1. Does high rate of population create food problem? If so, what might be done to resolve it?

Question

1. Does high rate of population create food problem? If so, what might be done to resolve it?

2. Is there a problem with land ownership with reference to economic resources, If so, how might it be solved?

3. How do the marriage rules affect the current situation? Should changes be made here?

4. What impact does the ranking system (clans and chiefs) have on the current situation?

Answer 1

No, there is a surplus of food in the world it just isn't distributed evenly.

Answer 2

1  Mark harner argues that high population does create food problems and that most societies have come to various means to deal with it. the carrying capacity of the land determine what is a high population for a specific area.  

here are a few examples. The Aztecs practiced sacfifice due to high population and food scarcity.the elite ate the best partsd of the sacrifice.

some polynesian islanders practiced infanticide.

i can't be bothered answering the other questions

Answer 3

A high rate of population doesn't only create a food problem, it's a resource problem.  It's happening now in China.  There are limits to the number of children born in an area because of this issue.  The population growth cannot exceed the resources available.  It's a balancing act.

Land ownership is always an issue in densely populated areas.  Take houses or apartments.  These buildings are owed by companies who are willing to provide shelter for a profit.  This topic can become a web of confusion... so I'll pass.

Looks like following questions will have a variety of answers.  Marriage began as a religious act that crossed over into law.  It's possible that changes could be made.  I'm going to stop there.

Answer 4

I'm not sure I want to touch all those points, for just two points and a potential 10.

High population cannot help but produce some form of food problem or other.  More mouths trying to acquire the 1-2 thousand calories of fuel and nutrients is a higher demand curve.  A higher demand curve requires higher supply, regardless of the ability to pay.  Higher demand, plus no increase of supply, necessitates higher prices somewhere.  Unless social and political structures come into play (charitable efforts, transfer taxes--take from the rich to pay to the poor) an increase of population without an increase in supply is similar to a regressive tax on the poor.  Those who cannot afford food will go hungry, while those who can will not suffer.

There are some obvious things to do to alleviate the potential of human suffering.

First, the poor could realize that it is harder (more costly) to

feed five or ten children than to feed two or three, so they cut back, or modify, their reproductive behaviors.  While that superficially allows some to jump to a conclusion that the rich then could have all the children they want, the fact is that the rich tend not to want a large number of children, so the birth rates of the poor will still remain higher than the rich.

Second, production standards should be scrutinized.  It has long been, though often to a lesser degree today, that an enormous share of food available to the Third World food is unavailable to those in greatest need.  The problems there could range from wanton crime (many Somalian and Sudanese refugees cannot get the food that was sent because it was intercepted by lawless gangs, as an example) to inefficient farming, storage, and distribution.  A recent example of the latter was told me by friends who went to Kenya and described how one area had a severe food shortage, while another area had graineries that were overflowing.  The roads to the food surplus area are notoriously bad, even the government doesn't send vehicles that way unless absolutely necessary because of the great wear and tear costs.  But they can't repair the road or build a rail link because the people of the area have insufficient clout to justify politicians applying the necessary funds.  Commercial interest is low because the grain is so comparatively cheap in the first place, so it wouldn't pay.  The problem is that the poor people who are starving have no financial or political strength in their own country.  

It has nothing to do with Americans eating cake, thereby depriving Africans of bread.  Sometimes poor countries are poor not because of supposed exploitation by foreigners, but corruption and inefficiencies by the locals.  Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) is a classic case in point.  Once it was the 'breadbasket of Africa' but now even the formerly-affluent can't count on even one meal a day.  What changed?  [the thought police here will pounce, but it is a legitimate answer]  The black African president confiscated the productive lands of white African farmers, giving them to ill-prepared friends of the president. (think about that when you consider your "land ownership" issue)  Corrupt politics and racism brought starvation to Zimbabwe.  Similar things, politics and corruption, take place in many of the former Soviet Union states, depressing their economies, but often to a much lesser degree.

Caution, the politically-based rhetorical answers of much of the 20th century does not directly or currently fit 21st century poverty.

Answer 5

You've got to narrow your d**n questions down.