You say. Like I have said, we have gone to war for less. Where do we draw the line for going to war? I think for bettering humanity is a better idea then revenge or to place a government we agree more with.
It's seems so easy for you to sacrafice other peoples lives in an attempt to placate your idealistic notions of ending hungar. Why is a soldiers life less important than a starving persons? Will you sign up to go to war yourself to end the starvation in N. Korea?
Hmmmm So over running a government to get a regime more towards our ideas is war worthy. Revenge is war worthy. Control of products or water ways are war worthy. But humanitarian efforts are not. Seems backwards to me. We are not going to agree, so I agree to disagree with you and move on. Not worth the time typing.
And yes, if I was 30 years younger and not disabled, I would resign up and go over to fight in N.Korea. But I would be of no use in the condition I am now.
The cost of a bowl of spaghetti noodles with beans in it.
Average bushel of wheat on global market low estimate $6 (avg. weight 60 lbs.)
Average servings spaghetti noodles per bushel 210.
Average cost of pinto beans on the global market $11 bushel (avg. weight 60 lbs.)
Average servings of beans per bushel, 600.
So to provide ONE serving of noodles and beans to each of 500 million hungry people you would need
2.3 million bushels of wheat ($13.8 million / 138 million lbs.), and 833,334 bushels of pinto beans ($9.17 million / 138 million lbs.).
Now lets get 500 million cheap paper plates (Dixie 100 pack $3.99) = $20 million
and 500 million cheap plastic sporks (1k for $12 Amazon) = $6 million
Now I'll be generous and ignore the weight of the plates and sporks, they are magical. Lets just count the nations we must fly our bean spaghetti to using the most popular and widespread plane, the Boeing 737, with a cargo load of 86 tons.
We have 276 million lbs. of product to move.
that's 138,000 tons. - or 1,604 (rounded down) 737 flights.
Now, being generous, lets average 5,000 miles per flight @ 3 n-miles per gallon
so we need 2.68 million gallons of fuel @ $4 a gallon (generous) = $10.72 million
So just factoring in THIS one solitary plate of bean spaghetti to 500 million people all over the world will cost $59.7 million.
This ignores the weight of the plates and sporks - it assumes we already have the planes - it ignores the cost of local distribution once the planes reach their destination - it ignores the cost of labor - it ignores feeding and housing the laborers - it ignores the costs of cooking the food - it ignores the cost of diplomatic and political management in order to deliver the food to the hungry without fighting local warlords and oppressive governments...
But hey you gave 500 million people a plate of bean spaghetti.
300 billion is laughable to END world hunger. For maybe what, 3 bean spaghetti meals a day for two weeks?
I'm with Billy here,
can someone quantify and be specific with their goals, and what they actually want to DO.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I'm with Billy here,
can someone quantify and be specific with their goals, and what they actually want to DO.
Anything less then eradicating the problem is not enough. Saying you want to fix 20% or 30% is a drop in the bucket. You can pat yourself on the back, but you really have done nothing to stem the problem.
By the way, want to lower those prices? Let the farmers grow to their hearts content. The supply would increase and the prices would go down and the farmers would still be making a profit because of the increased sales.
Seems backwards to me. We are not going to agree, so I agree to disagree with you and move on. Not worth the time typing.
Yep, you think a starving persons life is more valuable than a soldiers. What's worse is, you think there is some moral impearative that says this.
And yes, if I was 30 years younger and not disabled, I would resign up and go over to fight in N.Korea. But I would be of no use in the condition I am now.
of course you would. Seems to me the people who talk about going to war are ones who actually can not participate in it but always say they would if they could....
Seems backwards to me. We are not going to agree, so I agree to disagree with you and move on. Not worth the time typing.
Yep, you think a starving persons life is more valuable than a soldiers. What's worse is, you think there is some moral impearative that says this.
And yes, if I was 30 years younger and not disabled, I would resign up and go over to fight in N.Korea. But I would be of no use in the condition I am now.
of course you would. Seems to me the people who talk about going to war are ones who actually can not participate in it but always say they would if they could....
I am 50 years old. I did my time, I have fought for my right to express my thoughts. Just because they dont agree with yours, doesnt give you the right to talk down to me.
I'm with Billy here,
can someone quantify and be specific with their goals, and what they actually want to DO.
Anything less then eradicating the problem is not enough. Saying you want to fix 20% or 30% is a drop in the bucket. You can pat yourself on the back, but you really have done nothing to stem the problem.
Perfect solution fallacy.
If you're unwilling to offer practical ideas that would solve ANY portion of the issue, how can you possibly call for complete eradication?
That's just lame.
That's like making a new years resolution to drop 100 pounds - then when someone asks how you plan to drop 10, you collapse on your own tongue with no credible ideas.
You want to eradicate it right? Great, so do I. Who doesn't?
Now, tell me how you're going to conquer 100 million hungry people, as a reasonable start considering there are nearly 900 million people suffering.
By the way, want to lower those prices? Let the farmers grow to their hearts content. The supply would increase and the prices would go down and the farmers would still be making a profit because of the increased sales.
This is just flat out incorrect.
(And no, I won't lower the prices, those are legit prices from the global crops marketplace, I'm not going to use "magic utopia" numbers in a serious cost breakdown)
Most of the farmers produce the amount of crops yields they currently produce because they are subsidized by the government.
