World Hunger

[chkball]

My friend came up to me the other day and told me that he had come up with a solution to world hunger. His version disturbed me a little, so I won't say it, at least not yet. I want to hear your opinions first. How would you solve world hunger?

(Be Realistic, Please.)

[Kusanagi]

To solve world hunger, the main problem is getting the food to the people, not necessarily having the food. To get food to everyone everywhere is almost impossible. An exapmle of how food is hard to transfer is that JApan has ridiculously high meat prices, most likely stemming from having to get it overseas or something of the sort. Also, getting enough food for everyone would make the supply of food skyrocket, while the demand is satisfied, making any profit from the food industry collapse. The capitalistic views of this world make getting that much food impossible to consider seriously.

Sorry, if I have bad errors, but I'm on my TV and I can't really see small text.

[oby100]

I feel as though your friend suggested thinning out the population, or at least that's the only edgy solution I can contemplate.

The first step would be a huge one. You'd have to develop every country on the planet. Third world countries would have to be erased from existence by help from stronger nations. Their agricultural and factory production would have to increase to a satisfactory point. However, I feel as though the only way to accomplish this would be to unite the entire world under one government; otherwise, there's little drive for a country like the U.S. to help a third world country. But if countries felt generous, they could launch a sort of "friendly colonization." We would help develop the countries to the point that they had a stable economy and well founded agriculture. Most importantly, we wouldn't try to exploit them for their resources like original colonization. We would then design a government with the natives that would ensure food for its people either by welfare like in the U.S., or by communist ideals.

Either way the goal would be to help other countries sustain themselves with their own food through generosity or by a world government. We would then improve relations between select countries who would need more food imported.

By no means is this plan simple, but as the saying goes, "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. But teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."

[CanadianAnonymous]

Much of the food grown from agriculture is actually used as feed towards livestock. If the populace of the world were to go vegetarian/vegan -which is a viable alternative and healthy if done right- the food grown for the livestock could then be put towards feeding more people.

The only problem remaining would be lack of infrastructure, such as airports and communication.

[oby100]

Much of the food grown from agriculture is actually used as feed towards livestock. If the populace of the world were to go vegetarian/vegan -which is a viable alternative and healthy if done right- the food grown for the livestock could then be put towards feeding more people.

Only problem is, I doubt you could get a single town to go vegetarian, nevermind the whole world. But it would be a good idea to at least eat things lower on the food chain since so much energy is lost when one organism consumes another.

The only problem remaining would be lack of infrastructure, such as airports and communication.

Yes, as seen in Stalin's reign, it doesn't matter how much food you produce if you can't transport it to the people.

[Eraser Rain]

In the movie Soylent Green, the Earth becomes SOOO over populated that real meat, fruits, and vegetables are rare and expensive. But then comes along "soylent green" wafers. A new food that sustains the eating needs of the world. But nobody questions where it comes from. Because the truth is "soylent green" is actually human meat being processed like cows after death. And in some cases...before. (dun,dun,DUN)

[Chaossama]

Okay then, and?

Anyway, IMHO, to solve world hunger? As oby said, you'd have to get to the point that not only do they have enough food supplies to sustain themselves, they also need the production capabilities so as to continue sustaining themselves. And that's just for if they never have another baby at all. So, to account for future generations, they'd need to overproduce. I totally disagree that a single government would help at all, if anything, it would cause more of an inequality that would cause FURTHER world hunger.

That being said, honestly, I don't think it'll ever happen. Tell me, even if your fridge is stocked, how likely are you going to give it to someone else as well as help them be able to produce for themselves? Humans by nature are not altruistic, that is, we're not generally generous to others. So, with that, you'd find that even if the production facilities were increased, it wouldn't truly end world hunger because someone would wish to get more than everyone else, so as that they can feel rich, famous, etc.

That's not even including the amount of food that is being proceed SIMPLY for the purpose of luxury foods for developed nations.

So all in a all a complete mess that we're never going to get out of. But hopefully your friend is a lot more optimistic than I am.

