Would you agree if i stated the following:

If it was profitable to feed the world population, the majority of citizens would not even know what hunger is?

I have a question though: For at least 20 years the issue of poverty in 3rd world countries such as Africa has been highlighted. Many attempts have been made to raise money and build infrastructure so that they have the means to support their population in terms of growing enough crops. 20 years later and people are still starving????

Im sure the answer to my question will be along the lines of "Civil war, corrupt governments, crop failure due to weather"

I just find it a little unbelievable that humanity has "advanced" to this point in time and yet cannot even combat something as simple as providing food for the entire world population.

These really are just passing thoughts that have been on my mind lately so you'll have to forgive me if im not posting facts and figure's, i would just like to discuss this casually with other members of this board.

Starvation/hunger is not always dependent on opportunity. Food is available and given away free in the USA, but many continue to be hungry. Poverty and hunger are complex social issues. Throwing money at them, in general does not fix them. It can be argued that both are not fixable, since beyond circumstances, they are caused by human nature and failings.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
If it was profitable to feed the world population, the majority of citizens would not even know what hunger is?

I have a question though: For at least 20 years the issue of poverty in 3rd world countries such as Africa has been highlighted. Many attempts have been made to raise money and build infrastructure so that they have the means to support their population in terms of growing enough crops. 20 years later and people are still starving????

Im sure the answer to my question will be along the lines of "Civil war, corrupt governments, crop failure due to weather"

I just find it a little unbelievable that humanity has "advanced" to this point in time and yet cannot even combat something as simple as providing food for the entire world population.

These really are just passing thoughts that have been on my mind lately so you'll have to forgive me if im not posting facts and figure's, i would just like to discuss this casually with other members of this board.

i think what you are saying is if it was profitable would it be eradicated. no. because then it would come down to where it is most profitable.

why stop at hunger though, should anyone be forced to live on the street when there are properties everywhere sitting empty? should there be anyone with out clothing? no. my concern lays mainly with children that cannot make decisions for themselves and elderly that have lost the ability to do so for themselves and mentally disabled people of any age that are not capable. these are problems that exist because of greed not in spite of greed. when the Vatican is sitting there as the wealthiest country on the planet (one of the top 3 at least) and they themselves fail to set an example for the rest of the world, very difficult to change behavior of others, religion is supposed to be charitable, i don't see it.

I think you summed it up in the first line. We COULD feed the hungry, but at our expense. The companies that produce food are in it for the profit like any business so they want to be paid, but by who?

Throwing money at these issue's is one thing but that's not really what im getting at, I might be wrong but it would seem to be because its not profitable to feed someone in a 3rd world country, its not really important in the grand scheme of things.
If we took a cynical view at how government works, we could argue that the only reason they strive to make food available so freely in the west is because they need a workforce. Our economies are all about consuming and not producing, big business therefore recognize's profit potential.

I half believe that many of the african countries are being kept in destitute poverty because should they ever become self sustainable they would be a direct threat to other nations and so the "solution" is to keep them in debt, keep them unable to feed or educate their population. And i know im using africa as an example but i am well aware that poverty is spread out all over the world.

I find it a bit odd that a persons nationality overrides the fact that they are, first and foremost, a member of the human race. Food parcels are not a solution, giving people the tools to sustain themselves is a much more viable option.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


I do not disagree that teaching a man to fish is preferred to giving him a fish, however, historically that has also been tried.

It is also tempting to blame others, as in having a political agenda, to subdue the population. There are plenty of examples of armed insurgents roaming the countryside and a worthless central government, and still people are hungry.

Ultimately it is up to an individual to do what it takes to feed themselves, some are simply not willing, or make choices to spend their time doing other things, such as drugs or alcohol, or watching the clouds, whatever.

It would be wonderful, if no one went hungry and poverty was eliminated. There are plenty of people who dedicate themselves and their resources to achieve that end. Still these social issues continue.

So perhaps the solution, if there is one, is to figure out what creates poverty/starvation within an individual consciousness. How do you make someone care, how do you create and sustain hope, ambition? How do you change a mind?

Originally posted by IamschistI do not disagree that teaching a man to fish is preferred to giving him a fish, however, historically that has also been tried.

It is also tempting to blame others, as in having a political agenda, to subdue the population. There are plenty of examples of armed insurgents roaming the countryside and a worthless central government, and still people are hungry.

Ultimately it is up to an individual to do what it takes to feed themselves...

