User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Why haven't we solved world hunger?

  1. #11
    morose bourgeoisie Array
    Join Date
    Mar 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    No way, what happened to my posts?

    I was writing about food security and international policy, is this like some kind of humour thread in which an actual response is off topic?
    Mine went bye-bye too.
    I doubt it was personal.

  2. #12

  3. #13


    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Reasons not to bother with the forum #1002
    Hopefully I am the Alpha and the Omega.

    Seriously, you probably posted in the identical thread on this subject, in the NT subforum.

  4. #14
    philosopher wood nymph Array greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    6w5 sx/sp


    Quote Originally Posted by AzulEyes View Post
    Posted this in the NT forum too- but knowing we have the capacity as a planet and human species to END world hunger, and knowing that children die every day, and knowing we can forecast that more will die tomorrow, next month, next year etc- why don't we solve it?

    Is it greed?
    Is it apathy?
    Is is racism?
    Is it stupidity?

    Should "nature take it's course" and people should starve to level off the population?

    Or should we do something about it knowing that we can?
    All of the above. Yes to every single question.

    Mostly, rich people want to stay rich and people want to get rich. An economy based on money turns everything into a commodity, which makes it possible for it to be exploited. When something is exploited, it is treated merely as a means to an end and not an end in itself. This sort of system of (un)ethical thinking creates and enforces attitudes of depersonalization and severs personal connection. The land, natural resources, animals, and people who are being used as means to ends become a depersonalized other, a non-sentient thing which lacks moral worth. It creates and enforces a system of hierarchy. Those at the bottom (including the Earth) cease to be important.

    Combine this with overpopulation, and people think in terms of competition rather than cooperation.

    While we could theoretically support all the people on the planet, we can't support this number of people in a healthy manner, because that will require a healthy biosphere, which will require a much larger amount of space consisting of natural wilderness, along with a great reduction in industrialization.

    So some people must die to preserve the balance of nature. It'll happen sooner or later. The Earth is a large ecosystem, and ecosystems have self-regulating processes which include keeping populations of species in balance. For 99% of human history we have accepted this fact. It's only been within the last 12,000 years (modern humans evolved about 120,000 years ago) that humans have developed the technology to have the birth rate far exceed the death rate.

    6w5, 4w3, 1w9 (probably)

  5. #15
    Senior Member Array
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    468 sx/so
    :-( None


    I'm inclined to think it's one of those things that just goes along with being agricultural.

    Ever since humans stopped hunting and gathering and started planting things, we've had haves and have-nots. The bigger and more bureaucratized our societies have become, the correspondingly greater the stratification. Some are stuck on the bottom without even the means to feed themselves, and they are helpless against the rich and powerful. As humans, we're designed to care most about "our people", so unless we and our families are the ones who are starving, the will to change the status quo just isn't there (and if you're the one who is starving, you haven't got the means to promote your own cause).

    I think a lot of people do care, but even when folks donate money and organize relief efforts, there are logistical and bureaucratic problems. For instance, I think I read somewhere that about 83% of UNICEF's proceeds go toward supporting UNICEF--it's not that efficient, right? Same goes for distributing resources towards world hunger. It's just the nature of our society--"hunger" is not hitting close enough to home, and the structure of society doesn't make for an easy re-distribution of resources.

    I think a better question is, Why aren't we doing more about climate change and population control (which is only going to exacerbate the hunger problem, and give us a whole host of new ones)?

  6. #16
    Member Array CheshireCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013


    Because false philanthropy is a tool to spread deception.

  7. #17


    Because we haven't realized how nutritional cancer patients can be.

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] Why haven't we solved world hunger?
    By AzulEyes in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: 01-12-2014, 09:27 PM
  2. [NT] Why I think that the world as we know it is doomed.
    By Virtual ghost in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 02:11 PM
  3. Why don't we all have the same avatars?
    By Nonsensical in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 12:10 AM
    By Costrin in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 08-04-2009, 07:35 PM
  5. "Why can't we just admit it?"
    By Brendan in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 07-02-2008, 06:04 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts