Probably one of the best ways to reduce world hunger is to reduce the number of births. But I guess convincing all those people over there to do that is harder than jumping over the Moon. Maybe there's a way but I don't know it.

best way to reduce world hunger is to share all resources with everyone. There is enough on Earth to feed twice the actual population, it only has to be alloted to everyone instead of a few.

I have to disagree here, too.
If you don't fight the problem first you just cause a even bigger desaster, when finally the resources run out. It's my believe that for example - as paradox as it sounds - the help is the reason.

Colonialism has disrupted the societies and the traditional life. The societis were forced into our style of living but also received some healthcare systems. Newborn have a higher chance to survive now, hence population growth increases, even if the ressources don't allow it. Hunger is a result and international help is easing the pain to some degree. But in the end there are just more mouths to feed, next time the catastrophe is even larger.

What is needed is helping the local farmers to produce (which can't sell their stuff if help is for free, making them leave their lands, desert takes over, increasing the problem even more). Meanwhile more and more organisations have admitted that food help can not solve the problems in the long run, but that they have to help lastingly by supporting farmers and so on.

Sorry, thorin - just sharing sounds good, but is not well thought out IMHO.
There also has to be increase of female rights and contraception for example.
Global birth rates fortunately actually slow down.

Birth rate declining

UN report PDF

Probably one of the best ways to reduce world hunger is to reduce the number of births. But I guess convincing all those people over there to do that is harder than jumping over the Moon. Maybe there's a way but I don't know it.

best way to reduce world hunger is to share all resources with everyone. There is enough on Earth to feed twice the actual population, it only has to be alloted to everyone instead of a few.

I have to disagree here, too.
If you don't fight the problem first you just cause a even bigger desaster, when finally the resources run out. It's my believe that for example - as paradox as it sounds - the help is the reason.

Colonialism has disrupted the societies and the traditional life. The societis were forced into our style of living but also received some healthcare systems. Newborn have a higher chance to survive now, hence population growth increases, even if the ressources don't allow it. Hunger is a result and international help is easing the pain to some degree. But in the end there are just more mouths to feed, next time the catastrophe is even larger.

What is needed is helping the local farmers to produce (which can't sell their stuff if help is for free, making them leave their lands, desert takes over, increasing the problem even more). Meanwhile more and more organisations have admitted that food help can not solve the problems in the long run, but that they have to help lastingly by supporting farmers and so on.

Sorry, thorin - just sharing sounds good, but is not well thought out IMHO.
There also has to be increase of female rights and contraception for example.
Global birth rates fortunately actually slow down.

Birth rate declining

UN report PDF

I haven't said that they just have to be fed, and nothing more. I think first they need to be fed to avoid them starving, and they need to be fed unless (and this is the main point) they are helped enough to be able to help themselves. This means helping them with education, with tools, with machines, with money.
I read of a group spending no money to the poor countries but food, and water pumps, and seed, and medical help, and help to prevent deserting - both by deed and teaching; and tools and books and clothes and a lot of more teaching.

Governmental help programs can be wrong on the other hand, when they are run by bureaucrats. I read of hundreds of trucks and harvester machines been sent to an African country for example some decades ago, but the bureaucrats who sent them didn't think of the corrosion due to the other climate zone, and that the particular country had no own mechanics to repair them, and no parts to replace broken or corroded parts. They just sent the trucks etc, sent some ppl to make them run after the transport - and then, when they run and the ppl began to teach the Africans how to use them, these ppl were sent back, because teaching was not part of their contract!

---

Account frozen...

From the NY Times.

August 4, 2007
Editorial
A Surer Way to Feed the Hungry

Globally, about 800 million people are chronically hungry, and the number rises every year. The Bush administration is pushing what should be an obvious policy change to help those most acutely in need — victims of catastrophe or some other emergency. Instead of shipping American-grown food abroad, Washington would send American dollars to buy food from local farmers.

The present food aid system is a favorite of American farmers. But it is also cumbersome, slow, expensive and leaves people hungry who could easily be fed. President Bush has rightly proposed shifting $300 million from farm subsidies to enable governments and relief groups to buy food locally.

This plan struck a responsive chord almost everywhere except the Congress. The House omitted the idea from the farm bill it passed last week. And prospects for the Senate approving anything more than a pilot program seem dim.

This is sad but unsurprising. Farm policy continues to be dominated by farm-state legislators who prefer the traditional approach of sending surplus food abroad, further enriching heavily subsidized farmers as well as the shipping industry.

A recent article by The Times’s Celia Dugger shows why that makes so little sense. Starving Africans in the arid reaches of northwestern Kenya desperately needed food. Kenyan officials did not want surplus American corn because they feared driving down the prices for local farmers. The obvious answer was for the Americans to buy local corn, but American law prevented this. So the corn was never shipped and people continued to go hungry.