I tend to agree with you...
With as much money, food, education & other resources as has been contributed to these nations & peoples in the last decades...one would surely expect some degree/s of improvement.
But, as we know - power is power...and as long as there are governments abusing their people/s, and people/s being abused, there will be contest/s for that power.
The government/s will divert the food and other resources to their purposes & ends; the "rebels" will "steal" the food and resources to their ends...and, all we have done is feed the contest/s.
It could be argued (and, I'm sure it has and is) that no such "global equanimity" (as the OP mourns) is possible in such regions, without a universal (one-world) government.
Or -(to say it differently)- As long as these third-world countries are sovereign & independent (governances), the problems are almost certain to continue.

I do not conclude, however, that this "answer" would be much better for those people/s...
More likely, it would be "the end" of any long-lived indigenous cultures.
Maybe that's the trade-off, though...?

Hand over your ancestral identity...if you want to participate in the globally progressive (fed) civilization of mankind.

I don't see an easy answer to the OPs question/s.

relief food shipments get 'hijacked' before they reach the people they are intended for.
then they are sold, creating a black market/ organized crime.
the government / authorities know about this and at some point , some will become involved with the operation [on the criminal side].

many believe that this is an early sign of war in a region [the US just announced more troops to be deployed to several African nations]

If it was profitable to feed the world population, the majority of citizens would not even know what hunger is?

i think that answers the question in backwards kinda way.

It is interesting to note that the least hungry place on the globe is Eastern Europe, Wiki defines as.

Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine

Somehow these countries are able to feed most of their populations.

Hunger is most prevalent in South Asia: with 22.5 the situation here is alarming. In Sub-Saharan Africa the index equally exceeds 20 and also has to be considered alarming. The lowest value can be found in Eastern Europe, where hunger is not very prevalent.

en.wikipedia.org...

Armed insurgents and corrupt governments exist in this area, so why is there less hunger here? War has also existed here. Poverty exists here. What is different? To answer the problem of hunger, imho, it might benefit us to look at what works as opposed to what does not. I am pretty sure that feeding the hungry for profit doesn't apply here. Something else is working here, what might it be?

Originally posted by Iamschist
...interesting to note that the least hungry place on the globe is Eastern Europe...

Hunger is most prevalent in South Asia: with 22.5 the situation here is alarming. In Sub-Saharan Africa the index equally exceeds 20 and also has to be considered alarming. The lowest value can be found in Eastern Europe, where hunger is not very prevalent.

en.wikipedia.org...

Armed insurgents and corrupt governments exist in this area, so why is there less hunger here? War has also existed here. Poverty exists here. What is different? To answer the problem of hunger, imho, it might benefit us to look at what works as opposed to what does not. I am pretty sure that feeding the hungry for profit doesn't apply here. Something else is working here, what might it be?

Those are some interesting statistics/facts.
Okay - you say - let's look at what works...
What works?
I mean - do you have something in mind?
Are you generally looking back at the statistics regarding the Eastern European block...and saying - "If it's working for them (and they have armed insurgents, & poverty & corrupt governments)...why can't whatever they are doing be applied to the South Asian & Sub-Sahara African peoples/nations?"?
-OR- do you have something-else (specific) in mind?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


I've had similar thoughts. Over centuries, probably trillions of dollars have been donated to charities, and there's still hunger in the world? The Roman Catholic "BANK" probably has enough money to feed EVERYONE EVERY DAY for the next ten thousand years.

There is no excuse for this.

In a riot of irony when I googled least hungry country in the world, the answer is Hungary. In reading on Wiki, no obvious answers as to why this is the least hungry place on earth show up. Perhaps it has something to do with core values there?

To answer the question of do I have a solution in mind, no. I guess if I have a point, it is that, yes we should look at what works in Hungary, why and how are they able to have the least hungry population? Do you have any idea, thoughts?

Originally posted by Iamschist
In a riot of irony when I googled least hungry country in the world, the answer is Hungary...

...if I have a point, it is that, yes we should look at what works in Hungary, why and how are they able to have the least hungry population? Do you have any idea, thoughts?

