It also doesn’t account for corporate price gouging or the fact that the only reason people go hungry in the world is because letting them starve is more profitable than feeding them even the leftovers and about-to-go-off.
As well as what you said, theres also no reason not the presume the number could be much lower too.
Right now, as we live and die, there’s enough food to keep every human fed, with plenty of enjoyable meals included (not just boiled chicken and broccoli).
It’s about distribution, which is a corporate problem.
Distribution is the problem. Authoritarians left and right are the problem. I work for a nonprofit that feeds the poor and temporarily under resourced and the government is our biggest obstacle.
What specific problems does the government cause for this non-profit, exactly? What “authoritarian” policies is this “left” you speak of enacting which harms the needy?
I somehow don’t think we will, considering the original commenter is seemingly pretending that they didn’t see the comment. I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt, but it’s hard to believe that they’re actually telling the truth about any part of what they said considering they apparently think Trump is the best candidate we have. American centrist and right wing policies are pretty anti-poor.
He uses “left” to refer to Democrats in his comments so I just assumed he meant it here too.
My only guess is that they mean “a for-profit church” when they say “a nonprofit that feeds the poor and temporarily under resourced”. But I dunno, maybe they’re telling the truth.
Distribution is a problem but trucking food from one country to a poor country is not the fix to end world hunger forever. Food aid is fine as a temporary solution but moving food from one country with a surplus to a poor country as a long term solution will just destroy the local agricultural industry which would keep these nations dependent on other countries for food. This happened with the clothing industry in many African nations. The West dumped so much clothing into many African nations as charity that local clothing shops and tailors have to compete with free clothing, thus the clothing industry is unable to flourish. The best solution is to help these nations improve their local food productivity and grow their economy.
I never said we shouldn’t feed people. Just that fixing the distribution problem alone isn’t the end all fix to end world hunger. And this isn’t about capitalism since even in a socialist country where all the workers own the means of production, you know like farmers, there is an economy that can collapse. Yes we should feed hungry people by giving them food but we should also help them increase their food productivity so that their economy doesn’t collapse because of the influx of food. Since most poor countries are agricultural economies.
Keeping poor nations poor and dependent on aid isn’t good either.
$40 billion per year to end world hunger.
https://www.wfpusa.org/articles/how-much-would-it-cost-to-end-world-hunger/
BUT
avocado toast. 🥑
Solve world hunger for one meal. $40 billion worth of Avocado toast.
I doubt that number takes into account corruption.
It also doesn’t account for corporate price gouging or the fact that the only reason people go hungry in the world is because letting them starve is more profitable than feeding them even the leftovers and about-to-go-off.
As well as what you said, theres also no reason not the presume the number could be much lower too.
Man if I had forty million bands i’d do it. Just rip off the bandaid. The world would be a better place.
That was a joke. Maybe end world hunger for a week.
Nope, those are the numbers. The UN isn’t in the habit of publishing satire.
Right now, as we live and die, there’s enough food to keep every human fed, with plenty of enjoyable meals included (not just boiled chicken and broccoli).
It’s about distribution, which is a corporate problem.
Capitalism encourages scarcity so the line will always go up.
Distribution is the problem. Authoritarians left and right are the problem. I work for a nonprofit that feeds the poor and temporarily under resourced and the government is our biggest obstacle.
What specific problems does the government cause for this non-profit, exactly? What “authoritarian” policies is this “left” you speak of enacting which harms the needy?
“Left and right”’in this context probably means everywhere, not “liberal” and “conservative”.
So what you asking about just the “left” probably makes no sense.
“What specific problems does the government cause”? is a great question. I hope we get an answer.
I somehow don’t think we will, considering the original commenter is seemingly pretending that they didn’t see the comment. I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt, but it’s hard to believe that they’re actually telling the truth about any part of what they said considering they apparently think Trump is the best candidate we have. American centrist and right wing policies are pretty anti-poor.
He uses “left” to refer to Democrats in his comments so I just assumed he meant it here too.
My only guess is that they mean “a for-profit church” when they say “a nonprofit that feeds the poor and temporarily under resourced”. But I dunno, maybe they’re telling the truth.
It’s the fixed nitrates making this possible. We’re severely over the Earths organic capacity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
Distribution is a problem but trucking food from one country to a poor country is not the fix to end world hunger forever. Food aid is fine as a temporary solution but moving food from one country with a surplus to a poor country as a long term solution will just destroy the local agricultural industry which would keep these nations dependent on other countries for food. This happened with the clothing industry in many African nations. The West dumped so much clothing into many African nations as charity that local clothing shops and tailors have to compete with free clothing, thus the clothing industry is unable to flourish. The best solution is to help these nations improve their local food productivity and grow their economy.
So, we shouldn’t feed people because capitalism. Got it.
I never said we shouldn’t feed people. Just that fixing the distribution problem alone isn’t the end all fix to end world hunger. And this isn’t about capitalism since even in a socialist country where all the workers own the means of production, you know like farmers, there is an economy that can collapse. Yes we should feed hungry people by giving them food but we should also help them increase their food productivity so that their economy doesn’t collapse because of the influx of food. Since most poor countries are agricultural economies.
Keeping poor nations poor and dependent on aid isn’t good either.
Pretty sure they are just suggesting we teach people to fish