Talk:Famine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famine is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

I would propose the following structure:

  • Definition of Famine
  • Famine in contemporary societies
    • Hotspots of Famine
    • Causes of Famine
    • Responses to Famine
  • Historical famine, by region
  • Links to infamous famines or famine-related topics
  • Links to external resources on current and historical famine

--Ilya 11:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There has not been any significant famine in Bangladesh since the nation was formed, so I have removed that link. There have been at least two significant Bengal famines though, articles still to be written. Imc 19:29, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I rather like Ilya's proposal above as it allows the general case to be described before getting into the intricacies of specific historical events. BanyanTree 18:24, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Causes of famine

I disagree with the opening to this section, many famines are caused by food shortages (often due to plant disease), made worse by administrative mismanagement. I will make adjustments if there are no complaints.--nixie 02:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue that needs to be made clear is that food shortages are a necessary, but insufficient, condition for a modern famine. So the explanation, "Famines are caused by lack of food" is often misleading. - BanyanTree 05:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I feel that you should include some solutions to the problems of the shortage of food, such as technology etc. and also not to forget that some of them are not really that effective after all, such as technology again. Does it really help to alleviate the situation of famine? Or does it really do more harm than good?

~~darthchiam~~

[edit] POV

I find it very POVd that the author chose to point out that according to a proeminent economist, no famine has ever occured in a democracy. Its POVd because its intended to make people believe that because of democracy there will be no famine, and that other regimes are more prone to the appereance of famine. This is absurd.

Famine is caused either by low production/high consumption of food or poor administration of these resources; a democratic governmetn is by no means an assurance that food resources will be well distributed. One such example comes right below, when the author comments on the Irish Potato famine, being a classic example of famine in the first world.

Later on, as examples of famine are given in the world, a noted example is those of sub-saarian Africa. Its a well know fact that people in that area suffer a great deal with very little food or drinkable water, diseases, high mortality rates and such. First world countries, however, not until recently ago, did very little to help such countires, even with surplus food that could not be stocked. Why is that? Hunger is not contagious. Grasshoppers, on the other hand, cen travel from Africa to Europe, thus destroying crops and plantations, and thus deserve attention by the 1st world europeans in an attempt to exterminate them. 200.244.240.42 15:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Last comment by meLtDoc 15:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I made a similar comment above a few months back, but it appears to be worth raising here. The Irish Potato Famine actually reinforces the democratic argument as the UK government (as a whole) was not beholden to the Irish electorate. Read Irish Potato Famine and look at how marginalized the Irish were politically, socially and economically. The democratic argument is basically that politicans who get their power from the popular will of the people won't let those people starve to death because it affects their jobs. They will cut back spending, take out international loans, appeal for charity, etc in order to please the voters. If the government is not beholden to the affected population, either because it is a monarchy, dictatorship, etc or the affected population is a disaffected minority, then chances are pretty good that a lot of people are going to die.
Causation is obviously hard to prove in situations this complicated, but studies have established a strong correlation between high levels of participatory democracy and low occurrence of famine. Looking at the history of famines compared to the spread of democracy, a causative link seems pretty well established. Even in the current crisis in Niger, the government has repeatedly attempted to silence local journalists and ignored demonstrations demanding immediate government action.
Also, please note that as this is a wiki, there is not one "author" as you seem to suggest. The collaborative efforts of numerous people have resulted in the article as it appears now. - BanyanTree 15:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

My point was exactly that; that a democraticly elected gov isnt necessarily a govt that will look for its people, thus a democracy is not necessarily a govt that will have no famine, as its implied on the text. Another example of "implicities" that occur on your comment is that If the government is not beholden to the affected population, either because it is a monarchy, dictatorship(...); With it you imply that a monarchy is a system that is not mindful of the people it governs; and extrapolating, that all govt types that are not democracies are necessarily "bad". You also mention studies that have estabilished links of democracy and lack of famine. Please indicate references, and specify which studies did this or that; Can we tell if a democratic nation has no famine because its democratic, or because of the technological advances, better farming techniques, better use of soil, better tools, soil care, use of plague and insects killers and such? And about my mention of "the author", Im well aware of the wiki spirit; but as it is often the case, the major part of a single article is written by one single person or a finite group of persons (hence the singular term), when then the numerous wikipedians collaborate with their bits of information over the "core" of the article. ~~LtDoc~~

