January 18, 2006

PITY POOR MALTHUS:

People die of famine in nation that exports food : Kenya's grain silos are full, but Britain is sending £13 aid to help it to deal with devastating drought (Xan Rice, 1/18/06, Times of London)

The Government has requested $150 million (£85 million) in emergency aid to help to feed 3.5 million people. Visiting Wajir yesterday, Hilary Benn, the British Secretary of State for International Development, pledged an additional £3 million, bringing Britain’s total contribution to £12.7 million. He said: “There is a fine line between a per ennial difficulty that these people face and a tipping point. We have now reached that tipping point.”

But while the drought is one of the most severe in years, questions are being asked — even at the highest levels of the United Nations — about why a country like Kenya continues to need emergency food aid.

Although less than a fifth of its land is arable, Kenya is a food exporter. Grain silos are still full from last year’s harvest. Despite the drought, the Government forecasts a surplus of 62,500 metric tonnes of maize next year.

Kenya’s media accuse the Government of failing to avert a crisis everyone saw coming. During the second half of last year, while the famine was unfolding, President Kibaki’s Cabinet did not hold a single meeting.

Ministers spent most of their time campaigning in a referendum on whether to adopt a new constitution. There were food handouts, but in many cases these were forms of patronage before the vote rather than targeted relief.

“It seems that politics have been a large distraction to the Government’s handling of the crisis,” one Western ambassador said. “And the northeast is not worth much in terms of votes.”

The Government was shocked into action after President Kibaki visited the worst-affected areas, but the response has been haphazard. The World Food Programme did not have enough funds to distribute food to all affected areas, so the Government sent in the military. In some regions food delivered by the army has simply been thrown off trucks, according to Oxfam, which yesterday described the distribution as fractured, inefficient and wasteful.


Do anyone but Environmentalists and Darwinists still not recognize that the only survival pressures on Man are a function of intelligent design?

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 18, 2006 12:00 AM
Comments

IIRC, Ireland exported wheat during the Great Famine there.

Posted by: Mike Earl at January 18, 2006 1:13 PM

The British exported it.

Posted by: jdkelly at January 18, 2006 2:08 PM

Orrin,

"Do anyone but Environmentalists and Darwinists still not recognize that the only survival pressures on Man are a function of intelligent design?"

Could you explain why you think the consequences of actions by intelligent beings (whether intended or not) say something of significance either for or against Creation or the theory of evolution?

Posted by: creeper at January 18, 2006 3:02 PM

creeper:

Sure, because Darwin's theory is based on Adam Smith, which is intelligence dependent, Malthus, which is false, and animal breeding, which is intelligent design. Dawinism is the wish that Nature worked like Intelligence does, without the intelligence.

Posted by: oj at January 18, 2006 3:21 PM

Darwin's theory is also based on observations in nature.

Posted by: creeper at January 18, 2006 3:32 PM

Observations of nature, not observations of Darwinism in nature. The difference is fatal.

Posted by: oj at January 18, 2006 3:38 PM

Do you think evolution should be observable in real time?

Posted by: creeper at January 18, 2006 3:49 PM

Evolution is. Darwinism isn't.

Posted by: oj at January 18, 2006 3:51 PM

1. How is evolution observable in real time?

2. Do you think natural selection should be observable in real time?

Posted by: creeper at January 18, 2006 3:54 PM

Yes, if Natural Selection and only Natural Selection could produce speciation and large scale morphological change it would be observed by now.

Posted by: oj at January 18, 2006 3:59 PM

It seems to me that both evolution and natural selection are too slow to be observable in real time, but perhaps I've missed an exception that you can point out.

Posted by: creeper at January 18, 2006 4:02 PM

We observe evolution constantly, as in the breeding of animals that Darwin observed.

Recall that evolution is a truism. It is just the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.

Posted by: oj at January 18, 2006 4:14 PM

Round and round and round we go...

Just read a pretty good article on the topic by Orson Scott Card:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html

Posted by: b at January 18, 2006 5:32 PM

1. Do you think evolution in nature should be observable in real time?

2. "Recall that evolution is a truism. It is just the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time."

Yes, that is what is referred to as the "fact of evolution", and I think most of us (excluding the Young Earth Creationists) can agree on that much. The theory of evolution is that which is also described as the modern synthesis.

Posted by: creeper at January 19, 2006 3:07 AM

Of course, if it were true we'd observe it many times over. That's why Darwinists were so susceptible to the Peppered Moth hoax and propound silly addendums like this is a Darwinian pause or evolution is over.

Young Earth Creationists agree as well. Genesis is an evolutionary text.

The theory is what no one much believes, because it's failed.

Posted by: oj at January 19, 2006 7:36 AM

"Young Earth Creationists agree as well. Genesis is an evolutionary text."

Genesis may metaphorically refer to evolution, but Young Earth Creationists are prone to taking it literally, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't agree with your statement:

It is just the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
Posted by: creeper at January 19, 2006 10:46 AM

Yes, it is literally evolutionary, as for instance when God changes dust into Man and then Man into Woman. No one would buy Darwinism if evolution weren't a central idea of our culture.

Posted by: oj at January 19, 2006 10:54 AM
« SAFE TO SAY THEY WON'T BE DISCUSSING BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN: | Main | HOW IMPORTING MEXICANS MAKES US RICH (via Rick Turley): »