Sadly - my best thought/s on the matter, are the proposition in my first post...which I am not in favor of.
I think there are too many "other" factors at play to simply walk into a nation with such problems, and say "Do it like Hungary does", and expect that anyone will want to make the change.
When identifying Southeast Asian countries - do you think that is including the coastal nations...or primarily, the desert (or - quasi desert) lands?
I ask because, if we're talking about desert lands, Hungary and the other Eastern European nations noted before, have a few advantages that said desert peoples would be hard-pressed to account for.

reply to post by Iamschist



I would like to thank you for doing a little digging and sharing your results (Since i only made this thread a casual discussion ive not bothered to dig, i simply just want to share idea's)

Perhaps, by and large, there are many interlocking factors that determine why there are still billions starving in the world. One set of reasons could not be applied to every country imo.

Does it not strike you as odd though, that food is a vital part of life and yet (as humans) we dont produce and share it in abundance?

reply to post by WanDash


I was waiting for the climate issue. I don't think there is ever going to be a solution that works across the board. As I said earlier this is a complex social issue. Geography, as in regions of desert, make it difficult for agriculture. This is where trade, etc comes into play.

I do believe that education can probably make the biggest impact, this includes values. I found this website: www.everyculture.com...

In reading these parts stood out to me.

However, more than half the population does some agricultural work for household use and supplemental income.

Hospitality entails an extraordinary effort to feed and care for guests

The images of the mother and motherland are expressed in the national literature and culture. Since the early nineteenth century, the centrality of the mother-son relationship has been idealized in literature and the public consciousness. The mother is often hailed as the core of the national identity, the guardian and cultivator of a "real" culture that is untouched by foreign influences

The values of growing your own food, sharing graciously, and having nurturing as a national consciousness, imho might play a part in why this country and not others, including the USA, is able to feed the hungry within it.

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by Iamschist

 

I would like to thank you for doing a little digging and sharing your results (Since i only made this thread a casual discussion ive not bothered to dig, i simply just want to share idea's)

Perhaps, by and large, there are many interlocking factors that determine why there are still billions starving in the world. One set of reasons could not be applied to every country imo.

Does it not strike you as odd though, that food is a vital part of life and yet (as humans) we dont produce and share it in abundance?

I think your OP question is a really good one. It made me begin to think why do we continue to have hunger. You have given an opportunity for us to examine the issue. I am hoping some more ATSers will come by and contribute.

reply to post by jiggerj


I consider the Vatican to be one of the most evil entitties on the planet.

Originally posted by Iamschist
...I don't think there is ever going to be a solution that works across the board. As I said earlier this is a complex social issue. Geography, as in regions of desert, make it difficult for agriculture. This is where trade, etc comes into play.
...
I do believe that education can probably make the biggest impact, this includes values...
...
The values of growing your own food, sharing graciously, and having nurturing as a national consciousness, imho might play a part in why this country and not others, including the USA, is able to feed the hungry within it.

And, therein may lie one of the largest problems to be tackled... National Consciousness
Many of these desparate nations are a conglomerate of until-recently "family tribes" that recognize/d no higher government than their own... They may have held alliances with other tribes & groups... May have traded some goods (whether agricultural, timber, "skins/pelts", etc...)... But, in general, they do not believe that bowing to a government they had nothing to do with (setting in place) will be to/for their benefit - much less, that it would be the "Right" thing to do...
These statements, are coming from a long-distance view of the situations, and can be totally wrong in some/many instances...and could not go far enough in others.
So - we're wanting to educate them to "values"... That means - "our values".
If we do so, this will certainly portend the demise of their cherished culture/s...
Have you seen the documentary The Story of the Weeping Camel?
It is one of the best such stories I've seen in a while... What I would like to elicit from that story, however...is really only seen at the tail-end...
This Mongolian desert family is living as, I suppose, many in their land/s must... They seem to be doing well enough to feed & house themselves, and are part of a larger community (that they may not see or hear from for weeks/months or more)... One of the young children is sent with an elder brother to "fetch" a priest/shaman/musician to make the trip back to their flock and perform a ritual that they believe in... While the youngsters are in the town where the 'musician resides, the youngest gets to see a television set, with cartoons playing. He is so enamored and addicted (almost instantaneously) that his elder brother can barely drag him away.
When the documentary ends, it appears evident that the documentarian compensated the family (for indulging the crew and intrusions) with a TV set.
Maybe that is exactly how we would want all cultures that are not civilized to our social standards to be - ("Once they see what we have to offer - they will not be able to live without it")... And - maybe that's the only way that the global populace will ever achieve the aim of the subject at hand (no mouth hungry, no back bare, none unsheltered)... But - it has surely been a contention for quite a while, that - converting other cultures to our ways and values, rids us (humanity) of the values and ways that they must leave behind.

And all of this is just my opinion.

