Ending hunger by 2030 would cost just $93 billion a year — less than one per cent of the $21.9 trillion spent on military budgets over the past decade, according to the UN World Food Programme (WFP).
Yeah, but fuck the poor. What have they ever done for society, other than all of the essential work that civilization collapses without?
We should be making more world-ending bombs instead.
*Less than 10%
You can’t say it costs X per year but then use a decade for the other number.
God doesn’ t want us to feed people, he wants armageddon.
I don’t remember Zeus saying anything like that.
Sieg Heil!
Oh, wait. No, that was the other guy. I get them mixed up a lot, cause they are both such twats.
That explains a lot with the revelations book.
The challenge here is that it takes more than money to solve world hunger.
You also need some way to prevent the greedy from hoarding food and using it as a weapon to subjugate others, keeping them hungry.
As usual, the problem isn’t lack of food or lack of money, it’s greedy people not wanting to share.
Remembering when the Live Aid food was left to rot.
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1985/07/13/Food-rotting-in-Ethiopia-report-says/7042490075200/
Or, like, US aid just this year
This has been the problem since time immemorial. If you have a solution, you are a better person than I.
Maybe the solution is more peacekeeping forces to ensure the food output from the local farmers isn’t stolen, destroyed or hoarded.
What if we sent so much food that the hoarders couldn’t hoard it all? Just a metric assload of food. Eventually food is so cheap and plentiful the hoarders give up.
You flood their market with cheap food and you put all their domestic farmers out of business.
Dumping charity on developing countries rarely works. You need to help them invest in their economy. This was shown with that micro loans paper (which won a Nobel prize).
Yup. Goods aid is only a very short-term measure. Vaccines for example expire if not stored correctly and used promptly.
Service aid is more effective medium-term, such as when the BBC World Service ran their health advisory bulletins during the W African Ebola outbreak.
Investment aid is the long-term solution, with the goal of a sustainable uplift in living standards, such as aid money being spent on the Indian space programme which allows satellites to monitor landslides and direct assistance safely.
Food should never have been a buisness in the first place.
Also areas that are struggling with food shortage and famine don’t really have for profit farmers. You’ll find that the majority are subsistence farming and maybe sell a little bit of excess. The exception would be those in these places that own a ton of land and have the money to farm at scale. Remaining food needs typically come from wealthier nations producing excess food at scale.
Ideally the state should produce staple crops at scale. Keep the people fed. This frees up subsistence farmers to engage in other economic sectors or employs them through the state to produce food. Either way it’s more reliable and more people get to eat. For the for profit farmers they could simply focus crops that aren’t staples.
The hoarders have guns. They will take it all, and they will be able to recruit more with the promise of that food.
Yes, but do non-hungry people help rich people kill and rob others as well as weapons?
They never ask the right questions!
If he wanted to, Elon Musk could personally fund this five times over and still have a few billion left.
Didn’t he brag a while ago he’d do it if someone came up with a plan and then WHO (or UN or whoever) did and Elmo suprisingly didn’t do anything?
Did you miss the words “a year”?
Did you miss “by 2030”?
Moving military funds into food aid would be extra effective considering that world hunger is largely created by military spending.
Why is an annual figure being directly compared to an “over the past decade” figure?
You missed the “by 2030” part, indicating that what’s being compared to the decade of military spending is the overall, not yearly, cost.
Feeding people directly creates a dependant population, you need to solve the problems of food supply locally
In some cases sure, but there are places that require emergency food supplies because their local sources have been destroyed (usually by war or colonization/genocide), so you need to be able to feed people in the interim while they rebuild their means of food production.
While I do agree it’s more complicated than “money = food,” a lot of this complexity is fueled by imperialism of one kind or another, so this isn’t an “oh well that’s just life” situation. People would be less hungry if, for example, the people keeping them hungry weren’t financed and armed by America and (occasionally) China. The message of “we could fix this if we wanted” is still accurate.
I think they meant that it cost way more than food to solve world hunger.
to solve world hunger you need:
- Put an end to all Civil wars
- Stop countries from using hunger as weapon (i.e Israel)
- eliminate all dictators who hoard their countries’ wealth to themselves and their generals
- stop powerful countries from destabilizing poorer ones to their benefit.
- provide proper medical care and education otherwise people would just reproduce more until they absorb the additional food supply
Giving money to poorer countries helps but it will not “solve” the hunger problem no matter how much you give.
This is an important point. Simply giving a ton of rice to an area will put the rice farmers in that area out of business.
They’ll need to grow something else to make a living, but then when the next year comes around, no one is making rice anymore and they’ll be dependent on that external flow of rice.
