don't you think the money used to feed war could have been used to feed people instead.
sort by best latest
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.
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.
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.
seems like a bit of a viscious cycle. (scratching head!!)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"...
I say feed our own hungry first. Even the heathen do that.
that's a good start Polly... start with home.
they truly are disgusting... sometimes i really do feel ashamed of being a part of the human race.
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.
1st world countries also have homeless people on the roads. you could give it to them...
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
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.
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.
There are many ways to save Polly ... but the main focus is the huge expenses on negatives such as wars rather than positives.
so its ok to kill other innocent people just so your innocent don't get killed? doesn't make sense Lois.
If they are killing us in the first place, how can they be innocent? Your comment doesn't make sense
ooookay ... thanks for your input Lois.
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.
exactly ... something like this for instance...
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.
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.
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.
I'm not critisizing any country in particular... just that humans invest more in death than in life - something on those lines.
at least to create something sustainable for them so you don't have to continuousely feed them...
thanks for your input stanwshura. :)
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.
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.
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
My link was meant to be: https://hubpages.com/health/The-link-between-the-i...
Interesting concept about world leaders going on a veg diet :-)) I can't imagine many vegetarian leaders wanting to start a war!
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.
Borsia, are you volunteering to end your life so the planet can be more "sustainable?"
Maybe you could volunteer instead, Caleb. Borsia understands what is going on. In this respect he is knowledgeable and therefore useful.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You are a monster, Rod. What makes you think you can decide who should live and who should die? Wow...
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.
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.
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.