The United States is the world’s most generous provider of food aid, amounting to $2 billion annually. But too much of that aid is wasted in overhead, mainly shipping costs. At the other end of the pipeline, subsidized American food can hurt local farmers, while local procurement gives them a commercial outlet. Administration officials also note that food purchased here usually takes four months to reach its destination. Food purchased locally takes days.

The virtues of Mr. Bush’s idea are self-evident. What it needs is full Congressional support, not pilot programs. It would be nice if, for once, America’s farm bloc could think of interests other than its own.

---

Account frozen...

URUGUAY: NEOLIBERAL ECONOMIC CRISIS SPREADS
When Hunger is the Law, Looting is Legitimized
02 Aug 2002 14:15 GMT

Looting Food in Montevideo, Uruguay
More than 13 supermarkets were looted in poor neighborhoods of Montevideo today to the shouts of "we are hungry." Riot police were dispersed throughout the city, shooting rubber bullets at people as they tried to get food. The Minister of the Interior has called for "people to remain peaceful," but to whom does he speak? The families of children who so hungry they eat grass in the schoolyard? Uruguay's crisis exploded this week when the government ordered all banks to remain closed, preventing people from getting whatever money they have saved. Fears of "another Argentina" are sending tremors through Uruguay, as the people prepare to enter another phase of their long battle against neoliberalism.

Covering the collapse of an economy amid active resistance and struggle to create a new society takes resources. The Uruguay IMC is in urgent need of donations of equipment and money.

---

Account frozen...

I haven't said that they just have to be fed, and nothing more. I think first they need to be fed to avoid them starving, and they need to be fed unless (and this is the main point) they are helped enough to be able to help themselves. This means helping them with education, with tools, with machines, with money.

Yet you can't/won't. So you have to force others to pay for your silly ideas. Guess what? They force you to pay for "secret services, wars, [and] the SDI program for Mr. Average American Guy." Why? Because just like you, they think they know better for their fellow man. Happy? You should be thrilled.

I read of a group spending no money to the poor countries but food, and water pumps, and seed, and medical help, and help to prevent deserting - both by deed and teaching; and tools and books and clothes and a lot of more teaching.

"...to help prevent deserting." Heh, heh. No, your posts suggest that you still really don't have any idea whatsoever why that wall was necessary.

Governmental help programs can be wrong on the other hand, when they are run by bureaucrats. I read of hundreds of trucks and harvester machines been sent to an African country for example some decades ago, but the bureaucrats who sent them didn't think of the corrosion due to the other climate zone, and that the particular country had no own mechanics to repair them, and no parts to replace broken or corroded parts. They just sent the trucks etc, sent some ppl to make them run after the transport - and then, when they run and the ppl began to teach the Africans how to use them, these ppl were sent back, because teaching was not part of their contract!

I know!!! Let's let them run our health care!! I mean, they can't be trusted to deal with something simple like this, but I sure trust them with my health!! I want them dealing with a triple bypass!!

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Covering the collapse of an economy amid active resistance and struggle to create a new society takes resources. The Uruguay IMC is in urgent need of donations of equipment and money.

Did you send everything you own down there to feed those kids? I mean, they're eating grass ferchrissakes.

Oh, you didn't send everything? Why not?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

A recent article by The Times’s Celia Dugger shows why that makes so little sense. Starving Africans in the arid reaches of northwestern Kenya desperately needed food. Kenyan officials did not want surplus American corn because they feared driving down the prices for local farmers. The obvious answer was for the Americans to buy local corn, but American law prevented this. So the corn was never shipped and people continued to go hungry.

Ah, this is funny, you have the American gov't preventing one thing and protecting it's interests, and, surprise surprise, the Kenyan gov't preventing another thing and protecting it's interests. Odd how that works out when people are dying.

The United States is the world’s most generous provider of food aid, amounting to $2 billion annually.

Wow, another example of greed.

The virtues of Mr. Bush’s idea are self-evident. What it needs is full Congressional support, not pilot programs. It would be nice if, for once, America’s farm bloc could think of interests other than its own.

That's funny too. I mean, the NYT doesn't think of interests other than it's own, yet it wants someone else to. Nothing is stopping the NYT from sending millions of dollars over there, but they don't. They really really really really really want the "farm bloc" to do what they aren't willing to do. "Oh yeah, the farm bloc should be sending millions over there, but the newspaper bloc can't be bothered. No way. Damn hell ass farm bloc."

Hence the dilemma.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

best way to reduce world hunger is to share all resources with everyone. There is enough on Earth to feed twice the actual population, it only has to be alloted to everyone instead of a few.

More empty rhetoric. An endless parade of slogans, ideology, and bromides without clarity, depth of thought, or basic understanding of the fundamentals of economics or reality.

