this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2026
154 points (95.3% liked)

Socialism

6677 readers
115 users here now

Rules TBD.

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
all 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 23 points 2 weeks ago

It took a once in a century flood, the collapse of the USSR, and sanctions for DPRK to reach those numbers. The US achieved that while still having food to spare, what an amazing system.

[–] Rambomst@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago
[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Let me add in the following about my country, Norway, whose material conditions I know all to well: There is way too much wealth disparity and rising poverty, but this infographic does not reflect a material shortage of food, of which there is on the other hand an over-abundance of to the detriment of the global south. Recall that we produce food for a billion more people than what exists, yet a billion starve due to the global north's over-indulgence and waste.

The main reasons for the rise in death to malnutrition are eating disorders such as anorexia. This reflects a wholly different contradiction which we should focus on instead of misrepresenting material reality.

EDIT: After some reading it seems the rise is due to a change in the policy of journalling deaths. These are probably old people not eating enough because they are in the process of dying. The important bit with regards to where starvation actually causes death, and not merely corrolates with it, remains true.

[–] flabberjabber@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

That slight raise is arguably relatively normal-ish variation. It probably represents the problems with capitalist lack of social care and resources to some degree. But 99.99% of people are still eating.

It's still bad, it's still unacceptable, it's still ridiculous for a wealthy nation and shouldn't happen, but it's also not huge, it's a tiny fraction.

To parse the math, if it keeps rising that would be concerning. But look at the scale... that "3" That the USA reaches isn't percent. It represents circa 1 in 33,000 people which equates to about 10,000 people in the entire USA.

Whereas according to the same source, North Korea's famine produced at least 450 sufferers every 100,000. That, represented 1 in 222 people.

Weirdly this actually doesn't tally with a lot of other sources. So I'm left scratching my head about it somewhat. The above reference suggests only 100,000 people suffered from the famine in North Korea yet, the minimum other sources put as having died in said famine is 360,000 and the maximum of 2,000,000.

Am I missing something? This does not compute.

Edit: Ah the context I was missing was the famine occurred over multiple years. Each year was 420 per 100,000 or below out of 20 million.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

400 per 100,000 in 20 million is 90,000. Four years of that and four years of 150 per 100,000 puts you well within that estimate based on protein malnutrition alone, and not any disease or ailment exacerbated by said malnutrition.

[–] flabberjabber@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah my bad, my math was off and wasn't looking at it across the multiple years. Makes sense. Cheers mate.

[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Thank you for zooming out!

Interestingly, this is roughly the rate that France is constantly at. Most other EU countries seem to be at that much lower set-point. Fascinating.