The Lie We Live

[WildJager]

When I was younger and more idealistic/naive, a video like this would have inspired me.  However, having learned the value and complexity of certain topics this video addresses (fiat currency, world hunger, war, environmentalism, and humanitarian aid to name a few) this video just comes off as... well, naive.  The closing is a call for fresh leadership and change, but lacks guidance on what that change may be.  There is a rule of thumb in the military, don't go to your commander with problems.  Go to them with a variety of solutions.  Then they will use their experience and influence to affect the change.

While there is a lot that could be discussed in this video, I want to focus on one topic.  But first, the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNVZ0ZPfE8s

The topic I want to discuss is that of world hunger.  In a contradictory nature, the author of the video both lambastes more prosperous nations for not sharing more food with those starving around the world, then demonizes the methods and organizations that allowed this food surplus to happen in the first place.  The contradiction, in my mind, is the issue of "solving world hunger" while wanting to eliminate corporate expansion, utility expansion, housing expansion, etc.  The only way that's practically possible is if we universally decided to regulate our child birth (goes completely against evolution, so I don't see that happening any time soon) or for there to be massive governmental regulation controlling child birth.  That obviously goes against individual freedom, which this video is a proponent of, so I don't see them advocating that solution.

At the same time while lamenting over world hunger, the author calls humans a plague upon the earth.  Hunger and death in the animal kingdom is how the ecosystem self regulates via simple homeostasis.  So do we focus on the emotional aspect of hunger (feed everyone, which requires a massive support of structured farming and corporations) or the logical aspect of survival of the fittest (or just the most organized communities survive, which is again those with efficient corporations). 

My main rub here is this video is intended to inspire and excite, but only within the confines of a catch 22.  So those who follow the video and get inspired are to do what exactly? 

There's plenty in that video worthy of discussion (frankly it was a bit of a bow shot in every direction possible with inspiring music in the background... enough to get people riled up but not really intellectually sound), but it could be a fun talk anyway.  Feel free to derail this thread intent if anything stood out to you.

My argument point is thus: We can either have manufactured food production (exponential to the detriment of our environment) or a limited population level that is naturally sustainable.  We can't have both.  Sustainable food manufacturing is widely regarded as the proper solution, but that won't solve hunger if humans procreate regardless of the lack of resources.  What is the solution?  Is there a solution? 

[Maenad]

The solution is to evolve away from what worked in the past (expand your reach and outbreed the other guy) and toward something that's more restrained (live on less, give more to others, willingly shrink the population). We would need to fundamentally change how we think and somehow all magically agree on a new "right" way to live.  Honestly, it may take a massively disruptive event, like an alien invasion, where the evolutionary pressures shift radically. As it is, the forces that got us to this point are still the dominant influences.

[Retire-Canada]

At the same time while lamenting over world hunger, the author calls humans a plague upon the earth. 

Humans are a plague on the Earth. No doubt. That said we have the technology and resources to feed everyone on the planet right now if it was a priority and we were willing to share.

[WildJager]

At the same time while lamenting over world hunger, the author calls humans a plague upon the earth. 

Humans are a plague on the Earth. No doubt. That said we have the technology and resources to feed everyone on the planet right now if it was a priority and we were willing to share.

We share, no doubt.  I agree, we could probably feed everyone right now.  But it would take an every increasing amount of resources to continue to feed a population that would grow as a result.  We're talking about an open ended system.  Is there a point where we're sharing "enough", or is there an obligation to continue increasing donations? 

Said in another way that might be more relatable to folks from this forum, do you continue economic outpatient care on a relative who is hungry but spends their resources on fancy cars and clothes just because they are hungry?  Not saying this example is an exact metaphor of course (there are innocents involved), but instead it's just used as a thought process.

[Retire-Canada]

Said in another way that might be more relatable to folks from this forum, do you continue economic outpatient care on a relative who is hungry but spends their resources on fancy cars and clothes just because they are hungry?  Not saying this example is an exact metaphor of course (there are innocents involved), but instead it's just used as a thought process.

