The antecedents that lead to famine include:

  1. armed conflict
  2. poverty
  3. poor governance,
  4. evolving trade patterns
  5. demographic growth
  6. educational systems

Recently new elements include:

  1. climate change: Floods & Droughts
  2. rising prices of commodities due to inflation & Labor Shortages
  3. Covid
  4. Ukraine


The implications of famine include:

  1. human suffering
  2. diversion of human resources
  3. mass migration
  4. obesity


The three points of the Famine triangle include:

  1. Humanitarian intervention
  2. Food aid (do US contributed $182 billion last year up 49% from the previous year)
  3. multilateral aid


Pros and cons of whether the west should step in and aid countries in the Middle East and Africa that are no longer receiving food shipments from Ukraine in Russia

Pros of Western intervention:

  1. Humanitarian aid: The West has a moral obligation to provide aid to people in need. The provision of food aid to countries in the Middle East and Africa that are no longer receiving shipments from Ukraine and Russia can help alleviate the suffering of millions of people.
  2. Diplomatic relations: Providing aid can also help strengthen diplomatic ties between the West and the affected countries. This can improve long-term relations and potentially lead to greater cooperation on other issues.
  3. Regional stability: Providing aid can help prevent the destabilization of entire regions due to famine and food shortages. Instability can lead to conflict and even more humanitarian crises.


Cons of Western intervention:

  1. Sovereignty: Providing aid to a country without their consent could be seen as an infringement on their sovereignty. Some countries may not want to accept aid from the West due to political or ideological reasons.
  2. Dependency: Providing aid can create a dependency on foreign assistance, which can have negative long-term effects on a country’s economy and social development.
  3. Political manipulation: Some countries may see foreign aid as a way for the West to manipulate their politics or exert influence over their government. This can lead to tensions between the West and the affected countries.
  4. Cost: Providing aid can be expensive, and the West may not have the resources or political will to commit to long-term aid programs. Additionally, providing aid may divert resources from other domestic or foreign aid priorities.


Should the use of hunger as a weapon to be considered a war crime?

Yes, the use of hunger as a weapon should be considered a war crime. Deliberately depriving civilians of food and other essential resources during armed conflict is a violation of international humanitarian law, specifically the Geneva Conventions. The use of hunger as a weapon can result in the death, suffering, and displacement of civilians, and it can exacerbate the effects of armed conflict.

It is a cruel and inhumane tactic that is often used to force surrender or to punish civilians for their perceived support of one side or the other. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines the use of starvation as a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Therefore, those who engage in the use of hunger as a weapon can be held accountable for their actions, and international efforts should be made to prevent and punish such acts.


What are the ethics of providing seeds that cannot reproduce?

The ethics of providing seeds that cannot reproduce, also known as sterile or hybrid seeds, is a complex issue that involves various perspectives and considerations. Here are some arguments for and against the use of sterile seeds:

Arguments for providing sterile seeds:

  1. Increased yield: Sterile seeds often produce plants with higher yields and better quality, which can improve food security and help alleviate hunger in developing countries.
  2. Reduced pesticide use: Some sterile seeds are engineered to be resistant to pests and diseases, which can reduce the need for harmful pesticides and herbicides.
  3. Intellectual property: Seed companies invest a significant amount of time and resources in developing and testing new varieties of sterile seeds. Providing sterile seeds can protect the intellectual property rights of these companies and ensure they are fairly compensated for their work.

Arguments against providing sterile seeds:

  1. Dependence on seed companies: Farmers who use sterile seeds must purchase new seeds each year, which can create a cycle of dependence on seed companies. This can increase the cost of farming and reduce the autonomy of farmers.
  2. Environmental risks: Some sterile seeds have the potential to crossbreed with wild or traditional crops, which can lead to genetic contamination and loss of biodiversity.
  3. Loss of traditional knowledge: The use of sterile seeds can lead to the loss of traditional knowledge about seed saving, which has been an important part of agriculture for thousands of years.

In sum, the ethics of providing sterile seeds depend on the specific circumstances and considerations. While there are potential benefits to using sterile seeds, such as increased yield and reduced pesticide use, there are also potential risks and concerns, such as dependence on seed companies and loss of traditional knowledge. Therefore, any decision to provide sterile seeds must be made carefully and with consideration of all relevant factors.