[Eraser Rain]

...AND, thats just about it. You'll have to watch the movie if you want to know the ending.
But eating people is NOT an solution to world hunger, thats just what I was trying to get across.

[Chaossama]

Ah, okay then.

Though yes, it is an option, I don't think that cannibalism will EVER be a favored option. Could be wrong and all that, but I should hope not. That being said, I think the idea wasn't to eat other humans but to let others die out. That is, as it is now, let people starve to death. Or die in a war, or whatever.

[Eraser Rain]

Well, I am a chef, so its my job to feed people. And I have worked in many restaurants and it is amazing how wasteful people are. Perfectly good food going to waste. And I think its that we just don't have enough food to sustain a population because we don't make enough. The most starving people in the world are in the African desert, the Middle East, and China because of its tremendous population.
Did you know in China they make fetus soup. From the fetuses of babies that are killed because of the law that puts a limit on how many children a woman can have. :jawdrop1:
Although I think I am legally obligated to say that this is could possibly be a hoax. But the internet is soooo full of posting idiots that its hard to say if its real or not.

[Chaossama]

I would honestly not be surprised.
Take a walk through China's wet markets sometime, it's definitely an experience, that's for sure. While they don't have as 'exotic' of foods as you mentioned in the major cities, they definitely push the Western definitions even there.

Anyway, in terms of food, eh, I wouldn't call it that we're not making enough. But the idea of getting only as much as you can eat is something that people anywhere aren't used to, really. We use our money to buy the foods, we thus expect that we get more than enough food, even if we don't use it.

So yeah, inequality FTW, I suppose.

[Eraser Rain]

I saw a man eat 200 hot wings at a Hooters once. And then he was still hungry. THAT IS JUST NOT HUMAN. Most people eat like 10 and are done.
That was 100 chickens that were killed so he could stuff his face. Although as a man I have to say that that was pretty awesome.

[Chaossama]

All I can say is, oh dear god, that is both interestingly awesome and damn....

That and he might need to stop eating so much, diet much? :P

[chkball]

Ok, so this is what my friend suggested...

Send all aborted fetuses, or feti, tothe countries that are in need of food. This will solve not only hunger, but also it is a good use for the ever-growing population of aborted fetuses.
Its technically not cannibalism if the fetus is under six months old.
And in America, we will probably never run out of abortions.

Im not sure if I believe him or not, but he said he told his idea to a California government official in a chatroom online or something and he agreed with him.
??
I seriously doubt it, but knowing him it could be true

[Chaossama]

Er......right.......

I don't think that'd be of much use at all, unless fetuses have nutritional value. So yeah...

[Eraser Rain]

Umm... I think only like a tenth of one percent of people in the US would actually eat them. And a lot of this county doesn't even want abortions to happen, let alone eat the fetuses.

[Chaossama]

Generally I would imagine there's a bit of a reason to that, namely social norms. I mean, maybe it's just me, but that's not something I would just talk about casually o.O

That being said, I imagine fetuses would be more of a delicacy or exotic food rather than a staple, as I completely doubt they have much nutritional value o.O

[oby100]

The "inequality" as described earlier is exactly why a world government would be necessary. If we lost our sense of nationalism, we would jump on the chance to help starving Chinese just as readily as we sent aid to Katrina victims. And, if made communist, the new world government could distribute food equally to the world and call for more food to be produced if needed. Of course, nationalism is a tough thing to abolish.

The only other way to end world hunger would be if people suddenly became very generous and gave money away to developing countries so they can develop and produce their own food.

And eating fetuses will never become socially acceptable. To eat another part of a human being, whether it be a liver or a fetus, is cannibalism and that has never been accepted by people since our birth. Well, there are a few tribes in remote regions who have adapted to cannibalism, but they wouldn't exactly be good poster boys for the "eat fetuses" campaign.

[Chaossama]

My general sense is that it's not actually nationalism that prevents us from helping others, merely that we, to begin with, are NOT altruistic by nature.

