It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Solutions for world hunger.

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by _damon
 


RULE OF IMPORTANCE THAN ANY OTHER
LIVE AND BE FRUITFUL.................




posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Mactire
 


I would think any farming industry would either get at least factory discounts on the hydropnic nutrients. Though, we can still do aeroponically grown food, too. Another thing is, though, that you can do hydroponically grown anything with just water, and it will always come back better than with soil. Trust me on that one.

Grain, well, will have room if there were actual sky farms built. Even if grain doesn't do well hydroponically. Can you give me a source where you found this out? About grain not being grown good hydroponically.

Sky farms would also allow more room for cattle farms and such. They are also trying to genetically alter the DNA of animals to produce more quantity without hurting quality of taste or the quality of the animal's well being, kind of like the double muscled steer. Though, some scientists believe that altering the genetic structure of animals would lead to mutated food which would end up poisoning us.

All I know is that having sky farms would help out more than what we have now.

Edit: Also, with sky farms, the amount of time it takes for the food to get to the market and to be sold would be dramatically reduced. Talk about having sky farms right next to each city.
edit on 29-11-2010 by Gnarly because: another paragraph



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by TSAisaSCAM
 


I hear you! Although it's a noble effort and idea I can't help but feel if only the Oprahs, Jolies, Trumps, Gates, Jobs, Buffets of the world would give 1% of their bank accounts I think that would solve the problem for a very long time!
1% of one billion = 10 000 000 and these folks have BILLIONS!!

How much money does one person need? Really? Honestly?

I personally don't have enough money to spare (at the moment) but the billionaires of the world have plenty!

So who better to hit up to cough up some bucks than those people. Yeah yeah yeah,they give to charity already (probably for a tax break) but, they can resolve this hunger problem in a matter of a week if they got together and devised a plan.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Mactire
 


I know that is what the media says mate, but it simply isn't true.

There is plenty of land for 9 Billion, as much as 20 Billion could be fed and housed comfortably.

Have you ever heard of a food technology being pioneered based on Algae? With Algae, we can feed the world and the best part of it is, we don't even need the land to do it - the seas become our crop land.

Algae is highly nutritious plant based food source. We and our livestock can actually live on the stuff, exclusively if we had to.

There just isn't the will among wealthy and well fed nations to do anything positive for the poor nations. Not a permanent solution to their needs anyway.

Food, water, and living space is more than enough for our needs...our commitment to sharing and helping the less fortunate among countries isn't quite enough though.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Mactire
 


I know that is what the media says mate, but it simply isn't true.

There is plenty of land for 9 Billion, as much as 20 Billion could be fed and housed comfortably.

Have you ever heard of a food technology being pioneered based on Algae? With Algae, we can feed the world and the best part of it is, we don't even need the land to do it - the seas become our crop land.

Algae is highly nutritious plant based food source. We and our livestock can actually live on the stuff, exclusively if we had to.

There just isn't the will among wealthy and well fed nations to do anything positive for the poor nations. Not a permanent solution to their needs anyway.

Food, water, and living space is more than enough for our needs...our commitment to sharing and helping the less fortunate among countries isn't quite enough though.




That's awesome... Not the part about the wealthy doing nothing for the poor, but Algae being pioneered to be a viable food source, That's amazing. Thanks for the contribution, I'm going to google this... I'll let you guys know how it goes, asap.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Mactire
 


I know that is what the media says mate, but it simply isn't true.

There is plenty of land for 9 Billion, as much as 20 Billion could be fed and housed comfortably.

Have you ever heard of a food technology being pioneered based on Algae? With Algae, we can feed the world and the best part of it is, we don't even need the land to do it - the seas become our crop land.

Algae is highly nutritious plant based food source. We and our livestock can actually live on the stuff, exclusively if we had to.

There just isn't the will among wealthy and well fed nations to do anything positive for the poor nations. Not a permanent solution to their needs anyway.

Food, water, and living space is more than enough for our needs...our commitment to sharing and helping the less fortunate among countries isn't quite enough though.


Yeah, but you're talking about altering the standard of living of the entire world. It just isn't going to happen, not without imminent domain being used in almost criminal ways. People who have had 1000 acres of unused land in their families (whether you agree with people owning large amounts of land without farming or not) aren't just going to give up their land to make room for the 23 billion people that the media says can thrive on earth.
That word "comfortably" is a tarp word as well. Who decides what's comfortable?
As far as the wealthy/poor? That's where we agree. There isn't any "will" by the rich to help the poor, and in many cases no will by the poor to adjust their lifestyles to help get themselves out of their current circumstances.
Another problem comes in the shrinking of the land we do have as the seas rise. Pretty soon its going to be necessary to start destroying some pretty fragile eco systems in order to make way for these "sky farms, and mega civilian housing centers" that people are posting about.
Its much easier and cheaper to "accidentally" unleash a super-flu every now and again to keep the population from reaching critical mass.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mactire
reply to post by HeWhosCalledIAm
 


There in lies the problem. The top 1% who own 90% of the world's wealth and about as much land are dreaming up contingencies to kill all but 500,000,000 of us, not how to share the food, wealth, and space.
There will never be a world without hunger, because these men/women won't allow it.


