WE FEED THE WORLD (we could feed 12 billion people with no problem)

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

A MUST SEE DOCUMENTARY FROM THE MARVELOUS AUSTRIA



"Given the current state of agriculture in the world, it could feed
12 billion people with no problem. Or to put it another way: any
child who dies of starvation today is in fact murdered."
Jean Ziegler, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food
(Switzerland)


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478324/


how long are we going to witness all these injustice and wait?

[polluxlm]

First we need to start seeing it, and at the moment the media stands in the way of that.

[lastroots]

That's nothing new.

As long as the consumist countries act like they use to, nothing will change.

[CheapJon]

blame canada

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

well if the docu shows in your area, try to see it

it's supposed to be VERY good.

[Izzy]

Bah, the reason we cant give even a small amount of the grain mountains the west makes to the developing world is because it would destroy native farming

If most people work on the land and earn virtually nothing - what will vast quantities of western food do to them?

They wont earn anything at all! Destroying the farming will lead to a vast migration to the cities and from their mass migration elsewhere around the globe

...and subsidised, whats the incentive for improvement?

We can only give medicine - money will be squandered or stolen, food will destroy the economy, military aid will cause havoc.....

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

it's not about giving food TO them.
it's about stoping selling OUR super produced food to Them and Us.

it's about buying what they make, and relying on them for their growth instead of ours.

we make billion of agricultural products, with our unatural-processed technologies, in brazil for example, and FEED our cows with it ....

they're just ... out the loop.

[25]

If most people work on the land and earn virtually nothing - what will vast quantities of western food do to them?

Farming aside, vast quantities of western food would probably turn their internal organs into liquid shit. I don't think the developing world is physically prepared for Big Mac Monday.

I don't see why we shouldn't start sending them our chemical fertilizers, modern farming equipment and genetically modified crops and let them go to town.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

If most people work on the land and earn virtually nothing - what will vast quantities of western food do to them?

Farming aside, vast quantities of western food would probably turn their internal organs into liquid shit. I don't think the developing world is physically prepared for Big Mac Monday.

I don't see why we shouldn't start sending them our chemical fertilizers, modern farming equipment and genetically modified crops and let them go to town.

nah but we should stop trying to buy/sell our food at these low prices
and stop funding all our major corporations.

[Doc Emmett Brown]

hmm, I was just reading about this topic yesterday.

There's a lot of good points from everyone IMO.  We are talking about, not only, world hunger, but also the distribution and processing of food, and the quality of the food itself. 

"Liquid shit"  -- is another way of saying high fructose corn syrup!  Is there a link between obesity in the "consumist" countries and lack of native farming/hunger in other countries, and then a flow of migration?

It's time to talk about this year's Farm Bill!  That's right!  Read on, it discusses what everyone here has been talking about.

You Are What You Grow
By MICHAEL POLLAN

A few years ago, an obesity researcher at the University of Washington named Adam Drewnowski ventured into the supermarket to solve a mystery. He wanted to figure out why it is that the most reliable predictor of obesity in America today is a person's wealth. For most of history, after all, the poor have typically suffered from a shortage of calories, not a surfeit. So how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight?

Drewnowski gave himself a hypothetical dollar to spend, using it to purchase as many calories as he possibly could. He discovered that he could buy the most calories per dollar in the middle aisles of the supermarket, among the towering canyons of processed food and soft drink. (In the typical American supermarket, the fresh foods ? dairy, meat, fish and produce ? line the perimeter walls, while the imperishable packaged goods dominate the center.) Drewnowski found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice.

As a rule, processed foods are more "energy dense" than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, which is why we call the foods that contain them "junk." Drewnowski concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly ? and get fat.

This perverse state of affairs is not, as you might think, the inevitable result of the free market. Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?

For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of legislation, which comes around roughly every five years and is about to do so again, sets the rules for the American food system ? indeed, to a considerable extent, for the world's food system. Among other things, it determines which crops will be subsidized and which will not, and in the case of the carrot and the Twinkie, the farm bill as currently written offers a lot more support to the cake than to the root. Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat ? three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last several decades ? indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning ? U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy.

