Yahoo! Answers- end world hunger

[RommelTJ]

Not so long ago, there was a featured Answer on Yahoo! answer that read:

"If we produce enough food to feed everyone in the world, why don't we?"

While most of the good answers had to do with distribution issues, the best answer mentioned something about making the countries poorer by helping them. Here is a direct quotation from the answer:
"Ah, so why don't we give them this food that's going to waste for free, we have no other use for it? Well, that would bankrupt the economies of the countries receiving the food. In those places many peoples livelihoods rely on the food industry; farming is the one of the most common occupations, and then people get employed to package, sell, collect or prepare the food the farmers grow. "

In other words, he or she is saying that since poor countries rely on Agriculture and farming, giving them free stuff would just hurt them, which is true in a simple way. However, I think I have found a way around it!

Why don't we just give them cows or other livestock. We can make sure that every citizen gets an animal and we can distribute them with the help of the UN. That way, since every single person would get a cow or a pig, the country's industry wouldn't be affected.
Again, it might be my simple minded 18 year old socialist brain, but I believe this can work.

What do you guys think? Do you see any flaws in my proposition(Other than it's gonna cost and pollute a lot)?

Thanks.

[Boltrig]

I can see the flaw.

Most people are so greedy that they WOULD rather see the stuff go to waste than someone else get it for free.

Also the reasoning goes, say you sell a pig for $100 in the US, but you only sell half your herd, why should someone else get it for nothing. The buyers get pissed and you loose trade.

People only want to APPEAR charitable

[DoomBagel]

There is already work underway to produce a crop that will grow in harsh conditions and would be a suitable step in the direction of ending world hunger. The bad thing about that is we don't know how genetically altered crops will affect people in the long run.

Another example is in the movie Black Hawk Down. In the begining the US is giving out food and it starts a riot in which a drug lord seizes control of the food. The US can't do anything about it as they aren't being targeted. That is another problem that still exists.

When I was in Africa, we gave out food to the locals. People would fight over the food and take it from the weaker ones. The saddest thing about it was the kids would get beaten for the food.

I am not trying to make it seem that the US is the savior of the world or anything of the sort. I am just passing on what I have actually witnessed or know about.

[Proteas]

At 3/9/07 12:00 PM, RommelTJ wrote: Why don't we just give them cows or other livestock. We can make sure that every citizen gets an animal and we can distribute them with the help of the UN. That way, since every single person would get a cow or a pig, the country's industry wouldn't be affected.
Again, it might be my simple minded 18 year old socialist brain, but I believe this can work.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Chinese proverb

Simply giving someone food isn't going to solve the problem in Africa or anywhere else, it's almost like throwing money at the problem in the hopes that it will solve itself; you have to SHOW them how to use it in order to better themselves or your effort will be for naught.

Then again, you could always stop sending them food altogether...

[RommelTJ]

At 3/9/07 01:23 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 3/9/07 12:00 PM, RommelTJ wrote: Why don't we just give them cows or other livestock. We can make sure that every citizen gets an animal and we can distribute them with the help of the UN. That way, since every single person would get a cow or a pig, the country's industry wouldn't be affected.
Again, it might be my simple minded 18 year old socialist brain, but I believe this can work.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Chinese proverb

Simply giving someone food isn't going to solve the problem in Africa or anywhere else, it's almost like throwing money at the problem in the hopes that it will solve itself; you have to SHOW them how to use it in order to better themselves or your effort will be for naught.

Then again, you could always stop sending them food altogether...

First of all, Wesley Willis rocks!
Second, That's my whole point! Let's stop giving them food, and give them animals that they can learn how to breed and duplicate their number. Giving out processed food is bad for everybody....

[fahrenheit]

Why do people say stuff like this and then say they arent communist, or even go as far as saying they hate commmunists.

I mean really, some people dont understand that all these talks of equality and giving everyone food is communist.

[Der-Lowe]

Why don't we give them free education, so that they can be engineers, lawyers, doctors, and earn enough money to buy food?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 3/9/07 09:58 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Why don't we give them free education, so that they can be engineers, lawyers, doctors, and earn enough money to buy food?

Because the world doesn't work that way?

[Der-Lowe]

At 3/10/07 10:02 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 3/9/07 09:58 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Why don't we give them free education, so that they can be engineers, lawyers, doctors, and earn enough money to buy food?

