Food for Some not for All

[anarchyisbliss]

It is estimated that one day the world will run out of enough food to feed the entire world. Some people are saying that, when the time comes, we should restrict food consumption to a certain amount of people. Do you think this is ethical? Who should the food be restricted too? Who should the food be restricted from? Why?
_________________
"If there is hope, it lies in the proles." - George Orwell, 1984

[xXKanpekiXx]

Ah, what a magnificent image you have painted in my head. (Please note the sarcasm)... Well, when we do run out of food for the Earth's inhabitants, I believe that we should assure the safety of the world's brightest minds before we attend to others. This sounds rather rigid, but if the scientists are left alive, their main focus can be to create a solution. May sound a tad illogical, but in my head it makes perfect sense.
_________________
I'm a sadistic cynic who has strong beliefs and a constant need to argue. Knock me off my high pedestal? DO IT!

[nameless]

[xXKanpekiXx]

[quote="namelessFood is always 'restricted' to some. Those who can afford it. Simple. Nothing new here, the rich eat and the poor starve.quote]

This brings to mind a question, which may or may not be simple to answer. I already have an idea, but I would like some other opinions.

If, in fact, we depleat our resourses of food to such an extent that only the very highest authority may eat, hasn't this caused a massive class shift? Would the middle class have dropped, or would the upper class who can now no longer afford food become middle class or poor?
_________________
I'm a sadistic cynic who has strong beliefs and a constant need to argue. Knock me off my high pedestal? DO IT!

[Bearcat1]

"Estimated that one day..."!!!
Are you serious?
There is already not enough food (distribution) to feed everyone. Hence, the starving, malnutritioned and dying people....[/quote]

Are you serious? The fact that there are starving people around the world and in every country (except Norway) is not that there is not enough food, but that the food is not equally distributed throughout the world.

The amount of food waste in first world countries is astronomical, The inefficient use of sharecrops in third world countries is outstanding! If the world worked together we have the ability to feed every person in the world. It is the fact that we don't that is the reason people starve, not because there is not enough food.

Look up how much corn crops the United States burned in the 1990's to keep the price of corn stable. (make sure your sitting down)

[Teucer]

I'd have to agree with responders. This is almost a question of "Is the world today ethical?". Of course not, it's an imperfect society. But that's why we have people trying to fix it, whichever it they choose, and some people choose to try to end world hunger. So answer: ethical? No. And the other question presented: Who would get the food? The people with guns. The old King Arthur addage always proves true: might is right.

[xXKanpekiXx]

An excellent point is brought up about the guns, although I choose to believe that it is not simply guns we are dealing with. (Bombs, biochemical warfare, more advanced technology). He who has the biggest stick wins the war.
_________________
I'm a sadistic cynic who has strong beliefs and a constant need to argue. Knock me off my high pedestal? DO IT!

[Akhenaten]

When you look in a dumpster, and compare the ammount of food. Then think on how much more everyone eats than they really -require-.

Money = Food.

There is almost no society inwhich this does not hold true, save small secular societies such as communes and pre-china Tibet... and they have/had a strangely low percentage of starvation on realitivly small ammounts of workable land. As having personally spent months at a time in the field with a platoon of soldiers, I have personally witnessed 3 weeks of rations become two months worth, everyone remaining healthy if not so high spirited.

Even in ancient depictions, statues and so forth (such as the Buddha statues we are all so very fond of) are meerly displayed fat as a sign of wealth, whether spiritual or financial. Siddhartha Gautama, however, the Prince most only know as Buddha, was not a fat man, and quite the opposite, as all period depictions of him show... even his own court paintings.

We have taken this concept quite too litterally over the years, as can easily be seen by the percentage of obesity among the wealthy before we began discovering more about human physiology. There is even a socially acceptable term for someone who is, and always has been, a shade high on the nution intake... 'Well Fed.' Of course they are, however someone half their weight has just died because they weren't fed at all.

I myself have likely thrown in the trash enough food in my life to have kept another of me atleast mostly alive. Hell, if I gave him alittle bit of my food he might even stay healthy. In our country alone we've turned 40% of the arable landmass into crops for bio-fuel production.

Really? When it really comes down to it? The cold, painful, and rather ugly fact is? The actual percentage of staving population in the world is 25-30%. That means, basically, 70-75% of us are fine. Not only that, most of us in that 70-75% are infact over fed, as its obvious in that 30% SOMEONE IS ALIVE, and therefore has yet to starve to death. I can point out to you 10,000 people directly, personally, and fundamentally responsible for the death of the next individual to die of starvation... and the next... and the next... all I need do is walk to the center of town and begin pointing.