The developed world has ravaged the less develop parts of the world to get rich. So we are nowhere near a point where we are sharing resources even remotely fairly to start asking ourselves if we are sharing too much.

Ideally we should:

1. share food resources so nobody dies of starvation
2. stabilize the world's population
3. start reducing the population to something rational - slowly over time

Easy to type. Far more likely we'll just breed and consume until we destroy this planet for human life and many of the species that require a similar biosphere.

[maizefolk]

Hunger as a method of population control gets pretty rough for the planet as a whole. People don't sit and starve quietly. They kill and eat the last remaining megafauna (elephants, hippos, rhinos, etc), and chop down and plow under the last of the rainforests. Now you could argue that if the population is going to keep on growing forever, it's just a question of when those things will happen, not if.

The estimates are always bouncing around, but if memory serves current projections have world population topping out between 9 and 10 billion people sometime between 2050 and 2100. So we've gotta hold things together until then, which could very well be a rather rough ride. Then things may slowly start to pull back from the edge. Although we'll still have plenty of challenges after that point as resources going into feeding the world's population that are either non-renewable -- like phosphorous reserves -- or renewable but over exploited -- like fisheries -- run out after that point.

We share, no doubt.  I agree, we could probably feed everyone right now.  But it would take an every increasing amount of resources to continue to feed a population that would grow as a result.  We're talking about an open ended system.  Is there a point where we're sharing "enough", or is there an obligation to continue increasing donations? 

Said in another way that might be more relatable to folks from this forum, do you continue economic outpatient care on a relative who is hungry but spends their resources on fancy cars and clothes just because they are hungry?  Not saying this example is an exact metaphor of course (there are innocents involved), but instead it's just used as a thought process.

You probably don't give that relative money, but you'd certainly still invite them in for dinner.

[human]

I didn't read your whole rant but are you really trying to say there isn't enough food to feed the world's population right now?

Oh and man has a way of using nature for it's own needs. There really is no good reason for starvation to occur in the modern world. You want to argue we should just sit back because it's natural is nonsense. Of course we could end world hunger if we wanted to, we just have to want to.

[WildJager]

The developed world has ravaged the less develop parts of the world to get rich. So we are nowhere near a point where we are sharing resources even remotely fairly to start asking ourselves if we are sharing too much.

No doubt, but putting opportunists on the same level as USAID is a balance sheet that will always be in the red.  If we're going to keep a balance sheet, is it even worth trying to do the right thing?  If we cut out the prosperity gained from taking advantage of the land other's may own, would we even be prosperous enough to be so "generous"?  When does it become fair?

You probably don't give that relative money, but you'd certainly still invite them in for dinner.

Of course.  But I don't establish a humanitarian distribution node and fly food from my dinner table to theirs many states over every night.  That's the real cost.

[WildJager]

I didn't read your whole rant but are you really trying to say there isn't enough food to feed the world's population right now?

Oh and man has a way of using nature for it's own needs. There really is no good reason for starvation to occur in the modern world. You want to argue we should just sit back because it's natural is nonsense. Of course we could end world hunger if we wanted to, we just have to want to.

No, there is enough food.  I'm saying from the perspective of a person who first hand works in humanitarian relief that the cost to get it there is extraordinarily high.  This is a discussion, not my opinion. 

My "rant" was on the juxtaposition of having our cake and eating it too.  Eliminate the institutions that provide, but at the same time keeping everyone fed well.  Check out the video for the context.

[human]

So what are you arguing? Don't bore me with some video you have nothing but contempt for.

You want to get rid of aid relief and replace it with what? You have a solution to world hunger and yours is better than the solution laid out in the video? So what is it?

I suppose I'll see you at your Nobel Prize award ceremony . . .

