I worry, though, that the NK regime will fall and decide to go out with a bang. For one thing, Kim Jong-Un was caught with bondage porn as a student in Switzerland. A sadist losing his grip may very well decide to unleash whatever destructive power he has at his disposal. OTOH, a palace coup may fix that. Hopefully, though, this is all part of US/SK contingency planning. I can only hope that TPTB knows what they're doing and not doing.
However, my belief is that total suffering would be less if NK was liberated and reunified by force. The atrocities of the NK regime toward its own people is beyond belief. (If you don't know of them, please google.) War is somewhat worse, but of much shorter duration. And war might come even if we try to avoid it - alas NK is improving their nuclear arsenal as we speak and later wars will likely be worse.
But I certainly hope that the NK regime will fall soon and without war. This has been the gamble for the last few decades, and with luck, it may eventually happen.
It's very heartening that the book reviewed here is not only anti-capitalist, but also peak oil-environmentalist. The mixing, hopefully, makes it less likely that the dangerously ignorant anti-capitalist ideas get traction. Even if Occupiers are not close to understanding this, their typical ideas would make any open-access order country regress into limited-access order. Democracy and capitalism needs each other.
If a nuclear plant has a probability of core damage of 1e-5 per reactor year, should we decommission it and build a new plant with 1e-7 probability? 100 times better is a lot, right? But if a core damage costs on average $100 billion, then the 1e-5 probability averages $1 million in disaster costs per year, and it's probably not worth it to decommission the plant and build a plant that will only average $10,000 per year. And it's DEFINITELY not worth it to decommission THAT plant and go for an even newer 1e-9 plant at $100/year in core damage costs. Somewhere, it just becomes good enough and it would be, in fact, irresponsible to add more safety (instead of going for extra road safety or something).
So where are we at? To my mind, we're quite good if we implement the cheapest lessons from Fukushima.
I can only assume that the reason you keep pounding on your original misinterpretation is the fact that you cannot defend your original claim (that poor people need to eat bad food because they can't afford anything else) against my real stance. I've provided, as a counterexample, a cheap base diet that covers macronutrient needs, fibers and most micronutrients. It needs little variation to cover any micronutrient deficiencies. This diet is based on rice, whereas your examples had a nutritionally inferior potato/wheat base.
Btw, that's 3 more "liar", now we're at 20.
I've made clear that I can present the numbers I've collected, but you reject that and demand proof by appeal to authority on the exact base diet example I provided, and I won't even bother to look for that. So we're stuck with your obsessive lies and abusive tantrums, aren't we?