- Politics and Social Issues
What would it take to eliminate world hunger? - the longer answer.
asked by Dubuquedogtrainer
How could we eliminate world hunger....?
Spend the money spent on armaments on food, simple really, except food for feeding starving people does not make cash, whereas weapon sales that kill folk do.
Education, yes to a degree, but you are looking long term here, because cultural differences and lower aspirations often mean that folk are OK with just enough, and our 'education' always teaches that more is better, and of course as most folk cannot grow food, we need to grow efficiently, so that we can supply others, and frankly, a lot of these subsistence farmers don't do efficient hard working,"We can make our fortune" style, they do more "this is good, we can feed our family" type of working.
Stopping wars would be a prime way, but as previously stated, the 1% continue to prosper by keeping wars going, so overall I would say the best way to eradicate hunger, would be to remove the 1% from power and let people sort out the best ways to get food where it is required.
The ENTIRE population of the world could fit into Australia and still leave half of Canberra empty, and that is with one and a half acres for each individual, and with the rest of the world empty.
Overpopulation is NOT the problem, well maybe it's 1% of the world that is 'over populated' with greedy Illuminati people that needs to be removed, before we, the 99% can think about solving our problems, but in general, if we stopped making wars and weapons, we would have sufficient to allow everyone to not starve.
This is essential to watch, long but it will open your eyes or if you are awake already, it will clarify matters.
- Wake up call full length - YouTube
WAKE UP CALL - Copyright 2008 ~ John Nada Please give all credit to John Nada. www.youtube.com/user/JohnNada80
Another way would be to stop eating so much ourselves.
That would not mean convenience foods spare enough to stock the average third world (sorry it's developing world now isn't it) supermarket with cornflakes, but then again they are hardly interested in western food, what they actually want is basic staples for their diet, such as rice, maize, fresh vegetables and possibly a few animals to provide occassional feasts for the whole village, and eggs and milk in between.
No the reason we would help if we cut down would be that the money we no longer wasted on consumerism fancy foods that are nutritionally worthless, could be sent to the people on the ground actually trying to solve the problem.
Not the charities who spend 95% of what they collect actually collecting the cash (and paying Charity Fund Raisers big salaries) and definitely not to any official government body (when your cash will add a wing to the Presidential Palace or keep the Presidential Jet in the air for another hour).
No, we need to sort out the real benefactors, the people who live on the job and serve a starving people, and who will actually have the victims best interests at heart, rather that their own.
and another example....
But it starts when we remove the 1% whose plan is to reduce our world population down from 7 billion to 500 million, that's called eugenics and the same folks who run the world also want to set that plan in motion, already have as it happens, and thats why they work both ends towards the middle.
Starve the poor to death and kill the rest in wars.
Your choice, they (the 1%) can only keep control whilst we (the 99%) obey their wishes and don't challenge their orders, the moment that folk were non complant en mass, thier power would be broken.
NOT eating the crap that BigFood delivers to your TV set would be a start, telling the banksters that they were NOT getting bailed out would be a good second, and telling our elected servants to bring the troops home to guard our shores, rather than invading other peoples, would be a sure third option.