:1orglaugh
4% of the bailout can end world hunger
- Thread starter Civickiller80
- Start date
:1orglaugh
If it would be so simple to solve our own hunger problem, then why haven't we yet? The solution to world hunger isn't as simple as you would like to think it is. You can't just equally divide all of the food in the world and give equal portions to every single person.
Producing food costs money. If people can afford more food than others, why shouldn't they be allowed to have more of it?
And yes, it is like taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Who do you think would be paying for all of this food to be grown, produced and distributed to the needy? That's right...the people with money. Food isn't free, so you would have to rely on somebody to pay the bills (taking from the rich) in order to provide food to the needy (giving to the poor).
That's an admirable point, but, once again, where does it end? I agree that we have some very overweight people in this country, but you can't just look at those people as people who don't "need" to be eating that much food.
Should we all earn the same exact wage, no matter what our profession is? I mean, nobody "needs" to be making $3 million/year, right? Why not limit their wages?
Should we all have the same exact size house, no matter how much money we have? I mean, nobody "needs" a multi-million dollar mansion with an olympic size swimming pool, right? Why not limit our housing options?
Should we all have the same exact car, no matter how much money we have? I mean, nobody "needs" a $250,000 Porsche, right? Why not limit our automobile options?
Once again, it's an admirable thought to want to end world hunger, but it's not that easy.
there are biological necessities for certain levels of food intake based on height, age and activity level. i for example can get by on about 2,000 calories a day. shaquille o'neal can't because he is over 7'0 and very physically active. someone shorter then me could get by on less then 2,000. an obese fuck who could get by on a 1,000 fewer calories per day, implying they consume 3,000 calories, and be perfectly healthy and able to eat what they want does not need those 1,000 extra calories in any biological sense of the word. it is merely a preference for themsleves that they consume the extra 1,000 calories and neglect to consider they could help others who are desperately under the biological necessity of food intake.
why haven't we? because a lot of people don't really care. just like you don't seriously care about third worlders starving, a lot of ignorant people in the u.s. for example don't care about homeless veterans.
you don't have to give equal amounts of food to everybody. you allow them the opportunity to attain what they need which will vary from person to person based on age, height, activity level and sex.
just because someone can afford more then someone else doesn't mean they need more relative to the desperate destitution someone else faces. again, it's called being kind and not a greedy pig.
look, one way to reduce hunger would be through land reform. how did these rich people get all their land in the first place. if you look at it, a lot of land acquisition in the third world was acquired through force and fraud. how the hell does 2 percent of a population wind up owning 98 percent of the land? i'll give you a hint: it's not through peaceful, fair dealings.
if you own a slave and get rich off of it, and then someone tries to take your wealth, a lot of people back in the day said "don't interfere with my property." but the property was not considered to be legitimately acquired so bitching about taking someone's property is kind of moot. same thing with the way international capitalism systematically fiscally rapes third world countries. look into it and see if i'm wrong. i'd be glad to recommend you some things to read but only if you want to.
and also, may i remind you, i specifically mentioned that people could make voluntary donations or changes to the structure of the budget by voting in different politicians, none of which is going to imply taking anything more from the rich.
It is true that different people "need" different levels of calorie intake, but you also have to consider what that person does for a living. For example...
Two people are the same exact height, weight (etc)
One is a sales representative for AT&T and sits on a chair all day
One is a professional athlete who is active all day
Even though those two people are the same exact height, weight (etc), the professional athlete needs a hell of a lot more calories than the other person, because the professional athlete is burning up and using a hell of a lot more calories than the other person. So, the athlete needs to eat way more food than the other person.