That's because the current farm bill helps commodity farmers by cutting them a check based on how many bushels they can grow, rather than, say, by supporting prices and limiting production, as farm bills once did. The result? A food system awash in added sugars (derived from corn) and added fats (derived mainly from soy), as well as dirt-cheap meat and milk (derived from both). By comparison, the farm bill does almost nothing to support farmers growing fresh produce. A result of these policy choices is on stark display in your supermarket, where the real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (a k a liquid corn) declined by 23 percent. The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow.

A public-health researcher from Mars might legitimately wonder why a nation faced with what its surgeon general has called "an epidemic" of obesity would at the same time be in the business of subsidizing the production of high-fructose corn syrup. But such is the perversity of the farm bill: the nation's agricultural policies operate at cross-purposes with its public-health objectives. And the subsidies are only part of the problem. The farm bill helps determine what sort of food your children will have for lunch in school tomorrow. The school-lunch program began at a time when the public-health problem of America's children was undernourishment, so feeding surplus agricultural commodities to kids seemed like a win-win strategy. Today the problem is overnutrition, but a school lunch lady trying to prepare healthful fresh food is apt to get dinged by U.S.D.A. inspectors for failing to serve enough calories; if she dishes up a lunch that includes chicken nuggets and Tater Tots, however, the inspector smiles and the reimbursements flow. The farm bill essentially treats our children as a human Disposall for all the unhealthful calories that the farm bill has encouraged American farmers to overproduce.

[Doc Emmett Brown]

To speak of the farm bill's influence on the American food system does not begin to describe its full impact ? on the environment, on global poverty, even on immigration. By making it possible for American farmers to sell their crops abroad for considerably less than it costs to grow them, the farm bill helps determine the price of corn in Mexico and the price of cotton in Nigeria and therefore whether farmers in those places will survive or be forced off the land, to migrate to the cities ? or to the United States. The flow of immigrants north from Mexico since Nafta is inextricably linked to the flow of American corn in the opposite direction, a flood of subsidized grain that the Mexican government estimates has thrown two million Mexican farmers and other agricultural workers off the land since the mid-90s. (More recently, the ethanol boom has led to a spike in corn prices that has left that country reeling from soaring tortilla prices; linking its corn economy to ours has been an unalloyed disaster for Mexico's eaters as well as its farmers.) You can't fully comprehend the pressures driving immigration without comprehending what U.S. agricultural policy is doing to rural agriculture in Mexico.

And though we don't ordinarily think of the farm bill in these terms, few pieces of legislation have as profound an impact on the American landscape and environment. Americans may tell themselves they don't have a national land-use policy, that the market by and large decides what happens on private property in America, but that's not exactly true. The smorgasbord of incentives and disincentives built into the farm bill helps decide what happens on nearly half of the private land in America: whether it will be farmed or left wild, whether it will be managed to maximize productivity (and therefore doused with chemicals) or to promote environmental stewardship. The health of the American soil, the purity of its water, the biodiversity and the very look of its landscape owe in no small part to impenetrable titles, programs and formulae buried deep in the farm bill.

Given all this, you would think the farm-bill debate would engage the nation's political passions every five years, but that hasn't been the case. If the quintennial antidrama of the "farm bill debate" holds true to form this year, a handful of farm-state legislators will thrash out the mind-numbing details behind closed doors, with virtually nobody else, either in Congress or in the media, paying much attention. Why? Because most of us assume that, true to its name, the farm bill is about "farming," an increasingly quaint activity that involves no one we know and in which few of us think we have a stake. This leaves our own representatives free to ignore the farm bill, to treat it as a parochial piece of legislation affecting a handful of their Midwestern colleagues. Since we aren't paying attention, they pay no political price for trading, or even selling, their farm-bill votes. The fact that the bill is deeply encrusted with incomprehensible jargon and prehensile programs dating back to the 1930s makes it almost impossible for the average legislator to understand the bill should he or she try to, much less the average citizen. It's doubtful this is an accident.

