If you envision human action as a composition of capability, interest and rationality, the latter being how consistently you use capability to accomplish goals aligned with your interests, maybe it could be a fault in the rationality itself. Would you agree with that? The idea that we have the means to solve a problem and assuming the intention to do so as well, but that humans collectively do not know how to apply knowledge correctly to achieve our interests in such political problems.
How do you reconcile that with the fact that before the slave trade and colonialism, famine and malnourishment in Africa were comparatively rare? Why, despite the increase in technology and food production capability do these problems exist now when they didn’t then?
Don't peek at the answer before you've tried to solve it yourself Seriously, just google Jason Hickel first, the work's been done
It’s because the departing colonial powers stuck Africa with a bunch of debt and export-oriented modes of production, which means that food and goods that could provide a sustainable existence for Africans is being taken off the continent at fire sale prices, leaving them without the funds to adequately supplement at global prices.
I am well aware of what you are talking about. I am just trying to create a general understanding without resorting to ideology. I already assumed we had enough technological capability, and then i assumed further (even though i’m not entirely convinced) that humanity as a whole shares the interest to solve this problem. What else remains? The inability to translate those capabilities into achieving the desired goals. How else would you be able to make sense of the results without resorting to specifics of human history? I’m not saying history is not important. But if you manage to work this general model, whatever answer you get albeit general would apply to every context. We could work the specifics after that too, and they should make sense.
I am well aware of what you are talking about. I am just trying to create a general understanding without resorting to ideology.
Why are you assuming that hunger has ideologically neutral solutions?
I already assumed we had enough technological capability
We do
that humanity as a whole shares the interest to solve this problem
It most certainly does not
What else remains?
The fact that some very powerful and very rich people stay powerful and rich by keeping other, less powerful and less rich people hungry
The inability to translate those capabilities into achieving the desired goals
We have the ability. The cost of addressing global hunger is in the billions. We could do it tomorrow with the stroke of a pen. The calories are there, the funds exist.
How else would you be able to make sense of the results without resorting to specifics of human history?
I don’t understand the question. How do you make sense of the results without resorting to the specifics of human history? Everything is the way it is now because of things that happened then.
But if you manage to work this general model, whatever answer you get albeit general would apply to every context.
There isn’t a model here. There’s a very facile understanding of the problem that leaves out its major driver. Researchers have already progressed well beyond this level of thinking and have proposed solutions. The reasons the solutions are still not being implemented is obvious, and people have pointed that out as well. This whole train of thought is like walking into a dark room and trying to figure out why it’s dark without looking at the switch. “Gosh, we’ve changed the bulb, we replaced the fixture, we’ve checked all the wiring, we’ve ensured the house has power, we’ve done everything! Why won’t the light turn on?” If you insist on leaving ideology out of it you’re never going to get to the answer because ideology is the answer.
I think those two aproachs do not contradict. Yours is just very pragmatic and i respect it. But I think you didn’t understand the aspect of rationality as distinct from capability. This would be the inability to solve world hunger despite having the means to, that is just inconsistency in making good decisions. I think your analogy with the dark room even works here. You have all the tools to make the room bright and you certainly want to be able to see, but your decisions do not consistently bring about the desired result, which is an illuminated room. Edit: Well. I tried my best to explain. But looks like you are not interested in a discussion here. I grow tired of personal attacks.
If you envision human action as a composition of capability, interest and rationality, the latter being how consistently you use capability to accomplish goals aligned with your interests, maybe it could be a fault in the rationality itself. Would you agree with that? The idea that we have the means to solve a problem and assuming the intention to do so as well, but that humans collectively do not know how to apply knowledge correctly to achieve our interests in such political problems.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
How do you reconcile that with the fact that before the slave trade and colonialism, famine and malnourishment in Africa were comparatively rare? Why, despite the increase in technology and food production capability do these problems exist now when they didn’t then?
Don't peek at the answer before you've tried to solve it yourself
Seriously, just google Jason Hickel first, the work's been done
It’s because the departing colonial powers stuck Africa with a bunch of debt and export-oriented modes of production, which means that food and goods that could provide a sustainable existence for Africans is being taken off the continent at fire sale prices, leaving them without the funds to adequately supplement at global prices.
I am well aware of what you are talking about. I am just trying to create a general understanding without resorting to ideology. I already assumed we had enough technological capability, and then i assumed further (even though i’m not entirely convinced) that humanity as a whole shares the interest to solve this problem. What else remains? The inability to translate those capabilities into achieving the desired goals. How else would you be able to make sense of the results without resorting to specifics of human history? I’m not saying history is not important. But if you manage to work this general model, whatever answer you get albeit general would apply to every context. We could work the specifics after that too, and they should make sense.
Why are you assuming that hunger has ideologically neutral solutions?
We do
It most certainly does not
The fact that some very powerful and very rich people stay powerful and rich by keeping other, less powerful and less rich people hungry
We have the ability. The cost of addressing global hunger is in the billions. We could do it tomorrow with the stroke of a pen. The calories are there, the funds exist.
I don’t understand the question. How do you make sense of the results without resorting to the specifics of human history? Everything is the way it is now because of things that happened then.
There isn’t a model here. There’s a very facile understanding of the problem that leaves out its major driver. Researchers have already progressed well beyond this level of thinking and have proposed solutions. The reasons the solutions are still not being implemented is obvious, and people have pointed that out as well. This whole train of thought is like walking into a dark room and trying to figure out why it’s dark without looking at the switch. “Gosh, we’ve changed the bulb, we replaced the fixture, we’ve checked all the wiring, we’ve ensured the house has power, we’ve done everything! Why won’t the light turn on?” If you insist on leaving ideology out of it you’re never going to get to the answer because ideology is the answer.
I think those two aproachs do not contradict. Yours is just very pragmatic and i respect it. But I think you didn’t understand the aspect of rationality as distinct from capability. This would be the inability to solve world hunger despite having the means to, that is just inconsistency in making good decisions. I think your analogy with the dark room even works here. You have all the tools to make the room bright and you certainly want to be able to see, but your decisions do not consistently bring about the desired result, which is an illuminated room. Edit: Well. I tried my best to explain. But looks like you are not interested in a discussion here. I grow tired of personal attacks.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod