Jump to content


Photo

Feeding Those Who Can't Support Their Families Or Self


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 JosephM

JosephM

    Forum Administrator - Global Moderator - Site Sponsor

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,830 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Kentucky and Florida, USA

Posted 28 April 2017 - 09:30 AM

Soma recently said in a post.

 

 

 No one in the world should go hungry, but we don't have the will to feed everyone,

 

This got me to thinking.... What is the real problem that keeps hunger alive? While i believe we have the resources so that none should go hungry in the world and i am now and have been for many years a part of some large organizations  that give monthly to feed the children and families of the world, the problem of hunger persists.

 

Not long ago i wrote to one company called Child Fund International in which i sponsor a number of children. They use the money to help provide food to feed , clothed and shelter and provide medical to children and families from some of the poorest countries around the world. 

 

Some families i helped support had 4 children or more and over time i noticed they started having additional children which they could not support by themselves. I wrote because i was concerned that the real issue was overpopulation  and all the money in the world buying food would not solve it. Why, because while i wanted to help the food problem without action on the part of the recipients, i was actually contributing to more hunger. I was told that while we could help with food and medicine we were limited in that procreation training was beyond the scope of our giving and there was nothing they could do. 

 

Obviously, i was not pleased. In my view, i could see giving all your money to feed the poor will not solve the problem of poverty. That is no reason not to give but it seems to me that if people continue to procreate  beyond the means they have of supporting children the poor will always be with us and perhaps the money could be better spent. Education and an enforcement policy to limit population seems to me to be more important than just feeding everyone.

 

What do you think?


"The only separation between you and me can only be in your mind." --Joseph Mattioli


#2 tariki

tariki

    Senior Member & OWT Moderator

  • Area Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,078 posts
  • Gender:
    Male

Posted 28 April 2017 - 10:15 AM

The problem is multi-dimensional. It involves the entire worlds economic system/systems which contribute to gross inequalities. It involves world climate (warming, cooling or whatever) that relates to floods, droughts and more. It involves our human greed and lack of a will to solve the problem. It involves the cultures of the people - who hunger - themselves, where only an extended family can be looked upon as a help in old age.

So an approach that merely offers the "charity" of food aid at each and every famine, is not adequate.

To be honest, in many ways I could despair. Listening to the opinions of those around me I hear, more often than not, the voice of ignorance and the seeds of tomorrows famines.

There are other seeds. All sorts of "seeds" are in all of us. Really what is new?

Edited by tariki, 28 April 2017 - 10:37 AM.

  • -1

When a scholar is born they forget the nembutsu (Honen)


#3 JosephM

JosephM

    Forum Administrator - Global Moderator - Site Sponsor

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,830 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Kentucky and Florida, USA

Posted 28 April 2017 - 11:46 AM

Derek,

 

It does even to me appear to be a multidimensional problem with no simple easy answer. There are many factors as you have mentioned that contribute.

 

Still i wonder if the root of the problem is not mostly due to basic overpopulation as we sometimes see in the animal kingdom which in time maintains a natural balance. In the US we now have births by minorities and single family mothers that can least afford feeding their children that outnumber the majority. Sure human greed and a lack of resolve to solve contributes to the problem. We do have the technology and resources already present to feed the world even in times of floods and droughts. But if, population continues to explode beyond our ability to support it, it seems to me, nature will seek a balance even among humans through starvation, disease and other means. Otherwise we will have to join Elon Musk's goal which is retirement on Mars.  :)


"The only separation between you and me can only be in your mind." --Joseph Mattioli


#4 tariki

tariki

    Senior Member & OWT Moderator

  • Area Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,078 posts
  • Gender:
    Male

Posted 28 April 2017 - 01:01 PM

Joseph,

Nature "seeking a balance" often collaborates with humans. The Black Death that has ravaged the European population in wave after wave through the centuries, the native populations of both North and South America decimated by disease when invaded by the European colonists. Each time the population was so reduced there remained hunger, maybe if you were of the wrong colour or class.

Edited by tariki, 28 April 2017 - 01:09 PM.

  • 0

When a scholar is born they forget the nembutsu (Honen)


#5 JosephM

JosephM

    Forum Administrator - Global Moderator - Site Sponsor

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,830 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Kentucky and Florida, USA

Posted 28 April 2017 - 01:55 PM

Derek,

Yes,if i were, i would no doubt be no different than the other.

 

Still, from where i stand i am willing to help and with our advancements in all the areas concerning agriculture, medicine, etc i don't think we would see a repeat of hunger like you posted above if population were kept in check barring any great wars or new diseases beyond our scope of medicine. But who can say for sure  of the future?

 

PS HERE is a good example of overpopulation that money alone will not fix


"The only separation between you and me can only be in your mind." --Joseph Mattioli


#6 soma

soma

    Global Forum Moderator

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,104 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada

Posted 28 April 2017 - 02:29 PM

Joseph you have a point, a lot has to do with culture and insecurity. In many 3rd world countries children are their social security so when they get old, they will be taken care of. Corporations who would rather destroy their food for price control rather than donate it contribute to this insecurity. 