Like I said, solving world hunger isn't as easy you might think. There are a million little details that would all have to end up working together with one another, and that is never going to happen.
just read the post i wrote after the one you just quoted and you'll see i address what you just said. in case you missed it:
why haven't we? because a lot of people don't really care. just like you don't seriously care about third worlders starving, a lot of ignorant people in the u.s. for example don't care about homeless veterans.
you don't have to give equal amounts of food to everybody. you allow them the opportunity to attain what they need which will vary from person to person based on age, height, activity level and sex.
just because someone can afford more then someone else doesn't mean they need more relative to the desperate destitution someone else faces. again, it's called being kind and not a greedy pig.
look, one way to reduce hunger would be through land reform. how did these rich people get all their land in the first place. if you look at it, a lot of land acquisition in the third world was acquired through force and fraud. how the hell does 2 percent of a population wind up owning 98 percent of the land? i'll give you a hint: it's not through peaceful, fair dealings.
if you own a slave and get rich off of it, and then someone tries to take your wealth, a lot of people back in the day said "don't interfere with my property." but the property was not considered to be legitimately acquired so bitching about taking someone's property is kind of moot. same thing with the way international capitalism systematically fiscally rapes third world countries. look into it and see if i'm wrong. i'd be glad to recommend you some things to read but only if you want to.
and also, may i remind you, i specifically mentioned that people could make voluntary donations or changes to the structure of the budget by voting in different politicians, none of which is going to imply taking anything more from the rich.
i think it is easier on big hurt and many other people's consciences to pretend something that is so obviously disturbing like starvation is so impossible to solve. it absolves them of any need to think deeply about the situation and educate themselves why there is so much hunger in the first place.
The reason that there is so much hunger in the first place is due to the earth. Food doesn't grow everywhere, yet, people have lived in those area for centuries. Not all soil allows for food to be grown. Not all climates allow for food to be grown. Not to mention the animals. Certain animals (which are an important source of nutrition) don't live in all areas of the world.
Africa, for example, has plenty of areas where food is hard to come by. Yet, people still live there. There are areas in Africa where crops are thin and the land is dominated by large animals, such as elephants and lions. Lions, are extremely dangerous and are a huge threat to humans, yet, people still live there.
I know that people in poverty stricken areas of Africa can't just pack up and leave (as they don't have the money to do so), but people have populated areas of the earth which are full of nothing but harsh living conditions for years and years and years. If we gave them all food, we would have to do so for the rest of eternity. We can't make the soil of Africa capable of growing all sorts of different crops if it doesn't want to. We also can't just make animals start living there. Everything that wouldn't naturally survive there to begin with would end up dying, making the effort a pointless one.
Could we take our "excess" food and just give it to the areas of the world who have high levels of starvation? Sure, we could do that. But, once again, it would cost such a ridiculous amount of money, that it would end up doing more harm than good. Also, we would have to continue to give our "excess" food supply to them for the rest of eternity. But, what happens when WE start running out of food? Who helps us? Some other country that has more food than us? But, what happens when THEY run out of food?
:dunno: The cycle would never end, leaving the world's hunger problem just as bad as it is today.
I think you need to stop talking to me like I'm some sort of uneducated high school dropout. I think a lot deeper than you give me credit for. Just because I don't sit here and say things like "I wish I could hug all the starving children and make their poverty disappear" doesn't mean that I don't have a heart and it most certainly doesn't mean that I'm uneducated.
hey don't pick on the high school dropouts. george carlin never graduated from high school and he has more sense and knowledge then a lot of college graduates.
you make africa sound like it's some kind of fucking 9th circle of hell in terms of it's natural capacities for food production. you do realize people have been living there for millions of years and there were many highly complex civilizations with massive capacity for food production before european colonization and the slave trade? or do you not believe in evolution and history? if that's the case, then forget it, i don't even want to get into some science debate with someone that's going to tell me the devil put dinosaur bones in the ground.
you say some ridiculous things like the u.s. is going to eventually run out of food. and you assume this why? and you continuously ignore the fact that it is not purely an issue of giving food, it is an issue of land reform and creating opprotunities in third world countries for population reduction and increased income acquisition. you are drastically simplifying the issue, making wild assumptions, demonstrating little to no historical knowledge and seemingly deliberately ignoring much of what i'm saying.
