Ending world hunger

[mattspurplepen]

So i'm taking a social philosophy class and we are starting out with this article about possible ways to end "world hunger". Basically half the global population live below the $2 a day poverty line, and 1.2 billion of those people under the $1 mark.


One of the philosophers quoted in the article is peter singer. Essentially from what i've gathered he believes that the problem of global poverty could be largely fixed if the richest people in The US were taxed .01% from their many billions. Now I'm not sure how this argument holds up, but apparently he has done the math and it would work in theory.

Of course many would view this as unfair to the rich people. Couldn't they spare to give 30% of their earnings to save human lives though? I know if i were rich I would definitely do that even if others did not, but many people are greedy especially with money they inherit.


Another entirely separate point is that we could never end large amounts of suffering around the world because of our capitalistic society. The system of capitalism is destined to exclude peoples from getting a fair opportunity at life either here in the US. or elsewhere. Would an economic Democracy be a more appropriate economic system for a struggling world?


Economic Democracy is a socioeconomic philosophy that suggests transfer of decision-making authority from a small minority of corporate shareholders to the larger majority of public stakeholders. While there is no single definition or approach, all theories and real-world examples of Economic Democracy are based on a core set of fundamental assumptions.

Basically what i'm getting at is: do you care about global poverty, or is it not your problem/ doesn't matter... or is there nothing that can be done?

[Iskandar]

Of course something can be done. Anyone interested in the subject should read The End of Poverty by Jeffery Sachs. His thesis is that extreme poverty can be eliminated within the next few decades with relatively small increases in development aid, and from there developing nations can begin to build their economies and enter into the global market. This ties in closely with Amartya Sen's concept of development as liberation.

[mattspurplepen]

Ah thanks, that sounds like an interesting read i'll look into it soon.
Maybe the whole thing won't even involve the US gov./economic system haha if other countries are more empathetic. It just seems like even the poorest people in america are better off than most impoverished around the world. Something should be done in greater capacity than small charity organizations.

[Iskandar]

The United States is the world's largest contributor of ODA in absolute terms ($15.7 billion, 2003), but the smallest among developed countries as a percentage of its GDP (0.14% in 2003). The UN target for development aid is 0.7% of GDP; currently only five countries (with Norway in the lead with 0.92%) achieve this.The UN target is quite reasonable. Sweden has been one of the most generous providers of foreign aids for a long time and it hasn't hurt their prosperity. The other countries that meet the target are Luxembourg, Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark, all developed countries with high standards of living.

Ending poverty is very possible but it will require an effort both from governments and NGOs. One major concern is making sure that aid goes directly to the people who need it. Too often it's confiscated by governments who use it for their own enrichment.

[jaredong]

i think though that its unrealistic to expect people to give up their money. I think that psychologically, nobody would ever think that "this is enough". Least, materially.

I mean, lets say we propose that really rich people give up some of their money. We say that its unfair, they should be able to live with much less than their billions.

At the same time, as you suggested, billions of people live under a dollar a day. Yet, we complain with our minimum wage in the West.

Us ----> Rich people
Impoverished ---> Us

Why dont "we" give away our money *now*? Or do we feel that we havent made "enough" just like rich people? I guess what im saying is "everybody cares" but everybody thinks the responsibility is with somebody better off. (although relatively, every one of us is tons better off than those in the developing world)

[Iskandar]

To be fair many very wealthy people are philanthropists, such as Bill Gates and George Soros. And they typically have the highest tax burdens.

Really there is no excuse to be stingy. 1% of a developed nation's GDP is nothing, which would exceed the UN target.

[mattspurplepen]

I agree with your points jaredong, most people don't want to give money and think there are others better off who could instead.
Personally, I think when i do get a job (hopefully a lawyer) I will donate a fair amount yearly even though i know it probably won't help much -i'll know at least I'd be trying.
I understand Rich people do get taxed a lot, but there are way more greedy rich people than philanthropists like bill gates and george soros.
Of course I bet a majority of US citizens don't want to contribute and I wouldn't blame them. The whole country's economic system should be held responsible. Capitalism has seemed to lead to global poverty. We should at least try and help those less fortunate whom we probably screwed by accident or intentionally.