Should food be restricted? Yes, when we are actually in a food crisis, and not meerly willingly starving a good portion of our worlds population... which is, when you think about it from an objective standpoint? fairly grotesque, as we even go so far as to pity them for our starving them.

Who else is to blame, when all you need do is hand a starving person food you already have?

*Note: Per Federal Law Resteraunts and Groceries stores must TRASH their food when expired, or at the end of the night. It is a CRIME, Theft, to take this food from their dumpsters.
_________________
DISCLAIMER: THIS DOCUMENT does not cover all individuals in the infinite and variable universe. This is in no way is speaking on cases of incredible, random, or odds of more than 1 : Pi against probability.

[nameless]

[xXKanpekiXx]

Ah, Akhenaten, I've always reveled in the fact that people were revered for being overweight, respected as being powerful or wealthy. I agree with you, today Food does still equal Money, and I find it funny that while the assertion remains true, our society as a whole depicts emaciatedly skinny as the way to look, despite full access to nourishment.

Yes, but even if we do give to those less fortunate, it's not logical, if not altoghether impossible, to get a movement widespread enough to fix the present problem. Sad, but true. What hope is there for those starving people? The few who are willing to share their food?
_________________
I'm a sadistic cynic who has strong beliefs and a constant need to argue. Knock me off my high pedestal? DO IT!

[Dewey]

I see no good reason for believing the world might run out of enough food. But, just for fun, let’s suppose it did.

I think that for a while the shortage be a gradual process, not a sudden happening. The growing gap between supply and demand would drive up the food prices. The distribution would increasingly be to the wealthy people. But, at some point in their growing misery the poor would eventually rise up in protest.

To qualify this discussion for the Ethics and Morality forum, let’s suppose the poor people force their government to adopt more equitable, and therefore more ethical and moral, distribution methods. Wouldn’t that be dreamy? Those of us that would have to give up our existence would be departing kind of like Romeo and Juliet did!

We must, however, be realistic. We must suppose that tyrants would arise from the poor to take power and resolve the problem with one of their tried-and-true methods. It has proven in the past to be a quick and effective method – guaranteed to eliminate any excessive demands, including those for food. It’s called genocide.

[wanabe]

yea survival of the "fittest" is brutal like that (hardly the case because those who are getting the food are doing so disproportionately)

but that's what happens when you let men do "gods" work.

its sad there are so many starving people and I hope they all go to haven or have a cool reincarnation or what have you... but we as a species cannot live in this petry dish much longer if we don't stop our bad habits... yea and I do blame the world powers for it all, you shouldn't take power if you cant be responsible.

food should go to the women first then men (fewer of them needed in modern society, also may equalize the gender gap, solving 2 problems at once) smartest, healthiest, strongest, not necessarily it that order regardless of where they are...no this is not ethical in any way...but again don't send a man to do a gods job...everyone else should not get food because they are "inferior" (even though they are not) ............sucks........
_________________
The Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, And Help All Others To Do So. Fear is weakness leaving the mind.

[SigmaD]

A fair food distribution is very simple. Divide all the food equally to those who have not contributed to the problem, that is those without children. When they have eaten all they need they pass it to their parents and so on.

[wanabe]

having children does contribute to the problem of over population. however some have tons of kids and some only have 1 or 2 shouldn't the ones with out as many kids be praised for their neutral or negative population growth and not punished by not receiving food until later

it would be equally fair to let every one over thirty die but that's probably not a good idea.

this solution SigmaD, provides food to children the future, yes good...but also gives food to those lucky enough to just have not had kids for some reason...age, abstinence, infertility would be the reasons people get food...rather arbitrary, its fair. I suppose as much as rolling the dice is fair. shouldn't food go to people who will benefit man kind, (the smartest healthiest strongest) if every one else is going to starve to death...

(assuming some or collection of powerful country or rebellious entity doesn't preform mass genocide before there is a real food shortage) ultimately that is who will get it anyway if, well when, there is a fight for food. all the people who have the above traits along with being most driven will get the food.
_________________
The Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, And Help All Others To Do So. Fear is weakness leaving the mind.

[SigmaD]

Who will decide who is benefitting mankind? If I were to decide I wouldn't give as much as a peanut to anyone helping the development of third world countries. It is just not in my best interest. I was merely proposing a (unrealistic of course) scheme that would give the largest variety of genes a fair chance of "survival".
It is unreasonable to assume that the stupid would willingly surrender their lives to save the elite few. Who is to say that the stupid aren't the fittest?

"You are a young race and lay great stock by your own cleverness,' Swarm said, 'As usual, you fail to see that intelligence is not a survival trait..."
- Swarm, Bruce Sterling

And by the way, I said the children should pass the food to their parents, when full. This would not punish those with few children.