The solution is for people to breed less, not to kill off large sections of the population by starvation. Mass starvation is pretty much the second-worst-case scenario, after extinction. Using it as a solution to overpopulation is like saying "good thing my buddy died of cancer; he might have died of cancer otherwise".
Besides, the earth can feed quite a few more people than it currently does. Starvation is a distribution issue.
True. The USA often has a grain surplus which they actively try to avoid because gluts makes the prices crash, which means the govt need to pay farmers more subsidy.
Originally Posted by Scrofula
The UK & EU also pays horrendous amounts in subsidies and there are often surpluses of a lot of things, so much so that people dump milk, vegetables and more back into the ground as there is not enough demand for them and no money to be made.
Overpopluated developing countries may struggle to produce enough actual food for their populations, but they are often rich in natural resources amongst other things. But are stuck in poverty due to politics and corruption.
So... governments pay to grow certain crops. Crops become overabundant, are then disposed of to prevent loss of crop value. Government basically bins it's money for the benefit of farmers, is that right?
Originally Posted by jon cowie
To a certain degree this is merited for, or can be put down to, maintaining production capacity for strategic security reasons.
Originally Posted by hatmanii
But mostly, "yes" for tactical political reasons.
Originally Posted by veryhrm