food crisis

12. The rich benefit from the current food crisis. To what extent is this true?

A fast-unfolding food shortage is engulfing the entire world, driving food prices to record highs. This phenomenon, known as the food crisis, can be said to be one of the most pressing problems that the world is concerned with today. The main cause of this food shortage leading to escalation of food prices is simplistically due to a decrease in supply and an increase in demand of food worldwide. With the food crisis likely to stay, perhaps we can actually examine how it can be beneficial to certain groups of people instead of labeling it as a total menace. The group that can most probably benefit from a food crisis could be the rich as they are more financially capable to handle this surge in price of food.

The rich can pointed at to be the culprits causing this food crisis, and in the end, they could be said, to a certain extent, to be the ones benefiting from this food crisis. Due to a rapid depletion of fossil fuels worldwide, richer countries such as the United States have turned to using biofuel as a cleaner source of energy. This leads to an increase in demand for corn used to produce ethanol for the source of biofuel. This increase in demand for corn directly competes with the use of these crops for food. Last year, over 20 percent of the entire corn crop was used to produce ethanol. Furthermore, the government of these countries switching to biofuel even subsidizes or gives incentives for the use of biofuel. This further increases the demand for biofuel. As a result, these richer countries are more able to achieve self-sustainability and the businessmen in these countries are most likely to benefit in terms of profits due to the huge agricultural subsidies and incentives given out by the government. Therefore, the rich does benefit from the food crisis.

Furthermore, more land for agriculture are fast being destroyed to make way for new factories as part of development projects. This will benefit the rich from their investment in these development projects but will be detrimental to the poor as the food crises worsen with the depletion of farmland that can grow crops. One good example would be in China, one of the fastest developing countries in the world. From the period of 2000 to 2005, there was an average annual loss of 2.6 million acres of farmland used for development, which resulted in a remarkable success in economic development over the past two decades. As a result of this loss in farmland, more farmers lose their jobs while the land are being used to reap economic profits, which will benefit the rich but not the poor in this case.

However, to say that the food crisis will benefit the rich will be too hasty a conclusion. The food crisis can hardly be said to be beneficial to the rich as it has caused social unrest and riots in poorer countries that are badly affected by the souring food prices. For example, protests, strikes and violence have been experienced by countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia. Also, in the month of April alone, food riots have broken out in as many as 33 countries which include Egypt, Haiti and the Cameroon. The human rights activists and the World Bank even warn of a possible implication of a global catastrophe if food riots spread. With social unrest and possibility of a global catastrophe, the rich can never benefit from a food crisis as they may find their businesses affected by the unstable social status. The loss in confidence to invest due to riots may affect profits of corporations. The profits gained by the rich might eventually be eroded due to the social cost of the implications of a possible social unrest. Therefore, people on the whole, including the rich, loses out as the world might be plunged into a state of social unrest unless a quick solution is to be implemented to minimize the impact of the food crisis.

Another reason to why the rich does not stand to benefit from a food crisis is because of the rise in price of food products. The rising affluence due to the effect of globalization has caused the growth of middle class in several countries such as China and India. As such, the increasingly prosperous people are eating more and this leads to an increase in demand for meat, which in turn increases the price of food products such as corn and soybeans, as the use of maize and soybeans to feed cattle, pigs and poultry has risen sharply to meet this demand. Therefore, the world suffers from increment in prices of food although the rich is in a better position to deal with this rise in cost of food products.

In conclusion, the food crisis does not benefit anyone at all. The term ‘crisis’ has already deemed this whole phenomenon as a state of danger and instability and therefore, how can the rich gain from this state of instability? Furthermore, the food crisis will only cause turmoil and social unrest if left unresolved. Any gains by the rich will eventually be eroded should the social unrest spread worldwide and become a catastrophe as warned by human rights activists groups. A quick and effective solution has to be implemented soon to prevent the problem from aggravating and causing undesirable periods of social unrest.

have words lost their impact in today's world?

Words have lost their impact in today's world. How far do you agree with this statement?

Definition: Words= speeches and written material
Today’s world= Modern day
Lost their impact = losing their power to influence

Reasons to why words have not lost their impact in today’s world.

1) Influential people can use mere words to influence others.
- Example: Oprah Winfrey. One of the most influential women in the world, her talk show is being followed by people all around the world. Many believe that she has the power to cause enormous market swings and radical price changes with a single comment. One famous example would be during one particular talk show about mad cow disease with a guest, when Winfrey exclaimed, "It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger!" Her comment subsequently sent cattle prices tumbling, costing beef producers some USD$12 million.
- Example: Quotes. Quotes by people in the past is still remembered and used by people today. Gandhi’s quotes on violence “An eye for an eye makes the world go blind” and “Hate the sin, love the sinner” are still being used.

2) Words can also work concurrently with images to create an impact.
- Example: Use of subtitles. For example, the use of subtitles in news reporting in Singapore is complimented by the people due to the convenience it cause as people can now read off the subtitles instead of having to catch what the news reporter is reporting.



Reasons to why words have lost their impact in today’s world.

1)
A picture says more than a thousand words. With easier excess to the internet for information, people are not easily convinced with plain words that are presented to them. The free excess to a library of information on the internet has led people to question the credibility of words said by either famous people or the news.

Example:
During the Tibetan crisis, there was a public outrage over the issue that the BBC and other western media had manipulated reports so as to portray China negatively.


2) A change in the political situation around the world has led to words losing their impact. In today’s world, countries are embracing a democratic system instead of a monarchy system. This means that there is no supreme ruler in a country but rather is based on constant elections for a party to rule the constituent. Hence, words said by politicians have lots their impact as the words said by this political party do not have a significant impact as compared to a single ruler where his words are deemed as the truth…….

3) People are more educated and standard of living has improved. No longer are they easily influenced by speeches……
Example Hitler reign. Back then, there was no television or the computer. People were more likely to be influenced by speeches. This is in contrast to the modern day as people learn better visually and thus are not easily influenced by mere speeches or texts.

SDL research on Political systems

1. Republic
A republic is a state or country that is not led by an hereditary monarch, where the people of that state or country (or at least a part of that people) have impact on its government, and that is usually indicated as a republic.

2. Democracy
In political theory, Democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. A common feature of democracy as currently understood and practiced is competitive elections. Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and some degree of rule of law. Civilian control of the military is often seen as necessary to prevent military dictatorship and interference with political affairs. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights.

3. Communism
Communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production. It is usually considered a branch of the broader socialist movement that draws on the various political and intellectual movements that trace their origins back to the work of Karl Marx.

4. Socialism
Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.

5. Dictatorship
A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government in which the government is ruled by a dictator.

Totalitarianism
Totalitarianism is state regulation of nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cults, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, single-party states, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics.

Autocracy
An autocracy is a form of government in which the political power is held by a single self appointed ruler.