They grow as much as they do because we create a fake demand.
Are you also going to ask the government and the FDA to let anyone who can grow, grow? Remember, much arable farmland is going either unused, or literally BANNED from use so that the government and big corp. can price fix.
So not only are you ignorant about crop management practices, you're talking about forcing the government and it's corporate buddies to take a HUGE profit loss. Good luck with that.
What increased sales are you talking about? Are we now asking the starving masses to BUY their plate of bean spaghetti? LOL
No, the plan was to give the food away to them, for free, because we can end world hunger with 300 billion
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Seems backwards to me. We are not going to agree, so I agree to disagree with you and move on. Not worth the time typing.
Yep, you think a starving persons life is more valuable than a soldiers. What's worse is, you think there is some moral impearative that says this.
And yes, if I was 30 years younger and not disabled, I would resign up and go over to fight in N.Korea. But I would be of no use in the condition I am now.
of course you would. Seems to me the people who talk about going to war are ones who actually can not participate in it but always say they would if they could....
I am 50 years old. I did my time, I have fought for my right to express my thoughts. Just because they dont agree with yours, doesnt give you the right to talk down to me.
Stop expressing opinions based on morals that can dramatically influence other peoples lives if you can not handle the resulting criticism. Further, I expressed my opinion on people who talk about sending people to war....not you specficially, even though you may fall into that group I was being critical of.
I'm with Billy here,
can someone quantify and be specific with their goals, and what they actually want to DO.
Anything less then eradicating the problem is not enough. Saying you want to fix 20% or 30% is a drop in the bucket. You can pat yourself on the back, but you really have done nothing to stem the problem.
Perfect solution fallacy.
If you're unwilling to offer practical ideas that would solve ANY portion of the issue, how can you possibly call for complete eradication?
That's just lame.
That's like making a new years resolution to drop 100 pounds - then when someone asks how you plan to drop 10, you collapse on your own tongue with no credible ideas.
You want to eradicate it right? Great, so do I. Who doesn't?
Now, tell me how you're going to conquer 100 million hungry people, as a reasonable start considering there are nearly 900 million people suffering.
By the way, want to lower those prices? Let the farmers grow to their hearts content. The supply would increase and the prices would go down and the farmers would still be making a profit because of the increased sales.
This is just flat out incorrect.
(And no, I won't lower the prices, those are legit prices from the global crops marketplace, I'm not going to use "magic utopia" numbers in a serious cost breakdown)
Most of the farmers produce the amount of crops yields they currently produce because they are subsidized by the government.
They grow as much as they do because we create a fake demand.
Are you also going to ask the government and the FDA to let anyone who can grow, grow? Remember, much arable farmland is going either unused, or literally BANNED from use so that the government and big corp. can price fix.
So not only are you ignorant about crop management practices, you're talking about forcing the government and it's corporate buddies to take a HUGE profit loss. Good luck with that.
What increased sales are you talking about? Are we now asking the starving masses to BUY their plate of bean spaghetti? LOL
No, the plan was to give the food away to them, for free, because we can end world hunger with 300 billion
The solution to eradicating hunger is not rocket science. Just feed the people.
As for your talk about crops. American prices are propped up by the government paying people NOT to grow. Now if they were allowed to grow as much as they wish, prices drop, the government can buy large quantity to feed the starving. and the consumer gets a deal on prices, all the while the farmer is still making his. The farmers of America alone could feed the entire world, if the government would allow the farmers to grow. But instead they wish to control the market.
The solution to eradicating hunger is not rocket science. Just feed the people.
What is your solution to all the people who die trying to facilitate feeding the hungry? Is it okay they die so the hungry people live eat?
You are really hung up on that one point. Why does the starting point have to be at the most hostile areas? Start where you are going to get less resistance. Get tons of world headlines, spread the word. Of course there will be small pockets of resistance, but I believe they would be far and few between. I mean its not like we are trying to take over the government, install our people, and dictate there government and politics or trying to control the local products.
By the way, soldiers are there to protect. Is not feeding the starving protecting those people? Soldiers put their lives on the line for much less.
Look at that list.....Take a long hard look at it.
Start where you are going to get less resistance.
I think you are either ignorant or naive to the amount of resistance you will get when you try to feed peope in poor countries. The people in power will rebel. The people in power will use the food to maintain that power. Are you a proponet of food distrubtion only to one ethnic or tribal entity? If not, you have to change the power structure...and that gets just a little muddy.
Get tons of world headlines, spread the word. Of course there will be small pockets of resistance, but I believe they would be far and few between.
People thought this about Iraq and Afghanistan as well. No one can credibly argue taht the Afghani's or Iraqi's were better off with their former regimes, regardless of the politcs in both wars. There are all kinds of reasons resistance occurs and very little of it is stopped by the goodwill we provide.
I mean its not like we are trying to take over the government, install our people, and dictate there government and politics or trying to control the local products.
Trying to control the food supply involves using political means to dictate to governments appropriate distrubtion of the food otherwise you will have food being used as a politcal tool and people will still starve.
You really need to do some homework on this issue. This issue is not lack of food or not having access. The issue is politcal. You have to solve the politcal issues in the various countries you are trying to help and bloodshed will be a need in a majority of them. You just do not understand this.