[Iskandar]

People need to realize that helping developing countries is ultimately in everyone's interest. They're an untapped pool of labour and resources that could contribute to the world economy and become major trading partners. We should encourage building their economies up instead of just exploiting them for quick profit.

[rasputin]

People need to realize
Herein lies the problem.

[rasputin]

Where's your reasoning now?
You don't actually have the money. It's easy to give away imagined dollars.

[RNR]

bah I was just about to re post with an extra part saying that if you think that your time is best spent accumulating millions of dollars, you probably wouldn't be willing to share it.

[rasputin]

Yeah, I think everyone would like to imagine they'd be charitable if they had millions, but when it comes down to it when you actually have the millions you'd be hard pressed to give away more than you were giving before you were rich.

[mattspurplepen]

ah fair enough. Well I admit I haven't really done anything now, but I did decide to donate $100 to a charity and buy one of those malaria net things for my birthday. so it was kind of like my parents donating it haha.
Anyways its not really important if I make a difference its more that the country needs to in general.
Switching to a communist society or communist ideals obviously wouldn't work, but some form of economic democracy or branch of socialism might benefit the poor of our country and around the world.

[WhoDidTheElf]

As long as people live under oppression from their governments, there will be poverty. It doesn't matter how much you tax the worlds richest, it won't do a damn thing if it doesn't end up in the hands of the people that need it.

And besides, flooding a poor economy with money is a horrible way to end poverty, can we say stagflation?

[mattspurplepen]

ah yeah that is a whole problem in itself. I think the money is needed and could be used to help set up programs for the impoverished and make wells/suitable living conditions, but there will still be a problem of unemployment. We can't really support the poor for too long, so the entire situation calls for each country's government to cooperate.
The money wouldn't be given directly to the people, but rather in the form of food and shelter/ disease prevention. and go towards creating new jobs/

[Iskandar]

As long as people live under oppression from their governments, there will be poverty. It doesn't matter how much you tax the worlds richest, it won't do a damn thing if it doesn't end up in the hands of the people that need it.These are all good points. Bad governance and poverty go hand in hand, and establishing good government is an important part of development. And some aid does unfortunately end up in the hands of kleptocrats, and we need to make sure it's getting to the people who need it. As has been said though, it's not money we're providing them with, it's social services they need like education and medical care.

[griftadan]

how exactly would money from rich countries be used?

[siva_chair]

The UN target is quite reasonable. Sweden has been one of the most generous providers of foreign aids for a long time and it hasn't hurt their prosperity. The other countries that meet the target are Luxembourg, Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark, all developed countries with high standards of living.

Ending poverty is very possible but it will require an effort both from governments and NGOs. One major concern is making sure that aid goes directly to the people who need it. Too often it's confiscated by governments who use it for their own enrichment.

Your figure on the US ignores the private sector, though. The US is the most charitable nation as percentage of GDP. It is over twice as charitible as the next nation in line (UK). With the exception of the Netherlands, none of the countries you mentioned even make the top 10. It also fails to consider remittances as well, which are very significant (the amount of remittances going into Latin America from the US alone is more than the sum of direct foreign investment and development aid combined) and which the US clearly leads in.

[Iskandar]

Private aid is much harder to track, so it's hard to find reliable statistics for it.

The US is indeed the largest donor of aid in absolute terms, though I'm not so sure about it being the largest contributor by percentage of GDP (the rich Gulf states might be higher). Also, you're right that remittances are important in injecting money in developing economies, but they aren't usually classified as aid.

[mattspurplepen]

Even if the US is a leading charitable nation we don't seem to have much of an effect on global poverty levels.

