You'd need cooperation from too many people and entities, even African leaders. Sometimes, people don't realize a good thing when they have it, and procede to destroy it: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/09/22/zimbabwe.farmers/index.html From the article: "Why do they want to remove me when I've complied with everything they want? What more do they want other than for me to pack my bags and leave and if that's the case, then admit that that is the policy. Pass a law: no whites are allowed to farm. Then it makes it clear," Lock said. Since 2000, Mugabe's controversial land reform program has driven more than 4,000 commercial farmers off their land, destroying Zimbabwe's once prosperous agricultural sector.
War of course. But I think the level of civilization we have achieved would put a much higher threshold for human to resort to war to solve the overpopulous problem. For instance, China rather resorted to internal policy, albeit an egregious abdication of human rights that runs counter to civilization, than to expansion into other's land. Also the vast advance of medical technology has put a strong check on endemics and thus prolonged human's life. So I am not sure Malthus's principle of population would still apply today. Or maybe the Malthusist would argue that we don't have a overpopulation problem right now or in near future.
Figure out how to better control the elements, and start making use of upper Canada, Antarctica, Inner Greenland and the Sahara. Let the Scientologists and Libertarians colonize and build casinos, whorehouses, coke and pot plantations and movie studios as far as the eye can see.
Ofcourse it would take a ridiculous amount of co-operation. Unseen co-operation. But this is the most important issue in the world. I'LL probably get flamed for this but this is more important than women's rights, oil, financial crisis, economic collapse of industrialized nations, presidency of the United States, advancement of technology, etc.. It is the single most important thing in the world. It will require the most effort. But in capitalism, if there is no money to be made, then it won't be done. There is no money to be made here. There is money to be made out of starving people. The WTO has taken the capitalist approach to starvation/poverty/etc. This is a reason to invade a country, to start a war. Not for the Iraqi people who are no better off today IMO than they were under Saddam. If there's a reason to have war, it is to fight those who would get in the way of feeding starving human beings. This is the world's biggest problem. It didn't start two years ago like the financial crisis. It has existed for a very long-time. It is our responsibility and duty to fix this problem as a priority. It is not going to be extremely difficult and there will be no monetary reward. It's just that simple. If someone gets in the way, remove them from power and stabilize the country. Not to propel your own political agenda, but to allow humans to help each other and not be disconnected. Once we accept that there is no cash reward or prize from doing this, it will become easier. We just have to. Nothing on earth is more imoprtant than people dying from a lack of food. No one on earth can tell us with a straight face that it's not a huge deal when ONE IN SIX PEOPLE ARE STARVING TO DEATH AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT.
It's perverse that the regions most affected by poverty and starvation is also the areas experiencing the most population growth. Promoting womens' rights and education would go a long way to reducing the mess. That seems like a realistic first step. If the crisis is based solely upon population, the charts in the first page would seem to defeat Malthus' principle. It largely assumes that in 50-80 years, the developing world industrializes and has an educated working class that forgoes having children at a young age to pursue their personal careers. The world has a consumption problem. The US uses roughly 25% of the world's energy. China can not match our pace. Should every Chinese citizen reach a standard of living comparable to Japan or Taiwan, it would take another 3 earths. As developing BRIC nations get richer, they'll look for cars, air conditioning, and bigger diets richer in protein. For the last part, it means more intensive farming for livestock and fishing in our oceans. The land it takes to meet that market comes at the expense of more productive grains and vegetables, yet who's to say they can't enjoy the same pleasures as we have for decades? Overpopulation magnifies this on an account of scale and habitability. Old tech and infrastructure can't meet the needs of giving everyone the quality of industrialized living. But we can start through conservation and reducing waste. It boggles my mind when I see half eaten food left at restaurants. Maybe it would've been taken home if the customer had earned half as much money. Simple stuff like not wasting water or turning off lights in rooms no one is in would go a long way. It's a shame that our individualistic society ignores the collective impact of our own actions, and that we look upon the vices of others to deflect blame for our own shortcomings.