But there are signs this year will be different. The public-health community has come to recognize it can't hope to address obesity and diabetes without addressing the farm bill. The environmental community recognizes that as long as we have a farm bill that promotes chemical and feedlot agriculture, clean water will remain a pipe dream. The development community has woken up to the fact that global poverty can't be fought without confronting the ways the farm bill depresses world crop prices. They got a boost from a 2004 ruling by the World Trade Organization that U.S. cotton subsidies are illegal; most observers think that challenges to similar subsidies for corn, soy, wheat or rice would also prevail.

And then there are the eaters, people like you and me, increasingly concerned, if not restive, about the quality of the food on offer in America. A grass-roots social movement is gathering around food issues today, and while it is still somewhat inchoate, the manifestations are everywhere: in local efforts to get vending machines out of the schools and to improve school lunch; in local campaigns to fight feedlots and to force food companies to better the lives of animals in agriculture; in the spectacular growth of the market for organic food and the revival of local food systems. In great and growing numbers, people are voting with their forks for a different sort of food system. But as powerful as the food consumer is ? it was that consumer, after all, who built a $15 billion organic-food industry and more than doubled the number of farmer's markets in the last few years ? voting with our forks can advance reform only so far. It can't, for example, change the fact that the system is rigged to make the most unhealthful calories in the marketplace the only ones the poor can afford. To change that, people will have to vote with their votes as well ? which is to say, they will have to wade into the muddy political waters of agricultural policy.

Doing so starts with the recognition that the "farm bill" is a misnomer; in truth, it is a food bill and so needs to be rewritten with the interests of eaters placed first. Yes, there are eaters who think it in their interest that food just be as cheap as possible, no matter how poor the quality. But there are many more who recognize the real cost of artificially cheap food ? to their health, to the land, to the animals, to the public purse. At a minimum, these eaters want a bill that aligns agricultural policy with our public-health and environmental values, one with incentives to produce food cleanly, sustainably and humanely. Eaters want a bill that makes the most healthful calories in the supermarket competitive with the least healthful ones. Eaters want a bill that feeds schoolchildren fresh food from local farms rather than processed surplus commodities from far away. Enlightened eaters also recognize their dependence on farmers, which is why they would support a bill that guarantees the people who raise our food not subsidies but fair prices. Why? Because they prefer to live in a country that can still produce its own food and doesn't hurt the world's farmers by dumping its surplus crops on their markets.

The devil is in the details, no doubt. Simply eliminating support for farmers won't solve these problems; overproduction has afflicted agriculture since long before modern subsidies. It will take some imaginative policy making to figure out how to encourage farmers to focus on taking care of the land rather than all-out production, on growing real food for eaters rather than industrial raw materials for food processors and on rebuilding local food economies, which the current farm bill hobbles. But the guiding principle behind an eater's farm bill could not be more straightforward: it's one that changes the rules of the game so as to promote the quality of our food (and farming) over and above its quantity.

Such changes are radical only by the standards of past farm bills, which have faithfully reflected the priorities of the agribusiness interests that wrote them. One of these years, the eaters of America are going to demand a place at the table, and we will have the political debate over food policy we need and deserve. This could prove to be that year: the year when the farm bill became a food bill, and the eaters at last had their say.


I'd like to be an "enlightened eater".  I think I've been living in the dark for too long.

[Communist China]

Sorry, not going to happen. Besides, if we feed 12 Billion, how long until the population grows beyond farming capabilities? Starvation is going to happen. If you want to globalization the distribution of food based on who needs it, then you're a communist. And communism never works. Capitalism, however, despite growing pains, has tremendous potential.

[mrlee]

Bah, the reason we cant give even a small amount of the grain mountains the west makes to the developing world is because it would destroy native farming

If most people work on the land and earn virtually nothing - what will vast quantities of western food do to them?

They wont earn anything at all! Destroying the farming will lead to a vast migration to the cities and from their mass migration elsewhere around the globe

...and subsidised, whats the incentive for improvement?

We can only give medicine - money will be squandered or stolen, food will destroy the economy, military aid will cause havoc.....

izzy is 100% correct here. kudos

[lastroots]

Sorry, not going to happen. Besides, if we feed 12 Billion, how long until the population grows beyond farming capabilities? Starvation is going to happen. If you want to globalization the distribution of food based on who needs it, then you're a communist. And communism never works. Capitalism, however, despite growing pains, has tremendous potential.