I think there must be high amounts of corruption within the charity we do provide. If we truly are providing the most per GDP, shouldn't the helping effects be seen around the world?

It just seems like we have the capacity to do much more, and not only that, but we have an obligation to help the poor because we probably exploited most of these poorer countries and contributed to the people's decline of living. While some of the global poverty is indeed irrelevant to our actions, how can we just not care with so many people living incredibly well in the US?
This whole proposal doesn't seem to be making things fair for everyone in the world- i think most acknowledge that can never happen. Its more about saving people who could easily be saved. They won't have great lives but definitely better than having massive casualties for children under 5.
They need better basic healthcare and education, of course many in the US are stuck in the similar positions, but its not to the degree in impoverished areas of the world. we have at least some possibilities here.

[siva_chair]

Private aid is much harder to track, so it's hard to find reliable statistics for it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16638810/

The US is indeed the largest donor of aid in absolute terms, though I'm not so sure about it being the largest contributor by percentage of GDP (the rich Gulf states might be higher). Also, you're right that remittances are important in injecting money in developing economies, but they aren't usually classified as aid.

See above.

And ignoring remittances is kinda dishonest, don't you think?

[siva_chair]

Even if the US is a leading charitable nation we don't seem to have much of an effect on global poverty levels.

And you can make that assertion how, exactly? You don't know what global poverty levels would look like if it weren't for charitable donation.

I think there must be high amounts of corruption within the charity we do provide. If we truly are providing the most per GDP, shouldn't the helping effects be seen around the world?

Government aid is usually more susceptable to corruption than private charities, tbh.

It just seems like we have the capacity to do much more, and not only that, but we have an obligation to help the poor because we probably exploited most of these poorer countries and contributed to the people's decline of living.

Most of these people haven't experienced a decline in living, they have lived in similar conditions for a very long time. If anything, the greatest contributer to any sort of decline has been failed socialist policies and violent wars that tear countries apart.

While some of the global poverty is indeed irrelevant to our actions, how can we just not care with so many people living incredibly well in the US?

Based on the fact that some 70% of Americans donate to charity (a higher percentage than anywhere else), it seems as though we do care, to some degree.

This whole proposal doesn't seem to be making things fair for everyone in the world- i think most acknowledge that can never happen. Its more about saving people who could easily be saved. They won't have great lives but definitely better than having massive casualties for children under 5.
They need better basic healthcare and education, of course many in the US are stuck in the similar positions, but its not to the degree in impoverished areas of the world. we have at least some possibilities here.

Unfortunately all too often it is the humanitarian that sets up the guillotine for these people. The tyranny of good intentions and all that.

[Iskandar]

And ignoring remittances is kinda dishonest, don't you think?No. Working in another country and sending the money back to your family isn't charity. They would do the same in their own country if good jobs existed. Charity is motivated by altruism. You don't have anything to do with the people aid goes to.

Though it has the same effect as aid.
Unfortunately all too often it is the humanitarian that sets up the guillotine for these people. The tyranny of good intentions and all that.I don't see how development aid harms people. Unless it falls into the wrong hands.

EDIT: Here is an interesting article I found on the subject: http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=145a02de-192f-4188-b3bf-bb7feb15acd5

Also some interesting information about the Gulf states, which are the most generous in the world when it comes to private aid:
On a dollar-for-dollar basis, to be sure, the United States is the world's largest contributor of foreign aid, with Saudi Arabia second. But in terms of GNP, Saudi Arabia's aid far exceeds that of the United States; in those terms Saudi Arabia - even without McNamara's "depletion factor" - gives 23 times more aid than America. According to the OECD, Saudi Arabia disbursed no less than $3.6 billion in 1976, which worked out to be 5.8 percent of the kingdom's GNP, compared with about 0.25 percent for the United States. Put another way, every Saudi man, woman and child contributed between $500 and $800 in aid that year. Source: http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/197906/arab.aid-an.introduction.htm

[siva_chair]

No. Working in another country and sending the money back to your family isn't charity. They would do the same in their own country if good jobs existed. Charity is motivated by altruism. You don't have anything to do with the people aid goes to.