If you truly believe that then what are you doing sitting around on an internet forum? Why are you not trying to destroy the system that empowers them, say like a "terrorist" is trying to do? Why are you not out in the streets screaming to your fellow species that this is happening? Or why are you not at least doing more then sitting on the internet complaining about it?

You see I don't believe you actually think this is true, or at least that they have any shot in hell of successfully doing this. If so, DO SOMETHING NOW!



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TSAisaSCAM
 




LAST: I've been hearing a lot that the people at the top don't want to end world hunger? I for one believe that world hunger could end tomorrow if we threw ourselves to the task. If the great old USA can destroy cities, armies, land people on the moon, etc.... Why can't it end world hunger? Because they don't want to. Simple as that. And that's just pathetic...


The FIRST thing to do - and you can do it today, Is call your State Senators and tell them you are opposed to S-510, the food "safety" bill. see THREAD

The SECOND thing to do is tell ten friends to do the same. This is NOT food safety it is part of the take over of the world food supply by big AG. It will prevent farmers from saving seed due to the prohibitive costs of seed cleaning. The bill never uses the word farms it is very sneaky and uses "harvested" and sections with broad powers like SEC. 420 PROTECTION AGAINST INTENTIONAL ADULTERATION. and SEC. 108. NATIONAL AGRICULTURE AND FOOD DEFENSE STRATEGY

It also says the FDA is authorized to establish standards for how fruits and vegetables are grown and harvested, including standards for “soil amendments, hygiene, packing, temperature controls, animals in the growing area, and water. But it doesn't "regulate" FARMS - yeah right and I have this bridge I want to sell....


The THIRD thing to do is tell the government, the World bank/ IMF and the UN to quit mucking with other countries farming!



Farmer suicides in India: Now the full toll—surely among the largest sustained waves of suicides in human history—is becoming apparent. And as Sainath emphasizes, these numbers still underestimate the disaster, since women farmers are excluded from the official statistics... It is important that the figure of 150,000 farm suicides is a bottom line estimate....

As Professor Nagaraj puts it: "There is likely to be a serious underestimation of suicides...what has driven the huge increase in farm suicides, particularly in the Big Four or ’Suicide SEZ’ States? "Overall," says Professor Nagaraj, "there exists since the mid-90s, an acute agrarian crisis. That’s across the country. In the Big Four and some other states, specific factors compound the problem....

Cultivation costs have shot up in these high input zones, with some inputs seeing cost hikes of several hundred per cent...

Meanwhile, prices have crashed, as in the case of cotton, due to massive U.S.-EU subsidies to their growers. All due to price rigging with the tightening grip of large corporations over the trade in agricultural commodities." alternatives-international.net... or
www.counterpunch.org...





..Alongside this, as hoped for by designers of NAFTA, has been 'modernisation' - a sharp decline in the share of agriculture and allied sectors in the workforce. From nearly 27% in 1991 it declined to slightly less than 15% in 2006, losing more than 2 million jobs[18]. Again small and marginal farmers and agricultural labour bore the brunt, as evidenced by very sharp decline in the number of rural households. According to a study by Jose Romero and Alicia Puyana carried out for the federal government of Mexico, between 1992 and 2002, the number of agricultural households fell an astounding 75% - from 2.3 million to 575, 000[19]. NAFTA and WTO in Mexico: www.countercurrents.org...


Also see: NAFTA and WTO in Mexico: www.rethinkingschools.org...

World Bank and IMF:



SAPs often result in deep cuts in programmes like education, health and social care, and the removal of subsidies designed to control the price of basics such as food and milk. So SAPs hurt the poor most, because they depend heavily on these services and subsidies.

By devaluing the currency and simultaneously removing price controls, the immediate effect of a SAP is generally to hike prices up three or four times, increasing poverty to such an extent that riots are a frequent result.

The term "Structural Adjustment Program" has gained such a negative connotation that the World Bank and IMF launched a new initiative, the Poverty Reduction Strategy Initiative... While the name has changed, with PRSPs, the World Bank is still forcing countries to adopt the same types of policies as SAPs.
www.whirledbank.org...


