Safvan Patel
Karen Morris
ENGL 1102 VVV
30 January 2011
Famine: Centuries in the Making
Every five seconds a child dies due to hunger (Bread for the World). Many of these deaths occur in underprivileged, third world countries; one can infer that the actual number of deaths greatly exceeds the number of attributed deaths. It’s tragic, and it’s perfectly human to want to help these people but there is something vital that must be understood: there is nothing that we can do to save them. It may seem cruel to allow this sort of tragedy to take place, but conventional policies regarding world hunger are ignorant, ineffective, and irresponsible.
“Famine isn’t unique to humans. All species are subject to it everywhere in the world,” (Quinn 138). When the population of any other animal society in the world cannot sustain itself, the population simply decreases; this is true for any species under the sun. However we have claimed exemption from the laws of sustainability—for some reason, we’ve distanced ourselves from the natural world, perhaps now, we might even look down on it. We are a product of nature—not vice versa—and as such we are subject to all its rules. Famine is the result of thousands of years of living beyond our means. It’s the result of defying the law of sustainability. It’s penance for expanding our population to unnatural levels. The land that we live on simply can’t sustain the community anymore. We can respond to it in one of two ways, depending on how one sees the issue; are there are too many people or is there not enough food? We can either reduce the population or send more food—but how productive is it to provide for these people?
Funneling food into starving countries begins with good intentions but leads to unintended consequences. It’s adding fuel to the fire. We produce more and more food each year with the intention of sending it to the needy. Let’s assume that everything goes according to plan; we, here at home, grow enough food to not only sufficiently feed all of our citizens, but also enough to send to the starving third world. We do so through the good will of our citizens and shelf our selfishness for the time being. We feed a generation of hungry people. They live, perhaps even thrive, and through the generosity of their fellow man, they take a short vacation from famine. However, remember that the condition that caused the famine in the first place is still there; even in our hypothetical best-case scenario we haven’t cured the disease but only treated the symptoms. In all but the most temporary cases, the people will return to hunger in a matter of time. What will they do next year and the year after? If the population increases, and it certainly will if we feed them, the next stretch of hunger could potentially be much, much worse.
We’ve outright defied the way the world works. Why should mankind be held to a different standard than the rest of natural world? This type of thinking requires an inherent belief that man is superior; our culture has ingrained into us that man is a “higher animal.” This is far from logical. Evolution ensures that only the best of the best make it through to the next round. Everything that exists now has been billions years in the making. The species that we live alongside are just as adept at survival as we are. Man became man before their eyes in the forests and fields among the natural world.
Death is just the way Mother Nature deals with these types of situations. It’s the way things have worked for millennia. To think otherwise would be arrogant; mankind has no right to fight ages of natural order. Furthermore, feeding those who live in areas that are constantly in famine does nothing to solve the real problems: the social and economic systems, the government’s failure to properly handle the situation, and the inability for the land to properly sustain the people in the first place. All we’re doing is putting a Band-Aid on a gushing wound.
To be fair, it must be taken into account, that if you value man’s life over any other, then there is nothing wrong with keeping these people alive at any cost. With this paradigm, you end up with a lot of other ecological externalities and it makes a lot of other ‘easier’ solutions more palatable. The challenge in ending world hunger isn’t in feeding the people but in doing so responsibly and with minimal repercussion.
There is a middle ground; the best solution to famine is one in which the areas become self-sustaining and ensure their own long-term food security. A combination of education and hands-on guidance would help the local people learn how to prevent hunger and how to prepare for it, if it so happens to come along. By sharing some of our industrial farming techniques—but adapting them to their environment—we can pose a solution that has real potential to fight world hunger. Lessons in soil conservation, erosion, crop rotation, etc. can teach the third world how to make the most of what they have and prevent future famines.
Our goal shouldn’t be to ease their suffering but to create a world in which they are secure from future suffering. Education (in both farming techniques and population control) and internal improvements will do much more for these people than any amount of food or water.
We need to stop looking for a temporary solution to world hunger; it’s much easier to put hunger out of our mind if we think the solution could be so simple. Famine is a complex problem with roots in many social, political, and economic systems. As such, the solution is equally complicated and will require the very best of our generation to handle. The ideal solution respects the natural order and the value of ecological balance. It doesn’t encourage totalitarian farming, clearing trees for farmland, or genetically modified crops. It maintains the synergy between man and the world. It’s a long-term solution. It stimulates local economies. It’s one of the greatest challenges that face our time and we won’t make any progress unless we take the issue seriously enough to commit to a real solution.
-
Comparison/Contrast Reflection
After my first draft, I was pretty confident on what I had at the time. It lacked real content or supporting statements. After the peer review, I had to redefine my audience, give it more substance, and work on better proving my thesis. After the peer review and an objective read through of my own, I realized that my paper lacked content, didn’t really support the thesis, and the way it was written conflicted with my intended audience. The bulk of my paper was off-topic and didn't really contribute anything worthwhile.
I had serious trouble trying to figure out a topic. I settled on the subject that I'd been researching for my wiki entries. I began writing without a clear thesis; it became easier to develop once I had some of my ideas fleshed out. I could have done a better job on the research; however, I wanted to prove my thesis through simple logic. However, my writing would have definitely benefitted from raw data.
I need to provide more details and better tune my writing to my intended audience. I need to pay attention to my diction and apply appropriate references so that my audience can easily relate.
The wiki project forced me to do research. After reading some of the articles, it forced me to have a different perspective. The more information I had, the better informed my decisions.
It's a lot harder to write deeply rather than broadly. Anyone can learn a little bit about a lot of things; it takes time and effort to specialize on one topic. That's where the real value is. People want to hire experts; not amateurs.
