4% of the bailout can end world hunger
- Thread starter Civickiller80
- Start date
We should help out people in other countries. Just last week I put in time helping out the "feed my starving child" program. It seems like people could care less about others. I think people don't care because they've been accustomed to such high quality of life. It's something that should happen, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
TC, the money generated through salaries and games of the sports and entertainment industry in the U.S alone could end world hunger, cure every disease, and form colonies on Mars.
The money in the bailout could, but I think the %4 of it figure is being extremely optimistic. It would likely take much more than that to do an effective job especially long term. Not to mention that there isn’t some infinite supply that the Earth magically gets it’s food from. There is only so much that can go around at one time, and when you calculate supply lines and other things it gets even worse.
If I was also going to play the devil's advocate and be a little harsh but realistic I could also point out the fact much of world hunger is the fault of the people of the world where that occurs. When you overpopulate way past the point of what the resources of your area can handle, some of which have always been arid and never produced a lot of food in the first place, and do nothing to control your population then in most ways you have nobody to blame but yourselves and you shouldn't just expect other people to cover for you. I don't feel like helping somebody in a third world country that has six kids and counting because they have made unwise decisions. I might feel bad for the kids, but you can't guilt yourself into doing something just because of that when it might be fore the best not to. If I can and there aren't other people close to me that also need help, then I help those that at least try to help themselves, not enable stupidity.
If I was also going to play the devil's advocate and be a little harsh but realistic I could also point out the fact much of world hunger is the fault of the people of the world where that occurs. When you overpopulate way past the point of what the resources of your area can handle, some of which have always been arid and never produced a lot of food in the first place, and do nothing to control your population then in most ways you have nobody to blame but yourselves and you shouldn't just expect other people to cover for you. I don't feel like helping somebody in a third world country that has six kids and counting because they have made unwise decisions. I might feel bad for the kids, but you can't guilt yourself into doing something just because of that when it might be fore the best not to. If I can and there aren't other people close to me that also need help, then I help those that at least try to help themselves, not enable stupidity.
we should just help in everyway possible
there's enough food for everyone, it just doesn't get to the people that need it most because spoiled brats are too busy adhering to the out of sight, out of mind adage. so much food is wasted it boggles the mind. look how many obese fucks there are as one example of waste. look how much food is exported out of third world countries, often in the middle of famines. in the long run though there are various good reasons for having the global population reduced through land reform, feminism, etc.
Namreg
Banned
to end world hunger, we don't need more money, we don't need more food... we need politicians willing to actually do it. don't hold your breath.
and take a look at this, truly shameful i think that this is happening so close to home:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/09/rural.alaska.villages/index.html
and take a look at this, truly shameful i think that this is happening so close to home:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/09/rural.alaska.villages/index.html
or we could stop relying on politicians and figure out a better way to get shit done. but i can see why one shouldn't hold their breath for that either. there's always ralph nader or the green party if one is hoping for politicians who might take seriously things like world hunger.
there are also progressive/populist/radical/etc. movements in third world countries dedicated to making change, but when you look at the history of it, the western powers are often involved one way or another in stopping those movements from succeeding. it conflicts with the rosy image of the u.s. and other powers as being benevolent saviors, but it's the truth. of course it's also true that dictators and callous economic elites in third world countries rape their own people in various ways that contribute to hunger. it's a multifaceted issue.
World Hunger: Twelve Myths by Frances Moore Lappé, Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset
check out this book if you want a good starting place for understanding the issue.
check out this book if you want a good starting place for understanding the issue.
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
why the fuck should we help people in other countries? When are they gonna help us? When have they helped us? Never for both answers so fuck the rest of the world how about helping ourselves for a change??? :thefinger
isn't that what welfare is?
Think about this...every man, woman, and child in America could have received $40,000 each for the total cost of this bailout. Hmmm, I wonder how much of THAT would have been pumped into the economy?
that's like a trust fund dick saying to a homeless child "what have you ever done for me. it's not my fault i was born with a silver spoon relative to your misery." it's heartless i tell ya.
I understand your point, but...
Is it the "trust fund dick's" responsibility to feed that homeless child? No, it's not.
The US acts as if it our responsibility to save everybody else from all of their problems, while ignoring our own problems in the process.
some philosophers would argue it is the trust dick's responsibility. the idea that the u.s. seriously attempts to solve other people's problems is a myth. so is the idea that there is some incompatibility between solving your own countries problems and international problems. there is also a serious issue as to the relative severity of problems on an international scale. the u.s. doesn't face massive starvation and malnourishment problems as do many other countries. what comes first? people's basic needs or some relatively unimportant domestic problems in the u.s.? i don't quite see it as an issue of responsibility, i see it more as an issue of having a heart. if you don't feel concerned then intellectualizing probably won't convince most people things can and should be done. i think a lot of people are emotionally dead and intellectually stunted.
Similar threads