And you think governmental aid is really motivated by altruism?

Either way, the fact that remittance is easily exportable by people who come to this country (usually via fairly liberal immigration policies and/or work visas) says a lot. I think to ignore the role of remittance in development in these nations is a bit dishonest.

I don't see how development aid harms people. Unless it falls into the wrong hands.

As it often does.

"Most of the harm in the world is done by good people, and not by accident, lapse, or omission. It is the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends... ...when millions are slaughtered, when torture is practiced, starvation enforced, oppression made a policy, as at present over a large part of the world, and as it has often been in the past, it must be at the behest of very many good people, and even by their direct action, for what they consider a worthy object."--Isabel Paterson.

[siva_chair]

Also some interesting information about the Gulf states, which are the most generous in the world when it comes to private aid:
Source: http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/197906/arab.aid-an.introduction.htm

That isn't private aid, though, that is government aid.

[Iskandar]

Read the article I put in the edit. It's short but informative.

Basically, we have to be smarter about aid. We need to avoid simply dumping money into the hands of corrupt regimes and hoping for the best. The best strategy would be to use the money to fund NGOs and private organizations which will provide services directly to the people who need them, thereby bypassing the state apparatus. I'm sure you can agree with this wholeheartedly.

As for the source of the money, whether public or private, I think that is a secondary concern as to whether it reaches the people who need it. The US and the Gulf states do not give much official aid but are are major private donors; many Western European states are the opposite.
That isn't private aid, though, that is government aid.Where does it say that? I'm confused, because they don't appear on this list of countries by government aid: http://www.project.org/images/graphs/World_Aid.jpg

[siva_chair]

Read the article I put in the edit. It's short but informative.

Basically, we have to be smarter about aid. We need to avoid simply dumping money into the hands of corrupt regimes and hoping for the best. The best strategy would be to use the money to fund NGOs and private organizations which will provide services directly to the people who need them, thereby bypassing the state apparatus. I'm sure you can agree with this wholeheartedly.

I read it, and I do agree that it should be bypassed by the state apparatus entirely.

As for the source of the money, whether public or private, I think that is a secondary concern as to whether it reaches the people who need it. The US and the Gulf states do not give much official aid but are are major private donors; many Western European states are the opposite.

Well, I think it does make a bit of difference, but there is no need to get into that here.

Where does it say that? I'm confused, because they don't appear on this list of countries by government aid: http://www.project.org/images/graphs/World_Aid.jpg

Your link explicitely said that the states are giving the foreign aid.

Another thing that is important to realize about the OPEC nations is that they don't tend to give their aid to say, the World Food Program or the likes. I believe most Arab countries tend to dole out their aid to other Muslim countries. While that is supposedly great that they are providing aid to people, it is important to see where that aid is going and how it is distributed, I think.

[Iskandar]

Your link explicitely said that the states are giving the foreign aid.I think the confusion lies in that the states set up and fund private organizations. It's not Official Development Aid (ODA). And they aren't the biggest donors in real terms, but as a percentage of their GDP.
Another thing that is important to realize about the OPEC nations is that they don't tend to give their aid to say, the World Food Program or the likes. I believe most Arab countries tend to dole out their aid to other Muslim countries. While that is supposedly great that they are providing aid to people, it is important to see where that aid is going and how it is distributed, I think.Actually that's not as true anymore as it once was. They still do give a lot of aid to other Muslim countries, but also increasingly to non-Muslim countries and organizations.

[siva_chair]

I think the confusion lies in that the states set up and fund private organizations. It's not Official Development Aid (OAD). And they aren't the biggest donors in real terms, but as a percentage of their GDP.

If the states "set up and fund" something it isn't really private, is it?

Besides, that is rather irrelevant as one of the qualifications for ODA is being a state. One should not confuse this as the only type of developmental assistance, though.

