Malthus logic fails again. Why do intelligent minds still reject reality?

According to the latest report of a former senior policy research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) most people still see the world food problem through the old and persistently flawed food paradigm of ‘too many people, not enough food’.

I was taught this seemingly logical paradigm in high school and college and took it into my biology classes as a teacher and continued to spread this faulty meme until a presenter spoke to my classes about “Ending hunger”.   I thought she was wrong when she suggested that there was more than enough food, but people just couldn’t afford to buy it.   Turns out I was wrong.  And I wasn’t happy about it.  Credibility was king in my mind.  I was shocked that mine had been diminished by intelligent and committed educators/scientist relying on unexamined assumptions.   They used ‘direct causation’ (shallow thinking) to arrive at a conclusion.   It turns out that deeper mind functions are required to consider multiple factors and properly examine the data to arrive at a more credible conclusion.  George Lakoff, a cognitive linguist and philosopher, calls this ‘systemic causation’ thinking. 

Fact is, there was more than enough food in the world, but the political systems then were dominated by a flawed economic system that valued profit over people.  A condition that resulted in billions of people simply lacking the money to buy the food that was available.  Economists and politicians alike had left food distribution up to the capitalist ‘market’ system which according to the UN’s World Health Organization 2014 report left 462 million underweight adults worldwide but more than 600 million obese – nearly two-thirds of them in developing countries. And childhood obesity continues to rise faster in poorer countries than richer ones.

“With a depth and breadth that goes far beyond previous studies”, Gerald Nelson’s work with IFPRI assessed 158 countries using best and worst case scenarios of climate change and existing economic projections.  They concluded that even with a population growth increase of 2.1 billion by the year 2050  -- there will be enough food (if “enough” is defined by sufficient calories averaging 2,000 calories per day as the standard requirement) to feed the world.  “Civil wars, poor roads, and income disparities” will continue to keep people hungry.  But the problem remains today as a lack of political will regarding “access” to food.  Mr. Nelson’s op-ed in the Washington Post (The global food problem isn’t what you think. Jan. 3, 2019) offers most of this information “even in the face of our extreme climate change scenario.”   https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/02/global-food-problem-isnt-what-you-think/?utm_term=.8663310843a3

The bigger problem they offer is “micronutrient deficiencies”.  Even in the richest nations.  Climate change “will likely produce major and somewhat unpredictable effects on future supply… [but] we must shift our emphasis from food security to nutrient security.”

It appears IFPRI still hasn’t learned, or has forgotten, a summary statement from the 1980 Presidential Commission on World Hunger.  That unless our nation puts ending world hunger in the context of our own national security, it probably won’t happen by the year 2000, which was clearly achievable.  And, according to the specifics of the content of the report, directly linked to US national security in the context of pandemics, terrorism, war, immigration, and environmental degradation.  

What Nelson’ op-ed didn’t mention (but hopefully covered in the IFPRI report) was the connections between climate change and our traditional agriculture systems which are fundamentally unsustainable for a variety of other factors.   And, that most of those factors are still directly related to our own national security.  Unfortunately, our comfortable ignorance, poisonous apathy, increasing gullibility, and lack of political will still prevents us from resolving this fundamental problem.  

Western thinking is even at fault.  Our educational approach to traditional sciences conditioned us to separate issues in order to understand them.  Plus, creative political concepts have deluded our minds into believing that things are “independent” from one another.   These human factors conditioned our minds to discount the profound interconnectedness of nature and the unyielding reality that every system and structure in the known universe (human and natural) is irreversibly linked to sustaining our own freedom, security and prosperity.

An asteroid, nuclear exchange, bioterrorist attack, pandemic, cyber event, global economic depression/recession, or solar flare could catastrophically alter the food production capacity of our earth -- regardless of how well our political and economic system effectively manage humanities food quality, volume, and economic access. 

What we can’t do is waste more time ignoring the fundamental human need and human right of every person to an adequate, nutritious, affordable, and sustainable food supply.  As well as adequate clean water, clean air, healthy soil, protection from the elements, income, education, and opportunities to express our faith -- in action consistent with the golden rule instead of the rule of gold.  But we must all acknowledge and act on the fundamental principle that every right requires purposeful responsibilities. By God’s wish and nature’s ways we are free to do as we please.  But we will never be free of he consequences.

Given the persistent evolution of weaponry and war, and the failure of our political systems to adapt to unprecedented technological change which is exacerbating a growing variety, velocity and volume of global stressers -- we may not be able to change our flawed global political system fast enough.  Our persistent reliance on war, sanctions (which can be deadlier than war - or start them), unfettered capitalism, and even the best diplomacy to impose ‘international law’ on nations is not working.  Under our current international governance system, each nation has the ‘sovereign’ right to ignore international law, including human rights (especially if they have powerful weapons/militaries).  This will not end soon-- or end well.   But existing governments could relatively easily tweak our global economic system to at least fund the inalienable human rights that all humanity should be entitled too.

The best list of rights was globally agreed to after the horrors of World War II in the hopes of preventing another world war.  But the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was insufficient to prevent other smaller wars.  The UN was never given the power to enforce human rights.  Doing so could have eradicated the most lethal conditions of poverty that are the frequent root cause of war and have been far deadlier than the wars that persisted.   But now, much could be achieved, and can be done rapidly if funding and focusing achieving the 17 Sustainable Development Goals before the year 2030 were a political priority.   

There is no shortage of money.  And no government would even need to increase its taxes or debt to fund them.  There is an estimated $32 trillion of illicit funds stashed in off-shore accounts by corrupt kleptocrats (think Zaire’s former President, Trump’s Paul Manafort, or the Panama Papers), criminal cartels (drugs, weapons, knockoffs, slaves, antiquities, endangered species…), and tax evading capitalists and corporations (Trump?, Apple?...).  Again, we just lack the political will.   Or, in one word.  Justice.  

Is it just a coincidence that “Justice” was 2018’s “word of the year”?   Any guesses on what the word will be for 2019?   Here’s my guesses.   “Distractions” “Principles” “Interdependence” “Holistic” “Comprehensive” “Systems” “Resilience” “Catastrophic” “Extinction” “Suicide” “Truth” “Thoughtless” “Unwise” “Selfish” “Senseless” “Irrational” “Stupid”.