starving children in Africa
My wife was recently reading "inTouch" or something and came across an article about a celebrity's effort to help starving children in Africa. She felt so guilty when she got home that she almost did not want to eat herself. The article had pictures of malnourished children and a memorable quote from a woman who noted that if she tied a cord around her waist she could go up to two days without eating, which was helpful to thrwart her hunger.
I think it is interesting how guilt campaigns like that one can so effectively focus on a problem with disputable relative size. A passage from Daniel Quinn in "Ishmael" comes to mind. He talks about the populations of developing countries that are expanding faster than the population in America (the population of America would be decreasing were it not for immigration). Yet, people need food and water to live and to reproduce. Studies have shown that without adequate food supply most mammalian populations will have very low birth rate. The logical paradox naturally follows: if Africa seems to be full of starving people, then how does their population continue to balloon?
The reality lies in the fact that most African people probably do have food (undoubtably some are starving, just as some are also starving in Brooklyn and Los Angeles), but the nutritional value of that food is probably poor. Most developing countries subsist on carbs which subsequently can lead to a variety of health problems, however people seem to still be able to reproduce under these conditions.
However, I think that the reason the "starving children in Africa" campaign has been so effective for so long in America stems from our implicit guilt regarding the abundance of food we enjoy on a daily basis. Indeed, obesity, diabetes, and coronary aretry disease - all sequelae of overindulgence in food, probably account for a greater fraction of American deaths than does starvation in Africa (or any other nationality of) people.
I remember one period of several weeks when living with my grandparents while my parents were away. Their "great depression" ideology concerning food came out, with them urging us to "clean our plate" and then take seconds. Everything still edible was saved and recycled in the form of leftovers, until dishes hardly recognizable were appearing weeks later on our plates. Quantity was all-important, with quality a luxurious second.
Perhaps it is our ancestor's tribulations that trigger our own guilt, like how every week I buy a quart of skim milk just in case my wife wants to drink it. Most of the time it gets tossed without being touched, which I know is horrible, but then I get the milk again anyway. Then again, I still catch myself wiping the inside of egg shells with my forefinger after cracking them - a habit learned from my mother, who learned it from her mother. "Waste not, want not!"
I think it is interesting how guilt campaigns like that one can so effectively focus on a problem with disputable relative size. A passage from Daniel Quinn in "Ishmael" comes to mind. He talks about the populations of developing countries that are expanding faster than the population in America (the population of America would be decreasing were it not for immigration). Yet, people need food and water to live and to reproduce. Studies have shown that without adequate food supply most mammalian populations will have very low birth rate. The logical paradox naturally follows: if Africa seems to be full of starving people, then how does their population continue to balloon?
The reality lies in the fact that most African people probably do have food (undoubtably some are starving, just as some are also starving in Brooklyn and Los Angeles), but the nutritional value of that food is probably poor. Most developing countries subsist on carbs which subsequently can lead to a variety of health problems, however people seem to still be able to reproduce under these conditions.
However, I think that the reason the "starving children in Africa" campaign has been so effective for so long in America stems from our implicit guilt regarding the abundance of food we enjoy on a daily basis. Indeed, obesity, diabetes, and coronary aretry disease - all sequelae of overindulgence in food, probably account for a greater fraction of American deaths than does starvation in Africa (or any other nationality of) people.
I remember one period of several weeks when living with my grandparents while my parents were away. Their "great depression" ideology concerning food came out, with them urging us to "clean our plate" and then take seconds. Everything still edible was saved and recycled in the form of leftovers, until dishes hardly recognizable were appearing weeks later on our plates. Quantity was all-important, with quality a luxurious second.
Perhaps it is our ancestor's tribulations that trigger our own guilt, like how every week I buy a quart of skim milk just in case my wife wants to drink it. Most of the time it gets tossed without being touched, which I know is horrible, but then I get the milk again anyway. Then again, I still catch myself wiping the inside of egg shells with my forefinger after cracking them - a habit learned from my mother, who learned it from her mother. "Waste not, want not!"
posted by John Kacher | 1:05 PM
|
0 comments