Look at that list.....Take a long hard look at it.
Start where you are going to get less resistance.
I think you are either ignorant or naive to the amount of resistance you will get when you try to feed peope in poor countries. The people in power will rebel. The people in power will use the food to maintain that power. Are you a proponet of food distrubtion only to one ethnic or tribal entity? If not, you have to change the power structure...and that gets just a little muddy.
Get tons of world headlines, spread the word. Of course there will be small pockets of resistance, but I believe they would be far and few between.
People thought this about Iraq and Afghanistan as well. No one can credibly argue taht the Afghani's or Iraqi's were better off with their former regimes, regardless of the politcs in both wars. There are all kinds of reasons resistance occurs and very little of it is stopped by the goodwill we provide.
I mean its not like we are trying to take over the government, install our people, and dictate there government and politics or trying to control the local products.
Trying to control the food supply involves using political means to dictate to governments appropriate distrubtion of the food otherwise you will have food being used as a politcal tool and people will still starve.
You really need to do some homework on this issue. This issue is not lack of food or not having access. The issue is politcal. You have to solve the politcal issues in the various countries you are trying to help and bloodshed will be a need in a majority of them. You just do not understand this.
There is really no use trying to explain anything to you because you have it set in your mind its a political thing. You are making it WAY more difficult then it has to be.
I am done with this debate. We agree to disagree....again.
What you are missing is alcohol and pot slow your reaction times, the drugs you mention speed them up or make them better.
If your child is playing on the couch and falls and you are high, your reaction time is going to be slower and there is a greater chance of the child being hurt because of your lack of action. What you mention wouldnt have that effect.
What you are missing that most parents can afford to get someone else to look after their kid while they get drunk.
Besides, severe amounts of work-induced stress reduce your reaction times, in cases even more than small amounts of alcohol. In fact, small amounts of alcohol increase ones reaction times. Should we ban parents from having a stressful full-time job?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Back to the OP's original post, wealth is more then money in a bank account. I can own a business and not have enough money to pay bills or own a car, but I still have wealth and a way to borrow money. I would say the disparity of weath from top to bottom really has not changed. Look back at the times of Rockefeller and Carnegie they had many, many times the wealth of the commoners. Hell, I believe at one time Rockefeller was worth more money then the whole country had money.
I'm with Billy here,
can someone quantify and be specific with their goals, and what they actually want to DO.
Anything less then eradicating the problem is not enough. Saying you want to fix 20% or 30% is a drop in the bucket. You can pat yourself on the back, but you really have done nothing to stem the problem.
Perfect solution fallacy.
If you're unwilling to offer practical ideas that would solve ANY portion of the issue, how can you possibly call for complete eradication?
That's just lame.
That's like making a new years resolution to drop 100 pounds - then when someone asks how you plan to drop 10, you collapse on your own tongue with no credible ideas.
You want to eradicate it right? Great, so do I. Who doesn't?
Now, tell me how you're going to conquer 100 million hungry people, as a reasonable start considering there are nearly 900 million people suffering.
By the way, want to lower those prices? Let the farmers grow to their hearts content. The supply would increase and the prices would go down and the farmers would still be making a profit because of the increased sales.
This is just flat out incorrect.
(And no, I won't lower the prices, those are legit prices from the global crops marketplace, I'm not going to use "magic utopia" numbers in a serious cost breakdown)
Most of the farmers produce the amount of crops yields they currently produce because they are subsidized by the government.
They grow as much as they do because we create a fake demand.
Are you also going to ask the government and the FDA to let anyone who can grow, grow? Remember, much arable farmland is going either unused, or literally BANNED from use so that the government and big corp. can price fix.
So not only are you ignorant about crop management practices, you're talking about forcing the government and it's corporate buddies to take a HUGE profit loss. Good luck with that.
What increased sales are you talking about? Are we now asking the starving masses to BUY their plate of bean spaghetti? LOL
No, the plan was to give the food away to them, for free, because we can end world hunger with 300 billion
The solution to eradicating hunger is not rocket science. Just feed the people.
Ok. Nice platitude.
Now I want you to give me an idea about HOW you PLAN to feed the people?
I'll even make it easy for you, start with the 5 million hungry children who will likely die of malnutrition this coming year.
5 million, a fraction of the actual number of people who are going hungry as we speak. Tell me what your PLAN is, or your argument is basically useless.
"Hey everybody, I have a plan to bring world peace! Just stop fighting!"
As for your talk about crops. American prices are propped up by the government paying people NOT to grow. Now if they were allowed to grow as much as they wish, prices drop, the government can buy large quantity to feed the starving. and the consumer gets a deal on prices, all the while the farmer is still making his. The farmers of America alone could feed the entire world, if the government would allow the farmers to grow. But instead they wish to control the market.
Farm subsidies cover a lot of ground. Some are to grow more of X, Y, or Z. Some are to not grow A, B, or C. Some are to cover the risk of crop losses. Some are to pay for new technology. Some are to ensure only certain seeds are used as opposed to other seeds....
What I was pointing out in my post was that many farmers are paid TO GROW corn and wheat instead of something else they might want to grow.