No, really? Africa was a thriving colony at one point? Get outta here!
Using your points of how Africa used to be a thriving land...
If Africa was once a thriving, plentiful continent, then explain to me how parts of Africa are currently full of starving people? If it can happen to Africa, it can happen to the United States.
Once again, just because I don't cite 250 different facts about the world's history, in regards to population, climate change, crop growth, soil fertility (etc), it doesn't mean that I don't know it. I haven't posted the quadratic formula, but would you like me to, just so I can prove to you that I actually know it? I mean, I haven't said it, so, in your eyes, I don't know it.
Africa a thriving colony? what the hell are you even talking about? first of all, Africa is a continent with dozens of countries. maybe you realize that, maybe you don't.
explain to you why Africa has many starving people? i kind have been doing that throughout the thread but apparently you are being willfully ignorant.
Maybe you don't want to listen to what i'm saying because you think i want you to kill your kid or something. i don't know. whatever. here is a short little summary from an article at BBC NEWS from a few years ago.
Africa's hunger - a systemic crisis
Tuesday, 31 January 2006
By Martin Plaut
BBC Africa analyst
More than half of Africa is now in need of urgent food assistance.
The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) is warning that 27 sub-Saharan countries now need help.
But what appear as isolated disasters brought about by drought or conflict in countries like Somalia, Malawi, Niger, Kenya and Zimbabwe are - in reality - systemic problems.
It is African agriculture itself that is in crisis, and according to the International Food Policy Research Institute, this has left 200 million people malnourished.
It is particularly striking that the FAO highlights political problems such as civil strife, refugee movements and returnees in 15 of the 27 countries it declares in need of urgent assistance. By comparison drought is only cited in 12 out of 27 countries.
The implication is clear - Africa's years of wars, coups and civil strife are responsible for more hunger than the natural problems that befall it.
Critical issues
In essence Africa's hunger is the product of a series of interrelated factors. Africa is a vast continent, and no one factor can be applied to any particular country. But four issues are critical:
Decades of underinvestment in rural areas, which have little political clout.
Africa's elites respond to political pressure, which is mainly exercised in towns and cities. This is compounded by corruption and mismanagement - what donors call a lack of sound governance.
"Poor governance is a major issue in many African countries, and one that has serious repercussions for long-term food security," says a statement by the International Food Policy Research Institute.
"Problems such as corruption, collusion and nepotism can significantly inhibit the capacity of governments to promote development efforts."
Wars and political conflict, leading to refugees and instability.
In 2004 the chairman of the African Union Commission, Alpha Oumar Konare, reminded an AU summit that the continent had suffered from 186 coups and 26 major wars in the past 50 years. It is estimated that there are more than 16 million refugees and displaced persons in Africa.
Farmers need stability and certainty before they can succeed in producing the food their families and societies need.
HIV/Aids depriving families of their most productive labour.
This is particularly a problem in southern Africa, where over 30% of sexually active adults are HIV positive. According to aid agency Oxfam, when a family member becomes infected, food production can fall by up to 60%, as women are not only expected to be carers, but also provide much of the agricultural labour.
Unchecked population growth
"Sub-Saharan Africa 's population has grown faster than any region over the past 30 years, despite the millions of deaths from the Aids pandemic," the UN Population Fund says.
"Between 1975 and 2005, the population more than doubled, rising from 335 to 751 million, and is currently growing at a rate of 2.2% a year."
In some parts of Africa land is plentiful, and this is not a problem. But in others it has had severe consequences.
It has forced farming families to subdivide their land time and again, leading to tiny plots or families moving onto unsuitable, overworked land.
In the highlands of Ethiopia and Eritrea some land is now so degraded that there is little prospect that it will ever produce a decent harvest.
