Because of my screen name, I feel obligated to ask these questions: Are we doing enough to get rid of world hunger? What can we do to get rid of it? Can it even be done?
In my opinion asking how to solve world hunger would be like asking how to cure AIDS or how to get world peace or somthing along those lines, most of what can be done to stop world hunger would be happening now but I highly doubt someone is just going to come up with an idea that will all of a sudden just stop world hunger.
This won't necessarily end it, but I think it might help. My aunt is a microbiologist, and she was recently telling us about a project she's been working on where they're trying to develop a cheaper and more nutritious hot dog that could be distributed to those in need. I think it's a really cool idea, and it could really help.
ROFL was gonna say that too. uhh not much we can do really, world hunger is just too widespread. Just don't waste too much and enjoy your food...
Here's a nice little fact for you all: There is no shortage of food in this world, in fact there is plenty. However the countries with people starving is because of poor distribution of the food. See, this is where politics comes in, and corruption plays its worst. Lets say the people who have the food doesn't want to give it away, but instead, sell it for more than it's worth (supply and demand), and the people who have alot of the money can then purchase the food. Well, this puts the people with less money in a little predicament, don't you think? So there is plenty of food like I said, there is just a poor distribution by the people who have the food. This cannot be solved by one nation or any nation for that matter, except for the ones this problem is stagnant in, atleast by non-violent means. So until many of those countries allow other countries like America to get involved, without bitching about it, this problem is going to persist. This is also similar to the Iraq war. We're in Iraq because of a malicious dictator, Saddam Hussein, and he is killing many of his own people. How was that any different from what is going on now? The governments are killing their own people, just in a different (and more brutal) way. Will we be justified to go into those other countries, root out their poor government and it's corruption, re-establish a new government (one that will properly distribute food), all through violent means? Until we can, the problem will go on, people will die, and I'll be enjoying myself eating a nice juicy steak or a massive mountain of mashed potato's; without giving those starving people in those ----ty countries a second thought.
Are you honestly suggesting that America should invade every country where people are starving? Take out their governments are replace them...like IRAQ?? If there is one thing that war has taught me it's that no matter how good your intentions, war and invasion always leads to trouble, and trying to simply force democracy upon a country is impossible. Let's not forget, most of these countries are in Africa, and most struggle with governments put in place by Western authority that were asked to comply with Western morals/laws etc. which just don't work in their countries. If the people, and worse the leaders, do not understand why they are doing something then corruption is a very brief step away. Also, you mentioned how food isn't evenly spread. That's very true, but it isn't necessarily corruption in governments in those countries with starving populace that is the problem. What about Western society deliberately exploiting these countries, making it impossible for local trade to be established. That's what Fair Trades all about. And then there is the extreme wastage of Western society, with the ridiculous at one end, such as the mass grain burning in America during 1950's etc. to the every day, like the stupid amount of food we throw away because is isn't the "best" (yeah we eat the steak of a cow, and some other parts, but the sheer amount of meat wasted each time one animal is killed is appalling - even with a lot going into dog/cat food).
What if those governments are doing all they can? I personally feel that better governments (or at least policy) in those countries that are NOT "starving" would work far quicker. Either way it occurs that the world is overpopulated; maybe there is no answer behind allowing population to decrease. That sounds harsh, but nature is...I mean yes we HAVE enough food for everyone, but it IS difficult to get it everywhere without extreme expense or it simply going off. If you moved everyone out of those areas that cannot support large farming communities or a really good economy then...well it wouldn't work, there isn't enough space anywhere else. *shrugs*
tought question. I think the main thing we need to do is get rid of trade barriers, this will mean nations get a decent price for their raw materials, then they can start boosting their economies and feeding the people
But having trade barriers means that powerful protectionist lobbies would be unhappy. And they do hold tremendous political clout. Unless the politicians want lose lose their support, I doubt the trade tariffs will be relaxed. Likewise for agricultural subsidies.