So if we let farmers grow whatever they want, they might not grow the wheat and corn that would stretch to the mouths of starving Angolans, which they must feed for free to end world hunger - they might choose to grow organic eggplant or golden Yukon potatoes, or something far more profitable.
Remember, the reason pasta and beans was used in my example is that per acre they are the most likely option to feed millions of hungry people due to crop pricing and usable harvests.
But it's not the only option.
I'm with Billy here,
can someone quantify and be specific with their goals, and what they actually want to DO.
Anything less then eradicating the problem is not enough. Saying you want to fix 20% or 30% is a drop in the bucket. You can pat yourself on the back, but you really have done nothing to stem the problem.
Perfect solution fallacy.
If you're unwilling to offer practical ideas that would solve ANY portion of the issue, how can you possibly call for complete eradication?
That's just lame.
That's like making a new years resolution to drop 100 pounds - then when someone asks how you plan to drop 10, you collapse on your own tongue with no credible ideas.
You want to eradicate it right? Great, so do I. Who doesn't?
Now, tell me how you're going to conquer 100 million hungry people, as a reasonable start considering there are nearly 900 million people suffering.
By the way, want to lower those prices? Let the farmers grow to their hearts content. The supply would increase and the prices would go down and the farmers would still be making a profit because of the increased sales.
This is just flat out incorrect.
(And no, I won't lower the prices, those are legit prices from the global crops marketplace, I'm not going to use "magic utopia" numbers in a serious cost breakdown)
Most of the farmers produce the amount of crops yields they currently produce because they are subsidized by the government.
They grow as much as they do because we create a fake demand.
Are you also going to ask the government and the FDA to let anyone who can grow, grow? Remember, much arable farmland is going either unused, or literally BANNED from use so that the government and big corp. can price fix.
So not only are you ignorant about crop management practices, you're talking about forcing the government and it's corporate buddies to take a HUGE profit loss. Good luck with that.
What increased sales are you talking about? Are we now asking the starving masses to BUY their plate of bean spaghetti? LOL
No, the plan was to give the food away to them, for free, because we can end world hunger with 300 billion
The solution to eradicating hunger is not rocket science. Just feed the people.
Ok. Nice platitude.
Now I want you to give me an idea about HOW you PLAN to feed the people?
I'll even make it easy for you, start with the 5 million hungry children who will likely die of malnutrition this coming year.
5 million, a fraction of the actual number of people who are going hungry as we speak. Tell me what your PLAN is, or your argument is basically useless.
"Hey everybody, I have a plan to bring world peace! Just stop fighting!"
As for your talk about crops. American prices are propped up by the government paying people NOT to grow. Now if they were allowed to grow as much as they wish, prices drop, the government can buy large quantity to feed the starving. and the consumer gets a deal on prices, all the while the farmer is still making his. The farmers of America alone could feed the entire world, if the government would allow the farmers to grow. But instead they wish to control the market.
Farm subsidies cover a lot of ground. Some are to grow more of X, Y, or Z. Some are to not grow A, B, or C. Some are to cover the risk of crop losses. Some are to pay for new technology. Some are to ensure only certain seeds are used as opposed to other seeds....
What I was pointing out in my post was that many farmers are paid TO GROW corn and wheat instead of something else they might want to grow.
So if we let farmers grow whatever they want, they might not grow the wheat and corn that would stretch to the mouths of starving Angolans, which they must feed for free to end world hunger - they might choose to grow organic eggplant or golden Yukon potatoes, or something far more profitable.
Remember, the reason pasta and beans was used in my example is that per acre they are the most likely option to feed millions of hungry people due to crop pricing and usable harvests.
But it's not the only option.
Still, I guess since you have no idea what you actually want to do, you're going to leave the debate
You are walking down the street, you see a guy asking for food, you feed him. If he wants money instead, he probably is not hungry.
The same thing goes for the world. You have nations complaining they have starving people, fine, send them food, not money. It really is not that complicated. People are making it much more difficult then it has to be.
By the way, I live in a farming state. I know personally farmers that are not allowed to grow any crops on their property. They have reverted to dairy farms and now they are being told they can only produce so much milk. So these farmers are giving milk away or throwing it away because the government is stopping them from selling it.
Let the farmers grow. Work with the farming community so we have enough corn and wheat growers. Again, this is not a hard practice, all it takes is a little communication with all involved.
The problem is, the government is too use to manipulating the farmers markets and dont know how to do it any other way. And they have convinced the farmers and consumers of the same thing.
There is no debate, it can be done, its not that hard to do. You are going to bring up money, how many billions are spent on defense? How many billions are sent over seas for various reasons? We have the money to do it. I say use the money for more humanitarian efforts.
This debate is close to stalled. Find another angle or I'll close it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Feeding people isn't a matter of political will, because it isn't a political issue. It's a matter of average people learning to stop thinking it's the government's problem to solve and not their own.
Seriously, if you think people ought to get enough food to survive, you, personally, have it in your power to end that problem for at least one person, without even trying very hard. If you care enough about this issue to bother posting in this thread, then spend that time actually helping, and the problem will get a little better.
Stop caring about the logistical hurdles of plans that will never happen anyway. They don't matter. You are not Bill Gates. Just do something, anything, that personally addresses the problem on an individual level. This problem would seem so small and manageable if people would focus on what they can actually do instead of what they can't.