Nothing to do with communism. It's the "consumist" countries fault that these people in the third world are poor. They weren't before colonialism. However, the consumist system is young and it's not the end of all discussions. If you look clearly, it's already going down. Economy is taking over democracy, which leads to new forms of "so-called" democracy in most western countries. Things will change within the next few decades.

[Doc Emmett Brown]

If you want to globalization the distribution of food based on who needs it

I havent seen anyone in this thead support that.  Izzy made a good point about migration, and I'll snip a piece of the article here:

By making it possible for American farmers to sell their crops abroad for considerably less than it costs to grow them, the farm bill helps determine the price of corn in Mexico and the price of cotton in Nigeria and therefore whether farmers in those places will survive or be forced off the land, to migrate to the cities ? or to the United States. The flow of immigrants north from Mexico since Nafta is inextricably linked to the flow of American corn in the opposite direction, a flood of subsidized grain that the Mexican government estimates has thrown two million Mexican farmers and other agricultural workers off the land since the mid-90s. (More recently, the ethanol boom has led to a spike in corn prices that has left that country reeling from soaring tortilla prices; linking its corn economy to ours has been an unalloyed disaster for Mexico's eaters as well as its farmers.)

Instead of encouraging other countries to grow their own food, we're ruining their farming, giving them incentives to migrate, and letting our own kids become obese in the process.

[MadmanDan]

Oh, this is so COMMUNIST !!


   You actually think people would work not for their own profit, but to give their food to other people?

No way! And even if , by a miracle, the developed countries could provide that food, giving it to countries that can't feed themselves will only solve the problem on a short term, with serious long term implications

[freedom78]

The problem is neither the dumping of western food nor the lack of it...at least, not one of those alone.  The problem is that we encourage them to develop an agriculture industry, and the moment a crisis hits, uninformed "do-gooders" dump enough grain into their economies to destroy that ag industry. 

Like many issues, we can't bear either extreme, so we choose a middle ground that is more destructive than either more extreme policy.

1.) They develop an ag industry, and we allow it to resolve its own crises.

2.) They abandon an ag industry in favor of other sectors of the economy, and are therefore less susceptible to food crises. 

But we just can't stand for it to be either of those ways.  We WANT them to develop this sector of the economy, but have so little faith in their abilities to do so that we guilt ourselves into dumping all this free food on the third world.

It can be frustrating... 

[Izzy]

I don't see why we shouldn't start sending them our chemical fertilizers, modern farming equipment and genetically modified crops and let them go to town.

You give them equipment and the following happens:

They sell the equipment to other countries

so, you find some devious way of stopping that:

then they work less and less thus making themselves more eligible for more and more equipment.

Whats worse is the wealth generated is hoarded by those recieving it who take it out of the country - little or none filters back to the people, if they do well enough western companies will buy the farms anyway!!

Add to that the government doing its best to ruin the economy (Zimbawe with the resources to feed all of Africa now has people suffering malnutrition)

Hand outs dont work on such a large scale.

Buying their goods doesnt help either - then you just damage the economy in your own country, farmers are pushed out of buisness

Before you know it farmland is being built on and we have a massive trade deficit with all our food coming from oversees

If there was an easy way - dont ya think it would have been tried by now?

Its the way of capitalism - for anyone to win, someone else has to lose

The alternative is communism......

I wish i had a solution for the Third World

[GNRreunioneventually]

is it true that we can support the whole world so that there is no hunger? YES BUT the problem is is getting it to the places that need it before the food rots or spoils. They might be able to load it up with preservitives but thats not real healthy either course then again at least they'd have food.

[Izzy]

is it true that we can support the whole world so that there is no hunger? YES BUT the problem is is getting it to the places that need it before the food rots or spoils. They might be able to load it up with preservitives but thats not real healthy either course then again at least they'd have food.

....er? No....

where do you think so much of your fruit comes from...thats right, otherside of the globe....

[GNRreunioneventually]

actually for one i don't know where the US's fruit comes from because i don't eat a lot of it, but i do know we get most from California, Florida, and Hawaii. I don't know for sure my statment up there was based on things that i've heard, but now that i think about it we get bananas from South America and takes a long time to get here i'm sure so really i don't know

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

bump!
saw the movie
very good
i'm not buying any spanish fuits/vegies anymore!


go see it !