Because the world doesn't work that way?

It's not something impossible to do.
If you don't like it that way, what you could do is "rent" them your professors, so that the can teach theirs, giving them a good education system, then they woud become engineers, lawyers, doctors, and can earn enough money to buy food.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 3/10/07 12:13 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 3/10/07 10:02 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 3/9/07 09:58 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

It's not something impossible to do.
If you don't like it that way, what you could do is "rent" them your professors, so that the can teach theirs, giving them a good education system, then they woud become engineers, lawyers, doctors, and can earn enough money to buy food.

What need is thier for lawyers, when thier governments can barely stay afloat and actually have a list of laws. What need is thier of lawyers when justice is about some old vengence thing.

Likewise with engineers, when the countrys can't even get food on the table.

To change the system, you would have to start from the bottom up, not the top to the bottom.

Get the people a renewable food source, the whole teach a man to fish thing and progress will follow.

[Der-Lowe]

At 3/10/07 12:43 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: What need is thier for lawyers, when thier governments can barely stay afloat and actually have a list of laws. What need is thier of lawyers when justice is about some old vengence thing.

Precisely, that's why they need lawyers.

Likewise with engineers, when the countrys can't even get food on the table.

In order to get a good argicultural sector, they will need engineers; they will need engineers for their roads, railways, canals, schools, etc.

To change the system, you would have to start from the bottom up, not the top to the bottom.

Get the people a renewable food source, the whole teach a man to fish thing and progress will follow.

The giving away cattle thing is too medieval, I think the fastest way is to transform their economy into a cheap labor economy, and with that money, construct a State that can provide health, education, etc.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 3/10/07 06:26 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 3/10/07 12:43 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Precisely, that's why they need lawyers.

So, they need lawyers because no one uses lawyers.
Uhm, kay.

In order to get a good argicultural sector, they will need engineers; they will need engineers for their roads, railways, canals, schools, etc.

You also need money for things like those.

The giving away cattle thing is too medieval, I think the fastest way is to transform their economy into a cheap labor economy, and with that money, construct a State that can provide health, education, etc.

To many variables, to many risks.

It's isn't a sound investment.

[Der-Lowe]

At 3/10/07 08:47 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 3/10/07 06:26 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 3/10/07 12:43 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Precisely, that's why they need lawyers.

So, they need lawyers because no one uses lawyers.
Uhm, kay.

No, they need lawyers because they don't have a judicial system, and need to build one.

In order to get a good argicultural sector, they will need engineers; they will need engineers for their roads, railways, canals, schools, etc.

You also need money for things like those.

Which will be paid with money from the State...

The giving away cattle thing is too medieval, I think the fastest way is to transform their economy into a cheap labor economy, and with that money, construct a State that can provide health, education, etc.

To many variables, to many risks.

It's isn't a sound investment.

There are no risks, an industrial investor looking for lower costs, seeing how little this people can be paid, will invest. Then you start improving and diversificating the economy.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 3/10/07 08:54 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 3/10/07 08:47 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 3/10/07 06:26 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 3/10/07 12:43 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

No, they need lawyers because they don't have a judicial system, and need to build one.

So, to get lawyers they need to build a judicial system, to build a judicial system they need to build a government, to build a government they need to take power out of the several rebel or whatever other factions and consolidate it.

I'm seeing a long list here.

Which will be paid with money from the State...

Which will then be funded into arms.

There are no risks, an industrial investor looking for lower costs, seeing how little this people can be paid, will invest. Then you start improving and diversificating the economy.

There are plenty of risks.

Invasion, corruption, rebellion, famine ect ect.

[Der-Lowe]

At 3/10/07 09:03 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 3/10/07 08:54 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 3/10/07 08:47 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 3/10/07 06:26 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 3/10/07 12:43 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

No, they need lawyers because they don't have a judicial system, and need to build one.

So, to get lawyers they need to build a judicial system, to build a judicial system they need to build a government, to build a government they need to take power out of the several rebel or whatever other factions and consolidate it.

I'm seeing a long list here.

Actually, it's only one item: anarchy. I share this opposing thought, because the solution offered by the topic starter is simplistic, and it's not resolving the root problem.

Which will be paid with money from the State...

Which will then be funded into arms.

There are no risks, an industrial investor looking for lower costs, seeing how little this people can be paid, will invest. Then you start improving and diversificating the economy.