And yes, it could be that a world government could distribute food evenly, but forgive me if I'm a pessimist in saying that the idea of a united government would mean more inequality for the top as the ruling powers would vye for power. And that's because we're human, of course we want something extra here and there just so that we can live more comfortably even if it comes at the expense of others.

That's why I don't believe even a Communistic society would work, as the corruption of Socialism into Communism has caused the need for a leader, which would defeat the very purpose of an equal society.

So all in all, there is no society, in practice, that would work. On paper, sure, but reality strikes very hard.

[oby100]

My general sense is that it's not actually nationalism that prevents us from helping others, merely that we, to begin with, are NOT altruistic by nature.

But who are you more likely to give money to: victims of Katrina or starving children living in Darfur? Assuming you're American, you will pick Katrina victims most often because you feel a sense of loyalty to fellow Americans, or at least more so than foreigners. And we give so little anyway, we never seem to have enough to give to both causes. Or at least, if we give to both we might not be able to afford that flat screen.

And yes, it could be that a world government could distribute food evenly, but forgive me if I'm a pessimist in saying that the idea of a united government would mean more inequality for the top as the ruling powers would vye for power. And that's because we're human, of course we want something extra here and there just so that we can live more comfortably even if it comes at the expense of others.

Of course, in communist societies there will always be corrupt leaders vying for power, but this seems to be the most realistic solution. If Stalin could have perfected his food distribution routes, he could have ended most of the hunger in Russia. And I'd rather have a single dictator soaking up billions of dollars a year than allow developed countries to squander so much food (at least if I was committed to end world hunger). We would all just barely get enough to eat, but no one would die of hunger because we would be forced to give by the world government.

That's why I don't believe even a Communistic society would work, as the corruption of Socialism into Communism has caused the need for a leader, which would defeat the very purpose of an equal society.


I agree that communism has failed in the past because of corruption. But if it was possible to put "pure communism" into effect, it would end world hunger. That means we would all be equal and there would be no leaders. However, we are not perfect enough to enjoy such a utopian society.


So all in all, there is no society, in practice, that would work. On paper, sure, but reality strikes very hard.

So then argue the best way to reduce world hunger.

[Chaossama]

Best way to reduce it?

Get people to care. Get people who would otherwise stupidly waste their money on things like the Superbowl or other sporting events (Have you seen how many millions are put into those?) or other things like that. Perhaps it'll be impossible, but if we can get entrepeneurs to set up in the African countries, if we can get donations, hell, if we can get rid of the corrupt leaders that put off most helping efforts, then we'd be in a good place. Better than what we have now, in any chance.

And yes, pure communism could work, but can we ever really HAVE pure communism?

[SunshinexKite]

Honestly solving world hunger is nearly impossible, and to me a pipers dream.

If you give food to everyplace in the world just like..........I forget the name, but back awhile ago, America started aiding other countries by giving them food, supply's, ect... And what did that give america? Less food supply's and bad material, when the country's we helped were making better cars with the materials we gave them, our car market decreased and got worse. There's NEVER an even amount when it comes to this.

Another is if you kill people to have less mouths to feed. People give birth alot. killing one is like giving birth to two, you cant really stop people from giving birth around the world, because younger adults are strong and can help the world in many ways. of course, you can kill the older people, but that can have its backfires as well.

Lots of places need money and stuff, and we simply do not have enough to supply them. In fact, where I live, many things are being cut down, Its harder to get a job, even if you get a job, your pay is low. My moms pay might go down 300$ soon. It may not sound that bad, but we can barely keep our finances in check.

I know its sad to see other people in pain, and it enrages lots of people, but people need to look out for themselves and not others in this recession. Right now, I dont think the world can afford this hunger problem.

[Eraser Rain]

Exactly, Communism sounds like its "perfect" but there are just tooooooo many corrupt people in the world who would try to take over the world using its governmental style. (myself included). And no form of government put forth yet in history has truly ever had a "perfect" plan for distributing food.

