Final Solutionese

For those of you who don't know, the Final Solution was Hitler's name for extermination of Jews and others he considered undesirables. A short time ago, I posted here about eugenics, the pseudo-science [eugenic theories that attributed costly physical conditions and socially deleterious behaviors to genetics, accounting for many of them as expressions of ''feeble-mindedness''] of not so long ago that espoused eliminating people who didn't lend themselves to prosperity by being dependent in one way or another. Its apotheosis was the Final Solution.

This morning to my dismay I saw some of that attitude displayed by a WaPo comment (which I will include below), in editorial comments where usually I find good knowledge and attitude. In view of the present growth in world hunger, population control does seem like a part of a solution, except for the aspect of just concluding that fewer mouths to feed would be just peachy.

Maybe its only my personal sensitivity to naziism from the right wing that makes me react in horror to some one envisioning doing away with all those hungry mouths as the solution to hunger. If conditions were to follow the path they did in WWII, you and I might be among the first extraneous mouths.

U.N. General Secretary Ban ki Moon has written quite a bit, and worked quite a bit, to enlighten the world about the growing hunger situation. High prices are more of a problem to the impoverished than they are to those of us who only worry about filling the gas tank. Putting food on their families is every day more problematic to working people in really poor countries.

The price of food is soaring. The threat of hunger and malnutrition is growing. Millions of the world's most vulnerable people are at risk.

An effective and urgent response is needed.

The first of the Millennium Development Goals, set by world leaders at the U.N. summit in 2000, aims to reduce the proportion of hungry people by half by 2015. This was already a major challenge, not least in Africa, where many nations have fallen behind. But we are also facing a perfect storm of new challenges.

The prices of basic staples -- wheat, corn, rice -- are at record highs, up 50 percent or more in the past six months. Global food stocks are at historic lows. The causes range from rising demand in major economies such as India and China to climate- and weather-related events such as hurricanes, floods and droughts that have devastated harvests in many parts of the world. High oil prices have increased the cost of transporting food and purchasing fertilizer. Some experts say the rise of biofuels has reduced the amount of food available for humans.

The effects are widely seen. Food riots have erupted from West Africa to South Asia. In countries where food has to be imported to feed hungry populations, communities are rising to protest the high cost of living. Fragile democracies are feeling the pressure of food insecurity. Many governments have issued export bans and price controls on food, distorting markets and presenting challenges to commerce.
(snip)
....we must boost agricultural production. World Bank President Robert Zoellick has rightly noted that there is no reason Africa can't experience a "green revolution" of the sort that transformed Southeast Asia in previous decades. U.N. agencies such as the Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Fund for Agricultural Development are working with the African Union and others to do just this, introducing vital science and technologies that offer permanent solutions for hunger.

The sticker shock we experience is not critical for most of us, and for those of us who really can't afford enough to eat, there are food banks. For the poorer nations' people, actual starvation is becoming the too real effect of those price hikes.

The international aspect of hunger that we can't avoid by sniping in our newspapers is the desperation that demands solutions, in war. In Afghanistan and in Pakistan, growing populations of the starving don't take kindly to our role in their desperate condition.

....one of the most common themes in messages from Pakistan since the assassination of Benazir Bhutto has been the wheat flour (atta) shortage, which many people ascribed to the political instability in the country, though it is a global phenomenon. In response, Pakistan has stopped wheat exports to Afghanistan.

As I also reported, rising food prices in Afghanistan are creating a crisis that is so far silent but that could manifest itself in urban riots, increased recruitment to the insurgency, and increased planting of both opium poppy and cannabis to earn cash incomes to buy food at the higher prices.

(On other commodity markets: The latest UNODC assessment of Afghanistan's drug economy notes "the steady rise in cannabis cultivation, giving Afghanistan the dubious distinction of being one of the world’s biggest suppliers of cannabis" (as also reported, left, in the New York Times). With a completely deadpan delivery, the UNODC report praises cannabis growing provinces as "poppy free." Afghan governors who succeed in convincing farmers to grow cannabis, the price of which has jumped, instead of opium poppy, the price of which is falling because of Afghan over-production, are now considered to be counter-narcotics heroes. Anyone who reads this report should carefully parse where it refers to opium and poppy and where it refers to illegal narcotics. Substitution of one illegal drug for another is being sold as counter-narcotics.)

The total indifference to the sufferings of the world's poor by our White House cabal is something that we despise and which we know is a sickness. The appearance we give to the world through allowing it, though, is that of a sick and indifferent society. While here at leftie blogs we are directly involved and often personally active in the effort to feed the world's hungry, we are not what the desperate see when they look at the U.S.

Our aid to Africa, which the worst administration in history points to with pride, is pathetic when compared to need and to our ability to assist. The need grows daily, as Secretary Ban ki Moon points out. Our elections don't come soon enough for the many hungry, who can't see how they will stay alive long enough to benefit from the changes that we must ensure by our votes.


*****************************************************************
Comment at WaPo editorial "An Empty Breadbasket",

Western countries should not only "offer financial assistance upon the condition of basic reforms, such as an end to voter intimidation, to encourage party officials unhappy with Mr. Mugabe" but also ensure education about birth control, population reduction, sustainability and ecological balance to all especially the poorer zimbabweans. Mere food aid may prevent a number of people from starving in the short term BUT it will also continue to encourage rampant reproduction which untimately will result in many more people starving and not just in Africa. Besides, a good quality of life does not depend only on enough food and democracy but also on good air, water and natural, uncrowded surroundings to actually unable at least occasional enjoyment of life and not mere survival and human species existence. And for goodness sake stop implying that there is enough food and other essentials for the existing number of people and that the only problems are faulty wealth distribution, greed and selfishness. The greatest problem is over population - not just because of finite resources but also because competition for scarce resources creates rampant stress and ultimately greed and selfishness. History and normal observation (of all species - not just humans)have repeatedly shown that sustainable and sparse communities create need for co-operation and compassion for individual and community survival but dense communities create conflict, contempt for others, extreme stress, cut-throat competition etc. In sustainable populations "survival of the fittest" means survival of the healthiest, the wisest and most co-operative individuals. But once population reaches a saturation point "survival of the fittest" tips in favour of the most selfish and ruthless individuals i.e. a “steal and eat thy neighbour if need be or be eaten” frame of mind because there is just not enough - be it space, water, food, fuel - to go round for all. We may be able to improve efficiency and effectiveness of use of resources but the resources themselves are finite. Humans - just like most species - cannot live in harmony with each other if there are too many of them around.
The Bible may have said 'Go forth and multiply’ but it certainly did not say “and continue to do so uncontrollably for ever”. Even Jesus was not in the habit of advocating procreation of humans for its own sake. Neither was He an advocate for permissiveness. He himself physically punished the peddlers/hawkers at the temple; He forgave sinners and at the same time instructed them to sin no more; He preached about respect to children, elders and all but he asked his twelve apostles to follow him, preach (a form of education) worldwide etc. but not to continue procreating. Am I wrong to interpret all this as a long term message from Him for us humans to consider relevant education, conditional respect of human rights, discipline, sense of duty, self control and population control much more important than rampant procreation and whimsical food aid and other forms of charity and social services unless the long term consequences of such charity are responsibly thought out?

If you follow the link you will find mine, and Avedon's, and perhaps others that followed. While I'm appalled at the elitism that assumes those hungry mouths just ought to be eliminated, I'm sure that population control is also responsible.

I am sorry if I demonized some one who just has a lapse of real concern.