0
   

40 billion? That’s it? Are you sh!tting me? Feed the world!

 
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 05:41 am
http://dieoff.org/page75.htm

Quote:
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 06:25 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:

I see. Your whole purpose here is to make an ass of yourself... got it.


Dream on hippie.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I don't know what underprivelidged people are, but I've helped plenty of underprivileged people.


If you don't know who they are, how do you know who to help, William?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Let's see. Donated $25-$50 gift certificates to at least 100 different charities, 50% percent of the proceeds from 2 restaurants, on 3 occasions, cut a check for $4,000 to the family of poor local kid (Cedarburg) who needed a multiple organ transplant, have been doing the Save the Children with the Christian Children's Fund forever and pretty much every other damn thing the kids approach me with. You?


I just collect for Lifeline every year.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Again, your question was answered by the opening post, genius. Can you read?


My reading skills are in the A plus category. I'm just now wondering about your comprehension skills, William.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
No wonder the world is in such sorry shape. I start a thread questioning how tough it might be to feed starving children, and half the respondents think we shouldn't. Rolling Eyes



I'm a realist Bill. Saving people so they can starve to death in front of us is not what I would call a humanitarian goalkick.

How will you feed them?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 06:31 am
Chumly wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
[Chumly, the evidence I asked for was for your outrageous theories.
You made the claim as per my so-called "outrageous theories" thus I challenge you to logically demonstrate they are so-called "outrageous theories". If you cannot your assertion is specious.
Laughing You made the claims, not I. I asked for evidence that some credible source agrees feeding the hungry and offering basic medicine to the poor would cause cause more harm than good within decades, admittedly with an ad hominem attached, but that's hardly justification for you to transfer your burden of proof to me). Now you think I should prove YOUR theories false before you try to prove them true? Laughing Not likely.

Chumly wrote:
I note my prior post has been dodged in terms of a fair and equal response, and as such if you are ill-prepared or otherwise disinclined to respond in kind I ask: why should I extend an as-a-rule shared and unpretentious courtesy that is not returned?
That response offered no substantiation whatsoever.

Chumly wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
You needn't reiterate that nonsense for a third time (once was more than enough).
More argumentum ad hominem, this does not in any way justly your positions, in fact quite the opposite.
Rolling Eyes Look up ad hominem here. Though the 'insane crack' qualified; what you just quoted was an attack on your argument (nonsense), not your person.

Chumly wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Show me one reputable study that thinks as you do.
Words to the effect of a third reiteration of nonsense with no proof
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 06:33 am
I can't read all of that, Chumly, but I assume the argument is that if we feed all the people here now and they grow up and reproduce and we feed them... and because we have fed everyone there is less room on earth to grow the needed crops, not to mention the increased need for housing (wood/trees and other natural resources), clothing (cotton, silk, etc) and on and on .

I see the problem. But, I'd still gladly give $10 per week. Long term, the key would be in the distribution of birth control and education. Not the food.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 06:35 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Thanks Thomas. I see that friendly old man from the Christian Children's Fund got to you too.

Almost. In the case of CARE, it was basically nostalgia. My mother, born during World War II, always spoke fondly of the CARE packages Americans sent to Germany after World War II to ameliorate the hunger there. She was especially fond of the chocolate bars that came with those packages. Chocolate was a decadent luxury in Germany back in those years. But thanks to CARE, my mother and her brothers could binge on it -- one piece of chocolate a day! So, when I left the Lutheran Church and had spare money as a result, I donated it to CARE international. It just seemed like the obvious, non-sectarian way of giving back.

In the case of Save the Children it wasn't a friendly old man from the Christian Children's fund. It was a nice senior-highschool girl. She walked up to me in Chicago last year with a well-rehearsed, but warm and idealistic sales pitch. She steamrolled me. On my next internet session, anxious that I've fallen for a scam, I checked www.charitynavigator.com to check out what kind of organization Save the Children was. It turned out that not only are they not a scam, they are in fact fairly efficient at converting donations into benefits for the poorest people in the world. So I kept my membership alive.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 06:38 am
squinney wrote:


I see the problem. But, I'd still gladly give $10 per week. Long term, the key would be in the distribution of birth control and education. Not the food.


