What are your thoughts on this...

1. 83

   arksysposted 10 years ago

   What are your thoughts on this...
   
   don't you think the money used to feed war could have been used to feed people instead.
   
   

   replyreport
2. 68

   ienjoythisposted 10 years ago

   Of course the money used for war could have been used to feed people. But does that allow arms businesses to profit? OF COURSE NOT.
   
   According to Wallst.com, Lockheed Martin, an aircraft and missiles company, they profited $2.7 billion in 2011 from the U.S. Defense budget.
   
   In total for 2011, the US spent $410 billion on arms and military services.

   replyreport
   1. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You stop producing weapons to feed a lot of people you end up with a great many more people who need feeding. Then there's war. Break the need some people have to overpopulate the planet and get somewhere in all this.

      replyreport
   2. 83

      arksysposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      and that expenditure is only half or less than half the total amount spent on war.
      Rod ... with less than half that amount of money you can establish solid means for the hunger stricken people to sustain themselves.

      replyreport
   3. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry Asky it won't work. You provide the solid means for the hunger stricken to sustain themselves they will then reproduce to where you have accomplished nothing and MORE people will then be starving.

      replyreport
   4. 83

      arksysposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      seems like a bit of a viscious cycle. (scratching head!!)

      replyreport
   5. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      It is. If you don't change the way the people think, if you can't change their attitude toward reproduction then you do have a continuing cycle.

      replyreport
3. 40

   Borsiaposted 10 years ago

   The answer is for populations to stay within the bounds of their resources. If you devoted all of the money wasted on wars you would just get that many more people.
   The earth now has over 7 billion which is about 3-4 billion too many for the planet to sustain. In the near future there will be a balancing when the population reaches critical mass. The only real question is the mechanics of the fall.
   The population has been as low as a few thousand more than once and it will happen again. Or maybe this time we will follow the dinosaurs into the shadows of time.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      What you say is the truth. And yet the GOP vehemently opposes abortions, and (female) contraceptive use for any reason.  And the Pope condones the use of condoms for men to not impregnate women.  What a world.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      CalebSparksposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Borsia, are you volunteering to end your life so the planet can be more "sustainable?"

      replyreport
   3. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe you could volunteer instead, Caleb. Borsia understands what is going on. In this respect he is knowledgeable and therefore useful.

      replyreport
   4. 40

      Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      No Caleb I'm not offering suicide. However I did choose not to have any children. And I Have the resources to support myself without any problems.

      replyreport
   5. 83

      arksysposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I really don't like the idea where people say the world is over crowded, because i can see that it is not... maybe we could adjust our lifestyles to accomodate for more people and educate people in some way to have fewer children. what do you say?

      replyreport
   6. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I like the idea of people having fewer children arksy. But the world IS overcrowded. Species of plants and animals are disappearing every year because of this. Accomodate more people? Yikes! I love wildlife.

      replyreport
   7. 83

      arksysposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      accomodate people yes and start educating them on the benefits of having smaller families ... just a thought ... i love nature and wildlife too and i don't want to see it diminish at all.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      CalebSparksposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You are a monster, Rod. What makes you think you can decide who should live and who should die? Wow...

      replyreport
   9. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I may be a monster but at least I have some idea of what is happening. And I don't choose who will live and who will die. Those who have too many children in a place where not enough food can be grown choose.

      replyreport
   10. 83

       arksysposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Rod ... i don't think there is no need to kill anyone ... i'm sure we have enough resources for the current amount of people in the world. there is so much barren land that could be utilized more effieciently.

       replyreport
   11. 68

       Rod Marsdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Who is killing anyone? It is really a case of how best to help. To buy into a cycle that helps no one isn't practical.

       replyreport
4. 86

   Benjimesterposted 10 years ago

   That's a tough issue.  It's hard to feed people, when most of them are living beyond our borders.  It's a known fact that tons upon tons of food sent in foreign aid to starving countries literally rots on the dock because of foreign bureaucracy.  Just type in "Food rotting on docks" into Google and you'll get dozens of stories of it.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You made my point. I think the potential is there to feed all people. Developing the system to get the food to the people in need is the real challenge and I do not see an easy solution.

      replyreport
   2. 83

      arksysposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      thanks Benjimester... i didn't know about "food rotting on the docks"... definitely a problem which needs to be addressed.
      as the saying goes "give a man a fish and feed him for a day; teach him how to fish and feed him for a lifetime"...

      replyreport
   3. 61

      Pollyannalanaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I say feed our own hungry first. Even the heathen do that.

      replyreport
   4. 83

      arksysposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      that's a good start Polly... start with home.

      replyreport
5. 81

   Electro-Denizenposted 10 years ago

   This picture brings out several points really, but here are a few thoughts to put into the melting pot (apart from the obvious one, that the powers that be, especially in the US, like wars, because it makes money and extends the US/Israeli kingdom - this is bad  for the US in the long term)
   
   1 - In terms of feeding the world, even without stopping wars, if the millions of acres in the world given over to feeding cattle (at great cost to the environment) was converted to arable land, there would be enough food for everyone. That is a fact.
   
