Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (124861)	2/20/2004 1:19:30 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

<At least Tom and other slave owners didn't eat their slaves> Sugar plantations, in the Caribbean and U.S. South, always had a death rate higher than their birth rate, due to the extremely harsh working/living conditions. So they required a constant infusion of fresh slaves. If you work slaves to death, to grow food for export, how is that different than eating the slaves directly? Today, the rich world spends $300B/Y on agricultural subsidies, which beggars farmers in the world's poorest nations. $100B$/Y each, for the U.S., EU, and Japan. The result is chronic malnutrition and intermittent famine for a billion Others. How is that different, from directly butchering them, and serving them for dinner in our homes? "Kids, for supper today, we're having Kentucky-fried Niger cotton farmer, and a side dish of mashed Cuban sugar farmer. Brazilian desert (fresh kids from the streets of Sao Paulo). I got the recipe from a Maori cook-book." You shall know the tree by its fruit.