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
I'm with Billy here,
can someone quantify and be specific with their goals, and what they actually want to DO.
Anything less then eradicating the problem is not enough. Saying you want to fix 20% or 30% is a drop in the bucket. You can pat yourself on the back, but you really have done nothing to stem the problem.
Perfect solution fallacy.
If you're unwilling to offer practical ideas that would solve ANY portion of the issue, how can you possibly call for complete eradication?
That's just lame.
That's like making a new years resolution to drop 100 pounds - then when someone asks how you plan to drop 10, you collapse on your own tongue with no credible ideas.
You want to eradicate it right? Great, so do I. Who doesn't?
Now, tell me how you're going to conquer 100 million hungry people, as a reasonable start considering there are nearly 900 million people suffering.
By the way, want to lower those prices? Let the farmers grow to their hearts content. The supply would increase and the prices would go down and the farmers would still be making a profit because of the increased sales.
This is just flat out incorrect.
(And no, I won't lower the prices, those are legit prices from the global crops marketplace, I'm not going to use "magic utopia" numbers in a serious cost breakdown)
Most of the farmers produce the amount of crops yields they currently produce because they are subsidized by the government.
They grow as much as they do because we create a fake demand.
Are you also going to ask the government and the FDA to let anyone who can grow, grow? Remember, much arable farmland is going either unused, or literally BANNED from use so that the government and big corp. can price fix.
So not only are you ignorant about crop management practices, you're talking about forcing the government and it's corporate buddies to take a HUGE profit loss. Good luck with that.
What increased sales are you talking about? Are we now asking the starving masses to BUY their plate of bean spaghetti? LOL
No, the plan was to give the food away to them, for free, because we can end world hunger with 300 billion
The solution to eradicating hunger is not rocket science. Just feed the people.
Ok. Nice platitude.
Now I want you to give me an idea about HOW you PLAN to feed the people?
I'll even make it easy for you, start with the 5 million hungry children who will likely die of malnutrition this coming year.
5 million, a fraction of the actual number of people who are going hungry as we speak. Tell me what your PLAN is, or your argument is basically useless.
"Hey everybody, I have a plan to bring world peace! Just stop fighting!"
As for your talk about crops. American prices are propped up by the government paying people NOT to grow. Now if they were allowed to grow as much as they wish, prices drop, the government can buy large quantity to feed the starving. and the consumer gets a deal on prices, all the while the farmer is still making his. The farmers of America alone could feed the entire world, if the government would allow the farmers to grow. But instead they wish to control the market.
Farm subsidies cover a lot of ground. Some are to grow more of X, Y, or Z. Some are to not grow A, B, or C. Some are to cover the risk of crop losses. Some are to pay for new technology. Some are to ensure only certain seeds are used as opposed to other seeds....
What I was pointing out in my post was that many farmers are paid TO GROW corn and wheat instead of something else they might want to grow.
So if we let farmers grow whatever they want, they might not grow the wheat and corn that would stretch to the mouths of starving Angolans, which they must feed for free to end world hunger - they might choose to grow organic eggplant or golden Yukon potatoes, or something far more profitable.
Remember, the reason pasta and beans was used in my example is that per acre they are the most likely option to feed millions of hungry people due to crop pricing and usable harvests.
But it's not the only option.
Still, I guess since you have no idea what you actually want to do, you're going to leave the debate
You are walking down the street, you see a guy asking for food, you feed him. If he wants money instead, he probably is not hungry.
How do I walk down the street and feed a Somali child, or a Angolan, or a Ukrainian, or a Thai?
I have given time and money to charities, my favorite is actually Doctors Without Borders.
There's still the matter of scale, and you haven't told me anything useful yet.
The same thing goes for the world. You have nations complaining they have starving people, fine, send them food, not money. It really is not that complicated. People are making it much more difficult then it has to be.
Okay, who is the first to get the food shipment, the hungry, or the government, the hungry, or the warlords?
By the way, I live in a farming state. I know personally farmers that are not allowed to grow any crops on their property. They have reverted to dairy farms and now they are being told they can only produce so much milk. So these farmers are giving milk away or throwing it away because the government is stopping them from selling it.
No argument here, I know what's going on in the US agriculture.
Let the farmers grow. Work with the farming community so we have enough corn and wheat growers. Again, this is not a hard practice, all it takes is a little communication with all involved.
Ummmm, not just communication, but the end of CORRUPTION in the government, the FDA, and even in the farmers themselves.
You can't just skip over the ACTUAL problems, and go right to "communications".
The problem is, the government is too use to manipulating the farmers markets and dont know how to do it any other way. And they have convinced the farmers and consumers of the same thing.
So you're saying it ISN'T just as easy as communications
There is no debate, it can be done, its not that hard to do. You are going to bring up money, how many billions are spent on defense? How many billions are sent over seas for various reasons? We have the money to do it. I say use the money for more humanitarian efforts.
I don't disagree, we spend way too much on military interventionism.
However, do you not think it would take some military interventionism to feed the starving people of North Korea?
A question Billy asked of Senori that was ignored as often as possible.