This problem is compounded by the state of Africa's soils.
In sub-Saharan Africa soil quality is classified as degraded in about 72% of arable land and 31% of pasture land.
In addition to natural nutrient deficiencies in the soil, soil fertility is declining by the year through "nutrient mining", whereby nutrients are removed over the harvest period and lost through leaching, erosion or other means.
Nutrient levels have declined over the past 30 years, says the International Food Policy Research Institute.
Consequences
The result is that a continent that was more than self sufficient in food at independence 50 years ago, is now a massive food importer. The book The African Food Crisis says that in less than 40 years the sub-continent went from being a net exporter of basic food staples to relying on imports and food aid.
In 1966-1970, net exports averaged 1.3 million tons of food a year, it states.
"By the late 1970s Africa imported 4.4 million tonnes of staple foods a year, a figure that had risen to 10 million tonnes by the mid 1980s."
It said that since independence, agricultural output per capita remained stagnant, and in many places declined.
Some campaigners and academics argue that African farmers will only be able to properly feed their families and societies when Western goods stop flooding their markets.
Africa's hunger - a systemic crisis
Tuesday, 31 January 2006
By Martin Plaut
BBC Africa analyst
More than half of Africa is now in need of urgent food assistance.
The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) is warning that 27 sub-Saharan countries now need help.
But what appear as isolated disasters brought about by drought or conflict in countries like Somalia, Malawi, Niger, Kenya and Zimbabwe are - in reality - systemic problems.
It is African agriculture itself that is in crisis, and according to the International Food Policy Research Institute, this has left 200 million people malnourished.
It is particularly striking that the FAO highlights political problems such as civil strife, refugee movements and returnees in 15 of the 27 countries it declares in need of urgent assistance. By comparison drought is only cited in 12 out of 27 countries.
The implication is clear - Africa's years of wars, coups and civil strife are responsible for more hunger than the natural problems that befall it.
Critical issues
In essence Africa's hunger is the product of a series of interrelated factors. Africa is a vast continent, and no one factor can be applied to any particular country. But four issues are critical:
Decades of underinvestment in rural areas, which have little political clout.
Africa's elites respond to political pressure, which is mainly exercised in towns and cities. This is compounded by corruption and mismanagement - what donors call a lack of sound governance.
"Poor governance is a major issue in many African countries, and one that has serious repercussions for long-term food security," says a statement by the International Food Policy Research Institute.
"Problems such as corruption, collusion and nepotism can significantly inhibit the capacity of governments to promote development efforts."
Wars and political conflict, leading to refugees and instability.
In 2004 the chairman of the African Union Commission, Alpha Oumar Konare, reminded an AU summit that the continent had suffered from 186 coups and 26 major wars in the past 50 years. It is estimated that there are more than 16 million refugees and displaced persons in Africa.
Farmers need stability and certainty before they can succeed in producing the food their families and societies need.
HIV/Aids depriving families of their most productive labour.
This is particularly a problem in southern Africa, where over 30% of sexually active adults are HIV positive. According to aid agency Oxfam, when a family member becomes infected, food production can fall by up to 60%, as women are not only expected to be carers, but also provide much of the agricultural labour.
Unchecked population growth
"Sub-Saharan Africa 's population has grown faster than any region over the past 30 years, despite the millions of deaths from the Aids pandemic," the UN Population Fund says.
"Between 1975 and 2005, the population more than doubled, rising from 335 to 751 million, and is currently growing at a rate of 2.2% a year."
In some parts of Africa land is plentiful, and this is not a problem. But in others it has had severe consequences.
It has forced farming families to subdivide their land time and again, leading to tiny plots or families moving onto unsuitable, overworked land.
In the highlands of Ethiopia and Eritrea some land is now so degraded that there is little prospect that it will ever produce a decent harvest.
This problem is compounded by the state of Africa's soils.
In sub-Saharan Africa soil quality is classified as degraded in about 72% of arable land and 31% of pasture land.