" I've been hearing a lot that the people at the top don't want to end world hunger?"

That is a fact. Hunger is BIG business. Here are a bunch more quotes:

My Ag Extension Agent was at this presentation and heard Gore say this. It is for real.


This comes from the Ag Journal, Billings, Montana:

"At a recent ceremony at the White House, Vice President and presidential candidate Al Gore let slip what many have long believed was his real intention as regards to U.S. agriculture. "While presenting a national award to a Colorado FFA member, Gore asked the student what his/her life plans were. Upon hearing that the FFA member wanted to continue on in production agriculture, Gore reportedly replied that the young person should develop other plans because our production agriculture is being shifted out of the U.S. to the Third World." showcase.netins.net...

And of course as the Mexico - NAFTA quote showed it will be run by big Ag not independent farmers.

How about Clinton?


Former President Clinton told a U.N. gathering Thursday that the global food crisis shows "we all blew it, including me," by treating food crops "like color TVs" instead of as a vital commodity for the world's poor...

Clinton criticized decades of policymaking by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and others, encouraged by the U.S., that pressured Africans in particular into dropping government subsidies for fertilizer, improved seed and other farm inputs as a requirement to get aid. Africa's food self-sufficiency declined and food imports rose.

Now skyrocketing prices in the international grain trade - on average more than doubling between 2006 and early 2008 - have pushed many in poor countries deeper into poverty.
seattletimes.nwsource.com...

So how do the grain traders feel?


“In summary, we have record low grain inventories globally as we move into a new crop year. We have demand growing strongly. Which means that going forward even small crop failures are going to drive grain prices to record levels. As an investor, we continue to find these long term trends...very attractive.” Food shortfalls predicted: 2008 www.financialsense.com...





“Recently there have been increased calls for the development of a U.S. or international grain reserve to provide priority access to food supplies for Humanitarian needs. The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) and the North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) strongly advise against this concept..Stock reserves have a documented depressing effect on prices... and resulted in less aggressive market bidding for the grains.” July 22, 2008 letter to President Bush www.naega.org...




"The World Bank says that 100 million more people are facing severe hunger. Yet some of the world's richest food companies are making record profits. Monsanto last month reported that its net income for the three months up to the end of February this year had more than doubled over the same period in 2007, from $543m (£275m) to $1.12bn. Its profits increased from $1.44bn to $2.22bn....

He said that the benefits of the food price increases were being kept by the big companies, and were not finding their way down to farmers in the developing world." Multin ationals make billions in profit out of growing global food crisis" In fact, "Monsanto ... has gotten farmers to accept seed prices twice the level of a decade ago"
www.sourcewatch.org...




Who's making the bread?
Freedom to Farm's lower commodity prices have not translated into consumer benefits. Since 1984, the real price of a USDA market basket of food has increased 2.8 percent while the farm value of that food has fallen by 35.7 percent, according to C. Robert Taylor, professor of agriculture and public policy at Auburn University. Taylor says there is a "widening gap" between retail price and farm value for numerous components of the market basket, including meat products, poultry, eggs, dairy products, cereal and bakery products, fresh fruit and vegetables, and processed fruit and vegetables.

At a major farm rally in Washington, D.C. in March, farmers served legislators a "farmers" lunch. The lunch included what would typically be an $8 lunch -- barbecued beef on a bun, baked beans, potato salad, coleslaw, milk and a cookie. The farmers charged only 39 cents for the meal, reflecting what farmers and ranchers receive to grow the food for such a meal.



And just in case you doubt the existence of the Food Cartel:
"The sudden discovery of a global pandemic of international cartels in the mid 1990s, after a hiatus of a half century, is puzzling. That the greatest number and most injurious conspiracies should be clustered in the food and feed ingredients industries adds another element of mystery to the puzzle." - Dr. Conner, Purdue University

The Agreement on Ag was pushed into the World Trade Agreement in 1995.

Oh and if you were not already aware of it they are already growing spermicidal corn in my state. Corn is pollenated by the wind. So far in the last three years I have had three native corn fed bucks (billy goats) who were not able to get my does pregnant. I have fifteen does all proven breeders and no kids!



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gnarly
reply to post by Mactire
 


I would think any farming industry would either get at least factory discounts on the hydropnic nutrients. Though, we can still do aeroponically grown food, too. Another thing is, though, that you can do hydroponically grown anything with just water, and it will always come back better than with soil. Trust me on that one.

Grain, well, will have room if there were actual sky farms built. Even if grain doesn't do well hydroponically. Can you give me a source where you found this out? About grain not being grown good hydroponically.