You can't end world hunger, or poverty, with 300 billion (the op-ed Senori posted) by ignoring the TRUTH, the truth is you'd have to wage at minimum two more long term conflicts in order to rescue those people.
Not all starving people live in places we can go without a fight.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Just do something, anything, that personally addresses the problem on an individual level.
The problem doesn't exist on the individual level. It exists on a global, systemic level. Charity can stop some people from starving to death but only a restructuring of the global system of resource distribution will prevent people from going hungry in the first place.
I'm not sure I see where that perspective is coming from. I mean, sure, hypothetically, you could have a system of resource distribution where everyone gets exactly equal resources (for example), but there's no evidence whatsoever in the entire history of humanity that such a system can actually exist. We'd do as well hypothesizing about very large atoms, just because we can visualize how they would be structured, despite the fact that the forces do not exist to hold them together.
Envisioning an idealized version of society doesn't mean the social forces exist to make it happen, or that they ever could. If you look at the 5-year plans of the USSR, you'll see the consequences of just assuming that such forces exist when you design your programs.
Simple charity works, especially if people are attentive, and especially especially if people live in a culture where charity isn't treated as something extraordinary. It doesn't address the problem on a systemic level, but there is *no* historical evidence to suggest that anything does.
Wit's End is the PERFECT answer to your opponent's Monomania however.
Just hold on to your Wit's End when they Monomania, so you can Wit's End them on your next turn!!!
I think this is fairly reminiscent of the "Jace Battles" we have seen in past standards.. My guess is we will soon witness the great Monomania-Wit's End battles.
Just do something, anything, that personally addresses the problem on an individual level.
The problem doesn't exist on the individual level. It exists on a global, systemic level. Charity can stop some people from starving to death but only a restructuring of the global system of resource distribution will prevent people from going hungry in the first place.
So, basically, just do two things at the same time: alleviate immediate suffering while working to prevent future suffering.
Excluding places where government deliberately restricts access to food, the problem is totally individual. These are real people with real struggles and real issues and their own unique individual stories. It sounds like a lot when we talk about hundreds of millions suffering, but puddlejumper has a point. A problem like this does not get solved by creating an authoritative agency that goes out and crams food down people's throats. It gets solved by caring individuals taking time and resources out of their own lives to help someone else by not just feeding them, but also listening to them and reminding them that they are a part of this social creature called humanity. It seems to me there are plenty of people who are not impoverished. If we each helped someone directly, then we could eliminate a lot of suffering in the world. It is an individual solution that can solve a global problem.
Excluding places where government deliberately restricts access to food, the problem is totally individual. These are real people with real struggles and real issues and their own unique individual stories. It sounds like a lot when we talk about hundreds of millions suffering, but puddlejumper has a point. A problem like this does not get solved by creating an authoritative agency that goes out and crams food down people's throats. It gets solved by caring individuals taking time and resources out of their own lives to help someone else by not just feeding them, but also listening to them and reminding them that they are a part of this social creature called humanity. It seems to me there are plenty of people who are not impoverished. If we each helped someone directly, then we could eliminate a lot of suffering in the world. It is an individual solution that can solve a global problem.
This is fantastically bull****. Is polio an individual problem? How about smallpox?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hmmmm So over running a government to get a regime more towards our ideas is war worthy. Revenge is war worthy. Control of products or water ways are war worthy. But humanitarian efforts are not. Seems backwards to me. We are not going to agree, so I agree to disagree with you and move on. Not worth the time typing.
And yes, if I was 30 years younger and not disabled, I would resign up and go over to fight in N.Korea. But I would be of no use in the condition I am now.
http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats
Being generous, I'll just use a nice flat number: 500 million people living in hunger.
The cost of a bowl of spaghetti noodles with beans in it.
Average bushel of wheat on global market low estimate $6 (avg. weight 60 lbs.)
Average servings spaghetti noodles per bushel 210.
Average cost of pinto beans on the global market $11 bushel (avg. weight 60 lbs.)
Average servings of beans per bushel, 600.
So to provide ONE serving of noodles and beans to each of 500 million hungry people you would need
2.3 million bushels of wheat ($13.8 million / 138 million lbs.), and 833,334 bushels of pinto beans ($9.17 million / 138 million lbs.).
Now lets get 500 million cheap paper plates (Dixie 100 pack $3.99) = $20 million
and 500 million cheap plastic sporks (1k for $12 Amazon) = $6 million
Now I'll be generous and ignore the weight of the plates and sporks, they are magical. Lets just count the nations we must fly our bean spaghetti to using the most popular and widespread plane, the Boeing 737, with a cargo load of 86 tons.
We have 276 million lbs. of product to move.
that's 138,000 tons. - or 1,604 (rounded down) 737 flights.
Now, being generous, lets average 5,000 miles per flight @ 3 n-miles per gallon
so we need 2.68 million gallons of fuel @ $4 a gallon (generous) = $10.72 million
So just factoring in THIS one solitary plate of bean spaghetti to 500 million people all over the world will cost $59.7 million.
This ignores the weight of the plates and sporks - it assumes we already have the planes - it ignores the cost of local distribution once the planes reach their destination - it ignores the cost of labor - it ignores feeding and housing the laborers - it ignores the costs of cooking the food - it ignores the cost of diplomatic and political management in order to deliver the food to the hungry without fighting local warlords and oppressive governments...