In addition to natural nutrient deficiencies in the soil, soil fertility is declining by the year through "nutrient mining", whereby nutrients are removed over the harvest period and lost through leaching, erosion or other means.
Nutrient levels have declined over the past 30 years, says the International Food Policy Research Institute.
Consequences
The result is that a continent that was more than self sufficient in food at independence 50 years ago, is now a massive food importer. The book The African Food Crisis says that in less than 40 years the sub-continent went from being a net exporter of basic food staples to relying on imports and food aid.
In 1966-1970, net exports averaged 1.3 million tons of food a year, it states.
"By the late 1970s Africa imported 4.4 million tonnes of staple foods a year, a figure that had risen to 10 million tonnes by the mid 1980s."
It said that since independence, agricultural output per capita remained stagnant, and in many places declined.
Some campaigners and academics argue that African farmers will only be able to properly feed their families and societies when Western goods stop flooding their markets.
Wainkerr99
Closed Account
You forgot to mention Muammar Gaddafi is now head of the OAU.
The US helps out other countries enough by buying their exports. We should use the bailout money/economic stimulus money to develope a universal healthcare system. No other country in the world has the employer offer healthcare. And people in the US wonder why their companies can't compete globally? When companies go through tough times, they'll past more of the cost of healthcare onto their employees, many of which can't afford healthcare. When people who can't afford healthcare get hurt or sick, the government winds up footing the bill via taxpayer money. Either way, the government will wind up footing the bill, so why not develope a federal universal healthcare system?
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
Because that is Socialism and "free" health care is not free.
More taxes will be needed to fund this Socialist program.
Will, any argument has to be based on a sound premise or axiom.Yours is that Socialism is a bad thing.But in certain areas it's the best way.You wouldn't want the military to be privately owned and answering to its shareholders.Nor the police or emergency services.And neither would those of us fortunate enough to live in countries with free health provision like to see medicine run commercially.I live in the UK, we pay taxes for health, true, but we don't pay insurance fees so we end up paying less overall.The health service exists solely to provide health care , not to make profit for shareholders.
Insurance based medicine has a further drawback-the sicker and older you get the more the premium charged.
Now I have always voted against Socialism but like alcohol it's beneficial in small doses.It puts a human face on capitalism.By the way, the British healthcare system was the result of an initiative by a Conservative politician called Winston Churchill even though it was enacted by a Labour government.
The problem with socialism ...
The problem with socialism isn't that it attempts to feed the hungry. That is a noble effort and would be great if it stopped with "basic." The problem with socialism is that doesn't stop there. And soon it's beyond just "basic" shelter and "basic" healthcare. And that's before we even discuss the "administrative agency" built around it.
Even the most, staunch, American Libertarian-Capitalists like myself believe in regulation, agencies and the need for oversight. But what we cannot stand is how the Democrats argue for government run programs and how the Republicans argue for "privatization" which is not at all, but "monopolization" by just putting a business in charge (with all the same, self-fulfilling "guaranteed funding" attitude as an agency).
In the US, we have a real issue with people being envious with what others have and pay for to have. People like to talk about healthcare, but they don't remotely stop to look at the statistics of Americans that have options, including good, buy-up options, on their healthcare, and don't bother. I'm honestly tired of that. In MA, Mitt's plan penalizes people for not being responsible. The only thing missing is MA suing the federal government for the tax penalty you pay when you go outside your employer to get better healthcare. I mean, you do not wait to pay for 'better options' only when you get 'sick enough' to require them -- hello, it's called "insurance" not "just what I need coverage for today."
As much as people complain about the US system, people also forget to realize the procedures available and the drugs invented here, that we have access to. Then people like to "skew the statistics" to ignore the fact that by "adequate healthcare" some studies like to throw up "the absolute best available, with no financial limit, bypassing all waiting lines (for non-paying), etc..." It gets old.