[Lucky]

first you feed them, and next thing you know, they'll be wanting broadband internet as well...

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

first you feed them, and next thing you know, they'll be wanting broadband internet as well...

  - in some ways, you may have a point ....

[2NaFish]

"It's just a ride. And we can change it anytime we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money. A choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love, instead, see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money that we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace." Bill

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

amen!

the final Nestl?'s CEO interview in the documentary is .... breathtaking.

[polluxlm]

first you feed them, and next thing you know, they'll be wanting broadband internet as well...

  - in some ways, you may have a point ....

He does. Which is why it's a little more than 'no problem'.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

first you feed them, and next thing you know, they'll be wanting broadband internet as well...

  - in some ways, you may have a point ....

He does. Which is why it's a little more than 'no problem'.

no problem means we could do it, i didnt say no *consequences* - if we really see them wanting broadband connections as a problematic *consequence*

[polluxlm]

first you feed them, and next thing you know, they'll be wanting broadband internet as well...

  - in some ways, you may have a point ....

He does. Which is why it's a little more than 'no problem'.

no problem means we could do it, i didnt say no *consequences* - if we really see them wanting broadband connections as a problematic *consequence*

That's not exactly what I meant.

Point is you can't just hand out free stuff to entire populations/regions as it will ultimately lead to even more deaths and problems. Humans have to take care of themselves or else we witter away. The thing that should be done is help build their infrastructure so their economy can grow. The problem there is that the intricate beurocratic systems are designed to benefit the big companies and the rich countries. This is why it's a little more problematic than just throwing money their way.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

first you feed them, and next thing you know, they'll be wanting broadband internet as well...

  - in some ways, you may have a point ....

He does. Which is why it's a little more than 'no problem'.

no problem means we could do it, i didnt say no *consequences* - if we really see them wanting broadband connections as a problematic *consequence*

That's not exactly what I meant.

Point is you can't just hand out free stuff to entire populations/regions as it will ultimately lead to even more deaths and problems. Humans have to take care of themselves or else we witter away. The thing that should be done is help build their infrastructure so their economy can grow. The problem there is that the intricate beurocratic systems are designed to benefit the big companies and the rich countries. This is why it's a little more problematic than just throwing money their way.

i'm sorry but, wrong.
It's not about giving free stuff. It's about balancing an unfair situations.
See it's like a math problem, if one side of the equation is at -X (minus x), adding N here, it pretty much blocing the perpetual -X that comes from the unfair so called free trade system.

How the hell can you look at the situation and cynically see that as "giving free stuff"? this is very cynical.
On a daily basis, secured by our locked up world wide economical policies, we smother them. We are maintaining the inequality. So this is not "handing out free stuff".

We are drowning their agriculture by over producing. In result they have to buy our food.

Either we continue making billions there, and give a lot back - as of right now, we don't give any, and even tho it would work -
or we stop making billions there.

[Communist China]

Feeding everyone in the world would be a bad idea. I don't see how people don't get this. If you feed the world, the population skyrockets, and then we DO have a problem. Pollution will double, further sparking desertification and starvation, and thousands of species will vanish.

Economically, the world is capitalist. The countries that matter, anyway. And in capitalism you have to have a loser. People hate to admit it but the majority of the western world will always choose their standard of living over the lives of others.

Feeding the world isn't Nike, you can't 'just do it.'

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Feeding everyone in the world would be a bad idea. I don't see how people don't get this. If you feed the world, the population skyrockets, and then we DO have a problem. Pollution will double, further sparking desertification and starvation, and thousands of species will vanish.

Economically, the world is capitalist. The countries that matter, anyway. And in capitalism you have to have a loser. People hate to admit it but the majority of the western world will always choose their standard of living over the lives of others.

Feeding the world isn't Nike, you can't 'just do it.'

so.... in countries such as France, Germany and Japan the population is skyrocketing .... ? stoopid.


fo' god sake, what's crazy is that i read these kind of arguments so many times from many kids.
go read.

