To point 2, How would more food (or aid, or what have you) thrown at the problem sites actually circumvent the greed, neglect, incompetence, what have you? The people stockpiling the food will, in all likelihood, stockpile the extra food you give out. The food that rots in the fields would be accompanied by the extra food that you insist on growing. The problem is not a lack of food. A lack of food (for starving people) is a symptom of failings in the chain of delivery or production.Vern5 said:1) Seriously? I can't assume things anymore? I guess I'm just getting stubborn. I'm forgetting to observe the laws of the Secret Mental Police. Just because I assume something doesn't mean it absolutely has to be right. Actually, you proved my point of "mostly agreeing" because mostly doesn't count everyone.ravensheart18 said:No, you can't assume that. I disagree completely. There are vast areas that are underpopulated. Many "western" nations have immigration programs because of low population and low population growth.Vern5 said:I'm going to go ahead and assume that we can mostly agree that the world is ridiculously overpopulated right now.
On a world wide basis there is plenty, that isn't why they are starving. They are starving due to war, politics, greed, luck, and many other factors. Billions of tonnes of food are wasted or allowed to rot every year. In some areas farmers are paid NOT to grow food or to destroy perfectly good food to keep the prices at artificial price points.People are dying in the streets. There isn't enough food to go around.
Most people are genetically wired to want to reproduce. Even people who think they don't want kids suddenly see things a whole new way as they age, or as they/their partner become pregnant. Nothing in my life has been as rewarding as having a child.So, I've got to know, do any of you want children and, if so, why?
2) You happily proved my point of there not being enough food to go around. Yes a lot of it is lost to fire and neglect. Yes a lot of it is stockpiled away from those who need. So between losing and withholding food, there really isn't enough to go around.
3) I can agree with what you're saying. I'm pretty sure that I'll think differently on having kids or not once I've felt the need to lay down roots. Still, why was having your child such an incredible reward, if you don't mind me asking?
There is a sea of orphaned young, but you have to fight tooth and claw to get one. I'd know, I was one of that sea. Though technically I'm not orphaned, I have a birth mother somewhere out there, and presumably a father lest I be some freak of nature or human cloning experiment gone horribly right, but I digress. My parents had to jump through more hoops than a horse on a flaming ring factory conveyor belt to get their hands on me, and from what I can tell, a lot of those hoops are necessary, all things considered.Vern5 said:But at the same time I can say that the idea of bringing even more children into the world instead of adopting the nearly endless sea of orphaned young sounds selfish.
I insisted on growing more food? And I said we should throw that food at the problem sites? Damn, I'm really stupid. I'm also forgetful because I don't remember saying either of those things. I'm not a politician nor am I some kind of activist trying to save every human life from starvation (disregarding the homeless people I help feed whenever I can) so I can't really say how to fix world hunger. I'm just pointing out that it does exist as there are people in the world who are, indeed, going hungry.conflictofinterests said:To point 2, How would more food (or aid, or what have you) thrown at the problem sites actually circumvent the greed, neglect, incompetence, what have you? The people stockpiling the food will, in all likelihood, stockpile the extra food you give out. The food that rots in the fields would be accompanied by the extra food that you insist on growing. The problem is not a lack of food. A lack of food (for starving people) is a symptom of failings in the chain of delivery or production.Vern5 said:1) Seriously? I can't assume things anymore? I guess I'm just getting stubborn. I'm forgetting to observe the laws of the Secret Mental Police. Just because I assume something doesn't mean it absolutely has to be right. Actually, you proved my point of "mostly agreeing" because mostly doesn't count everyone.ravensheart18 said:No, you can't assume that. I disagree completely. There are vast areas that are underpopulated. Many "western" nations have immigration programs because of low population and low population growth.Vern5 said:I'm going to go ahead and assume that we can mostly agree that the world is ridiculously overpopulated right now.
On a world wide basis there is plenty, that isn't why they are starving. They are starving due to war, politics, greed, luck, and many other factors. Billions of tonnes of food are wasted or allowed to rot every year. In some areas farmers are paid NOT to grow food or to destroy perfectly good food to keep the prices at artificial price points.People are dying in the streets. There isn't enough food to go around.
Most people are genetically wired to want to reproduce. Even people who think they don't want kids suddenly see things a whole new way as they age, or as they/their partner become pregnant. Nothing in my life has been as rewarding as having a child.So, I've got to know, do any of you want children and, if so, why?
2) You happily proved my point of there not being enough food to go around. Yes a lot of it is lost to fire and neglect. Yes a lot of it is stockpiled away from those who need. So between losing and withholding food, there really isn't enough to go around.
3) I can agree with what you're saying. I'm pretty sure that I'll think differently on having kids or not once I've felt the need to lay down roots. Still, why was having your child such an incredible reward, if you don't mind me asking?