12,000 a Day

[MadMoney]

Unless you have been living under a rock, you probably heard about Michael Phelps, arguably the greatest swimmer ever. To fuel this olympian, 12,000 calories of food a day are needed. Does this bother you? It doesn't bother me. It wouldn't even bother me if he wasn't a good athlete, he just wanted to eat ridiculous amounts of food. However, I could understand lefties being upset with one person consuming so much while other people have much less.

Would this sort of consumption go on post revolution?

[IcarusAngel]

There is enough food and resources to feed everybody. Numerous countries in African and places like Brazil in South America are absolutely filled with resources.

The problem is NOT individual overconsumption. That might be a small part of it, but it's not the "bigger picture." That's an issue the weak "left" and right in the US fight over.

The problem is distribution. Because of capitalist tyranny, third world countries get exploited and thus must ship food to the US. When they try and run their own resources, they are invaded. And so on. So the problem is the capitalist system; it has nothing to do with consumptions.

Leftist would use resources, especially in regards to food, to maximize utility (with as little environmental damage as possible, we're actually destroying the environment in order to produce LESS food than what we could).

[More Fire for the People]

In a world were everyone's needs were provided, we could each live according to our ability without second thought. So, if we had 12,000 calories to dish out to an athlete we should also be able to dish out at least 2,000 to a non-athlete. Until then, the world is plagued but unfair distribution of wealth.

[Glenn Beck]

What IcarusAngel said, it's not a matter of quantity but of distribution. For a few months out of the year Phelps is eating enough to feed 6 average people in order to sustain his intensive training. Compared to the amount of calories in food that are thrown away in the first world or in wealthy enclaves in poorer countries or the amount that could be produced on land currently kept in latifundio or taken up by excess production of cash crops in nations that are not food secure the high level of consumption of exceptional individuals like Phelps isn't even a drop in the bucket, it's an atom in the ocean. If you want to talk about overconsumption though, there's the poor diets eaten in wealthier countries, most especially the U.S., that besides being extraordinarily wasteful are also severely damaging to health. So no, unless there is a famine going on and every bit of food needs to be distributed in the fairest and most efficient manner possible, I don't see why athletes in intensive training (or soldiers, or firefighters, or anyone who needs to consume more calories to sustain themselves for that matter) shouldn't be allowed to eat more to preserve some misguided idealist "egalitarianism". That is a caricature of what socialism is all about, anyway.

[pusher robot]

The problem is distribution. Because of capitalist tyranny, third world countries get exploited and thus must ship food to the US. When they try and run their own resources, they are invaded. And so on. So the problem is the capitalist system; it has nothing to do with consumptions.


That is nonsense. In fact, the US and Europe go out of their way to impose tariffs that discourage third world countries from exporting food to them. Furthermore, to say that third-world farmers must export food is a lie. They export it because it is advantageous for them to do so.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Unless you have been living under a rock, you probably heard about Michael Phelps, arguably the greatest swimmer ever. To fuel this olympian, 12,000 calories of food a day are needed. Does this bother you? It doesn't bother me. It wouldn't even bother me if he wasn't a good athlete, he just wanted to eat ridiculous amounts of food. However, I could understand lefties being upset with one person consuming so much while other people have much less.

Would this sort of consumption go on post revolution?

No, it doesn't both me. Does it bother you that children starve because they don't have a "right to food?" Probably not.

[IcarusAngel]

That is nonsense. In fact, the US and Europe go out of their way to impose tariffs that discourage third world countries from exporting food to them. Furthermore, to say that third-world farmers must export food is a lie. They export it because it is advantageous for them to do so.

It's not nonsense and nearly all Latin American countries, many who are starving, ship food to the US.

Haiti, which is a starving island, in the 90s was shipping more food to the US than what they were consuming. When they tried to elect a more democratic and moderate politician over the right-wing business dictator the US favored, he was overthrown in a coup and then overthrown again under Bush.

Clinton even made it a campaign issue in 1992 that the US was rejecting refugees in violation of International Law, while the US was trying to get other countries to boycott Haiti while secretly providing the brutal, right-wing regime with resources.

Guatemala was forced to open up its land for exploitation from the United Fruit Company at the hands of the US, and has had its land grazed by US companies buying beef.

Of course it is profitable for the farmers to sell food to the US; the US has kept these countries "banana republics" and so the people are so poor that they can't afford even the food their country is producing, so it shipped to the US.

This is why millions of more people are starving in Latin America than 40 years ago, even though they have the means to feed themselves. It is another failure of capitalism.

[Plagueround]

It seems to be a common misconception that the left doesn't want people to live in any form of luxury. I suppose this is likely because of the Malthusian mindset that seems to dominate the lifestylist liberals and middle left...the idea that we don't have enough resources to support everyone on the planet, so we should all live minimalist lifestyles, of course ignoring the fact that individual consumption is not the problem.

While I can't speak for everyone here, what I've gathered in my "studies" is the problem has nothing to do with individual consumption but distribution. If I cut back on the amount of food I consume, the extra food that isn't sold isn't going to magically rain down on those without. If I take shorter showers, the water I don't use will not find its way to placing without running water. In capitalism, their concern is not distributing evenly, but distributing to those that have the money to pay for it. I get running water and electricity and disgusting amounts of fast food because my country's economy and my wallet facilitate it. I still tend to try to conserve, but those reasons are not linked to the magical idea that its going to make capitalism all better.

In a society where profit is no longer a motivator and concern, where governments will not allow business to place their GDP over providing for the people within their borders (and hopefully eventually break down those borders and distinction), we would still likely have more than enough food to make sure everyone's favorite Olympic star has his needs provided for as well.

In answer to your original question: The problem is not that Phelps has to eat so much...the problem is that we have not attempted to provide everyone with such opportunities.