Hamburgers and Worldhunger

[IraqNOphobiA]

"Whether one speaks of human rights or basic human needs, the right to food is the most basic of all.
Unless that right is first fulfilled, the protection of other human rights becomes a mockery"

Every minute, every day, 23 children die of starvation, malnutrition, or preventable diseases.
Nearly 800 million people are starving to death in a world where food is abundant.

It is a myth that world hunger is due to scarcity of food.

The world's food supply is abundant, not scarce. The world production of grain and many other foods is sufficient to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food per person a day. Even in countries that have excess food, large numbers are starving. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 78 percent of all malnourished children aged under five live in countries with food surpluses (in 1997).

The problem is that many people are too poor to buy readily available food. Even though 'hungry countries' have enough food for all their people right now, many are net exporters of food and other agricultural products.

These exporters of food in 'hungry countries' export food to Western countries. This not to feed us but our livestock!

With our "Mac donalds" junkfood life style we are indirectly stealing the food from the mouths of staving people around the world. Overweight America eats tons of meat a day. To creat 1 kg of meat, you need 10 kg of plant.It has been said (by the US presidential commission on world hunger)that if every person in the world lived like an American, we would need 3 earths to feed them.
for example, a country like the Netherlands needs to import 7 times its own agricultural product just to feed it's pigs!

Think of this; If everbody ate just one peice of meat a week, hunger would be no more!

If everbody turned into a vegeterian, there would be room for 6 billion more people.

So think of this next time you eat your Big mac or Whopper....

I think it was the last cherokee chief who said;

Only when the last tree has been hewn,
Only when the last fish has been caught,
and only when the last river has
been poisoned,
Only then will you reallize,
that money cannot be eaten.

[Angryjeff]

*sigh* it's a scientific fat man should eat meat. IF we were not ment to eat meat than we wouldn't ahve to create vitiman pills to keep us healthy after eating only vegies and wheat. We also have no protective layer of skin over our teeth that protects them from breaking from eating crunchy vegies as all herbavores do. I agree with you that no one should starve but it's not because we eat meat. It's because we have a surplus that we sell the the highest bidder usally another country with even more surplus which sells more to another country which then ends up back with us. Totaly skipping countrys that are starving

[IraqNOphobiA]

At 12/15/02 12:23 AM, Angryjeff wrote: *sigh* it's a scientific fat man should eat meat. IF we were not ment to eat meat than we wouldn't ahve to create vitiman pills to keep us healthy after eating only vegies and wheat. We also have no protective layer of skin over our teeth that protects them from breaking from eating crunchy vegies as all herbavores do. I agree with you that no one should starve but it's not because we eat meat. It's because we have a surplus that we sell the the highest bidder usally another country with even more surplus which sells more to another country which then ends up back with us. Totaly skipping countrys that are starving

I agree with you on the fact that Human beings are designed to eat meat. I'm not trying to convince everybody to become a veggie. F*ck those people who say Meat is murder! I eat meat, really I do.. only not that often.

The problem is that most people eat far too much animal fats and protiens (Why do you think so many people are obese in the USA).

In Europe about 50 years ago, common folk ate only 1 piece of meat a week. So logically in Europe livestock could be fed with our own agricultural product. In the last few years livestock numbers in the EU (and US) have increased 10 times. while the population only doubled.. So u tell me where is the balance?
We are comsuming far too much meat. Never in human history has meat production been so ridiculously high in relation to the population.
Our pigs and chickens are heaped up in small cages because there's simply no room for such large numbers or worse its just cheaper.
Cows are fed.... COWS!! (ever heard of the Mad cow disease or BSE?) A sickness not caused by virus infection but by repeatedly eating one's own kind.. and so accumulatiung 'BAD' protiens in the brain or spine.

Agriculture in the third world is mostly based on export. large land owners would rather export food then sell it to the local population because of the higher export revenue. If its Money vs compassion.. Money wins..

For example (source:an article by Danielle Knight, Washington, Oct 16 1998 (IPS))

While soybean exports boomed in Brazil to feed Japanese and European livestock - hunger spread from one-third to two-thirds of the population"...."Where the majority of people have been made too poor to buy the food grown on their own country's soil, those who control productive resources will, not surprisingly, orient their production to more lucrative markets abroad."

and (from:"World hunger: Twelve Myths")

Pro-trade policies like that of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) promotes export crop production and suppresses basic food production. Foreign aid from industrialised countries has supported such free trade and free market policies.

long live Globalisation?

I dont think we sould become veggaterians. Simply eat less meat! Eating less meat wont kill you!
it's cheaper and healthier for u and the third world but ofcourse not to our western Economy.

