Food Security

Many thanks again to Romanii for this debate! I will now lay out my case.FRAMEWORKBefore we proceed further into the debate, it will be profitable to ask: "precisely what is justice, and how do we apply it?" The classical, Aristotelian conception of justice is "giving each what they are due." This perhaps raises more questions than it answers, foremost among these queries being "how do we determine what is due." In order to undertake an analysis of this second question, we ought to go precisely to the heart of what makes humans--and, by extension, our interests--valuable. For, if humans were not of moral importance, it would not be morally important to consider our dues, and we might (morally-speaking) perhaps be due nothing at all.Human dignity is often cited as the concept or idea which is the wellspring of our moral worth. To expound on this notion just a bit, let's consider the following: a table cannot be blamed for a moral failing because it cannot choose to do something wrong. A human, on the other hand, is morally relevant insofar as we have this power to make rational choices. As Martha Nussbaum writes, "At the heart of [human dignity] is a twofold intuition about human beings: namely, that all, just by being human, are of equal dignity and worth, no matter where they are situated in society, and that the primary source of this worth is a power of moral choice within them, a power that consists in the ability to plan a life in accordance with one's own evaluation of ends." [1] Surely, though, it is not just rational agency that gives us dignity. A purely rational agent, with no emotions (e.g. a robot), may lack this unique sense of dignity sense they cannot suffer. Thus, dignity is a tripartite package of potential to suffer, ability to choose, and possibility for personal development. If we then attempt to construct a system that maximizes this dignity and which minimizes violations to this dignity, we might look to a capabilities approach. What then is the capabilities approach? It is "a theoretical framework that entails two core normative claims: first, the claim that the freedom to achieve well-being is of primary moral importance, and second, that freedom to achieve well-being is to be understood in terms of people's capabilities, that is, their real opportunities to do and be what they have reason to value…Capabilities are a person's real freedoms or opportunities to achieve functionings. Thus, while traveling is a functioning, the real opportunity to travel is the corresponding capability." [2] This links directly to the above narrative regarding human dignity: "What do I mean, then, by saying that a life that does not contain opportunities for the development and exercise of the major human capacities is not a life worthy of human dignity? I mean that it is like imprisoning or raping a free thing whose flourishing (based on these capacities) consists in forms of intentional activity and choice. Such a life is a violation in much the way that rape and unjust imprisonment are violations: they give a thing conditions that make it impossible for it to unfold itself in a way suited to the dignity of those capacities. So the Stoics are wrong if they think that respect requires only a reverential attitude. It requires more: it requires creating the conditions in which capacities can develop and unfold themselves. (Similarly, we would say that a young child is a precious thing and that this preciousness is not itself an artifact of political arrangements while also thinking that it entails some very specific political obligations of respect and support.) Respect for human dignity is not just lip service, it means creating conditions favorable for development and choice." [3]Human dignity is thus our core due, since it is the justification for all other dues. We are due freedom, privacy, life, property, and so forth, because to deny us these things directly threatens our human dignity. A table is not due freedom, for instance, because it can neither suffer nor can it make choices. This is certainly not the case for human beings. In order to protect human dignity, on balance, we must cultivate environments conducive to allowing people to exercise their free will, to pursue happiness, and to self-actualize. The goal of capabilities theory is to ensure that all human beings have access to minimally good lives which allow them to do these things. Environments of abject suffering, squalor, and poverty are not suited to this end. They are traps which seriously hinder peoples' ability to have minimally good lives and are "so impoverished that it is not worthy of the dignity of a human being." [3] Thus, such atmospheres of privation are unjust conditions because they violate the prime due. ARGUMENTSI will now illustrate how a lack of food creates an "impoverished" environment which unjustly degrades that dignity. In other words, food security is needed to construct an atmosphere conducive to living a life of dignity and flourishing.C1. Food is Necessary to Live a Normal, Healthy Life"Those with only household food insecurity (HFI) had statistically significantly higher odds of fair/poor health and being hospitalized since birth, whereas those with both HFI and child food insecurity (CFI) experienced even greater adverse effects (100% greater odds of fair/poor health and 23% higher odds of hospitalization, respectively). The presence of CFI in addition to HFI resulted in a statistically significant increase in the odds of fair/poor health above the odds when only HFI was present." [4] "Poor nutrition causes nearly half of deaths in children under five--3.1 million children each year...Some 805 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That's about one in nine people on earth." [5] In fact, hungry children actually suffer growth impairments as a result of their hunger: "Hungry children...cannot learn as much, as fast, or as well because chronic undernutrition harms their cognitive development actually changing the fundamental neurological architecture of the brain." [12] This even has an economic impact: less educated, more unhealthy workers are less efficient. [12]C2. Food Insecurity Leads to Violence"Food insecurity is both a cause and a consequence of violence, contributing to a vicious cycle or ‘conflict trap’. Food security is critical for political stability. Food insecurity is linked to increased risk of democratic failure, protests and rioting, communal violence and civil conflict. Violent conflicts, in turn, create food insecurity, malnutrition and--in some instances--famine. Thus food insecurity can perpetuate conflict. Competition over scarce resources, particularly land and water, often causes or exacerbates communal conflict...World commodity prices can trigger conflict, as higher prices, especially for food, increase affected groups’ willingness to fight...As a country’s import prices increase, thereby eroding real incomes, the risk of conflict increases...[Also] wars have been waged to reduce demographic pressures arising from the scarcity of arable land, the clearest examples being the move to acquire Lebensraum...that motivated Nazi Germany’s aggression toward Poland and Eastern Europe...and Japan’s invasion of China and Indochina...Water, for drinking and for agriculture, is also a cause of conflict. Countries that share river basins are more likely to go to war than are other countries that border one another...[Also] [r]ecord-high world food prices triggered protest and violent rioting in 48 countries in 2007/[2008]." [6]C3. Food Security is Key to Psychological Wellness"Food security...is intrinsically linked to feelings of stress or distress...We investigated the association of food insecurity with psychological distress...controlling for socioeconomic factors. Secondarily, we examined the association in males and females...A strong relationship between food insecurity and psychological distress was found...[T]he association remained after adjusting for confounding demographic and socioeconomic variables." [7] "Household food insecurity has insidious effects on the health and development of young children, including...behavior problems, primarily aggression, anxiety, depression, and attention deficit disorder...These concerns early in life increase children's risk of poor school readiness, poor school performance and subsequent health disparities and poverty...Families with few economic resources may be forced to make difficult choices among basic needs, such as food, housing, energy and health care, often resulting in frustration and emotional distress...Emotional distress, frequently manifested as symptoms of depression and anxiety...interferes with caregiving practices and adversely impacts children's well-being." [8] Increased psychological stress has a suppressive effect on a person’s social engagement [9], and can lead to serious health problems as well. [10] In fact, "children who are hungry are four times more likely than non-hungry children to need mental health counseling, seven times more likely to get into fights frequently, and 12 times more likely to be involved in crime. By the time they are in high school, hungry children are twice as likely as their peers to have seen a psychologist, twice as likely to have been suspended from school, and more likely to be described as having difficulty getting along with other children." [11]SOURCES1 - http://tinyurl.com...2 - http://tinyurl.com...3 - http://tinyurl.com...4 - http://tinyurl.com...5 - http://www.wfp.org...6 - http://tinyurl.com...7 - http://tinyurl.com...8 - http://tinyurl.com...9 - http://tinyurl.com...10 - http://tinyurl.com...11 - http://tinyurl.com...12 - http://tinyurl.com...Thus, I affirm. I turn the floor over to Con...