You appear to define democracy as any government is elected, while I am drawing a distinction between the people who elect the government and people excluded from the process. Democracies certainly do any number of horrible things to people under their control, e.g. US against black slaves, British against Kenyan rebels, Australia against Aborigines, but all of these people were/are excluded from the political process. For the U.S., the slave descendants of Africans were not "its people" except in the possessive sense; the slaves were of the U.S. but the U.S. was not of the slaves, if you get what I'm saying. Politicians don't respond to those they control, they respond to those who control them. The Irish potato famine and the great Bengali famine of the 1940s both happened when the affected population did not have effective democratic representation, though under a democracy. The extent of democratic participation is vital in mitigating a natural food crisis.
The lead thinker on this is the economist Amartya Sen, who did the initial statistical analysis drawing a correlation. See this NY Times article for the proposition and some critiques. One of the main sources is in the article reference section, though any websearch of "democracy famine" will turn up reams of pages referencing and critiquing his work. People point out, working within the framework Sen has described, Bihar almost had a famine in the 1960s and some parts of India sometimes seem to be on the point of famine now, but "almost had" is not "had" and the basic argument "No democracy has had a famine" still holds. Looking at the modern famines described in the article for the past century, there are none that would be considered functioning democracies with reasonably free press.
The actual statistical work is available in the referenced work (and I assume on the net) and there have been any number of studies examining spin-off conclusions - "good governance" indicators on HIV infection rates, etc - and I've never seen one that contradicted the basic proposition. His economic studies of how income inequality interacts with famine is also useful reading.
Your question about whether the economic growth associated with democracy is primarily responsible for the decline in famine occurrence, rather than the political system itself is a good one and been asked before. If you look at countries with nearly identical per capita GDP, the primary factor indicating vulnerability to famine is political freedom.
I consider your rephrasing of my "not beholden" to "not mindful", and then to "bad", to be a red herring tangential to the actual discussion about article content and won't respond to it beyond this. - BanyanTree 20:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

So we both agree that democracy per se is not a guarantee that people under it will not face famine. Perhaps a better frasing the the article´s first part should make us both content.

As for the reason on why famine is not present in countries with political freedom, the fact that no study ever contraindicated the preposition that "no famine when in (representative) democracy" isnt necessarily impling that because of democracy theres no famine. Theres a big "selection bias" in this study, because in representative democracies the press has usually more space, there are better economic indicators, there are bigger personal freedoms and so on. To better exemplify my point, is like saying "no country which has won the World Cup at least three times has had vulcanic activity in the past."; even if the affirmative is true, one cannot hold that vulcanic activity has not occured because the country won 3 world cups. Did I make myself clear?

I ask that because (as you might see on my user page) Im not a native speaker of english, and every now and then might find myself in trouble trying to express some concept or idea. For the very same reason, I dont quite get what is a "red herring tangential to the actual discussion", and thus cannot comment on that. LtDoc 22:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • The issue isn't a specific form of government: it is the relation of a government to the people. The fact that some constituency is enfranchised is obviously irrelevant if the victims of the famin are not.
  • Siege conditions in wartime can create famine regardless of the nature of government.
  • That said, it is hardly a novel view to say that democracies don't have famines. It probably should not be said in the narrative voice of the article, but we should find one of the many scholars and political thinkers who claims this, and cite them as saying so. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] discussion about merging content in

There is a discussion at Talk:Food security about merging at least some of the content of famine scales into this article. Please offer your thoughts there. - BanyanTree 13:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Famine in India

I removed the phrase about cannibalism. To reinstate, if anyone can point to the actual reference, it would be appreciated. I have found many websites saying the same thing (exactly same phrase), so it seems to have originated from one source, but could not find a valid reference to the actual 'records'.

Most colonialists thrived on stories of imagined cannibalism to justify their conquests. See Conquest of Spain, Columbus in America. --Pranathi 19:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Also removed (in your generally excellent edit) was all mention of two specific famines formerly mentioned in the article:

Why were these removed? And if this article is not the best place to handle them, can you suggest somewhere better? I would say that any famine of significant proportions merits mention somewhere in Wikipedia, and that all known famines in India should be listed together in some place. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:22, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I thought the Ahmedabad famine was localized and realtively minor. One-third of the population perished in the 1770 one, one of the first in Bengal. That one should stay, but didn't know where to place it in the parah-type description. I haven't been able to get a listing of famines (or major famines) and maybe if there is such a listing it should go into a seperate article on Famine in India? --Pranathi 15:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

A separate article Famine in India would be good. I'll start it. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:55, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irish Potato Famine

