Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not against a helping-hand for countries in need. But I think if the "help" gets too regular and predictable, goes on for too long, is at too high a level.........these countries that are getting "helped" are really getting hurt.
As stated by Jean Luc Picard, captain of the Starship Enterprise " The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives, we work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity".
When greed no longer controls the cost of goods, food , housing, ect. maybe we will see change.
And stop people from being homeless? I read that Bill Gates has more money then 140 countries. I'm sure of us try to donate, volunteer, etc. And I would think that technology would be at a point where we could grow food any where in the world. Some with housing. Surely, we could build cheap decent homes for people. Or give those empty homes to those in need for shelter.
So is this a political thing? What's really stopping us from stopping all of this?
There's no economic nor political incentive to solve the World's problems. & there are places where food is used as a weapon - if you don't get with the program, no rations for you.
For now, there's apparently enough food in the World for everyone - but not everyone can pay. That's the economics, & the developed countries (on average) eat better & more often & regularly than Third World countries. Part of the issue is distribution/warehousing/transportation - but again, it's an economic issue. If someone could turn a profit by distributing/warehousing/transporting food to where it's needed, it would be done, & that someone would turn a profit.
The expectations are also part of it - the Industrialized world wants steaks, seafood, cheese, milk - which are excellent foods, but take more resources to grow/process than say textured soy. The market can allocate goods, but it's a pretty raw deal if you can't afford to pay for nice things, or in this case, nice food.
The same is roughly true for education, medical care, communications, transportation & etc. Capitalist systems won't move, unless there's some assurance of pay & profit.
As stated by Jean Luc Picard, captain of the Starship Enterprise " The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives, we work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity".
When greed no longer controls the cost of goods, food , housing, ect. maybe we will see change.
Just need to watch out for the Borg.
Are you serious?
First, let's get rid of the 'greed' word because it is frankly ridiculous. It assigned moral turpitude to success.
The incentive of material prosperity has, in fact, created prosperity and better living conditions worldwide. Poverty rates around the world have plummeted over the past two centuries, and the rate of decline has actually accelerated in the past twenty-five years.
In fact, I would argue precisely the opposite of your point. The ability to pursue prosperity without the intervention of religious authorities or the fiat of the state has been a largely positive development of civilization. Meanwhile, the greatest famines of the 20th Century were in the Soviet Union under Stalin and China under Mao. Do yourself a kindness and read about the Great Leap Forward or the collectivization of the Ukraine.
Or read about how the authoritarian system of Ethiopia used food -- or the lack of -- as a political tool. Today, the UN identifies famine as present in northern Nigeria, Yemen, the South Sudan, and Somalia, places that are in chaos. So unless we're prepared to deploy troops on a massive humanitarian mission, there's relatively little we can do.
Show me hunger in the world, and I'll show you a dysfunctional or oppressive state, not capitalism running amok.
There no longer is "food stamps".
The amount you receive is now on a debit card so if you trade it for 50 cents on the dollar you basically have to hand over your card plus the PIN to commit fraud.
All of your purchases can be tracked now.
That's easy enough to get by you can go in with someone and buy said amount of food and they give you equal amount of sex, money, food ,etc. Even still you can give someone your card and they can go buy themselves whatever they want. It's not like the cashier asks for ID.
First, let's get rid of the 'greed' word because it is frankly ridiculous. It assigned moral turpitude to success.
The incentive of material prosperity has, in fact, created prosperity and better living conditions worldwide. Poverty rates around the world have plummeted over the past two centuries, and the rate of decline has actually accelerated in the past twenty-five years.
In fact, I would argue precisely the opposite of your point. The ability to pursue prosperity without the intervention of religious authorities or the fiat of the state has been a largely positive development of civilization. Meanwhile, the greatest famines of the 20th Century were in the Soviet Union under Stalin and China under Mao. Do yourself a kindness and read about the Great Leap Forward or the collectivization of the Ukraine.
Or read about how the authoritarian system of Ethiopia used food -- or the lack of -- as a political tool. Today, the UN identifies famine as present in northern Nigeria, Yemen, the South Sudan, and Somalia, places that are in chaos. So unless we're prepared to deploy troops on a massive humanitarian mission, there's relatively little we can do.
Show me hunger in the world, and I'll show you a dysfunctional or oppressive state, not capitalism running amok.
Yeah, I'm going to have to stick at least close to this theory, and 'greed' is a word that was created for a larger purpose than to just 'get rid of' as you put it.
Humans are simply unaware of or unwilling to admit/except how little significance they are in a universal concept. Live for 100 years, take all they can get and die. And it's very difficult to convince a wealthy person 'that it is better to give than receive.'
Depending on your beliefs, humans have existed for what, 100,000 yrs. or 3-4 million yrs. You decide. Money was created 5000 yrs. ago. -plus or minus a couple thousand yrs. The ridiculously small amount of time that money has been around it has caused more destruction and evil and hate. It was worth a try, it didn't work.
If there is no money to be made keeping the homeless, homeless. It would resolve itself. Entire careers are built and organizations depositing $. If the problem stops, so does their paycheck. So.....
If a small apartment only cost 100 bucks, even the poor could scrape that together. But because there are 20 people wanting to rent 10 apartments....greed takes over and now the owner wants 1000 bucks. So, yeah, it's a human effect and 'greed' is real.
And stop people from being homeless? I read that Bill Gates has more money then 140 countries. I'm sure of us try to donate, volunteer, etc. And I would think that technology would be at a point where we could grow food any where in the world. Some with housing. Surely, we could build cheap decent homes for people. Or give those empty homes to those in need for shelter.
So is this a political thing? What's really stopping us from stopping all of this?
Absolutely not.
We can't end world hunger (or poverty) because we can't stop people from having children they don't have the means to support.
People often talk about the problem as if it were a supply-side problem, but the problem is entirely one of demand. Demand will increase to match and exceed whatever supply you can produce.
The problem cannot be solved without forced sterilization. If you don't like the solution, then you'll just have to live with the problem.
I used to wonder the same thing. But to mix up the old saying -- where there's a way, there's not necessarily the will. Could we do it? I think so, from a technical stand point.
But here's my problem with the issue. But the countries that need the most help are quite often a farging mess. It is my view that most of those countries don't even manage what resources they have, do little or no "self-help", make little or no progress over decades, and are cesspools of violence and warring factions. I just don't want to invest any of my money (either through taxes or charity) in such countries.
No country is perfect, including ours, but show me a country that needs help is making at least some progress on their own, and I'll be far more open-minded.
This.....
and the fact that in a lot of those countries the rapid population increases are staggering.
While some first world countries are facing declining population (germany, japan),
countries that the most hunger are experiencing increasing population.
We put food in our gas tanks , how incredibly stupid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Blows against the empire