There are plenty of risks.

Invasion, corruption, rebellion, famine ect ect.

Well, those problems would have to be resolved in order to make progress possible, it's true, but I've already said that.

[RommelTJ]

At 3/9/07 07:44 PM, fahrenheit wrote: Why do people say stuff like this and then say they arent communist, or even go as far as saying they hate commmunists.

I mean really, some people dont understand that all these talks of equality and giving everyone food is communist.

Ok Fahrenheit. You need to learn your Political ideologies before you speak them. Communism is not the same as Socialism. Socialism means that all goods in a country belong to the state. The state then distributes them accordingly. If the state deems necessary to help other starving countries, then that's nice of them. Communism is similar to Socialism. The only difference being that Communism is a dictatorship. I want this country to be a SOCIAL DEMOCRACY like Sweden. In Sweden you can still get rich(SAAB, IKEA, ERICSOON), while having a competent system of socialized welfare.

What I am advocating with my post is a distribution of cattle. Animals can live in different environments. All I want is to - end world hunger - , not to end poverty! ENDING POVERTY IS IMPOSSIBLE unless we all convert to Communism. Since that is never going to happen, let's just feed the poor until they are strong enough to fight back at their oppressive governments.

[major-shake]

no technically communism isnt a dictator ship

communism is when everybody owns everything and everyone is equal so if you were a rocket scientist you would get the same pay as a farmer. Theoreticaly this is a good idea but there is just one problem with it, people need to be led, to quote men in black "a person is smart, but people are ignorant and frightened" They need a leader to keep them from rioting. This is why many communist countries turn into a dictatorship.

[fahrenheit]

At 3/10/07 09:42 PM, RommelTJ wrote: Ok Fahrenheit. You need to learn your Political ideologies before you speak them.

Communism: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

The state then distributes them accordingly.

Only if the state wishes to do so, in true communism thats what happens.

Communism is similar to Socialism. The only difference being that Communism is a dictatorship.

Actually in Communism there is no government, dictatorship or any. Which is why its impractical in real life, every society eventually develops a government. Thus defeating their choice in communism.

[Buffalow]

At 3/9/07 09:58 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Why don't we give them free education, so that they can be engineers, lawyers, doctors, and earn enough money to buy food?

Think of the cost of building schools, universitys or colleges in these 3rd world countries? I mean, buying grain and beef is completely different than building whole communities. Also, you say they should get jobs to earn money to buy food. The problem isn't buying food, it's growing and distributing it.

[Der-Lowe]

At 3/10/07 11:01 PM, Gwarfan wrote:

At 3/9/07 09:58 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Why don't we give them free education, so that they can be engineers, lawyers, doctors, and earn enough money to buy food?

Think of the cost of building schools, universitys or colleges in these 3rd world countries?

It is much lower than in 1st world countries, because your costs are reduced due to much lower wages, and social benefits, and raw materials are cheaper, because 3rd world countries produce them...

I mean, buying grain and beef is completely different than building whole communities. Also, you say they should get jobs to earn money to buy food. The problem isn't buying food, it's growing and distributing it.

The question isn't either buying food or growing or distributing it, the problem is creating wealth.

[Buffalow]

At 3/10/07 11:18 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 3/10/07 11:01 PM, Gwarfan wrote:

At 3/9/07 09:58 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Why don't we give them free education, so that they can be engineers, lawyers, doctors, and earn enough money to buy food?

Think of the cost of building schools, universitys or colleges in these 3rd world countries?

It is much lower than in 1st world countries, because your costs are reduced due to much lower wages, and social benefits, and raw materials are cheaper, because 3rd world countries produce them...

Yeah, taking raw materials out from the Earth is easy. Now what do you do with it? Oh yeah....you sell it to a 1st world country for manufacturing, of course forgetting the shipping of the material, the re-buying of said material, and then hiring a work force, along with architects, cementers, and buying more materials, that shouldn't cost THAT much, right?

I mean, buying grain and beef is completely different than building whole communities. Also, you say they should get jobs to earn money to buy food. The problem isn't buying food, it's growing and distributing it.

The question isn't either buying food or growing or distributing it, the problem is creating wealth.

Wealth doesn't do jack shit if you have nothing to buy it with.