   2 - Secondly, and this links into the first point, there will always be wars if people kill animals for no reason at all, apart from taste pleasure. This isn't as insane as it sounds at face value. Check my hub on this issue, that shows the linkage between war and cancer, and meat eating: http://electro-denizen.hubpages.com/hub … nd-cancer.
   
   The link between feeding wars or feeding people, and how to resolve it, is quite straightforward really. Don't kill animals for food, which in turn stops or diminishes the aggression that leads to wars, which in turn releases both money spent on war, and millions of acres of arable land that can feed everyone. Even the United Nations agrees that moving toward a vegetarian diet is necessary for a sustainable future.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      christopherantonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      This is all very fine, but what do you do with all the surplus animals then? If we stop farming them, they will overpopulate and then they will need to be culled. The end result is worse for the animals than the current situation.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      Electro-Denizenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I guess it would have to be a gradual thing, and stop breeding cattle in vast numbers just for eating. Here in the UK, there's a kind of sheep which isn't used commercially, but kept for the sake of prosperity on National Trust land.

      replyreport
   3. 83

      arksysposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      1. even though i don't really like the idea of becoming a vegetation but it is a lifestyle change that is not impossible to achieve.
      2. your link doesn't work can you post again plz.
      what if only leaders of countries went on a veg diet to reduce wars

      replyreport
   4. 81

      Electro-Denizenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      My link was meant to be: http://electro-denizen.hubpages.com/hub … and-cancer
      
      Interesting concept about world leaders going on a veg diet :-))  I can't imagine many vegetarian leaders wanting to start a war!

      replyreport
6. 0

   CalebSparksposted 10 years ago

   Before you criticize the US further, remember that the US has done much to feed people around the world. US citizens as a whole are very generous.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Electro-Denizenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not going any further with any criticism, just making a point. :-) As ever, the political/business power  brokers and the common people are poles apart.

      replyreport
   2. 83

      arksysposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not critisizing any country in particular... just that humans invest more in death than in life - something on those lines.

      replyreport
7. 77

   cebutouristspotposted 10 years ago

   Depends on the law of supply and demand. 
   
   Money is one thing but the value of food will go up with more demand.
   
   So in short if a country cant live/grow within the boundaries of his resources then in the long run no.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      arksysposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      when someone is down they need a little push to get them up and going once again... maybe they can grow/live within their boundaries but need just a little push to get there. take all the tools away from a mechanic and he cannot open a bolt.

      replyreport
8. 68

   Rod Marsdenposted 10 years ago

   It's often a catch-22 situation. Famine often leads to war. This is why Famine and War are two of the four horsemen. They ride well together.
   
   Then there is the elephant in the room I know you probably will hate me bringing up. It's the increase in world population. New farming methods can only go so far. Out planet is FINITE and it will be centuries before we're out there among the stars looking for another suitable planet to colonize.
   
   We have had lots of proof since the start of the space race that the world is finite.yet the major religions still can't grasp this obvious fact.
   
   The poor people of the world have a tendency to remain poor because they have large families. In having large families they often find themselves a heart beat away from starvation. Meanwhile big companies are exploiting this weakness and making a lot of money off it.
   
   Governments such as the Indonesian government take aid money from countries such as Australia and it doesn't go any further than the people who are running the country. Those desperate for aid never see it and are never helped by it. Thus the rich in Indonesia just get richer and the poor remain on the bottom of the heap, some living in garbage dumps. If there was a way that aid money could get out of the hands of wealthy Indonesians and be distributed to those who really need it then you might see a new Indonesia forming and it would be a safer place to visit . It is the same story with other countries.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      arksysposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      very good point about poor remain poor due to large families.
      there was a European NGO who came to pakistan to help with flood victims. they stuffed money in sacks of flour and distributed it to the locals. There are ways to get money to people.

      replyreport
   2. 68

      Rod Marsdenposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Money is only good if you can spend it. I suppose that side of it was worked out by the flood victims. I hope so. Not a bad idea.