[maizefolk]

Now you're mixing your metaphor with what you're trying to use it as a metaphor for. In 2015 (most recent year I could find data for) the US spend $2.5B on emergency and developmental food aid. That's about $7.8/person. The way I eat that's about three extra dinner a year.*

I'd certainly be willing to have my hypothetical fancy car and fancy clothes addicted relative over for dinner once every four months indefinitely.

*Clearly I have room to be more mustachian.

[FINate]

The video talks about extinction of species and that we might be next. If humans are a plague on the earth shouldn't that be desirable? Humans trash the environment and there's a huge die off. Primitive life forms will survive and evolution will march on and develop new species sans humans.  Furthermore, if there is no deeper meaning or purpose to life and it's just an arrangement of chemicals then why does any of this matter to begin with? Life or no life, it's all meaningless. It's nihilism all the way down.

Also, if you don't like the elites, then stop buying their shit. Nothing like seeing OWS protestors or "anarchists" sporting the latest iPhones and latest fashions. 

[WildJager]

So what are you arguing? Don't bore me with some video you have nothing but contempt for.

I'm not really arguing any side.  Obviously I have my opinion, but I'm attempting to not give it... thinly veiled as it is.

My interest is in how we motivate society to do something noble.  As exciting as this video is, the failure is in the catch 22 (from more than just the example I gave to start the discussion) that paralyzes people into inaction.  I see this daily.  The problem is "too big to solve", so people just give up and move on to simpler, more concrete things.

I'm not trying to take a perspective, which is why I keep dancing around a definitive perspective.  But I will say there is a reason why the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is a thing... the mission is incredibly complex.

Compare what this video says to the book Ishmael.  That has a similar message of, "If we don't get our shit together we're fucked" but does it on a much more thoughtful and less igniting way.  It makes you think and reconsider your own actions, as opposed to developing feelings that scream, "Screw this!  Society does nothing but ruin the environment!  Society sucks!"

I agree with you maizeman, that as individuals paying a bit more could go a long way.  But a bit more could help schools and roads and what not in our own country.  We seem to vote away from even that, so helping others in the world seems almost like a bridge too far.  We have the capability, but do we have the desire?

I'm trying to scope this in a conceptual way of how the masses think, not how I think.  That's why I asked if there's even a point in comparing USAID to economic opportunity.  Emotionally and morally many would say yes, but obviously due to how things have played out most say no by their actions.  Do videos like this fix the problem?  If not, I ask again, what is the solution? 

[mozar]

I'm still not sure what point you are trying to make OP but the solution is free or as cheap as possible long acting birth control. Texas funding cuts at Planned Parenthood led to a 27% increase in the birth rate which is costing a lot of money in foodstamps etc.
http://www.womenshealthpolicyreport.org/articles/study-finds-increase-in-birth-rates-texas-planned-parenthood-cuts.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

Trump reinstated the abortion gag rule which means that clinics in developing countries that discuss abortion will lose funding they use to subsidize contraception. Which will lead to increase in births. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/05/15/trump-expansion-of-abortion-gag-rule-will-restrict-8-8-billion-in-u-s-aid/?utm_term=.b2deb9e41791

So hypotheticals about hunger seem to be a waste of time to me.

I'm trying to scope this in a conceptual way of how the masses think, not how I think

Don't worry about how the masses think, create action in your own community. Recycle, run for the school board, advocate for people in jail, call potential voters on behalf of politicians...

[DoubleDown]

Pretty much the only reason starvation or famines happen is because of war, corruption, idiocy, and other evil, human-inflicted causes. For example, people are starving in parts of Syria, Ethiopia, and Venezuela because of war/conflict and corrupt governments. The evil regimes or warlords in control don't allow food to get to the people who need it, even though there's plenty available if it was possible to just get it to them.

