buildup on Ukraine a bluff. It wasn't. I don't think we should ever trust people like you again. > Russian army is in corrupt disarray and even tacticals nukes are not guranteed to work. He will probably be disobeyed by his staff. Yet still winning... > Speaking of ships, the flaghsip of Black Sea Fleet Mosk…

> Yet still winning.. Because Germans do not provide weapons they've promised. In fact if they drag their feet more, war may change its course. > Ukraine doing that and the US doing that are drastically different Of course Ukrainians can do that if they're equipped with enough modern weapons and intelligence. The problem is stated above. Germans do not provide weapons, Biden is slow to push them. Additionally because…

I think it's complicated why they're not winning. Russia has a lot of resources, despite any incompetence. The US is not providing targeting data, nor long range weapons and the US doesn't want Ukraine striking inside of Russia (DoD just said so in the FT yesterday.) There's also the problem with sanctions not being very effective and having serious blowback globally making it difficult to apply more sanctions (EU disagreement on new sanctions was also in the FT yesterday.) I'm sure there are many other reasons we don't even know about... It's not easy.

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#348

Post by yourapostasy »

Nasrudith wrote: post #223
phpisthebest wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>It's like we've forgotten how to function as humans in some respect. It is not that we have forgotten, the social and governmental structures have been for a long time pushing for dependence upon corporations / government and less self reliance. Self Reliance is something that is to be socially mocked, "survivalist", "prepper", etc are seen as derogatory terms. Even community level reliance has systemically been re…

It isn't some vast conspiracy, it is that specialization by definition does it better. Literal cottage industry couldn't compete. That is what being able to buy better tools and outcomes gets you, industrialization. Memetically people are still pissed off about the change centuries later.

> Memetically people are still pissed off about the change centuries later.

Because specialization gave up autonomy, with zero corresponding accountability in return, so capital holders got most of the upside with none of the downside once positioned as too big to fail, and dependent stakeholders got short-term time resource benefits while their grandchildren onwards got exposed to oligopolistic pricing power, and externalities like fragile supply chain ramifications pushed upon them. Snarking like this in shallow analyses is exactly what Soros warned about with reflexivity.

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#349

Post by thriftwy »

lotusmars wrote: post #241
thriftwy wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine has failed to become economically solvent - it did not even grow to 1991 levels. So it had to cling to somebody else and eventually it tore apart (in 2014)

Ukraine did not "tore apart" in 2014. Putin's army and mercenaries invaded its eastern regions, downed a passenger jet, weaponized criminal gangs, occupied cities and turned them into criminal neo-Stalinist enclaves with executions and torture. He did it to teach Ukrainians a lesson after they've overthrown a corrupt pro-Putin president who built himself outrageously lavish palaces with golden toilets and private zoo…

Ukraine's eastern regions did not want to be a part of post-Euromaidan Ukraine, and one of the reasons is the poverty of Ukraine.

It's not like Putin is holding crimeans at a gunpoint for 8 years.

Re: Food security and the coming storm

#350

Post by jillesvangurp »

tomjen3 wrote: post #110
jillesvangurp wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm less pessimistic. People in the US, and increasingly the rest of the world are on a diet that just isn't good for them: lots of low quality carbs with cheap fat and artificial flavorings and not a whole lot of nutritional value. Arguably, a large part of the population is eating way more than is good for them and not enough good quality food. And it's not just a money issue: it's a skill and knowledge issue. Peop…

>lots of low quality carbs with cheap fat and artificial flavorings and not a whole lot of nutritional value. > So, low quality industrial food products getting more expensive isn't necessarily a bad thing. It might prompt people to spend their money more wisely Everything is getting more expensive, so people will focus even more on buying cheap.

My point is that buying smart actually means you get more for less. People buy the easy stuff which tends to be priced accordingly.
Post reply on HN