The world can feed us all (1976)

From the October 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalist economists like to pretend that the world’s population cannot be fed with the resources available to it. The over-population myth is glibly trotted out to explain world-wide malnutrition whenever a Socialist points out that starvation is in fact due solely to the insane system of society which at present operates everywhere in the world—capitalism.

More of so-called over-population later, but let it be stated clearly and unequivocally now: The earth’s potential where food production is concerned is now more than adequate to satisfy the needs of all its inhabitants.

Moises Behar, chief of nutrition to the World Health Organisation in Geneva has recently made the following pertinent observation:

During the 1960s great efforts were made to improve economic development in the poor nations of the world. By speeding up economic growth, so it was argued, the poor social conditions that inevitably meant poor or inadequate nutrition for many people would be remedied. The gross national product was therefore considered the main criterion of progress.

The desired economic growth was achieved in many countries; in some instances, the targets set were exceeded. Unfortunately, most of the additional income went to those who were already affluent, without doing anything to help the poor. The same process was seen at the international level: rich nations became richer and poor nations relatively poorer.

In his article in the WHO Chronicle (1976, 30, 140), Behar takes the “Green Revolution” for his second example:

Extraordinary technological achievements enabled scientists to produce bigger and better crops of the most important cereals. Yet, once again, little thought was given to the fact that these new techniques could be applied efficiently only by farmers with adequate skills, knowledge and resources.

Thus the ‘Green Revolution’ failed to prove any significant improvement in economic capacity, availability of food or living conditions for most poor and malnourished people, even though grain production increased.

National economic growth and developments in technology are thus inadequate by themselves; they must operate within a suitable social structure, (our emphasis).

Nor is Behar impressed by international welfare organisations “which seek to alleviate malnutrition through supplementary feeding programmes. These only act as palliatives and, still worse, create a false impression that something has in fact been accomplished.” Not being a Socialist, Behar does not go on to advocate the “suitable social structure” which we do —world Socialism, production for use and not for profit only.

But to return to the mythical over-population bogey. It has become a cliche in Britain to speak of “this overcrowded island”. In fact, although the British Isles are far from being among the world’s more lightly-populated regions: “The whole population of the United Kingdom could be re-housed in the single county of Devon with a density of ten houses per acre (quite a generous piece of land for each family) and there would still be land to spare.” (J. P. Cole, Geography of World Affairs.)

It is also worth noting that if the world’s entire population were now placed in the United States the population density in that country would still be no more than that of Holland today. Remember this when the sensationalists talk of “standing room only” in fifty years time!

R. B. Gill