[Nightfall]

so.... in countries such as France the population is skyrocketing.

well it will get there...if the government is keeping on paying ppl extra money to sit at home and have babies all the time.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

so.... in countries such as France the population is skyrocketing.

well it will get there...if the government is keeping on paying ppl extra money to sit at home and have babies all the time.

  i said feed the world, not the troll 

[SLCPUNK]

Feeding everyone in the world would be a bad idea. I don't see how people don't get this. If you feed the world, the population skyrockets, and then we DO have a problem. Pollution will double, further sparking desertification and starvation, and thousands of species will vanish.

Economically, the world is capitalist. The countries that matter, anyway. And in capitalism you have to have a loser. People hate to admit it but the majority of the western world will always choose their standard of living over the lives of others.

Feeding the world isn't Nike, you can't 'just do it.'

I think we found our loser right here.....

[Communist China]

Feeding everyone in the world would be a bad idea. I don't see how people don't get this. If you feed the world, the population skyrockets, and then we DO have a problem. Pollution will double, further sparking desertification and starvation, and thousands of species will vanish.

Economically, the world is capitalist. The countries that matter, anyway. And in capitalism you have to have a loser. People hate to admit it but the majority of the western world will always choose their standard of living over the lives of others.

Feeding the world isn't Nike, you can't 'just do it.'

I think we found our loser right here.....

Coudl you explain how my argument is wrong? Just because it's a little cold it doesn't make me wrong.

To WAT-EVER: Fuck you. My age doesn't make a difference. If you judge me by it you're a dick. The world isn't so evil that if it could push a button or make a phone call to fix the world, it wouldn't. The economical, environmental, and social effects are too drastic and harsh to attempt to feed the whole world.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Feeding everyone in the world would be a bad idea. I don't see how people don't get this. If you feed the world, the population skyrockets, and then we DO have a problem. Pollution will double, further sparking desertification and starvation, and thousands of species will vanish.

Economically, the world is capitalist. The countries that matter, anyway. And in capitalism you have to have a loser. People hate to admit it but the majority of the western world will always choose their standard of living over the lives of others.

Feeding the world isn't Nike, you can't 'just do it.'

I think we found our loser right here.....

Coudl you explain how my argument is wrong? Just because it's a little cold it doesn't make me wrong.

To WAT-EVER: Fuck you. My age doesn't make a difference. If you judge me by it you're a dick. The world isn't so evil that if it could push a button or make a phone call to fix the world, it wouldn't. The economical, environmental, and social effects are too drastic and harsh to attempt to feed the whole world.

i didnt say anything about your age .... oh you mean the *kid* ? sorry. could have used man, or dude.

you were wrong because, many countries that dont have hunger issues are ageing.

[Nightfall]

so.... in countries such as France the population is skyrocketing.

well it will get there...if the government is keeping on paying ppl extra money to sit at home and have babies all the time.

  i said feed the world, not the troll 

in that case..i should make a real post regarding this subject.
I have to agree with communist china in this. Human beings are a plague to this world, we destroy it. It sounds hard and cold but we just can't feed/rescue everyone, will we do so the plague will only spread, and then what...billions of more ppl to feed, thousands of acres of forests destroyed for housing and agriculture purposes, it's a timebomb we're creating by trying to save every human being.
This world is fighting it's own battles against the growing human plague and we are fighting back even harder to overrule the world/nature...we should stop that and try to find a good balance for all live on this planet, and rescueing all human beings isn't part of the right balance.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

nightfall ....... we're not roleplaying here. you're not a level 50 dark elf demonist from tol-in-gaurhoth.

wake up

[The Dog]

nightfall ....... we're not roleplaying here. you're not a level 50 dark elf demonist from tol-in-gaurhoth.

wake up

now THAT was funny.  for real.   

[25]

rescueing all human beings isn't part of the right balance.

You're right. We should only rescue white people and the non-white people they share the western world with. Fuck those other people, they're screwing up our balance with nature. 

[Nightfall]

nightfall ....... we're not roleplaying here. you're not a level 50 dark elf demonist from tol-in-gaurhoth.

wake up

damn, you really got to much time on your hands...time to find a girlfriend?

rescueing all human beings isn't part of the right balance.