Actually that's not as true anymore as it once was. They still do give a lot of aid to other Muslim countries, but also increasingly to non-Muslim countries and organizations.

Well ok but they still don't like to give to the WFP. Apparently the only Arab country that likes feeding kids was the UAE.... :p

[Iskandar]

Besides, that is rather irrelevant as one of the qualifications for ODA is being a state. One should not confuse this as the only type of developmental assistance, though.Of course not. I think the best solution is probably a combination of state aid and the actions of NGOs.
Well ok but they still don't like to give to the WFP. Apparently the only Arab country that likes feeding kids was the UAE.... :pWell, there are literally thousands of organizations out. That's just one of the more prominent ones. Anyway, I just found it interesting that the Gulf states are underlooked as major donors. One spokesperson ascribed this to the ethic of charity within Islam. I think religious belief may be a reason for the United States being the foremost provider of private aid as well. I'm sorry to say that agnostics and atheists like myself are not nearly as generous.

[siva_chair]

Of course not. I think the best solution is probably a combination of state aid and the actions of NGOs.

And obviously I think getting the state out of the picture is the best solution. :)

I remember reading some good stuff by Pete Bauer on developmental aid and the likes a while back. I don't know where I put those articles though.

Well, there are literally thousands of organizations out. That's just one of the more prominent ones. Anyway, I just found it interesting that the Gulf states are underlooked as major donors. One spokesperson ascribed this to the ethic of charity within Islam. I think religious belief may be a reason for the United States being the foremost provider of private aid as well. I'm sorry to say that agnostics and atheists like myself are not nearly as generous.

Yeah I don't doubt they are underrepresented. And I also believe religious charity is a large reason for this kind of thing. And it is another reason I think religion still plays a vital role in society, despite the fact that it seems to get demonized quite often.

[Iskandar]

And obviously I think getting the state out of the picture is the best solution. :)Well, it depends. NGOs should have the major role. And aid should definitely not be given to corrupt regimes who will just use it to enrich themselves. But I believe Western governments should commit to giving at least 1% of their GDP as official aid. At least it is a better use of taxpayer money than some things.

Don't you give to charity? Which one?

[mph4ever]

when billg and buffett gave their money to trusts was that considered american charitable aid?

[siva_chair]

Well, it depends. NGOs should have the major role. And aid should definitely not be given to corrupt regimes who will just use it to enrich themselves. But I believe Western governments should commit to giving at least 1% of their GDP as official aid. At least it is a better use of taxpayer money than some things.

Well, it is hard for me to support any use of taxpayer money, for obvious reasons. I think if the government got off our backs, we could and would contribute even more. There is just so much waste in government. I say cut out the state middleman.

Don't you give to charity? Which one?

Mainly the Red Cross and Shriner children's hospitals. I also used to give to various ones at church, but I haven't been to church for a while and considering the economic forecast, money may be a bit tight in the near future.

[Mikedrummer]

stop buying bombs

/thread

[jaredong]

thought this would be an interesting read for you guys, read it for class the other day

Jeffery Sachs: The Strategic Significance of Global Inequality
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/wq/v024/24.3sachs.html

Basically, Sachs proposes that it is it in America and the West's state interest to help prevent and remedy economic failure in the less developing world. Normally we think "hey, its not our, problem, it does not affect our national interest." Conversely, Sach's suggests that when a country experiences economic failure it is likely to destablize and experience state failure; thus harming our national security (requring intervention) health (spread of aids); environment (LDC's industrialization/deforestation) economy (businesses unable to invest in a unstable country)

[Futue te Ipsum]

Do you know what happens when you remove hunger as an issue?

The populations grow. Population growth = more mouths to feed.

The idea that we can build a world without poverty, hunger and disease is just plain retarded. We are in no position to build such a world. There will always be infinite demand for limited resource, and subsidising nations incapable of supporting themselves is NOT the solution.

