Any chance we can implement that boob project at the next blogger bash?

(C’mon, you knew someone had to ask, I might as well be the one.)

Other than that, my brain is buzzing with possible social / cultural thoughts on the phenomenon. Is there a Miley Cyrus tie-in? And the news reports of high-school kids IM’ing naked pics of themselves. Modesty and shame have been redefined, and in some ways, that’s a good thing, but there are still obvious issues. I’ve seen articles written by women about de-objectifying breasts. But can a feel, no matter how you attempt to de-sexualize it, ever really be the same as a pat on the back, or whatever other non-sexual touching you care to compare it to?

Is it impossible that there can be a “just for fun” aspect that comes from having tossed aside taboos (or someplace else), or does it speak only of locker-room immaturity?

A few times, I’ve gotten into discussions about clothing-optional resorts or beaches. The thing a lot of folks don’t come to grips with is that nakedness, and shame over it, is really context sensitive. (Even though most of these people will respond to comments about doctor visits with “that’s different”.) Japan is one very obvious example of this, though I recently read that there are now issues at communal baths (and maybe there always were, and it’s just now that we’re hearing more about them).

There’s a certain positive feedback loop involved, where it’s a big deal because it’s a big deal.

”...most modern food shortages occur because of natural events....”

I disagree.  I’ll accept the claim that most modern food-price increases are the result of natural events.  Actual food shortages, though, are nearly always the result of government action.  (For some value of government that includes ruling gangs in failed states, anyway.)

Examples:  Ukraine, China, Zimbabwe/Rhodesia, North Korea.

People don’t die of starvation unless somebody is keeping food from them.

I see what you’re saying, although I think it might be overly simplistic.

Zimbabwe had a drought in the early nineties that nearly destroyed farming in the country--when rainfall fell to just 60% of normal, it killed crops, livestock, and jobs. Prolonged bad government made the problem worse, yes, but the initial food shortage (nearly a decade before Mugabe started aggressively attacking farm redistribution, although not before he had made lots of noise in that direction and had enacted anti-market reforms for food production) was a very real thing caused by a naturally occurring event. Most people didn’t starve, but that was mostly because of the kindness of international donors--the food shortage was very real.

The Potato Famine would be another example. The famine started because of a potato blight that killed about half of the crops for a number of years, leaving an impoverished people unable to feed themselves. Certainly, bad government policy made the problem worse--and caused a mountain of deaths--but there was a real, honest to God food shortage that existed outside of the power of the government to rectify. Bad government policies didn’t kill off the potato crops in Ireland 1845, ‘46, and ‘48. Fungus managed that trick entirely without government intervention.

The distinction is that now we aren’t facing any drop in food production because of drought or blight, we’re facing shortages for some because bad government policies are diverting food crops to other purposes and distorting the market for staple foods around the world. In fact, I’m not even entirely sure that we have a food shortage, per se. What we have is a distorted market where the costs have risen so high and so fast that many markets can’t accommodate the change, so food is flowing happily into wealthy markets (like us) for both food and, increasingly, energy, but people in poor markets can no longer afford to eat. How much of that rise is down to natural occurrence and how much of it is down to government mandates and subsidies distorting the market? Because pretty much none of it is down to changes in production.

From what I’ve read, every time someone fills up a tank with ethanol (as long as the ethanol was produced from corn), it uses close to the yearly requirement of that staple food for a person in a developing nation. That’s an awful lot of corn that either used to be used for food purposes or came from a plot of land that probably used to be used to produce some other staple food.

Again, I may be wrong in the way I’m seeing it and “most” might have been a bit of a stretch, but that doesn’t answer the question: how worried should I be about the fact that energy costs and food costs are being coupled together in ways that I’ve never before seen in my life?

"Once he had firmly taken control, Trevelyan ordered the closing of the food depots in Ireland that had been selling Peel’s Indian corn. He also rejected another boatload of Indian corn already headed for Ireland. His reasoning, as he explained in a letter, was to prevent the Irish from becoming “habitually dependent” on the British government. His openly stated desire was to make “Irish property support Irish poverty."”

“Meanwhile, the Irish watched with increasing anger as boatloads of home-grown oats and grain departed on schedule from their shores for shipment to England.”

The History Place

Without government action to close sales of food, the famine would certainly have been much reduced.  The price of food would have (did) rise, as it did throughout that year in the rest of Europe, but market forces would have largely solved the problem.

From your description, much the same can be said of Zimbabwe in the early 90s:  Mugabe had “enacted anti-market reforms for food production”.  And even in the face of a huge reduction in production, “Most people didn’t starve....”

It might be just that we are defining “food shortage” differently.  As I tried to convey in my first response, I don’t consider it to be a real “food shortage” unless many people are sick or dying as a result of a lack of food.  And that doesn’t happen, even in cases of huge natural disasters, without government intervention.  (At least in any society with semi-modern transportation infrastructure.  Note that another problem highlighted in the article referenced above is the lack of the ability to transport significant quantities of food to most of Ireland.)

To the extent that there is a food shortage as a result of ethanol production (FWIW, I don’t know how significant that is), I certainly agree that the blame can be laid squarely at the feet of government.  Brazilian cane sugar would be a far cheaper way to produce ethanol than corn were it not for the ruinous import duties on the sugar and massive payments to ethanol producers.  For reference, I consider these to be fairly categorized as “anti-market reforms for food production”, and entirely in keeping with the other sorts of government actions that have caused famines.

"Once he had firmly taken control, Trevelyan ordered the closing of the food depots in Ireland that had been selling Peel’s Indian corn”

Thanks for that one, now all I can think of is “Fields of Athenry” ... I’ll have that stuck in my head for the rest of the day.

“For you stole Trevelyan’s corn so the young might see the morn,
now a prison ship lies waiting in the bay....
Low lie the fields of Athenry,
Where once we watched the small free birds fly”