This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Pigs need calories, they're less efficient than grain for feeding people. By killing pigs you reduce overall calorie needs and create a temporary windfall, regardless of whether the feedstock is sourced from domestically or overseas. All forms of meat are innately less efficient than vegetables and grain in terms of land use, that's why meat is expensive!
Whatever problems China has in agriculture and domestic self-sufficiency, Taiwan is worse off. China is friends with Russia, the biggest fertilizer exporter on the planet. China is the biggest fertilizer producer in the world, 3rd biggest exporter. They export more fertilizer than they import.
https://www.worldstopexports.com/top-fertilizers-imports-by-country/
https://www.worldstopexports.com/top-fertilizers-exports-by-country/
I don't think fertilizer is going to be a problem for China, or agricultural machinery. How can the biggest car manufacturer in the world lack tractors?
Sure enough China exports more tractors than they import: https://www.worldstopexports.com/top-tractors-exports-by-country/
Killing the pigs does not free up the use of imported grain for human consumption when all the imports have been cut off! That’s my point. If the pigs were eating domestic grain you’d have a point, but the whole issue is that in a war food imports would be cut off, including the feed for pigs, which means fewer calories available for China to consume.
Note that China imports over 100 billion more dollars in agricultural goods than it exports, and that number has only grown over the last twenty years. That includes about $800 million in agricultural equipment imported from abroad. This isn’t just soybeans, it’s wheat, rice, and meat. And China is only 70% food self sufficient, not 90+..
You’ll want to Google more carefully next time: that page you linked to saying China exports more tractors than it imports is referring to semi truck tractors, not farm equipment: tariff code 8701.
That's including luxuries, meat, lobsters and so on. Not just grains, which is what I am focused on. You can not have so much meat and still be food secure. But if you don't have primary staple crops like grains, then you starve.
This is my point with the pigs. The current overall food security numbers include the pigs and imports to feed them. So if imports are cut off and they slaughter pigs, their food needs go down. They've lost calorie imports but also lowered calorie demand by switching to a less meat-rich diet. Food security should not mean '% of all peacetime food that can be produced domestically' but '% of minimum food necessary to avoid health problems'. The former includes unnecessary and expensive things that are fun to eat, the latter is like the WW2 ration cards you learn about at school.
And imports aren't totally cut off because they have land trade partners who they can buy from instead, at a higher price and with lower throughput. So as I said above, unlike Taiwan China has land imports and food security on grains.
Has Russia struggled with farm equipment? No, not really. Why would China struggle? In 'other agricultural machinery' China exports more than they import, same with machinery excluding tractors:
https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/other-agricultural-machinery/reporter/chn
https://oec.world/en/profile/sitc/agricultural-machinery-excluding-tractors-and-parts-thereof-nes
Including Tractors is paywalled but I expect it says the same thing, China is apparently a 'fast growing exporter': https://oec.world/en/profile/egw/agricultural-machinery-incl-tractors
China is a net importer of grain from North and South America, and those trade routes will definitely be cut off. China only has the capacity to feed 65% of its domestic consumption: if you switch everyone to just eating rice you still don’t have enough to square that circle. And the problem is getting worse: by 2030 their self sufficiency will be in the 58%. China doss not make enough food to feed its people, not by a long shot.
Food security should not mean '% of all peacetime food that is produced domestically' but '% of minimum food produced necessary to avoid health problems'. Rising demand means people wanting better Australian lobster, extra grain or preferring foreign milk to domestic milk (for admittedly understandable reasons), not that China is incapable of providing enough grain or whatever is needed to sustain its population and workforce.
If grain from overseas is cut off they can buy from Russia and Central Asia instead. They can rationalize production away from wine or whatever else they grow. They can eat into stockpiles. They can rationalize consumption. The existence of significant obesity in China proves that peacetime consumption is higher than needed.
Britain imported 60% of its food in 1939 yet found ways to cope with an imperfect blockade. China can do the same because their actual food security is not the same as domestic production as a % of peacetime food consumption.
They can do all of these things way more than Taiwan can, in relative terms, which is why I maintain that food security is not a big problem for China like it is for Taiwan.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link