[Iskandar]

Since the most prosperous nations are also those with the lowest birth rates I'm going to call bullshit on this one.

[WhoDidTheElf]

These are all good points. Bad governance and poverty go hand in hand, and establishing good government is an important part of development. And some aid does unfortunately end up in the hands of kleptocrats, and we need to make sure it's getting to the people who need it. As has been said though, it's not money we're providing them with, it's social services they need like education and medical care.

You still have to have a people that want the services, and have to figure out a way to get the services to the people. Just because they're broke off their ***, doesn't mean they want your help.

[Iskandar]

You still have to have a people that want the services, and have to figure out a way to get the services to the people. Just because they're broke off their ***, doesn't mean they want your help.Well nobody's forcing them to accept it. I would think most people living in extreme poverty wouldn't mind a little help, though.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Well nobody's forcing them to accept it. I would think most people living in extreme poverty wouldn't mind a little help, though.

Depends on who it's coming from. If it's coming from the US, it's Imperialism.

[PunkItUp]

America should just buy everyone some ramen

[WhoDidTheElf]

Dumping food on a market kills the market.

[1338 h4x0r]

Depends on who it's coming from. If it's coming from the US, it's Imperialism.

Strawman much?

[mattspurplepen]

Man I get the fact that not everyone will likely be helped and that some people are born into crappier lives than others, but there is still a higher capacity of aid that could be achieved. Its within reasonable donations, that we could help improve at least some areas around the world.
I think everyone agrees on that point though- that its good to try and help, if the help is getting to places in a just and carefully planned out way.

Looking at the broader picture is where things get tougher to figure out.
Could we live in a world where everyone is given a fair chance or at least some hope? where nobody lives below the $2 mark even in poor countries?
Of course not everyone can be helped, but there are many who are just born into unlucky circumstances while others are born with incredible wealth.

Capitalism only functions well with a certain amount of unemployment. This necessary amount of unemployment isn't a great way for a society to function.
I think an economic democracy sounds like a pretty good idea, though in reality i don't know the whole economics side of things. However I think that if we had a more fair system then it would be easier to help poorer countries.
We're all human beings, shouldn't we be actively concerned about people?

Now I know the counter-argument usually concerns over population and loss of resources, or the idea that we shouldn't be responsible for these other people.
Well the point about a limited amount of resources is one of the few I think actually makes sense, the human race is controlled by the laws of nature, and populations have never reached a complete loss of resources because we are contained by disease, war, and whatnot.
I just believe we are responsible for a lot of the impoverished peoples that we have traded with and given crappy deals just to benefit our country alone without concern for inhabitants elsewhere.

[Iskandar]

I don't buy that there are not enough resources for everyone. Properly managed, the Earth can provide for its current population.

Nor do I buy that it's beneficial to keep a segment of the population in abject poverty. Lifting them out of poverty, which they can do themselves with assistance, would benefit everyone by developing these countries and integrating these countries into the global market system.
Depends on who it's coming from. If it's coming from the US, it's Imperialism.Invading other countries and occupying them has overtones of imperialism. I don't see how offering them humanitarian aid does.

[mattspurplepen]

yeah that resources thing does seem like a myth, if we eliminate world hunger and the world population grows things will still be contained by nature, but we'll have made many more people have a decent standard of living. Part of the whole idea is giving them basic education and healthcare so that they might be able to better manage unwanted kids or whatever diseases arise.

[Iskandar]

Sex education is vital for teaching the value of family planning and the importance of safe sex.

Note that less developed societies tend to have much higher birth rates because children are seen as an asset. In developed societies the birth rate is much lower and families are smaller because children are seen as an investment.

[beso negro]

Basically what i'm getting at is: do you care about global poverty

nope not my problem.

[Iskandar]

Rather callous.

[PunkItUp]

i think their is enough food for everyone, amirite?

if so what the poop is the problem?