In contrast, the Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849) was in no small part the result of policies of the Whig government of the United Kingdom under Lord Russell. Unlike a government facing revolt at home, the London-based government stood by its commitment to laissez-faire economics, even in the face of massive starvation in Ireland. How are protectionist import tariffs to be seen as laissez-faire eocnomics? Intangible 20:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Those import tariffs being the Corn Laws prior to Russells occupation. Intangible 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about when you say infertility arose as a result of the famine and contributed to population decrease. By how much did fertility drop after the famine? How long did the fertility rates remain at their reduced rates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.42.208.224 (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 16th century

Famine had been relatively rare during the sixteenth century. The economy and population had grown steadily as subsistence populations tend to when there is an extended period of relative peace (most of the time). How on earth can the 16th century be described as a period of relative peace? Please read Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, Philip II of Spain, Italian Wars, Peasants' War, Counter-Reformation, Anglo-Spanish War (1585), French Wars of Religion, Eighty Years' War, ... Were the major powers ever at peace during this century? Piet 12:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Leap Forward Famine

This article needs the attention of somebody familiar with Chinese history. The communal dining halls, as per my understanding, played only a small role in the Great Leap's failure and there was poor weather according to almost all Sinologists except Jasper Becker (Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, who also claim that there was no poor weather, cite Becker as well). See Three Years of Natural Disasters for more on the poor weather. Also, the agricultural policies were not reversed in 1978, they were reversed in 1960 - 1961. --219.77.177.93 16:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Phillippines

There's a famine right now over there, why not list that one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.154.161.38 (talk • contribs) 17 September 2006.

-Are there any sources for this? Béka 17:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The Great Famine of 1315-1317

"The Great Famine of 1315-1317 (or to 1322) was the first crisis that would strike Europe in the 14th century, millions in northern Europe would die over an extended number of years..."

Does anyone else find this sentance poor? The subject is famine not politics of Europe in the 14th century and it says that the famine killed people over a 'number of years'. If it is 1315-1317 then the number is 3 but whenever the famine ended the second half of the sentance sounds wrong to me.

Further on it says "Nonetheless, they [peasants] generally tried to work as little as possible, valuing their time to do other things, such as hunting, fishing or relaxing, as long as they had enough food to feed their families". Surely this is a statement of the obvious.

"Farmers, people who rented land in order to make a profit off of the product of the land, employing wage labour, became increasingly common, particularly in western Europe" This implies that a farmer is someone who rents land in order to make a profit. It might just be bad punctuation but surely farmers are people who farm land, the work does not mean that the land is rented.

"They produced guaranteed surpluses of their crop every year if they could" guaranteed or not?

ETC.. Basically I dispute that this article maintains the high standards required by "Wikipedia CD Selection Famine is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL images."

Mtpaley 23:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed material

The following was removed by Merzbow as uncited POV material (after the statement about Bihar). It is true that it has no explicit citation. The same can be said of most of the article. As for POV, though, the only parts of this that strike me as POV are the few that I have bolded. What else here is in POV?:

It is the closest independent India came to a famine. The increase in food to the population is also reflected in the fact that in the 50 years of British rule (1891 to 1941) the population grew by 35% (from 287 million to 389 million) whereas in the 50 years of democratic rule from 1951 to 2001 the population grew by 183% (from 363 million to 1,023 million). The fact that there have been no famines even with a population that has almost tripled makes it an even more impressive achievement for the democratic government.

- Jmabel | Talk 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is stating that an 'increase in food' is responsible for the higher growth rate of Indian population after British rule. I would submit there could be many other factors just as important, such as medical technology. That claim needs a cite. - Merzbow 01:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Would you have any problem with:

It is the closest independent India came to a famine, despite having a far larger and far more rapidly growing population to feed than in the years of colonial rule. In 50 years of British rule (1891 to 1941) the population grew by 35% (from 287 million to 389 million) whereas in 50 years of democratic rule from 1951 to 2001 the population nearly tripled, growing by 183% (from 363 million to 1,023 million).

- Jmabel | Talk 21:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence is the problem - it is not stating facts, it is analyzing and judging facts. That analysis needs to be sourced to somebody qualified to make such an analysis. - Merzbow 01:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
For now, I would just include the facts in the last sentence in the article (although it would be nice if they were sourced also) and readers can draw their own conclusions. If we then find a historian who wants to analyze the facts in more detail, it can be added later. - Merzbow 05:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Noting that most famines occur under dictatorship, colonial rule or during war, Amartya Sen has posited that no functioning democracy has suffered a famine in modern times." Althought I do not know the rest of the work of this author, I don´t think this position is apropriate to be in a encyclopedia, since it is senseless. In many third-world countries misery colives with democracy. Famine situations still occur in Brazil´s northeast. One of the worst famines of Brazilian history happened in 1915, 26 years after the end of Monarchy.