I've got nothing to add it just bears repeating because it was said so well.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 06:40 am
Builder wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:

I see. Your whole purpose here is to make an ass of yourself... got it.


Dream on hippie.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
I don't know what underprivelidged people are, but I've helped plenty of underprivileged people.


If you don't know who they are, how do you know who to help, William?
Builder wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Again, your question was answered by the opening post, genius. Can you read?


My reading skills are in the A plus category. I'm just now wondering about your comprehension skills, William.
All evidence to the contrary. The initial post is a question of what it would cost to feed the people and then a suggestion that we do it… including the costs per person, per household or a 5% tax increase. How did you miss that Mr. A plus?

Builder wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
No wonder the world is in such sorry shape. I start a thread questioning how tough it might be to feed starving children, and half the respondents think we shouldn't. Rolling Eyes



I'm a realist Bill. Saving people so they can starve to death in front of us is not what I would call a humanitarian goalkick.

How will you feed them?
Amazing. If you are an A plus reader; I shouldn't have to tell you to read the opening post repeatedly, genius.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 06:48 am
Do you have children, William?
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 07:10 am
I see Bill's point and agree that it is beyond horrendous that "feeding the world" could be accomplished with a dramatically miniscule amount of money compared to what we spend on killing so many people in the world, and it is a noble and probably attainable goal to keep people fed, healthy and provided with the basics of a safe and livable existence.

I also see builders point that realisitically you can't save the world because we have only a finite amont of room and resources.

If everyone lived to be 150 it would soon become a pretty crowded and hungry place. As for reproduction... I agree with my wife about sex education and birth control but I also know for a fact that no matter what you do people are going to f**k indiscriminately. Period. Pregnancy and disease follows.... and instead of doing something we argue over whether birth control, abortion or death with dignity offends some religious group or another, and more and more babies are born to poor, uneducated families with little or no prospects to do much but provide them an environment that will continue the never ending cycle.

We also spend huge amounts of money on wars and military and efforts to be sure ALL people receive the best medical care possible are thwarted by the fact that the money isn't earmarked for it. The laws of nature and natural selection keep the animal kingdoms' herd thinned out and selects the stongest, quickest and cleverest to live and prosper.
Everytime nature sends something along to thin the human herd we declare war on it and prevent it from doing it's job if possible which keeps people that nature might select for elimination alive. We are the anti natural selection force on the planet.

On the other hand, it's our desire and efforts to save the world, feed the world, extend life and improve health that defines us as humans and seperates us from the other animals. We were given special abilities to achieve these types of goals or at least attempt to, and so we do.

Cold hard realism and noble intentions will always be at odds with one another and even Jesus (Son of God or just a smart guy) said on the one hand you can't save the world and on the other hand that you're supposed to do your best to take care of everyone particularly the weak.

Personally I just like a warm cave, regular sex and the ocasional seal. And by regular I mean on a regular basis. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 07:56 am
I don't buy the assertion that foreign aid can't help poor countries because it would explode the population. TI don't buy this because economic progress is having a similar effect on Third World population growth today as it had in industrial countries 150 years ago. In both cases, it expanded life expectancy (increasing population growth), and reduces the birth rate (decreasing population growth). In both cases, the increase in life expectancy kicked in sooner. As a result, population in Europe first exploded, then plateaued at a higher level. By contrast, the Third World's population hasn't plateaued yet, but is well on its way to it as we discuss this.