Same hint as before: this is why there had to be a wall, with the machine guns pointing inward...

I have heard this too. So what part don't you agree with?

1. Is there actually enough or the capacity to have enough food for the entire population (or twice)?

2. That equally sharing it is wrong (not arguing about whether it would work or not, I know it would be next to impossible for it to happen/work successfully)?

3. Something else?

This is not a go at anyone, but rather an attempt to better understand your view.

Ok.

There is enough potential capacity in the system to grow (easily) enough food to feed double the Earth's current population. The problem is twofold.

First, the places where the food is produced tends to not be the same as the places where the bulk of the population resides. This means food must be transported, often over long distances. Even here in the USA, food is not usually grown near where it is consumed but is trucked over long distances from the farms to the cities. This transportation expense makes up a large part of the price of food in the USA, and it only gets worse when one starts talking about international situations such as USA wheat being sent overseas to Africa.

Second, the people that are in the greatest need of food are those that are least able to pay for it. There are many reasons why a people suddenly (or not so suddenly at times) find themselves in dire need of food: overpopulation, war, water shortage, crop disease... the list goes on and on. In many of these circumstances, the problem that caused the failure of local agriculture also impoverished the people. Often, they have no money to buy food, even if there were any to buy.

This is a problem with no real easy solution. It is easy to say that we should all *share* resources, but how do you propose to do that? The farmers, whether they are in the USA or, for instance, Kenya need to make a fair profit for their labors growing the food. To force someone to work without pay for the benefit of others is slavery. The hungry need a way to earn the money they need to buy the food. Charity might be workable for short-term problems, but it is no way to feed a people over the long term.

The ideal solution is for each region to grow enough food locally to feed its people. In some instances of famine (for instance, extreme drought) this just isn't possible. In the rest, it IS possible. What has enabled the USA (and the rest of the 'developed' world) to grow so much food using such a small percentage of its people? Technology.

We need a two-pronged approach to enable these people to feed themselves (or at least be able to buy enough food to do so). We need to sit down together with people from an affected region, and survey the natural resources that are present in each one of these affected areas. Once we know that, we can figure out what industrial activity would be best for that region. At the same time, we need to survey the land available for agriculture in that region, and figure out what crops and farming techniques would work best there.

Then, and its going to be a slow process (to be sure), we need a program of 'investment' from the developed nations to implement this in that particular region. Now, there needs to be some moderate return on investment from these regions so that the corporations that do the helping will have an incentive to help, but these returns should not be permanent.

However, for this to work, there MUST be one thing present in these affected regions. Governmental stability. Corporations are not going to be willing to invest in areas where the government could change overnight. To do so would run a huge risk of having the corporations assets seized by the new government.

Does all of this begin to sound a little familiar? It should. In essence, it is what is going on NOW. It is just a long, slow process, and can take a few generations. In the meantime, until it does achieve critical mass in these regions, there are going to be a bunch of starving people in these places. Charities, of course, have a field day with these perfect 'photo ops' to help them solicit donations.

Remember, it took the 'developed world' many centuries to progress to the point that we have reached. We are trying to help them to progress at a much faster rate, but it is STILL going to take a good chunk of time.

Remember the old saying: "Give a person a fish, and they eat today. Teach them to fish, and they eat for a lifetime"? Essentially, we are trying to teach the rest of the world to fish, but only a few areas are paying attention. Others are too busy squabbling amongst themselves (*cough*Darfur*cough).

All of humanity would be better off if we could bring everyone into the 21st Century, but all too often when we try it the locals start kicking and screaming. Perhaps they are happiest with 'the old ways'. Perhaps in those regions it would be for the best if we pack it ALL (development aid AND charity) up and leave. Let them make do for themselves, all by themselves, as best they can, and concentrate our efforts in OTHER regions where the local populace is more willing to let us help them advance. The developed world only has a certain amount of resources that can be devoted to this. It only makes sense to apply them first to places where they can do the most good. As other nations are 'developed', they too can join the effort.

Remember, it took the 'developed world' many centuries to progress to the point that we have reached.

Yep... No poverty in America... We are 'developed'... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Those people over there are just gonna have to use their goddamn heads. The larger the denominator the sparser the food. But maybe they're too uninformed to be able to use their heads effectively.

---

well, maybe it's better to spend some Millions of Dollars to fight world hunger and save lives, instead of throwing Billions and Trillions of Dollars away killing lives in unnecessary wars?
One single fighter jet costs about $ 45Million, plus fuel and weaponry. And no country buys only one fighter. One aircraft carrier: about US$4.5 billion each to achieve, + average annual operating costs: US$160 million. That's like money thrown away - If they burnt the money instead, those in need wouldn't get no help likewise.
Imagine: with $160Mio per year, for the costs to operate only one of those unnecessary (because only good for aggression) aircraft carriers only one year, they could lessen the poverty for many people.