"Let Them Eat Dog" By JONATHAN SAFRAN FOER http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574499880131341174.html Despite the fact that it's perfectly legal in 44 states, eating "man's best friend" is as taboo as a man eating his best friend. Even the most enthusiastic carnivores won't eat dogs. TV guy and sometimes cooker Gordon Ramsay can get pretty macho with lambs and piglets when doing publicity for something he's selling, but you'll never see a puppy peeking out of one of his pots. And though he once said he'd electrocute his children if they became vegetarian, one can't help but wonder what his response would be if they poached the family pooch. Dogs are wonderful, and in many ways unique. But they are remarkably unremarkable in their intellectual and experiential capacities. Pigs are every bit as intelligent and feeling, by any sensible definition of the words. They can't hop into the back of a Volvo, but they can fetch, run and play, be mischievous and reciprocate affection. So why don't they get to curl up by the fire? Why can't they at least be spared being tossed on the fire? Our taboo against dog eating says something about dogs and a great deal about us. The French, who love their dogs, sometimes eat their horses. The Spanish, who love their horses, sometimes eat their cows. The Indians, who love their cows, sometimes eat their dogs. While written in a much different context, George Orwell's words (from "Animal Farm") apply here: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." So who's right? What might be the reasons to exclude canine from the menu? The selective carnivore suggests: Don't eat companion animals. But dogs aren't kept as companions in all of the places they are eaten. And what about our petless neighbors? Would we have any right to object if they had dog for dinner? OK, then: Don't eat animals with significant mental capacities. If by "significant mental capacities" we mean what a dog has, then good for the dog. But such a definition would also include the pig, cow and chicken. And it would exclude severely impaired humans. Then: It's for good reason that the eternal taboos—don't fiddle with your crap, kiss your sister, or eat your companions—are taboo. Evolutionarily speaking, those things are bad for us. But dog eating isn't a taboo in many places, and it isn't in any way bad for us. Properly cooked, dog meat poses no greater health risks than any other meat. Dog meat has been described as "gamey" "complex," "buttery" and "floral." And there is a proud pedigree of eating it. Fourth-century tombs contain depictions of dogs being slaughtered along with other food animals. It was a fundamental enough habit to have informed language itself: the Sino-Korean character for "fair and proper" (yeon) literally translates into "as cooked dog meat is delicious." Hippocrates praised dog meat as a source of strength. Dakota Indians enjoyed dog liver, and not so long ago Hawaiians ate dog brains and blood. Captain Cook ate dog. Roald Amundsen famously ate his sled dogs. (Granted, he was really hungry.) And dogs are still eaten to overcome bad luck in the Philippines; as medicine in China and Korea; to enhance libido in Nigeria and in numerous places, on every continent, because they taste good. For centuries, the Chinese have raised special breeds of dogs, like the black-tongued chow, for chow, and many European countries still have laws on the books regarding postmortem examination of dogs intended for human consumption. Of course, something having been done just about everywhere is no kind of justification for doing it now. But unlike all farmed meat, which requires the creation and maintenance of animals, dogs are practically begging to be eaten. Three to four million dogs and cats are euthanized annually. The simple disposal of these euthanized dogs is an enormous ecological and economic problem. But eating those strays, those runaways, those not-quite-cute-enough-to-take and not-quite-well-behaved-enough-to-keep dogs would be killing a flock of birds with one stone and eating it, too. In a sense it's what we're doing already. Rendering—the conversion of animal protein unfit for human consumption into food for livestock and pets—allows processing plants to transform useless dead dogs into productive members of the food chain. In America, millions of dogs and cats euthanized in animal shelters every year become the food for our food. So let's just eliminate this inefficient and bizarre middle step. This need not challenge our civility. We won't make them suffer any more than necessary. While it's widely believed that adrenaline makes dog meat taste better—hence the traditional methods of slaughter: hanging, boiling alive, beating to death—we can all agree that if we're going to eat them, we should kill them quickly and painlessly, right? For example, the traditional Hawaiian means of holding the dog's nose shut—in order to conserve blood—must be regarded (socially if not legally) as a no-no. Perhaps we could include dogs under the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. That doesn't say anything about how they're treated during their lives, and isn't subject to any meaningful oversight or enforcement, but surely we can rely on the industry to "self-regulate," as we do with other eaten animals. Few people sufficiently appreciate the colossal task of feeding a world of billions of omnivores who demand meat with their potatoes. The inefficient use of dogs—conveniently already in areas of high human population (take note, local-food advocates)—should make any good ecologist blush. One could argue that various "humane" groups are the worst hypocrites, spending enormous amounts of money and energy in a futile attempt to reduce the number of unwanted dogs while at the very same time propagating the irresponsible no-dog-for-dinner taboo. If we let dogs be dogs, and breed without interference, we would create a sustainable, local meat supply with low energy inputs that would put even the most efficient grass-based farming to shame. For the ecologically-minded it's time to admit that dog is realistic food for realistic environmentalists. For those already convinced, here's a classic Filipino recipe I recently came across. I haven't tried it myself, but sometimes you can read a recipe and just know. Stewed Dog, Wedding Style First, kill a medium-sized dog, then burn off the fur over a hot fire. Carefully remove the skin while still warm and set aside for later (may be used in other recipes). Cut meat into 1" cubes. Marinate meat in mixture of vinegar, peppercorn, salt, and garlic for 2 hours. Fry meat in oil using a large wok over an open fire, then add onions and chopped pineapple and sauté until tender. Pour in tomato sauce and boiling water, add green pepper, bay leaf, and Tabasco. Cover and simmer over warm coals until meat is tender. Blend in purée of dog's liver and cook for additional 5–7 minutes. There is an overabundance of rational reasons to say no to factory-farmed meat: It is the No. 1 cause of global warming, it systematically forces tens of billions of animals to suffer in ways that would be illegal if they were dogs, it is a decisive factor in the development of swine and avian flus, and so on. And yet even most people who know these things still aren't inspired to order something else on the menu. Why? Food is not rational. Food is culture, habit, craving and identity. Responding to factory farming calls for a capacity to care that dwells beyond information. We know what we see on undercover videos of factory farms and slaughterhouses is wrong. (There are those who will defend a system that allows for occasional animal cruelty, but no one defends the cruelty, itself.) And despite it being entirely reasonable, the case for eating dogs is likely repulsive to just about every reader of this paper. The instinct comes before our reason, and is more important.