But hey you gave 500 million people a plate of bean spaghetti.
300 billion is laughable to END world hunger. For maybe what, 3 bean spaghetti meals a day for two weeks?
I'm with Billy here,
can someone quantify and be specific with their goals, and what they actually want to DO.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Anything less then eradicating the problem is not enough. Saying you want to fix 20% or 30% is a drop in the bucket. You can pat yourself on the back, but you really have done nothing to stem the problem.
By the way, want to lower those prices? Let the farmers grow to their hearts content. The supply would increase and the prices would go down and the farmers would still be making a profit because of the increased sales.
Yep, you think a starving persons life is more valuable than a soldiers. What's worse is, you think there is some moral impearative that says this.
of course you would. Seems to me the people who talk about going to war are ones who actually can not participate in it but always say they would if they could....
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I am 50 years old. I did my time, I have fought for my right to express my thoughts. Just because they dont agree with yours, doesnt give you the right to talk down to me.
Perfect solution fallacy.
If you're unwilling to offer practical ideas that would solve ANY portion of the issue, how can you possibly call for complete eradication?
That's just lame.
That's like making a new years resolution to drop 100 pounds - then when someone asks how you plan to drop 10, you collapse on your own tongue with no credible ideas.
You want to eradicate it right? Great, so do I. Who doesn't?
Now, tell me how you're going to conquer 100 million hungry people, as a reasonable start considering there are nearly 900 million people suffering.
This is just flat out incorrect.
(And no, I won't lower the prices, those are legit prices from the global crops marketplace, I'm not going to use "magic utopia" numbers in a serious cost breakdown)
Most of the farmers produce the amount of crops yields they currently produce because they are subsidized by the government.
They grow as much as they do because we create a fake demand.
Are you also going to ask the government and the FDA to let anyone who can grow, grow? Remember, much arable farmland is going either unused, or literally BANNED from use so that the government and big corp. can price fix.
So not only are you ignorant about crop management practices, you're talking about forcing the government and it's corporate buddies to take a HUGE profit loss. Good luck with that.
What increased sales are you talking about? Are we now asking the starving masses to BUY their plate of bean spaghetti? LOL
No, the plan was to give the food away to them, for free, because we can end world hunger with 300 billion
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Stop expressing opinions based on morals that can dramatically influence other peoples lives if you can not handle the resulting criticism. Further, I expressed my opinion on people who talk about sending people to war....not you specficially, even though you may fall into that group I was being critical of.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
The solution to eradicating hunger is not rocket science. Just feed the people.
As for your talk about crops. American prices are propped up by the government paying people NOT to grow. Now if they were allowed to grow as much as they wish, prices drop, the government can buy large quantity to feed the starving. and the consumer gets a deal on prices, all the while the farmer is still making his. The farmers of America alone could feed the entire world, if the government would allow the farmers to grow. But instead they wish to control the market.
What is your solution to all the people who die trying to facilitate feeding the hungry? Is it okay they die so the hungry people
liveeat?calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
You are really hung up on that one point. Why does the starting point have to be at the most hostile areas? Start where you are going to get less resistance. Get tons of world headlines, spread the word. Of course there will be small pockets of resistance, but I believe they would be far and few between. I mean its not like we are trying to take over the government, install our people, and dictate there government and politics or trying to control the local products.
By the way, soldiers are there to protect. Is not feeding the starving protecting those people? Soldiers put their lives on the line for much less.
Because you keep saying stuff like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hunger_Index
Look at that list.....Take a long hard look at it.
I think you are either ignorant or naive to the amount of resistance you will get when you try to feed peope in poor countries. The people in power will rebel. The people in power will use the food to maintain that power. Are you a proponet of food distrubtion only to one ethnic or tribal entity? If not, you have to change the power structure...and that gets just a little muddy.
People thought this about Iraq and Afghanistan as well. No one can credibly argue taht the Afghani's or Iraqi's were better off with their former regimes, regardless of the politcs in both wars. There are all kinds of reasons resistance occurs and very little of it is stopped by the goodwill we provide.
Trying to control the food supply involves using political means to dictate to governments appropriate distrubtion of the food otherwise you will have food being used as a politcal tool and people will still starve.
You really need to do some homework on this issue. This issue is not lack of food or not having access. The issue is politcal. You have to solve the politcal issues in the various countries you are trying to help and bloodshed will be a need in a majority of them. You just do not understand this.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
There is really no use trying to explain anything to you because you have it set in your mind its a political thing. You are making it WAY more difficult then it has to be.
I am done with this debate. We agree to disagree....again.
I'm not sure if I should be sad at your nativity or annoyed at your willful ignorance on the topic.
I'm not making it anything....you have a distinct disconnect with accepting reality.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
What you are missing that most parents can afford to get someone else to look after their kid while they get drunk.
Besides, severe amounts of work-induced stress reduce your reaction times, in cases even more than small amounts of alcohol. In fact, small amounts of alcohol increase ones reaction times. Should we ban parents from having a stressful full-time job?
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Did anyone take those numbers seriously? I hope not...
Ok. Nice platitude.
Now I want you to give me an idea about HOW you PLAN to feed the people?