And what's more important?

U tell me..........(pardon my english)

[Angryjeff]

all i do agree with a lot of the point you have (sorry i misunderstood the first time). But even if we ahve surplus meat that doesn't end up meaning people in third world countrys can get it. Even if they do they ahve to safe method of cooking it or storing it.

[swayside]

With our "Mac donalds" junkfood life style we are indirectly stealing the food from the mouths of staving people around the world.

no we are not. we are buying the food from people willing to sell it. they can do that because they own it. they can do whatever they want with it. we're not starving a country by buying what is offered for sale.

[IraqNOphobiA]

At 12/17/02 07:26 AM, swayside wrote:

With our "Mac donalds" junkfood life style we are indirectly stealing the food from the mouths of staving people around the world.

no we are not. we are buying the food from people willing to sell it. they can do that because they own it. they can do whatever they want with it. we're not starving a country by buying what is offered for sale.

The West(including Japan) is buying millions of tons of food from "starving countries". This food could go to the local population.

You're right to say that: " they can do that because they own it so they can do whatever they want with it"

But that doesn't make it right!
When millions of people are starving in your country you sell the bulk of your food to RICH WESTERN COUNTRIES just because they can pay more than the poor locals!(is this right, even when the food is yours?)

The root of the problem lies in our excess lifestyle!
We simply need to learn how to share!
We need tons of food, to feed our livestock...
this because we need to eat ridiculous amounts of meat!
We can just as easily eat less meat, wich is more healthy and natural..
As long as we keep eating so much meat, the third world will keep selling it and we will indirectly steal the food from the mouths of starving people around the world.

Hunger is a crow,
Millions of crows,
like black clouds,
obscure my view,
of the heaven.

-WS Rendra, Indonesian Poet

[the-unknown-soldier]

But the thign is there was never any intention to give it to 3rd world countries. If we were not buying thire food then the farmers would not be able to suport themeselves on the money they would get so they would sel the farm and move into a city. If we didn't buy the food it wouldn't get grown. We are not taking anything away from them, at least we are giving some of them some work, and as ew get taxed for exports there government if they so decide can se the money for starving people.

[swayside]

At 12/20/02 05:50 AM, IraqNOphobiA wrote: The West(including Japan) is buying millions of tons of food from "starving countries". This food could go to the local population.

You're right to say that: " they can do that because they own it so they can do whatever they want with it"

But that doesn't make it right!
When millions of people are starving in your country you sell the bulk of your food to RICH WESTERN COUNTRIES just because they can pay more than the poor locals!(is this right, even when the food is yours?)

you're advocating a very nationalist attitude. "don't sell your food to other countries until yours is full". i'm not a nationalist in any way. i'm not proud to be an amercian, and i wouldn't treat an american any better than than an indonesean.

if there was a hunger problem in the u.s., would you advocate the restriction of export? would you infringe on the right of a business to do what it wants with what it owns?

We can just as easily eat less meat, wich is more healthy and natural..

are you saying that humans are naturally vegitarian, or that we just don't need to eat as much meat as the average american does? i'm not trying to argue with you on this point, it's just an objective question.

As long as we keep eating so much meat, the third world will keep selling it and we will indirectly steal the food from the mouths of starving people around the world.

um...no. the food was never the people's in the first place. they have no say in what the owner should do with it. if he wanted to, he could toss it in the sea.

and it's not america that's buying the food from these "hungry countries". it's the businesses based in america. whenever someone says, "the american economy" they're talking about the thousands of privately owned businesses in the country. so it's not really america's economy. so the private business owner has just as much right to buy food from these countries as any average joe who goes there and buys a sandwich if he can find one.

by the way, i'm speaking in a legal manner only. i think it's a shame that it's possible to feed a country on food grown in the borders, but isn't because the business owners won't sell it to them. whether they're morally right or wrong for doing so is debatable, but from a legal standpoint, they're 100% right.

[IraqNOphobiA]

At 12/20/02 11:17 PM, swayside wrote:

At 12/20/02 05:50 AM, IraqNOphobiA wrote:

you're advocating a very nationalist attitude. "don't sell your food to other countries until yours is full". i'm not a nationalist in any way. i'm not proud to be an amercian, and i wouldn't treat an american any better than than an indonesean.

No not nationalistic but humanitarian, dont sell your food to the highest bidder if people are starving in your backyard!

if there was a hunger problem in the u.s., would you advocate the restriction of export? would you infringe on the right of a business to do what it wants with what it owns?

If it would mean a difference between life and death, well frankly .. Yes I would.

are you saying that humans are naturally vegitarian, or that we just don't need to eat as much meat as the average american does? i'm not trying to argue with you on this point, it's just an objective question.