For an overview of birth rates, death rates, and population dynamics on this planet, see the World Bank's book Beyond Economic Growth, specifically chapter 3.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 08:10 am
Quote:
3. War is the likely outcome of having to share scarce water supplies across nations according to Mikhail Gorbachev, now president of Green Cross International. He points specifically to the Middle East where war within the next 10 to 15 years is likely if countries fail to reach an understanding regarding sharing water.

4. The Water Commissioner of Israel, Meir Ben Meir, envisages possible conflict over water issues between Israel, the Palestinians, Jordan and Syria. The water issue could well affect the Middle East peace talks. Israel must release land and water and alter its usage patterns to prevent war according to Palestinian leaders.


Thanks Chumley....
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 08:16 am
Thomas wrote:
In the case of Save the Children it wasn't a friendly old man from the Christian Children's fund. It was a nice senior-highschool girl. She walked up to me in Chicago last year with a well-rehearsed, but warm and idealistic sales pitch. She steamrolled me. On my next internet session, anxious that I've fallen for a scam, I checked www.charitynavigator.com to check out what kind of organization Save the Children was. It turned out that not only are they not a scam, they are in fact fairly efficient at converting donations into benefits for the poorest people in the world. So I kept my membership alive.
Very Happy Yep, young girls can be pretty persuasive too. This isn't the commercial that got me, but I'm pretty sure this is the friendly old man I was talking about here
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 08:19 am
Once there was one a push for a $1 tax for..... education, maybe? If every tax-payer gave an extra dollar we'd have tens of millions of dollars to fix our schools.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 09:12 am
littlek wrote:
Once there was one a push for a $1 tax for..... education, maybe? If every tax-payer gave an extra dollar we'd have tens of millions of dollars to fix our schools.

I'll worry about this problem when every child in the world reaches school age -- because it hasn't died of chickenpox, measles, diarrhea, or some other ridiculously-easy-to-cure illness. But I agree with the spirit of your idea.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 09:42 am
Raise the standard of living, and you'll reduce the birthrate.

Empirical evidence shows this to be true.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 09:58 am
Thomas wrote:
littlek wrote:
Once there was one a push for a $1 tax for..... education, maybe? If every tax-payer gave an extra dollar we'd have tens of millions of dollars to fix our schools.

I'll worry about this problem when every child in the world reaches school age -- because it hasn't died of chickenpox, measles, diarrhea, or some other ridiculously-easy-to-cure illness. But I agree with the spirit of your idea.


I wasn't suggesting it's a first step in fixing the world's problems. I was suggesting that with very little hardship we can fix a lot of the world's problems.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 10:07 am
... and that would be the spirit I agree with.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 10:26 am
okiedokie
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 11:04 am
In regard to Builder's comments about "survival of the fittest," that expression is not a product of the description of natural selection given by Darwin and Wallace, but was coined by Spencer. The term does not apply to individuals, it applies to species. Any individual who survives is by definition fit, and the contention that there are different species of humans, were it to be made, would be false and racist.

The human race has survived all over the planet because it has proven itself to be, to date, the most fit species in the ecological niches it fills. Whether or not individuals survive in the artificial economies which the human race has created is not a matter of evolutionary effect. In many, many nations of what was once known as the third world, the farmers grow cash crops for sale cheaply to the industrialized world rather than growing food crops because we in the industrial world like our bananas and coffee, and don't want to spend a lot on them. In many, many nations, there are sufficient economic resources to feed everyone, but they are diverted by totalitarian governments for the personal interest of members of the government, and the police and military forces which prop them up. The failure of nations to feed their populations does not result from evolutionary forces.

There is sufficient agricultural resource in the world to feed the world's population--the reason that babies starve and die each day is economic failure, whether from injustice or ineptitude. To suggest that the people who are starving are "trailer trash" who are being selected against by evolutionary forces verges on blatant racism.
0 Replies
 
Builder
 
  1  
Reply Sat 31 Mar, 2007 11:12 am
Hmmm, very interesting.

Nice work, Setanta. :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/19/2025 at 12:11:46