[RommelTJ]

At 3/10/07 10:55 PM, fahrenheit wrote:

At 3/10/07 09:42 PM, RommelTJ wrote: Ok Fahrenheit. You need to learn your Political ideologies before you speak them.

Communism: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

The state then distributes them accordingly.

Only if the state wishes to do so, in true communism thats what happens.

Communism is similar to Socialism. The only difference being that Communism is a dictatorship.

Actually in Communism there is no government, dictatorship or any. Which is why its impractical in real life, every society eventually develops a government. Thus defeating their choice in communism.

Everything you said about the communist ideology is true as far as I understand it. However, when people speak of Communism, they usually refer to the the ideology in practice, i.e. Chine and other countries. You are right, an ideal Communist country should have no government.

Still, what is so wrong with stoping world hunger? Have you ever suffered from hunger? Have you ever practiced lent? Being hungry is not fun, and while we can argue wether it is good or bad to feed people, those people will likely die during the course of our discussion.

In fact, think of the hundreds of people that died in this very moment because of food realted issues. How do you propose keeping them alive?

[TheSovereign]

Giving them free shit isn't gonna solve anything.

[RommelTJ]

At 3/11/07 01:20 AM, TheSovereign wrote: Giving them free shit isn't gonna solve anything.

What do you propose to end world hunger then?

And what are you going to do in the meantime. Let them starve to death? It's easy for you to say if you haven't experienced hunger.

[goodman7]

This issue has lot to do with politics. How will you feed the poor of China?

[Der-Lowe]

At 3/10/07 11:23 PM, Gwarfan wrote:

At 3/10/07 11:18 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 3/10/07 11:01 PM, Gwarfan wrote:

At 3/9/07 09:58 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Why don't we give them free education, so that they can be engineers, lawyers, doctors, and earn enough money to buy food?

Think of the cost of building schools, universitys or colleges in these 3rd world countries?

It is much lower than in 1st world countries, because your costs are reduced due to much lower wages, and social benefits, and raw materials are cheaper, because 3rd world countries produce them...

Yeah, taking raw materials out from the Earth is easy. Now what do you do with it? Oh yeah....you sell it to a 1st world country for manufacturing, of course forgetting the shipping of the material, the re-buying of said material, and then hiring a work force, along with architects, cementers, and buying more materials, that shouldn't cost THAT much, right?

You do not import building materials, you make them in your own country, making cement and bricks isn't rocket science. Even if at the beginning you don't have a constructing industry, you don't have to import from 1st word countries, you can import it from developing countries, like South Africa. Still, salaries, are much cheaper.

I mean, buying grain and beef is completely different than building whole communities. Also, you say they should get jobs to earn money to buy food. The problem isn't buying food, it's growing and distributing it.

The question isn't either buying food or growing or distributing it, the problem is creating wealth.

Wealth doesn't do jack shit if you have nothing to buy it with.

What? Buying wealth? Or did you mean buying food wuth wealth?

[Elfer]

At 3/10/07 12:43 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Likewise with engineers, when the countrys can't even get food on the table.

Have you ever heard of humanitarian engineering?

Do you even know what engineers do?

[Korriken]

without a police force you have no law, without law, what good are lawyers?

personally i think researchers should give em the genetically altered food, and check back with them in 20 years to see what the effects are. who better to test things like that, than on the ones who will be using it?

why test out a new type of marijuana on a non smoker when you got pot heads running around who would love to test it?

if it works, problem solved, no more hunger, if they all die, problem solved, no people = no hunger.

[Der-Lowe]

At 3/11/07 04:04 PM, Korriken wrote: if it works, problem solved, no more hunger, if they all die, problem solved, no people = no hunger.

You would have been very popular here in the 70s.

[Buffalow]

At 3/11/07 10:37 AM, Der-Lowe wrote:

You do not import building materials, you make them in your own country, making cement and bricks isn't rocket science.

Neither is farming or water gathering, yet these people have difficulty doing that.

Even if at the beginning you don't have a constructing industry, you don't have to import from 1st word countries, you can import it from developing countries, like South Africa. Still, salaries, are much cheaper.

Still, that would be expensive. We're not talking about one or two buildings, but rather very large-scale, country-wide development.

Wealth doesn't do jack shit if you have nothing to buy it with.

What? Buying wealth? Or did you mean buying food wuth wealth?

Sorry about the typo. I meant wealth is worthless if you have nothing to buy with it.