Sky farms would also allow more room for cattle farms and such. They are also trying to genetically alter the DNA of animals to produce more quantity without hurting quality of taste or the quality of the animal's well being, kind of like the double muscled steer. Though, some scientists believe that altering the genetic structure of animals would lead to mutated food which would end up poisoning us.

All I know is that having sky farms would help out more than what we have now.

Edit: Also, with sky farms, the amount of time it takes for the food to get to the market and to be sold would be dramatically reduced. Talk about having sky farms right next to each city.
edit on 29-11-2010 by Gnarly because: another paragraph


I didn't mean that hydroponics doesn't do well with grain per se. What I meant was it doesn't do well economically. It cost much more to grow the amount of grain that would be used in this country hydroponically, and these costs would translate into grocery store costs.

As for altering animal DNA? Good luck working at one of those plants without being car bombed by PETA. And as your post states, it would likely end up poisoning us anyway.

I'm not saying feeding the human population can't be done, just that it "won't be done". The rich are going to continue to hoard their cash as they always have, and the poor nations of the world are going to continue to allow thugs and warlords to rule over them and their food supplies.

If we could outlaw being a millionaire, and then force people pulling in that kind of income to cycle that money back into the economy somehow we might see a turn towards better building our country and feeding our people, but then that would still leave those who are dependent on handouts to change their way of life.
The Government just isn't going to waste its time with a "Why help them if they won't help themselves" situation.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   
You want to end world hunger.

Vertical farimng on a micro scale.

See slides 3 and 5

The problems with large scale veritcal farming is the amount of energy required negates the benefit. you "could" do underground hydro for far cheaper than vertical farming, and that includes operating the grow lights.

So keep it small, keep it simple.

One south window can become an entire herb gardn with you moving water manually once or twice a week.

Extaerior "backyard" vertical farms, can easily be fed with some strategically placed rain collectors. Why move the water when nature does it for you?

Most suburban homes in North America have enough land perimeter to setup enough vertical farms to cover 50% of their feeding needs.

All without the large power consumption...well you will power it yourself.

Doesn't help global hunger, but definitely helps local and restricts large Agro from gaining more power.

PS - don't be affraid to keep some chickens....check local bylaws first.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy
 


I do nothing because it is inevitable.
It is too late, and I'm too young to have seen the days before it was too late.
Those of you reading this, who were born in the 30s & 40s were the generation who might've stopped this.
I have a family, and am not about to start performing acts of terrorism that may put my family in danger.
Now when the day comes when they start filling the camps, or passing laws stating that "one can't grow their own gardens" you'll see a different animal, but for now, I sit and wait. A lion in his den.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Im speaking of a certain and largest segment of people who are starving and not all. This is for more of the Haiti, africa, and s. america in general scenarios.

I have a huge issue with GM foods. Apparently the african nations we tried to get them to grow GM do as well. They refused our free materials to grow their own. ( google it.. )

This is horrible to some, but let those who want to breed themselves into oblivion die off. Its cruel to keep these people like pets. They are starving, we throw some peanut butter and vaccinations at them and they keep breeding children to die a horrible death of starvation. We contribute to this travesty by feeding the problem.. literally. I limited my children on purpose and sterilized myself when I had reached my personally sustainable limit.. there can be no risk of "accident". This isnt genius level thought. Religions and belief systems who force people to have as many people as possible added to their fold are selfish and criminal IMO.. and they are some of the ones driving this feed the hungry thing! This is only one aspect of "world hunger".

This planet isnt as fragile as we are told by the propaganda. She's tough as nails and we could ALL flourish with sustainable populations and methods that are plain common sense. I feel the process is wrong if we dont take into complete account all of the real facts. Growing more food for an unsustainable population in areas or being less than greedy isnt the position to start tackling this problem from. It wil NEVER work. Its nice.. all of the kumbaya feed the world crap... but in reality it furthers the problem and keeps it alive... thus feeding the money machine. I for one refuse to be a part of a complete sham and backward thinking world idiocracy. Dont be guilted into not seeing the root of the problem and stop thinking as human beings as pets who can be kept and fed like rats.. and not take into account that they sometimes outgrow the cage, die of disease within the inflated populations, and etc. Prolonging this pain and death is what is happening.. its cruel.

Also, what kind of thought is this that one must stay on their ancestral lands? I doubt the ancestors want their children to starve and disappear. This is ignorant thinking promoted by the feeders of the people-pets. Its pretty sick when you really get into the methods and things concerning this whole feed the world movement and who is behind this horrific human suffering.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
reply to post by Elsek
 


There is an answer SHARE!!!
2ND


The only solution is to produce more food, share is not a solution.