You're right. We should only rescue white people and the non-white people they share the western world with. Fuck those other people, they're screwing up our balance with nature. 

No i mean it on both sides. But by giving some direct examples (medical care) i will prob get a whole sh*tload of ppl over me who can't understand/see my point of view...so i just try to stick with the subject.

1 men can only do so much, and if everyone did that little bit, things could change a bit...but never enough to rescue ALL, and like i said we shouldn't, this world isn't build for that many ppl.

You can buy fairtrade foods and other products, that's one step. You can ban Nestle (atleast the chocolat part) out of your life...that would save hundreds/thousands of children of enslaved work, which could also leed to their premature death.

Be more aware of what products you buy, if that means you can't buy "everything" you want coz the prices are higher..so what...you prob won't even miss it in the end.

Also stating that we could feed 12 billion ppl with no problem isn't true, alot of our overproduced products aren't suitable for other groups of humans, in all parts of the world ppl have different (adjusted) digestion...adjusted to the foods they can provide themselves with (this is not something "new" this has started since the beginning of the human race), so if you feed them with overproduced products from western countries they may develop illnesses...or even yet..they just won't eat it coz they don't know it.

to make it short..choose what you want to buy (fair trade/local products)...choose your government/president etc not only for your own gain, but also for their foreign affairs and last but not least live with the fact that we CAN'T save them all.

[freedom78]

nightfall ....... we're not roleplaying here. you're not a level 50 dark elf demonist from tol-in-gaurhoth.

wake up

damn, you really got to much time on your hands...time to find a girlfriend?

Excellent...this is where WAT-EVER chimes in about how he dates models.  Wait for it... 

[Nightfall]

...easy to say when you're on the web

[polluxlm]

i'm sorry but, wrong.
It's not about giving free stuff. It's about balancing an unfair situations.
See it's like a math problem, if one side of the equation is at -X (minus x), adding N here, it pretty much blocing the perpetual -X that comes from the unfair so called free trade system.

How the hell can you look at the situation and cynically see that as "giving free stuff"? this is very cynical.
On a daily basis, secured by our locked up world wide economical policies, we smother them. We are maintaining the inequality. So this is not "handing out free stuff".

We are drowning their agriculture by over producing. In result they have to buy our food.

Either we continue making billions there, and give a lot back - as of right now, we don't give any, and even tho it would work -
or we stop making billions there.

No, you're the one who's wrong.

I stick to reality while you throw out should and woulds. That's not how it works.

You say we can do it, show me how.

to make it short..choose what you want to buy (fair trade/local products)...choose your government/president etc not only for your own gain, but also for their foreign affairs and last but not least live with the fact that we CAN'T save them all.

That won't work either, not with humanity. Never has.

Humans without a system is anarchy.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

nightfall ....... we're not roleplaying here. you're not a level 50 dark elf demonist from tol-in-gaurhoth.

wake up

damn, you really got to much time on your hands...time to find a girlfriend?

Excellent...this is where WAT-EVER chimes in about how he dates models.? Wait for it...?

my girlfriend at the moment is my Silmarillion book.


Nightfall : how was my comment related to the fact that i am single loser?
again, think out of the box. you're reasoning as free-trade and capitalism are for ever here. no they're just our current systems. they can go down - and many political / economical modern mechanics are starting to question these.
go see the film. it's not about feeding McDonald's to biaphrans.

polluxm : how am i wrong because i use "should and woulds". that's how it should work.
i think i'm right on the analysis. the so called "giving free stuff" is false, because we're NOT at a balanced situation right now.
if i already stole everything in your house, giving some stuff back is not a "giving free stuff", it's giving back. that's all.
tell me how my previous post was wrong ...


we can do it, by changing our way of life.
im not asking each and single one of us to be complete, coherent and perfect, but a little of refusing this mass consumption society, at our own level is a 1s step.

then things can start at a more global level.


by listening to you , nothing works, that's easy.

[Prometheus]

want to know how to make it work...... tag $15 a barrel onto oil companies that set up huge farms in developing nations and train teh workers hwo to use the equipment and such....... they would make about $7-9 a barrel after costs... not to mention the income that would eventually come out of the farms......