Humans are not naturally vegitarians, its a biological fact. We need meat(animal protiens) for various functions. The problem is that most people eat far too much animal fats and protiens. Why do you think so many people are obese in the USA? this brings many medical problems and diseases...

meat consumtion has never, in human history, been this high. lower meat consumption means less livestock
and livestock need tons of food a day to grow.

and it's not america that's buying the food from these "hungry countries". it's the businesses based in america. whenever someone says, "the american economy" they're talking about the thousands of privately owned businesses in the country. so it's not really america's economy. so the private business owner has just as much right to buy food from these countries as any average joe who goes there and buys a sandwich if he can find one.

by the way, i'm speaking in a legal manner only. i think it's a shame that it's possible to feed a country on food grown in the borders, but isn't because the business owners won't sell it to them. whether they're morally right or wrong for doing so is debatable, but from a legal standpoint, they're 100% right.

You're right and you've made my point exactly!

The true source of world hunger is not scarcity but policy; not inevitability but politics. The real culprits are economies that fail to offer everyone opportunities, and societies that place economic efficiency over compassion.
Hunger is caused by legal decisions made by human beings, and can be ended by simply making different decisions.

[EmeraldNiteMare]

True...hunger isn't caused by lack of supplies. Humans only need a little of everything, meat, vegetables, etc, to function each day, not the amount consumed by many people all over the world each day.

And you're right, politics has a lot to do with world hunger. Humanitarian aid is appreciated, and necessary, but as you said, some nations who provide it have people suffering from hunger.

There's the natural rift between the wealthier and poorer people of any nation to consider. Wealthier individuals consume far more than they need, whereas poorer people have barely any food at all.

The sad thing is, balance has never been achieved, for food consumption among all levels of society...

[NJDeadzone]

i'm tired of this bullcrap!! What is the world supposed to do, socialize food consumption. It's the role of these govts to feed their own damn people! If the land is unarable, then abandon it or irrigate it, it's that friggin simple. If you can't get water, how the hell have these nations survived to begin with. Let's get practical here and let Darwin's teachings continue after they've proven true. The strongest minds survive...

[IraqNOphobiA]

At 12/23/02 05:04 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: i'm tired of this bullcrap!! What is the world supposed to do, socialize food consumption. It's the role of these govts to feed their own damn people!

Economy is always more important. Money VS compassion

If the land is unarable, then abandon it or irrigate it, it's that friggin simple.

It's not that "friggin simple" when you've got no land to own and irrigate.

If you can't get water, how the hell have these nations survived to begin with.

WTF are you talking about? most countries have more than enough water to start with. The problem is that its unfairly destributed. (The rich western tourist can take a shower for as long as he wishes, while downhill a village is dying of thirst.)Money VS compassion

Let's get practical here and let Darwin's teachings continue after they've proven true. The strongest minds survive...

SO you're saying that starving underfed africans are dumb and should die of hunger because thats natural selection?

I ask you, whats more stupid; Having no land to grow food and not enough money to buy food or destroying all the natural resources just so that you can live and grow fat in a life full of excess luxury?

[swayside]

At 12/23/02 05:04 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: i'm tired of this bullcrap!! What is the world supposed to do, socialize food consumption.

that synical remark is sort of like what i have been saying.

you went down-hill here.>

It's the role of these govts to feed their own damn people!

wrong!it's not the government job to feed people. the government's jobs is to keep conditions siutable for food production.

If the land is unarable, then abandon it or irrigate it, it's that friggin simple. If you can't get water, how the hell have these nations survived to begin with. Let's get practical here and let Darwin's teachings continue after they've proven true. The strongest minds survive...

by the way, it's pretty much unintelligeable to say that only the strongest survive. it's strength, intelligence, probabilities, environment, and other variables that make up one's basic survival chances.

it's a pretty bad idea to come into a politics forum and just be angry in your first post on a topic. a genuine trait of a genuine n00b.

[Dano3000]

Just imagine where the human race would be if greed was an absoulete factor in our society. Heh, we would probably be floating around in space breeding asexually and harnesing the sun for life.
The simple fact is, Food is money. The more food a nation has, the more money it has. Some third world countries have the most beutifal palaces in the world, and yet people starve. Why is this? Corrupt power sources. Do you honestly think that the leaders of cuba even give a shit about people that dont cary there own last name?
Well. i dont.

[NJDeadzone]

It's a shame that in a discussion like this people get personal and call people names. That appears to be more childish? Anyway...