[Tyson]

Once again, seems like a problem we're already doing a pretty good job at solving, but the fact that world hunger is improving doesn't fit nicely in to some people's world views (and political rhetoric):

[Bicycle_B]

I don't see running out of food as the likely problem.  We can accelerate the tapering off of population growth and the gradual reduction of population by continuing/expanding policies (trade agreements, aid from rich countries, private charity, etc) that give women access to birth control, education and money in countries where those are in short supply.  But barring mistakes or a huge longevity advance, population will drop over time as the global economy continues to improve.

More likely is periodic crunches in non-renewable resources.  Sure, we could have some crunches in slow-to-renew resources like soil too, requiring temporary shifts back to grains instead of meat for the poor, but in general the crunches will make us sharpen our game and recycle/reuse the relevant resources more efficiently.  We're not going to all die because there are too many people.  We are likely to cause in-group problems and other species' die-off by unbalancing the ecosystem, and suffer temporarily from using most of a particular scarce resource before getting efficient, but we'll survive. Eventually we'll recycle almost all resources instead of "using" them.

IMHO climate change is worth addressing (Paris agreement and more, this blog, bike riding, etc) and anything that empowers poor women is super smart.  Also, thanks for whatever aid work it is that you do, OP.  Aid work and proper trade work each help us reduce the 20% who are hungry by getting them a fair share of the food we have (Tyort1's chart).

[human]

So what are you arguing? Don't bore me with some video you have nothing but contempt for.

I'm not really arguing any side.  Obviously I have my opinion, but I'm attempting to not give it... thinly veiled as it is.

My interest is in how we motivate society to do something noble.  As exciting as this video is, the failure is in the catch 22 (from more than just the example I gave to start the discussion) that paralyzes people into inaction.  I see this daily.  The problem is "too big to solve", so people just give up and move on to simpler, more concrete things.

I'm not trying to take a perspective, which is why I keep dancing around a definitive perspective.  But I will say there is a reason why the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is a thing... the mission is incredibly complex.

Compare what this video says to the book Ishmael.  That has a similar message of, "If we don't get our shit together we're fucked" but does it on a much more thoughtful and less igniting way.  It makes you think and reconsider your own actions, as opposed to developing feelings that scream, "Screw this!  Society does nothing but ruin the environment!  Society sucks!"

I agree with you maizeman, that as individuals paying a bit more could go a long way.  But a bit more could help schools and roads and what not in our own country.  We seem to vote away from even that, so helping others in the world seems almost like a bridge too far.  We have the capability, but do we have the desire?

I'm trying to scope this in a conceptual way of how the masses think, not how I think.  That's why I asked if there's even a point in comparing USAID to economic opportunity.  Emotionally and morally many would say yes, but obviously due to how things have played out most say no by their actions.  Do videos like this fix the problem?  If not, I ask again, what is the solution?

So out of the billions of hours of video on youtube you found one you don't like, how pointless is this? You just want to let people die because you know that's life. Good for you, there's really nothing more to intellectualize. The poor guy offers a solution and you tear it down, so let's just not do anything since we shouldn't do anything anyway.

And yet most industrialized societies put safety nets in place to avoid hunger and needless death. Who knows where humanity will be in a few centuries, maybe we'll realize this sort of suffering isn't necessary maybe we won't. Getting repetitive here but hunger can be ended, it really wouldn't be difficult.

[WildJager]

So what are you arguing? Don't bore me with some video you have nothing but contempt for.

I'm not really arguing any side.  Obviously I have my opinion, but I'm attempting to not give it... thinly veiled as it is.

My interest is in how we motivate society to do something noble.  As exciting as this video is, the failure is in the catch 22 (from more than just the example I gave to start the discussion) that paralyzes people into inaction.  I see this daily.  The problem is "too big to solve", so people just give up and move on to simpler, more concrete things.

I'm not trying to take a perspective, which is why I keep dancing around a definitive perspective.  But I will say there is a reason why the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is a thing... the mission is incredibly complex.

Compare what this video says to the book Ishmael.  That has a similar message of, "If we don't get our shit together we're fucked" but does it on a much more thoughtful and less igniting way.  It makes you think and reconsider your own actions, as opposed to developing feelings that scream, "Screw this!  Society does nothing but ruin the environment!  Society sucks!"