[Chaossama]

@SunshinexKite: Oh I definitely agree with you there. On a current basis, I wouldn't even suggest thinking about it as we've got too many problems already. I was just speaking on a hypothetical basis if we had more of an ideal situation.

As I said, recession throws everything off.

[oby100]

@SunshinexKite: Oh I definitely agree with you there. On a current basis, I wouldn't even suggest thinking about it as we've got too many problems already. I was just speaking on a hypothetical basis if we had more of an ideal situation.

As I said, recession throws everything off.

You have to consider as well that we weren't always in a recession. Before the war we were all well off and most didn't have money problems. But still, people were too selfish to help others significantly. And you also have to consider that no matter how bad we have it, we still have it better than most of the rest of the world. In countries like Haiti, the phrase "cutting back" does not exist. They struggle just to survive and cutting back would mean to stop eating. In order to survive in the U.S., it's easy enough to rent an apartment and skip out on the luxuries. It's very easy in the U.S. to make a living, but America's curse is talk of the "American Dream" which justifies spending frivolously on things we don't need. Even if we go off the deep end and lose every cent we have, welfare will still keep us from starving.

So it's not that Americans can't afford to give $100 here and there to help world hunger, it's that we don't want to. My point is that it's not just the recession that keeps us from giving, it's greed.

[Chaossama]

Look to my above solution.

Greed is why nobody will chip in, and I don't think they ever will. But if they ever did, then that would be the solution that would help the most.

[oby100]

That's exactly way I proposed communism as the only plausible "solution." Since people aren't just going to become charitable, than we'll have to make them! Still, a ridiculous scenario full of holes, but I think it's easier than changing human nature itself.

[Eraser Rain]

That's exactly way I proposed communism as the only plausible "solution." Since people aren't just going to become charitable, than we'll have to make them! Still, a ridiculous scenario full of holes, but I think it's easier than changing human nature itself.

Because forcing people to do what you want them to is kind of well..."evil". At least with Capitalism we can say what we want and not have to worry about if some government official is going to shoot us in the face. And if we force people to be charitable then it won't be long before we start forcing them to do other things, like what they eat, what they watch on tv, or even some sort of curfew. And then I would have to go V for Vendetta on their totalitarian asses.

[Chaossama]

To put the power of that in the hands of a government, even in the hands of a communistic government would result in more anarchy than they expected.

Once you force people to care, they will start to resent you, and that's pretty much what happened with China and the rest. They needed military power to enforce their will on the population and, remove that, and the whole thing will crash.

[oby100]

Actually, communism promotes the opposite of anarchy. It promotes total, oppressive control. Old communist Russia and the current communist nations of China and North Korea do not have anarchy. The main complaint is that the people aren't allowed to be disorderly.

@Eraser Rain
Of course. In a communist society the government takes all the money and distributes it of its own accord. But I'm simply musing the only way I see even remotely possible to end world hunger.

And the only reason people would start to resent the new communist government is because people are generally greedy and hate giving the money they've earned to the less fortunate. In a perfect world, a communist government would end world hunger and make its subjects happy.

[Chaossama]

Sure. But we're not living in a perfect world.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't even need the corruption of socialism that is called communism, because we'd just be socialist. In a perfect world, as such, societies would've evolved to reach socialism. But we haven't. Even now, socialism is seen as something opposite of what is considered the 'free world', to the point that it seems the main response to any kind of change that would be more encompassing.

I don't quite see the point of speaking of a 'perfect world', because fact is, we don't. We live in a crappy world where people are greedy and selfish and not at all altruistic. There are technically no realistic solutions to world hunger as that would require people to change and they just won't.

But I'm not trying to be a nay-sayer, I definitely believe that we SHOULD do something, because these people deserve as much of a chance as any. But I'm not also going to say that it's at all possible on a scale large enough that we can totally eradicate world hunger.

Get entrepreneurs to help Africans to start up businesses, however small? Great, that will definitely help in the future as they provide a way to get income. Find a way that the money gets to the people themselves and that greedy leaders won't interfere? That's great too, if only temporary.