  • 0
A soul with a body, not a body with a soul. http://thinkunity.com

#7 TomAllyn

TomAllyn

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Sacramento, CA

Posted 28 April 2017 - 10:07 PM

I'm sorry, but my inner and outer socialist is going to show here. IMO  the problem is Capitalism period in the case of world hunger the issue is "factory farming" or more accurately Corporation farming. Farms whose sole purpose and the driving force is making their major shareholders richer. The owners of these farms have never worked on a farm or possibly anywhere a day in their lives they have made all their money via inheritance and by moving money around. They haven't gotten into farming to feed their neighbors they do get up before dawn and quit after dark like farmers historically have. Farming to them is not a calling it's just a business venture. This is what happens when the producers do not own the means of production. 

I wish I can remember the following in more detail, but I was reading somewhere in the last couple weeks and the person made the point that subconsciously that one reason poor people continue to have more children is to increase the odds that their DNA will not die out or something to that effect - was for the survival of their kind so that if most of them starved to death there would be at least one to carry on their DNA.  It has to do with the survival of the human species. This idea really hit home with me. I believe it was in the same article that the point was made that where people prosper they reproduce less. 


  • 0

~Tom

“God is not a Christian, God is not a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Buddhist. All of those are human systems which human beings have created to try to help us walk into the mystery of God. I honor my tradition, I walk through my tradition, but I don't think my tradition defines God, I think it only points me to God.” ― John Shelby Spong


#8 tariki

tariki

    Senior Member & OWT Moderator

  • Area Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,078 posts
  • Gender:
    Male

Posted 29 April 2017 - 04:56 AM

I still see only the multi-dimensional. To zero in on just one problem - hunger or anything else - is to miss the point. The "answer" to "hunger" becomes "food".  But is "hunger" as such a problem? Are all "hungry" people totally discontented? More discontented than an obese New Yorker looking forward to his next 16oz steak?  Happier or less happy? Is being "happy" a worthy goal anyway? Of course, when famine strikes, we give. The UK's record for donations on Red Nose Day - and all the other days - is second to none. Long may it continue.


  • 0

When a scholar is born they forget the nembutsu (Honen)


#9 JosephM

JosephM

    Forum Administrator - Global Moderator - Site Sponsor

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,830 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Kentucky and Florida, USA

Posted 29 April 2017 - 09:50 AM

 The "answer" to "hunger" becomes "food".  (snip)  

The UK's record for donations on Red Nose Day - and all the other days - is second to none. Long may it continue.

 

Thank you UK.    The US record is not bad either.   :)

 

Seriously, i would politely differ concerning the answer to hunger 'food' if that's what you really meant. (i'm guessing) i don't think its that simple. While i also want to see no one to go hungry and i contribute to such a goal, i have come to consider that food alone will only create more hunger and i am part of the problem. 

 

Population 101:

When a population lives in an ideal environment with no predators, no disease, and unlimited resources (such as food), that population will show a type of growth pattern called exponential growth

 

In my view, IF that population is educated and realizes the limitations of resources and other related things and acts within the scope of that knowledge that would sustains a healthy population, i think exponential growth would not continue. It seems to me that large populations especially concentrated promotes, food shortages, crime, and other societal problems that would be at least more manageable with some form of population control. It may not make people happy to limit the number of children or where they can live but if we don't do something the problems will get worse and ..... The consequences of Nature will step in and it may not be pleasant.

 

Tom, interesting post. Perhaps the tendency for more children is subconscious as you might suggest with the poor. And yes i would agree that Capitalism unbridled prospers the rich at the expense of the poor and uneducated.

Soma, Good point on 3rd world country and their reason for more children (SS system)


"The only separation between you and me can only be in your mind." --Joseph Mattioli


#10 tariki

tariki

    Senior Member & OWT Moderator

  • Area Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,078 posts
  • Gender:
    Male

Posted 29 April 2017 - 10:11 AM

 
Seriously, i would politely differ concerning the answer to hunger 'food' if that's what you really meant


In my context, I was just saying that the problem must be recognised as multi-dimensional. The "answer" I offered was an example of not recognising that.
  • 0

When a scholar is born they forget the nembutsu (Honen)


#11 JosephM

JosephM

    Forum Administrator - Global Moderator - Site Sponsor

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,830 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Kentucky and Florida, USA

Posted 29 April 2017 - 11:04 AM

In my context, I was just saying that the problem must be recognised as multi-dimensional. The "answer" I offered was an example of not recognising that.

 

oops ... so sorry...  next time i'll read more carefully....  thanks for clarifying for me.


"The only separation between you and me can only be in your mind." --Joseph Mattioli


#12 soma

soma

    Global Forum Moderator

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,104 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada

Posted 29 April 2017 - 11:25 AM

tariki I agree with the multi-dimensional. My spiritual practice takes me to a place where there are no problems, no food, no hunger and it is enjoyable just being, but my spiritual growth seems to come in the physical dimension with cause and effect. My spiritual practice keeps me unattached so I do the best I can without the emotional buy in. It might be old age because when I was young I was active, attached and got in a lot of trouble. I feel unattached I am more effective. 

 

Trump has 3 White Houses so how many do we have to pay for so he is happy, how many cars does Romney need? I feel on this plane where numbers matter we just need balance so we are all moving up together and not just the 1%. I am sorry for them grabbing everything in reach in their suffering while others can't get anything. 


  • 0
A soul with a body, not a body with a soul. http://thinkunity.com




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users