I agree with you maizeman, that as individuals paying a bit more could go a long way.  But a bit more could help schools and roads and what not in our own country.  We seem to vote away from even that, so helping others in the world seems almost like a bridge too far.  We have the capability, but do we have the desire?

I'm trying to scope this in a conceptual way of how the masses think, not how I think.  That's why I asked if there's even a point in comparing USAID to economic opportunity.  Emotionally and morally many would say yes, but obviously due to how things have played out most say no by their actions.  Do videos like this fix the problem?  If not, I ask again, what is the solution?

So out of the billions of hours of video on youtube you found one you don't like, how pointless is this? You just want to let people die because you know that's life. Good for you, there's really nothing more to intellectualize. The poor guy offers a solution and you tear it down, so let's just not do anything since we shouldn't do anything anyway.

And yet most industrialized societies put safety nets in place to avoid hunger and needless death. Who knows where humanity will be in a few centuries, maybe we'll realize this sort of suffering isn't necessary maybe we won't. Getting repetitive here but hunger can be ended, it really wouldn't be difficult.

What solution was provided? 

To not look at our screens as much?  To not be part of the system?  Those two points were advocated for in the video.

Smartphones have increased communication exponentially in the logistical field from my experience (which has made the process more efficient), but to make those smartphones it takes an economic system in place to build them. 

I don't want people to die.  As I've mentioned, I'm one of the people on the ground who are there to make the humanitarian aid system work. 

I've done a poor job making my point, obviously, so I'll try to be clear.  What good does a video like this do besides upset people?  Was there really a solution provided, or was it just a montage of complaining that others aren't doing enough to help?

[Larsg]

The solution is to evolve away from what worked in the past (expand your reach and outbreed the other guy) and toward something that's more restrained (live on less, give more to others, willingly shrink the population). We would need to fundamentally change how we think and somehow all magically agree on a new "right" way to live.  Honestly, it may take a massively disruptive event, like an alien invasion, where the evolutionary pressures shift radically. As it is, the forces that got us to this point are still the dominant influences.

Agreed. There are masses of humans that still behave much like tribal animals in a consumption culture. Read a great book on AMZN by Gad Saad not he topic called The Consumer Instinct:

https://www.amazon.com/Consuming-Instinct-Burgers-Ferraris-Pornography/dp/1616144297/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497674308&sr=8-1&keywords=gad+saad

[intellectsucks]