* One third of all deaths - some 18 million people a year or 50,000 per day - are due to poverty-related causes. That's 270 million people since 1990, the majority women and children, roughly equal to the population of the US.

* Every year nearly 11 million children die before their fifth birthday.

* In 2001, 1.1 billion people had consumption levels below $1 a day and 2.7
billion lived on less than $2 a day

* 800 million people go to bed hungry every day

---

Account frozen...

well, maybe it's better to spend some Millions of Dollars to fight world hunger and save lives, instead of throwing Billions and Trillions of Dollars away killing lives in unnecessary wars?
One single fighter jet costs about $ 45Million, plus fuel and weaponry. And no country buys only one fighter. One aircraft carrier: about US$4.5 billion each to achieve, + average annual operating costs: US$160 million. That's like money thrown away - If they burnt the money instead, those in need wouldn't get no help likewise.
Imagine: with $160Mio per year, for the costs to operate only one of those unnecessary (because only good for aggression) aircraft carriers only one year, they could lessen the poverty for many people.

Oops, except that you support the system that buys those fighters and carriers and weapons.

For the 1000th time: You have, yet again, conveniently forgotten the other part: the system you support that provides dollars for food and services is the same system that provides dollars for these weapons, secret services, war and SDI. That's the fatal flaw. You want to force me to pay for your silly food programs, others want to force me to pay for their silly weapons and wars. It's all just gov't force.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Somewhat off topic.

But I heard a new use for aircraft carriers. Someone once suggested that retired carriers could be used as floating carparks in major cities. You tie them up to a dock and refit their hangers and you have a carpark on the waterfront. Of course it could be expensive to operate.

Then there was the suggestion of refitting them into some sort of floating hotel. Or the suggestion of converting to cargo duty after military retirement.

Some military vessels find 'peaceful' use after their 'evil' military service and can be used to help but military vessels are often used to help out in crises, so they have a function. I believe a carrier can hold a lot of people or supplies in emergencies.

---

Never surrender and never give up. In the darkest hour there is always hope.

Even if we do give those hungry people food the government in that country probably holds it somewhere and lets it rot. Money is probably diverted to that country's military.

---

Even if we do give those hungry people food the government in that country probably holds it somewhere and lets it rot. Money is probably diverted to that country's military.

You hit the nail on the head, Clyde.

In many places where hunger is a problem, if we send money it all too often winds up in the pockets of that nation's ruling elite, and if we send them food it all too often gets 'repurposed'...

A case in point of the second: Back in the day of the USSR, they had a crop failure of wheat. Their citizens were beginning to go hungry. The USA, being the nice people that we are, sent a very large amount of wheat out of our surplus to the USSR to help feed their citizens... Huge shipload after shipload.

What happened? The USSR government sold the wheat we sent them to other nations, and used the money for military purposes. Their people went hungry.

We learned our lesson. We are a lot more careful now about sending food, usually sending it in more frequent but smaller shipments along with people from international charitable organizations to actually hand it out to the hungry people. However, this does not always work either, as it puts these people in harm's way much too often.

Our generosity gets taken advantage of all too often, and that is sad. It does the people in the US and the rest of the developed world much credit that we just haven't stopped altogether. Nope, there are no easy solutions to 'world hunger'.

Nope, there are no easy solutions to 'world hunger'.

Yep... Especially when the 'elite' top 10 percent of the 'worlds population' have hoarded up 90 percent of the worlds wealth and have become too greedy to share it...

Some would call it 'simple economics', I would call it 'simply evil'... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Nope, there are no easy solutions to 'world hunger'.

Yep... Especially when the 'elite' top 10 percent of the 'worlds population' have hoarded up 90 percent of the worlds wealth and have become too greedy to share it...

Some would call it 'simple economics', I would call it 'simply evil'... ;)

That's ironic because anyone with 1/2 a brain would read your post and call it "simply untrue" or "simply ignorant," or "simply wrong," or "simply stupid."

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Nope, there are no easy solutions to 'world hunger'.

Yep... Especially when the 'elite' top 10 percent of the 'worlds population' have hoarded up 90 percent of the worlds wealth and have become too greedy to share it...

Some would call it 'simple economics', I would call it 'simply evil'... ;)

Jeffrey,

You display a profound ignorance of economics here. As a wise man once said, "It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt". Perhaps you should follow that advice a bit more often.

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt".

Ditto... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Even if we do give those hungry people food the government in that country probably holds it somewhere and lets it rot. Money is probably diverted to that country's military.

Seen that happen before. Or if it not the military it 'disappears' into administrative costs (which usually mean the back pocket of government officials).

---

Never surrender and never give up. In the darkest hour there is always hope.