If you have 1000 ration foods and 1000 people, everyone get 1 ration.

If you still have 1000 ration, and decide to share with 1000 more people, you will have to share that with 2000 people, that mean 0,5 ration per person.

So everyone get less food, and every start to starve together, sharing is not a good answer, is a bad one.

Of course, you can say a lot of people have a surplus, but that surplus will disappear in the end.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Mactire
 


I still don't see how it would be economically nonviable. I need some more depth on that. Again, if you do have any sources on that, it would be appreciated. If it's just something you learned from experience, well then... oh well!

About the million dollar thing being outlawed, I saw this French movie a few weeks ago during WW2. This French dude works as a bellhop, hoping to own his own hotel one day. Then the Germans come, take the hotel over, and at the end of the war, the guy ends up owning the hotel, plus millions of dollars. He gets sent to prison for fifteen years for guess what? Having fifteen million dollars. In the end, you see him playing poker with all those millionaires he had served in the hotel, in his own jail cell. I don't know if that actually happened, the whole one year for one million, but it does seem like there could be a cap to how rich a person can get. I mean, c'mon, what are you going to do with a hundred million dollars? I don't think I could spend that in my life without buying every luxury around.

Or just obliterate any idea of a monetary system and change humanity forever.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


You do raise a good point so I starred you, but there are more factors into why they don't accept help then just them being low life animals. There is a trust issue on one hand, because they have been taken advantage of and raped of their resources for century's by many of the same country's where these organizations are coming from. Also many of these organizations are not just saying we will give you what you need, but rather we will give you what you need if you allow other businesses to set up shop here. Second, we cannot just rely on a few NPO's to come in and offer them help and then leave when there are groups and militia's immediately robbing them afterwords. Third, education is not available in many of these areas so after generations of living under these conditions there is not much hope in handing them resources, stepping away, and expecting them to fix there own problems. Being that empires and Babylonian style systems have depleted them of these things for century's upon century's, we must be aware of this fact and act accordingly in a multi-faceted manner.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Gnarly
 


In fact I believe it would be very economically viable and productive. Think about the amount of jobs that would be created in building up the basic foundation of these areas. Think about the amount of people in developed nations that would love to travel and get paid to help others. If someone offered me a chance to go to Africa or Haiti or South America and help build houses, schools, farms, roads and other basic things I would do it in a flash! There just needs to be a broader effort by government and corporations to encourage and support these things. For them to do that they need to see the benefit in building up under developed areas, which maybe would be it means more consumers for them in the long term.
edit on 29-11-2010 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by Advantage
 


You do raise a good point so I starred you, but there are more factors into why they don't accept help then just them being low life animals. There is a trust issue on one hand, because they have been taken advantage of and raped of their resources for century's by many of the same country's where these organizations are coming from. Also many of these organizations are not just saying we will give you what you need, but rather we will give you what you need if you allow other businesses to set up shop here. Second, we cannot just rely on a few NPO's to come in and offer them help and then leave when there are groups and militia's immediately robbing them afterwords. Third, education is not available in many of these areas so after generations of living under these conditions there is not much hope in handing them resources, stepping away, and expecting them to fix there own problems. Being that empires and Babylonian style systems have depleted them of these things for century's upon century's, we must be aware of this fact and act accordingly in a multi-faceted manner.



Ive NEVER said anyone was a low life animal. They are human beings and they are capable of finding their own solutions **IF** these evil people who claim they can show the animals the light would butt out.Populations would hit their sustainable level. If the area needs to be vacated.. then it would be if they werent generationally mid controlled to accept the things the trainers hand them. MOST of the hunger problems started with certain missionaries and then went on to govt's flying under the radar with the cloak of " doing good" and " helping the disadvantaged" and " feeding the hungry".

To me... its an evil thing. The people who promote this feel and act as if these humans are animals.
edit on 29-11-2010 by Advantage because: Had to clarify.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Advantage
 


Ok...

And for those worried about population levels getting out of hand, statistics show that the more educated and self sufficient nations are, the lower there birth rates are.
edit on 29-11-2010 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I seriously doubt that the problem in Africa is space. Its politics. We could go in there put in pipes for fresh water help cultivate the land and bring in livestock, so they could go on to produce their own food, but with the wars and violence that would be difficult in some areas, but we could still bring in plenty of food with just the amount of money the stars spend on their dresses for the Oscars.



posted on Nov, 29 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by Advantage
 


Ok...

And for those worried about population levels getting out of hand, statistics show that the more educated and self sufficient nations are, the lower there birth rates are.
edit on 29-11-2010 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)


religion or belief system trumps education EVERY time.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join