WildJager I don’t mean to come at you too hard, but what discussion were you hoping would be fostered by this video?  Whether or not this was the maximum amount of inanities and strawmen you could fit into an 8 ½ minute video?  Whether having background music that’s supposed to be “dramatic” means you don’t have to make a logical argument?  Whether making ridiculous statements (the third leading cause of death is MEDICAL TREATMENT?!?!?) without any citations or supporting evidence is logically sound as long as you’re denouncing “the ELITE” and “CORPORATIONS”?  The artistic merits of saying the same things as Tyler Durden in Fight Club without the benefit of style?
I’m bored at work so I’ll offer some thoughts on this complete waste of time:
The reason we currently have enough food to feed the entire planet is that our food production and distribution has been industrialized.  Prior to the industrialization of food, undernourishment and starvation were vastly more widespread.
There are vague attacks on “screens”, but he offers no solutions or alternatives.  He doesn’t even support it as a uniquely modern problem.  Were people less influenced by entertainment and distractions in previous eras?  If so, were they less likely to be manipulated by those in power?  (HINT: NO AND NO)
He states that he wanted to live in a world before computers.  What era does he have in mind and what attracts him to those eras?  The overt racism and lawfully enforced discrimination of the 50s and 60s?  The WWII era where the Axis powers were subjugating entire continents and committing widespread genocide?  The starvation and hopelessness of the great depression?
He implies that cancer rates are linked to industrialized food, drinks and the environmental impacts of the modern world, yet does not state whether cancer rates have increased.  If they have increased, are those increases caused by or correlated to food/drink/environment?  What other factors (such as longer life spans) have also led to those increases and how much of the increase is attributable to those other factors?
Finally let’s have some real talk when it comes to corporations.  Because of corporations and industrialism human suffering and death has decreased more than at any other point in history.  The poorest person in any western democracy lives a life of luxury and opportunity that was unheard of for even the richest people of the past.  Prior to industrialization, it would take multiple generations for working class people to build significant wealth.  Today, anyone can build enough wealth in their lifetime to provide for multiple generations.  Don’t believe me?  Look at almost any successful company that is in the “trades” (plumbing, carpentry, electrical, home remodeling, etc.).  The majority of those companies were started by working class people with no or limited educations.  People complain about how terrible our current “inequality” is, however have they considered historical norms?  Were people richer and more empowered during the years of political machine bosses?  Or as sharecroppers?  Or as serfs and peasants?
Yes, industrialism has impacts on the environment.  However those impacts need to be taken in context.  First, those impacts have led to improvements for almost every human on the planet.  Second, as industrial economies mature, they start to lessen and even roll back those impacts.  I only know data for the U.S., but by almost every measure, the environment is much healthier today than it was in the 60s.  This is because industrialism has created a level of comfort that allows people to contemplate larger issues such as the environment.  If you’re worried that your family will starve, you don’t much care about the toxic fumes spilling out of the factory where you work.  Putting food on the table for your children is higher up on the priorities list.  Industrialism created a society where peoples minimum needs are almost universally provided for, this allows people to think about longer term things like environmental impact.
If you haven’t watched the video yet DON’T WASTE THOSE 8 ½ MINUTES OF YOUR LIFE!!!  YOU WILL NEVER GET THEM BACK!!!

[Hargrove]

The video is silly for the reason most "I hate corporate America, man!" pronouncements are silly. There's a very complex set of reasons for why we are where we are, and the video misses them while playing to desperation and ennui.

You can't have a concrete jungle, anywhere, at all, without somehow solving the problem of "getting your food from trees."  The issue isn't that you don't direct your life "'cuz ya gotta work for the man!" It's because at base you have a food requirement, and you presumably have to do something about it. If you are very good at doing that something, inherit the fruits of someone else who was good at it, or else get very lucky, you may be able to create a surplus. The moment you can direct your life is the moment you create or save a surplus, which is vastly easier to do in America than Somalia, and vastly easier to do as a member of the middle class than the working poor. Paradoxically, one of the huge problems with any "feed the world for free" campaign is that farmers in target donation-receiving countries go out of business, which is the opposite of the desired outcome.

The unfairness in the world is based on the control over who has how much chance at creating a surplus (the lowest end of this is starvation). We already have the food and the logistics to end hunger. Hell, we agreed to GMOs and other nonsense because it would "solve" the "food problem" (we don't have a food problem, we simply don't have the will to distribute what food we have).

There is nothing more humane or more effective for managing population growth than increasing education, which typically is great for your economy as well, which is usually great for ending hunger (see previous posts concerning China). I wonder if the best thing the well-fed could do (for themselves and others) is to exercize foresight that comes much more easily when you're not starving.

[human]

Can't quote on my phone but I'll say it again I never watched your random video off youtube and I still don't know why you posted about it.

Summary of thread : hey I watched a video where I guy says he has the solution to world hunger. I don't agree, please validate my point of view. How useless is this?

Then you vaguely say die offs are natural and should happen. Just as stupid as that video.

[Bateaux]

Why in the hell are we having this conversation in 2017?  Nobody, nobody in a 2017 should be stupid enough to overpopulate themselves into starvation.   

[human]

Drought, blighted crops and war have more to do with it that over population. Are people in LA, Hong kong etc starving in huge numbers? There will be malnourishment but not large scale famjne.