At 12/23/02 05:04 PM, NJDeadzone wrote: Let's get practical here and let Darwin's teachings continue after they've proven true. The strongest minds survive...

well face it, i never said the strongest people survive, and it wasn't Cynical either. As swayside pointed out the obvious..darwinism isn't just about physical characteristics. However, i'm not demeaning charity organizations for their genuine humanitarian efforts. My issues are similar of yours, that the governments need to feed(As swayside said, create conditions, even in the sahara? ><) and protect their people. However the clash arises when the governments are selfish or ineffective. Are we then only nurturing the main problem? What ideas come to mind when solving such a problem?

[TheKingPin]

I've raed some of the posts and Idea's to solving this have been given!

-Take away the need for the enormous amouts of imported food by cutting down on our ridiculously large meat consumption.

[swayside]

am i wrong for wanting to eat a big piece of meat? am i wrong for going somewhere that serves it and ordering it? is the restaurant wrong for seving it to me? is the restaurant wrong for purchasing this meat from a cattle farm? is the cattle farm wrong for selling it to them? is the cattle farm wrong for purchasing food for their cattle from people who grow it? is it wrong for the people to grow it to sell it to the cattle farm?

the answer to each and every one of these questions is no, regardless of circumstance. even if there are starving people in the same country, you have the right to do what you want with what's your's, even food.

[NJDeadzone]

correct, absolutely correct!

[ISleepWithAPinkBunny]

I beleive that the world hunger problems lie in overpopulation. I'm not saying there are too many people in the world as a whole, but in many of those countries (such as India) they refuse to use any kind of birth control, and their population is growing tremendously.

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

The solution to world hunger is to build more sweatshops. If you look at history, most countries have a period where they use sweatshops. This period is wedged right between the "everybody starves period" and the "the economy is looking up period"

Can anyone name a first world nation that didn't have sweatshops at some point.

Japan did, England did, the United States did. China does, and might soon be into the looking up phase

[Nevah73]

I know how to solve all of this!

SOYLENT GREEN!!!!

[HeinousDude]

If anyone remembers your biology class, you should recall a food chain thing, where there's more population at the bottom and less at top (I.E. a small fish has to eat a bunch of plankton a day, a big fish has to eat a few small fish, a top predator eats only a handful a day.) Since livestocks are herbovores and are above the veggies, it means that if we eat less meat, there will be more food for the world in the form of veggies. But let's face it: who in the world would want to stop eating meat :)

[swayside]

At 1/2/03 02:59 AM, ISleepWithAPinkBunny wrote: I beleive that the world hunger problems lie in overpopulation. I'm not saying there are too many people in the world as a whole, but in many of those countries (such as India) they refuse to use any kind of birth control, and their population is growing tremendously.

the world is not overpopulated, its population is overconcentrated. did you know that the entire population of the world could fit in the state of new jersey? the only reason some parts of the world are over populated is because too many people cram themselves in the same place.

[Slizor]

the answer to each and every one of these questions is no, regardless of circumstance. even if there are starving people in the same country, you have the right to do what you want with what's your's, even food.

Heh, your ideas are based on the established conventions of ownership, which tend to ignore where ownership originally came from. Do you think that people have always owned land? Or are you going to think, and we will get down to the meat of this issue.

[swayside]

At 1/3/03 10:11 AM, Slizor wrote:

Heh, your ideas are based on the established conventions of ownership, which tend to ignore where ownership originally came from. Do you think that people have always owned land? Or are you going to think, and we will get down to the meat of this issue.

the "meat of the issue" is that if i own something, you don't. end of story. sovereignty is fair, as is capitalism. it may not be happainess for some people, but it's more fair than socialism.

[Slizor]

the "meat of the issue" is that if i own something, you don't. end of story. sovereignty is fair, as is capitalism. it may not be happainess for some people, but it's more fair than socialism.

You've missed or ignored my actual question, did people always own land?

[Myopinions]

nice!!!

[swayside]

At 1/3/03 06:56 PM, Slizor wrote:

did people always own land?

yes.

[Slizor]

did people always own land?

yes.

So uninhaitated islands that were discovered and claimed, they were always owned? And what aout when America was colonised did someone already own the land and the colonists stole it? Do you seriously think people always owned land?

[swayside]

At 1/4/03 10:26 AM, Slizor wrote:

So uninhaitated islands that were discovered and claimed, they were always owned? And what aout when America was colonised did someone already own the land and the colonists stole it? Do you seriously think people always owned land?

i didn't say people always owned All the land. besides, that's irrelevant to our argunebt. the fact is that today's society recognises ownership of land. wether ownership was bought, claimed, or inhierited, pretty much all land was privately or federally owned by the time most of the people alive today were born. our capitalist society allows for sovereignty. thus i don't have to give/share anything if i don't want to.