Please note the tiny little world: functioning democracy. "No monarchy" does not always mean this. Many third world countries are officially democracies, but in reality not functioning ones. And was there really a famine in Brazil 1915? Do you have any sources for this? I have heard of a famine in 1877/78, and of course there was and still is chronic hunger in the nordeste. Amartya Sen admits that the chronic hunger of poor people can exist even in a functioning democracy. Béka 18:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethiopian Famine

Correct me if I am wrong but there is still a famine in Ethopia, this page refers to it in the past tense and like it has been resolved. 212.42.190.101 15:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the chronic problems of Ethiopia – that caused the famine – have largely not been resolved since the last great "famine"; even in "good" years, many people depend on food aid because they are poor. But the contemporary hunger problem in Ethiopia is rather seen as chronic poverty than as a real "famine". Béka 20:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perspective needed

this article badly needs worldwide perspective of PRESENT conditions cumulatively over all regions. and comparison with historical conditions worldwide. it reads like a one dimensional high school paper country by country but gives the reader very little on the big picture. also much more is needed on the associative factors such as of growth stunting of children, etc. the article reads like katie couric reads the evening news: disaster all around and the reader keeps smiling. most readers of the present article will have no idea how widespread present famines are and the number of people affected. Anlace 03:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Borgen project

This edit removed the views of the Borgen Project, and also removed the Borgen Project from the external links, describing it as "POV". Obviously, on controversial matters, the views of any advocacy group represent that group's POV, but our NPOV standard does not mean that we don't report them: instead, we should be searching for other views, and all views should be attributed. The Borgen Project is by no means unique in considering famine a solvable problem (Food First, among others, certainly shares this opinion), so this was by no means a marginal view. I think this should be reverted, possibly reworded, and that various other views on whether famine is or is not currently solvable worldwide should be added. - Jmabel | Talk 17:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Resumen: Famine is a situation that occurs when a country or geopraphi zone does not have sufficientfoods and recourses to provide foods to o the population, being elevated the rate of mortality due to the hunger and to the undernourishments.

[edit] Material more relevant to Famine than Overpopulation

A 2003 article from the FAO website says, "According to the report, several countries in Central and West Africa have seen their numbers of hungry people rise due to conflict." [1] According to the BBC, during the late 20th century, Zimbabwe had been growing enough food to feed itself, and was known as "the breadbasket of southern Africa." However, in the early 21st century, President Robert Mugabe seized the farmland from the farmers, and kicked the farmers out of the country. This created a famine. [2] North Korea also had a worsening food situation in the early 21st century, and this has been blamed on the country's bad economic policies. [3] Mexico's worsening food situation has been blamed on the U.S. government, which purchases large quantities of corn to make ethanol. This drives up the price of corn, which is the main food staple in Mexico. [4]

The above text I personally find to be misleading, but i dont like to delete sourced material, so Ive moved it to this article's talk page for consideration here. Sekolov 18:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, I came across this article [5] last December, showing that mixed prairie grasses were better than corn for biofuel. Brian Pearson 02:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] aluminum-tolerance gene in sorghum

"This research also has environmental implications for badly needed increases in food production on marginal soils in developing countries," said Kochian. "For example, if we can increase food production on existing lands, it could limit encroachment into other areas for agriculture." [6] Brian Pearson 02:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murky, uncited paragraph in article

Kerry Britton, PhD, of the US Forest Service, in a recent phone interview, said that there is belief that China has less kudzu than America because of this famine. Kudzu originated in China and would seem to, but doesn't cover more ground there as a super plant than in other countries with only around 130 years of habitat in the US. It may be that kudzu is a survival food during famine. If that is the case, people who did survive may have survived with the help of kudzu.

  • "in a recent phone interview" is no citation to speak of
  • "recent" as of when?
  • "said that there is belief": by whom? Is he/she even endorsing that believe
  • "would seem to, but doesn't cover more ground there as a super plant than in other countries with only around 130 years of habitat in the US" makes little sense

And ultimately this says almost nothing of encyclopedic significance.

I suggest deleting the paragraph, unless someone who knows more about this can turn it into something rather different. - Jmabel | Talk 23:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Widely believed"

From the article: "…the tens of millions of pounds raised by Band Aid and Live Aid are widely believed to have saved the lives of…"

"…are widely believed…" is a pretty far short of a citation. - Jmabel | Talk 23:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] need a seperate article on world food crises 2008

The 2008 food shortage is now widespread and we still dont have a wiki article. manchurian candidate 04:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See 2007-2008 world food price crisis. - BanyanTree 05:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)