      replyreport
9. 59

   taburkettposted 10 years ago

   The world health organization has indicated that many nations where people died from hunger held enough food stores to keep this from happening.  The world health organization found that internal power seekers and greedy local politicians created this death dilemma. 
   And, all of this was reported every year that money was spent to protect and secure the world from terrorists.  So, I do not believe that the nations should divert money from security activity to feed this misconstrued position in this matter. 
   The expansion and indoctrination of an ever growing immoral society has fueled this factor along with many other detrimental living conditions in many nations.  The Western nations are now afflicted by this same immoral society growth as corruption runs rampant amongst the inhabitants of the society. 
   The best solution for this is eradication of immoral activity - but under the guise of discrimination conflict, the immoral inhabitants continually seek degradation of the society.  However, the use of discrimination to permit immoral activity is actually discrimination against the moral community. 
   Therefore, until morality is once again supreme, death by hunger will continue to be a very huge problem for all nations.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      arksysposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      very true ... once the degradation of society starts in a nation it goes downhill really fast. Its a shame to see so many countries facing this problem in this day and age.

      replyreport
10. 70

    stanwshuraposted 10 years ago

    I think that this is an unfortunate comparison.  Nonetheless, you are absolutely right that we (and all national budgets) should prioritize hunger over war and all its horror and even the reactions thereto.

    replyreport
    1. 83

       arksysposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       at least to create something sustainable for them so you don't have to continuousely feed them...
       thanks for your input stanwshura.

       replyreport
11. 61

    Pollyannalanaposted 10 years ago

    Yes but so could money to have parties and millions of US dollars squandered by IRS employees! There are millions everywhere that could feed all the homeless and do about anything if governments would just do it and stop spending like drunken sailors and cost us was it 2 million just for their donuts and coffee? People need to get involved again and be heard. Not just let them snoop in our emails.

    replyreport
    1. 83

       arksysposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       There are many ways to save Polly ... but the main focus is the huge expenses on negatives such as wars rather than positives.

       replyreport
12. 74

    d.williamposted 10 years ago

    these statistics are disgusting.  There is no excuse for terrorists who kill others for their narrow minded causes.  There is no excuse for fighting wars that we can never win, or only to make huge profits by those who start the wars in the first place. As they say, those who start wars will never fight in them.
    And lastly, there is no excuse for anyone going hungry in this world.  The greedy would rather throw extra food in the garbage than lift one small finger to help feed those who cannot feed themselves by virtue of their circumstances. 
    These are all blights, and shames, on the people of this world.  None are justified.

    replyreport
    1. 83

       arksysposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       they truly are disgusting... sometimes i really do feel ashamed of being a part of the human race.

       replyreport
    2. 40

       Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       And just how would suggest someone in a 1st world country get their left overs to a starving child in the 3rd world?
       Nice thought but totally impractical.

       replyreport
    3. 83

       arksysposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       1st world countries also have homeless people on the roads. you could give it to them...

       replyreport
    4. 74

       d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       U took that 2 literally. Teaching 3rd world poor how 2 grow crops & feeding the hungry in this country R more appropriate than shipping food. Supermarkets & restaurants throw good food away daily. If they cant sell it then no 1 should have it

       replyreport
    5. 40

       Borsiaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Arksys; are you really suggesting that at the end of our meal we all jump in the car and go looking for someone who might be hungry?
       Again not a very practical solution.

       replyreport
    6. 74

       d.williamposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Borsia: B realistic. restaurants know what agencies feed the hungry, so throwing away food at the end of the day is immoral.Individuals also know how 2 donate or volunteer 2 help the hungry & homeless. It seems U R just being argumentative.

       replyreport
13. 63

    LoisRyan13903posted 10 years ago

    You have a good point.  But then there would have been more innocent people getting killed by terrorist attacks.

    replyreport
    1. 83

       arksysposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       so its ok to kill other innocent people just so your innocent don't get killed?  doesn't make sense Lois.

       replyreport
    2. 63

       LoisRyan13903posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       If they are killing us in the first place, how can they be innocent?  Your comment doesn't make sense

       replyreport
    3. 83

       arksysposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       ooookay ... thanks for your input Lois.

       replyreport
    4. 63

       LoisRyan13903posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       YVW.  But to feed the hungry it should be more educational, teaching the people how to grow food in their climates as well as providing food at first.

       replyreport
    5. 83

       arksysposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       exactly ...  something like this for instance...
       http://www.thewaterchannel.tv/en/videos … he-current

       replyreport