Jump to content
JosephM

Feeding Those Who Can't Support Their Families Or Self

Recommended Posts

JosephM    0

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tariki    101

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JosephM    0

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tariki    101

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JosephM    0

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soma    186

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TomAllyn    4

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tariki    101

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JosephM    0

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tariki    101

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JosephM    0

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soma    186

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×