So now, I don't even know what you're arguing, because once you get to 'in a perfect world', alarm bells start ringing.

Communism, in the hands of the faulty people, will prove faulty. Nothing to it, plenty of examples, nothing new there. In the hands of perfect people who'd like nothing better than to make it succeed and in the way it's supposed to? It can be great. But people are the key and they are what brings it down in the end.

[Eraser Rain]

Actually, communism promotes the opposite of anarchy. It promotes total, oppressive control. Old communist Russia and the current communist nations of China and North Korea do not have anarchy. The main complaint is that the people aren't allowed to be disorderly.

@Eraser Rain
Of course. In a communist society the government takes all the money and distributes it of its own accord. But I'm simply musing the only way I see even remotely possible to end world hunger.

And the only reason people would start to resent the new communist government is because people are generally greedy and hate giving the money they've earned to the less fortunate. In a perfect world, a communist government would end world hunger and make its subjects happy.

True in a perfect world where everyone is submissive and only the government officials and the leader have power, world hunger would end.
But unfortunately that will never happen. So we just have to think of new way to end world hunger without resorting to real world Communism, Socialism, or even Capitalism. They all just don't provide a reasonable solution to the food distribution problem. But I do not have any ideas, and they have entire research facilities trying to figure out how to solve world hunger, so I don't think anyone here has any perfect ideas on how to end it. If you do you need to keep it to yourself because the governments of the world don't want you to tell anyone because they will lose all their money, so if you say anything they might kill you.

[Chaossama]

Sad thing is, 'free' as they might be, you're probably right that they'll get you for something if you come out with a solution.

[oby100]

My point was that in a perfect world, no one would care about a communist government. And I think no one seems to know the actual definition of pure communism. With "pure communism," there are no government officials, there are no social classes, there is no secret police, and there is no military. In Russia, they were supposed to transition into a purely communist society, but Lenin decided that to insert communism into Russia, they would need government officials in order to start the revolution. Unfortunately, they never made the switch; especially after Stalin took power. My point is, communism doesn't entitle absolute rulers. We could still have elected officials and breed another warped version of communism.

And even in the notoriously oppressive Soviet Union, they nearly ended hunger within their nation. The reason they failed was because Stalin set impossibly high quotas that people tricked him into thinking they fulfilled, and they had a poor food distribution plan. But with our superior farming technology, producing enough food will be much easier. And with our improved infrastructure and distribution roots (i.e. mail) we could actually get the food to people.

And this thread isn't about making the bourgeois happy but feeding the proletariat, so the unrelated faults of communism are unimportant. For our purposes, I don't care if doctors are unhappy with their pay or anything like that. It's all about collecting the nations money and having the government distributing it equally. There's no guarantee it will have to be as oppressive as past communist countries. People can protest all the same, but it's unlikely they'll overthrow the government.

[Chaossama]

That's Marxist Socialism, not 'pure communism'

Communism started off because they couldn't get Marxist teachings to fit what they wanted.

And so, your point is? We live in a society where money plays an important role in EVERYTHING and you think that if the government says "Oh, btw, all that money you made? You need to give it away now.", they WON'T overthrow it? Nobody will recognize it and it'll essentially be a tyrannical regime. Which only works as far as you can get your military power to support you. You have to remember, communism and the sort worked when they did because the previous regimes were just crappy and as such, people were happier with what Communism promised. However, you try applying this now? People WILL have words. And you can't say "Government is supreme" and all that BS, because now, the ONLY way to suppress protest is through military support.

And I honestly don't think that living under a yoke of fear JUST so people aren't hungry is really worth it, do you? Because if you do, then I'd like you to give me all your money, thanks. If you don't, I'll beat you up. And if you try and fight back, I'll make sure you get put into the worst place I can think of, and leave you there. Oh? You don't like it? I'm sorry, did I say I cared?

Not overthrow the government, my arse...Sure, they might get some, but if enough people come up against it....well now, that's how most governments change.