I'll even make it easy for you, start with the 5 million hungry children who will likely die of malnutrition this coming year.
5 million, a fraction of the actual number of people who are going hungry as we speak. Tell me what your PLAN is, or your argument is basically useless.
"Hey everybody, I have a plan to bring world peace! Just stop fighting!"
Farm subsidies cover a lot of ground. Some are to grow more of X, Y, or Z. Some are to not grow A, B, or C. Some are to cover the risk of crop losses. Some are to pay for new technology. Some are to ensure only certain seeds are used as opposed to other seeds....
What I was pointing out in my post was that many farmers are paid TO GROW corn and wheat instead of something else they might want to grow.
So if we let farmers grow whatever they want, they might not grow the wheat and corn that would stretch to the mouths of starving Angolans, which they must feed for free to end world hunger - they might choose to grow organic eggplant or golden Yukon potatoes, or something far more profitable.
Remember, the reason pasta and beans was used in my example is that per acre they are the most likely option to feed millions of hungry people due to crop pricing and usable harvests.
But it's not the only option.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AgriculturalSubsidyPrograms.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-09/farmers-boost-revenue-sowing-subsidies-for-crop-insurance.html
Still, I guess since you have no idea what you actually want to do, you're going to leave the debate
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
You are walking down the street, you see a guy asking for food, you feed him. If he wants money instead, he probably is not hungry.
The same thing goes for the world. You have nations complaining they have starving people, fine, send them food, not money. It really is not that complicated. People are making it much more difficult then it has to be.
By the way, I live in a farming state. I know personally farmers that are not allowed to grow any crops on their property. They have reverted to dairy farms and now they are being told they can only produce so much milk. So these farmers are giving milk away or throwing it away because the government is stopping them from selling it.
Let the farmers grow. Work with the farming community so we have enough corn and wheat growers. Again, this is not a hard practice, all it takes is a little communication with all involved.
The problem is, the government is too use to manipulating the farmers markets and dont know how to do it any other way. And they have convinced the farmers and consumers of the same thing.
There is no debate, it can be done, its not that hard to do. You are going to bring up money, how many billions are spent on defense? How many billions are sent over seas for various reasons? We have the money to do it. I say use the money for more humanitarian efforts.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Seriously, if you think people ought to get enough food to survive, you, personally, have it in your power to end that problem for at least one person, without even trying very hard. If you care enough about this issue to bother posting in this thread, then spend that time actually helping, and the problem will get a little better.
Stop caring about the logistical hurdles of plans that will never happen anyway. They don't matter. You are not Bill Gates. Just do something, anything, that personally addresses the problem on an individual level. This problem would seem so small and manageable if people would focus on what they can actually do instead of what they can't.
How do I walk down the street and feed a Somali child, or a Angolan, or a Ukrainian, or a Thai?
I have given time and money to charities, my favorite is actually Doctors Without Borders.
There's still the matter of scale, and you haven't told me anything useful yet.
Okay, who is the first to get the food shipment, the hungry, or the government, the hungry, or the warlords?
No argument here, I know what's going on in the US agriculture.
Ummmm, not just communication, but the end of CORRUPTION in the government, the FDA, and even in the farmers themselves.
You can't just skip over the ACTUAL problems, and go right to "communications".
So you're saying it ISN'T just as easy as communications
I don't disagree, we spend way too much on military interventionism.
However, do you not think it would take some military interventionism to feed the starving people of North Korea?
A question Billy asked of Senori that was ignored as often as possible.
You can't end world hunger, or poverty, with 300 billion (the op-ed Senori posted) by ignoring the TRUTH, the truth is you'd have to wage at minimum two more long term conflicts in order to rescue those people.
Not all starving people live in places we can go without a fight.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I'm not sure I see where that perspective is coming from. I mean, sure, hypothetically, you could have a system of resource distribution where everyone gets exactly equal resources (for example), but there's no evidence whatsoever in the entire history of humanity that such a system can actually exist. We'd do as well hypothesizing about very large atoms, just because we can visualize how they would be structured, despite the fact that the forces do not exist to hold them together.
Envisioning an idealized version of society doesn't mean the social forces exist to make it happen, or that they ever could. If you look at the 5-year plans of the USSR, you'll see the consequences of just assuming that such forces exist when you design your programs.
Simple charity works, especially if people are attentive, and especially especially if people live in a culture where charity isn't treated as something extraordinary. It doesn't address the problem on a systemic level, but there is *no* historical evidence to suggest that anything does.
Think about why people starve in countries where there is food surplus.
Its not an issue of distribution. Its an issue of political shenanigans.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Excluding places where government deliberately restricts access to food, the problem is totally individual. These are real people with real struggles and real issues and their own unique individual stories. It sounds like a lot when we talk about hundreds of millions suffering, but puddlejumper has a point. A problem like this does not get solved by creating an authoritative agency that goes out and crams food down people's throats. It gets solved by caring individuals taking time and resources out of their own lives to help someone else by not just feeding them, but also listening to them and reminding them that they are a part of this social creature called humanity. It seems to me there are plenty of people who are not impoverished. If we each helped someone directly, then we could eliminate a lot of suffering in the world. It is an individual solution that can solve a global problem.
This is fantastically bull****. Is polio an individual problem? How about smallpox?
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.