[Iskandar]

It would be easier to feed everyone if we ate differently. For one thing, less meat, which uses up a lot of resources. It's a supplement to your diet, not a staple.

[hismajestythepope]

And we don't even need meat for protein anymore.

[Iskandar]

It is possible to eat a perfectly healthy diet without meat. Most people wouldn't do it though, so it's more realistic to talk about consuming less meat.

[hismajestythepope]

Meh, I'm still gonna assert that veganism kicks ***

[Iskandar]

Veganism is too demanding. Ovo-lacto ftw.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Invading other countries and occupying them has overtones of imperialism. I don't see how offering them humanitarian aid does.

It was a joke.

Strawman much?

See above.

My whole point about this issue is that aid is a moot point if you have an oppressive government in place. No matter the amount of aid you give them, in the long run it will do nothing to change what is happening because most, if not all, of the problems are stemmed from governmental issues.

You can give every poor farmer in Africa a million dollars, or teach them how to grow crops more effectively or how to become more competitive, it just won't matter because the government will come and squash you.

I mean think of Pol Pot in Cambodia, he killed people with glasses because they looked smart.

[pooble]

i think their is enough food for everyone, amirite?

if so what the poop is the problem?


distribution!

[WhoDidTheElf]

Or protectionism, same difference kinda.

[Iskandar]

Inefficient traditional agricultural methods probably have a lot to do with it. Also a lack of environmental stewardship.

[JohnXDoe]

Strawman much?
i love this term. often used against me on these very forums for having a different perspective on a persons argument when they want you to just stick to their POV on a subject so they can bash you over the head with it

oh you silly debaters :p

[pooble]

propping up western farmers, protectionism, foreign aid

[pooble]

oh you silly debaters :p

master debaters

[JohnXDoe]

i am committing from this day forward to eat a lot less meat. really. but just how much meat is too much to begin with? could we really feed the world if none of use ate meat?

lol @ poodle

punsters are funsters :)

[WhoDidTheElf]

Inefficient traditional agricultural methods probably have a lot to do with it. Also a lack of environmental stewardship.

Well you could also argue that American subsidies on agriculture have a lot to do with developing nations agricultural problems.

[Iskandar]

Well you could also argue that American subsidies on agriculture have a lot to do with developing nations agricultural problems.They are very often unfair. Subsidizing already rich farmers at home doesn't leave much room for poor farmers elsewhere to compete.
i am committing from this day forward to eat a lot less meat. really. but just how much meat is too much to begin with? could we really feed the world if none of use ate meat?It would be easier. Meat (that is, factory-farmed meat) uses a lot of resources because the animals have to be fed grain. It also has a larger environmental impact than other kinds of food.

I've taken to eating more fish myself. I rarely eat red meat.

[beso negro]

And we don't even need meat for protein anymore.

yes we do

It is possible to eat a perfectly healthy diet without meat.

nope

the animals have to be fed grain

ever heard of grass fed

[WhoDidTheElf]

They are very often unfair. Subsidizing already rich farmers at home doesn't leave much room for poor farmers elsewhere to compete.

Poor farmer as in poor American farmer? Or poor developing nation farmer?

[pooble]

both, as long as neither is receiving aid.

[WhoDidTheElf]

both, as long as neither is receiving aid.

Well the thing is, there is a lack of poor farmers in America really. I mean there are some mom and pop ones, but the majority of farms are under contract for the large sellers. (Dole, DelMonte, ect.)

As for other countries, the problem is American farmers. They (American farmers) tend to dump their surplus on their (other countries) markets, essentially killing them.

[Iskandar]

Poor farmers have mostly been driven out by agribusiness. The poor farmers I was referring to are the ones in the developing world.
As for other countries, the problem is American farmers. They (American farmers) tend to dump their surplus on their (other countries) markets, essentially killing them.This is true.
nopeI'm sorry but you're wrong. A properly planned vegetarian diet can meet all of a person's nutritional needs. We're not cats.