Originally posted by WanDash

Originally posted by Iamschist
...I don't think there is ever going to be a solution that works across the board. As I said earlier this is a complex social issue. Geography, as in regions of desert, make it difficult for agriculture. This is where trade, etc comes into play.
...
I do believe that education can probably make the biggest impact, this includes values...
...
The values of growing your own food, sharing graciously, and having nurturing as a national consciousness, imho might play a part in why this country and not others, including the USA, is able to feed the hungry within it.

And, therein may lie one of the largest problems to be tackled... National Consciousness
Many of these desparate nations are a conglomerate of until-recently "family tribes" that recognize/d no higher government than their own... They may have held alliances with other tribes & groups... May have traded some goods (whether agricultural, timber, "skins/pelts", etc...)... But, in general, they do not believe that bowing to a government they had nothing to do with (setting in place) will be to/for their benefit - much less, that it would be the "Right" thing to do...
These statements, are coming from a long-distance view of the situations, and can be totally wrong in some/many instances...and could not go far enough in others.
So - we're wanting to educate them to "values"... That means - "our values".
If we do so, this will certainly portend the demise of their cherished culture/s...
Have you seen the documentary The Story of the Weeping Camel?
It is one of the best such stories I've seen in a while... What I would like to elicit from that story, however...is really only seen at the tail-end...
This Mongolian desert family is living as, I suppose, many in their land/s must... They seem to be doing well enough to feed & house themselves, and are part of a larger community (that they may not see or hear from for weeks/months or more)... One of the young children is sent with an elder brother to "fetch" a priest/shaman/musician to make the trip back to their flock and perform a ritual that they believe in... While the youngsters are in the town where the 'musician resides, the youngest gets to see a television set, with cartoons playing. He is so enamored and addicted (almost instantaneously) that his elder brother can barely drag him away.
When the documentary ends, it appears evident that the documentarian compensated the family (for indulging the crew and intrusions) with a TV set.
Maybe that is exactly how we would want all cultures that are not civilized to our social standards to be - ("Once they see what we have to offer - they will not be able to live without it")... And - maybe that's the only way that the global populace will ever achieve the aim of the subject at hand (no mouth hungry, no back bare, none unsheltered)... But - it has surely been a contention for quite a while, that - converting other cultures to our ways and values, rids us (humanity) of the values and ways that they must leave behind.

And all of this is just my opinion.

edit on 1/1/2013 by WanDash because: Ugghh

Your opinion is valued and valid. I hear what you are saying.

I do not advocate the destruction of cultures period, and I certainly would not advocate most 'western values', we all can plainly see where that road goes. I just noted these qualities within the consciousnesses of Hungary, and it works for them.

I think examples of this kind of caring, sharing and gardening can be found throughout so called impoverished nations and where it is found, people are not hungry. So I don't think they are just western values.

I firmly believe you can keep cultural identity, and even poverty and still not be hungry. There is pride in cultural identity and no shame in poverty. Hunger is where the problem is.

Originally posted by Iamschist...
I do not advocate the destruction of cultures period, and I certainly would not advocate most 'western values', we all can plainly see where that road goes. I just noted these qualities within the consciousnesses of Hungary, and it works for them.

I think examples of this kind of caring, sharing and gardening can be found throughout so called impoverished nations and where it is found, people are not hungry. So I don't think they are just western values.

I firmly believe you can keep cultural identity, and even poverty and still not be hungry. There is pride in cultural identity and no shame in poverty. Hunger is where the problem is.

I wish I was as optimistic as you on these points.

I count your thoughts valid...but, don't see how you/I/we could go about infusing these "values" into the regions we're talking about.
...Not without "taking over" their countries, anyway.
And, there's almost no way of keeping those "western values we don't want mixed in" from being conveyed to these indigenous peoples, when "taking over"...
But, without "taking over"...we would not be able to provide/ensure a "safe" environment for those sent to educate the target audience.

I know you said that "it has worked" (and/or - is continuing to work) in lands where many of the same problems have abounded...
It just appears to me that there are too many (or maybe - too many critical) hurdles to clear, for it to work under the current paradigms.
Kinda like the difference between fixing a car with a flat tire, and piecing together an entire automobile from scratch out of a junk yard.

I am interested in this topic - but, without addressing the prevailing issues within the context of proposed solutions, all ideas that overlook those issues (as if they will magically disappear because you have a big and loving heart), is doomed to failure (and a lot of hurt).