We're not going to solve the problem with socialized medicine as long as Americans A) don't even bother to pay for what is available to them and B) thinking any socialized program will get them the best. That's the continued problem, one that even Obama is trying to educate people on, just like W. and Clinton before them (although Hillary's 1993 proposal was an insult to tax payers, by penalizing those who do already pay for their healthcare). People need to understand that any socialized system in the US is going to be like a lot of other countries -- basic services that are either equal for all or, more likely (because of our R&D investments in medicine), base services with a buy-up option for those that can afford such.
As I always say, I'm not against socialism, but American socialism. Americans tend to focus on what others have and they do not, instead of what they have and what others do not. You have to focus on the latter to help the have nots, not just view yourself as a have not. The statistics on how many people have access to healthcare or, better yet, buy-up options and do not opt for them is a prime example. Insurance is not about what coverage you need today, but what coverage you may need if you get really sick.
The problem with socialism isn't that it attempts to feed the hungry. That is a noble effort and would be great if it stopped with "basic." The problem with socialism is that doesn't stop there. And soon it's beyond just "basic" shelter and "basic" healthcare. And that's before we even discuss the "administrative agency" built around it.
Even the most, staunch, American Libertarian-Capitalists like myself believe in regulation, agencies and the need for oversight. But what we cannot stand is how the Democrats argue for government run programs and how the Republicans argue for "privatization" which is not at all, but "monopolization" by just putting a business in charge (with all the same, self-fulfilling "guaranteed funding" attitude as an agency).
In the US, we have a real issue with people being envious with what others have and pay for to have. People like to talk about healthcare, but they don't remotely stop to look at the statistics of Americans that have options, including good, buy-up options, on their healthcare, and don't bother. I'm honestly tired of that. In MA, Mitt's plan penalizes people for not being responsible. The only thing missing is MA suing the federal government for the tax penalty you pay when you go outside your employer to get better healthcare. I mean, you do not wait to pay for 'better options' only when you get 'sick enough' to require them -- hello, it's called "insurance" not "just what I need coverage for today."
As much as people complain about the US system, people also forget to realize the procedures available and the drugs invented here, that we have access to. Then people like to "skew the statistics" to ignore the fact that by "adequate healthcare" some studies like to throw up "the absolute best available, with no financial limit, bypassing all waiting lines (for non-paying), etc..." It gets old.
We're not going to solve the problem with socialized medicine as long as Americans A) don't even bother to pay for what is available to them and B) thinking any socialized program will get them the best. That's the continued problem, one that even Obama is trying to educate people on, just like W. and Clinton before them (although Hillary's 1993 proposal was an insult to tax payers, by penalizing those who do already pay for their healthcare). People need to understand that any socialized system in the US is going to be like a lot of other countries -- basic services that are either equal for all or, more likely (because of our R&D investments in medicine), base services with a buy-up option for those that can afford such.
As I always say, I'm not against socialism, but American socialism. Americans tend to focus on what others have and they do not, instead of what they have and what others do not. You have to focus on the latter to help the have nots, not just view yourself as a have not. The statistics on how many people have access to healthcare or, better yet, buy-up options and do not opt for them is a prime example. Insurance is not about what coverage you need today, but what coverage you may need if you get really sick.
Not trying to be a smart ass and not letting the U.S. take the blame only it is every goverment in the world's fault. The system has been made to be this way and some people don't see it, they think that we are one little big community looking out for our fellow men and that goverment is the all mighty provider.
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
It is a bad thing. Too many people take advantage of the systaem we have now. It's time to weed them out.
I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. So, I don't know why that was needed? Winston Churchill, as much as people still want to believe, was never on our side. The Cold War was made up by Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin.
Read Michail Gorbachev's book Perestroika. We did not win the Cold War.
Churchill was a Freemason He became a Master Mason on March 5, 1902.
He was also a member of the Illuminati
Similar threads
