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).
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).
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:
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.