Food for Some not for All

[wanabe]

sorry I didn't explain my self fully before.

SigmaD- "Who will decide who is benefitting mankind?"

who ever holds the power at the time of this hypothetical situation. not that they will be right, but it will be their decision. I think those in power would choose the smartest healthiest strongest people. how they would come to separating correctly who is smart, healthy, strong is a mystery to me. I don't know this whole thing is a hypothetical.

your scheme does give food to a variety of people. for that reason it is a good idea, I think its beautiful in its simplicity and its effectiveness.

however:
on a 1:1 ratio, all kids get the same amount of food in your plan right? if all kids get equal food, and there will be left overs to give to parents. then the more kids a family has, the more left overs there will be. hence more food for those parents with more kids...in comparison the familys with less children will have less leftovers for the parents to eat.... that's what I meant by later...they will get less leftovers, yea sorry, doesn't make any sense sorry.

now:
if the leftover food that the parents cant eat of the larger familys is re-routed to those parents of familys with fewer kids than there isn't a problem. but that takes the simplicity from your solution.

its not that the "stupid" would surrender but that they would most likely be defeated by those more "fit". if there was competition for food.
_________________
Anything is possible; nothing is as it seems.Transcend feeble language by communicating through Direct Perception.I am attempting to transcend 'right and wrong', please help me."What you don't understand you can make mean anything."-Chuck Palahniuk

[Scott]

As I have often pointed out on my World Hunger and Poverty Blog, there is more than enough food to feed everyone in the world now. Unfortunately, so many people are still deprived of access to food. In fact, tens of thousands of people die everyday from hunger.

So the problem exists currently, not just in some futuristic hypothetical. Before we can address a hypothetical shortage of food, I think we need to address the problem as it exists currently.

What exactly is the problem if any? Do we want to fix it? What social and political changes need to be made to fix it? Who would benefit from those changes? Who would benefit from not having those changes happen? Those are questions I pose to all of you, and they are also questions I wish to try to answer.

Basically, the problem is that control over natural resources has been unfairly distributed through the use of deception and violence, and those who are not part of the elite minority (i.e. the ruling class or the upper class) who benefit from the unfair distribution fall on a range of working like slaves for the ruling class just to get by or not having enough to get by. In perhaps the worst case, not having enough to get by means starving to death.

Those who are not among the ruling class (or upper class) would generally benefit from fixing the problem. However, the ruling class would not benefit from fixing it; they would lose their ability to get and remain rich by leeching off the productive power of the working class.

To make a rhetorical and simplistic analogy, let's say I claimed to own all the air in the world and threatened to imprison or kill anyone who breathed the air without my permission. I could get you guys to all work like slaves for me for barely anything because the desperation caused by your poverty would make you the equivalent of sweatshop workers. So I would gain control not only over the air in the world but also the labor. And I'm sure many people would die from lack of oxygen. I would benefit from keeping such a system, but everybody else would benefit from changing it. In that example, I represent the ruling class (a.k.a. the upper class or just the wealthy); my desperate workers represent the working class; those who die from lack of oxygen represent the poorest of us; and the air represents natural resources, namely land, water and the machinery passed down from previous generations.

What do you all think?
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

[Belinda]

I have a sort of devotion to the whole truth, and I do have faith that there is a wholeness of truth, even although no person (except of course, mystics) ever know it.

The rich person who holds on to his or her wealth at the expense of the starving and oppressed is ignorant either at the knowledge level, or at the feeling level, of what it feels like to be starving and oppressed, and this is whacking big ignorance.

I don't know if anyone here remembers Solzhenitzen but he said in his Nobel Peace Prize speech that good reportage and skilled and free communications are necessary for mutual understanding, and the great attribute of a good communication is that it depends on someone speaking the truth about an individual and her feelings rather than facts and figures about faceless groups.

I think that all the charities now are aware of the need to highlight particular cases, and to portray feelings. Jesus (whom I mention only because he is one of the most influential story tellers about the human condition), told stories about individuals to highlight moral values. Beauty is truth and truth is beauty and beauty/truth selects what is relevant and only what is relevant, and a writer or a politician needs to remember that.

I blame education systems for failing to teach children truth/beauty. True, teachers can be up against norms such as consumerism, tribalism and colonialism which are ingrained into the family cultures of some rich and fewer poor people.

[Quality4go]

This topic is relevant to many aspects of the ethical continuum and since it is a question of implied condition (that food will run out) one must speculate as to if the condition could be avoided before trying to deal with it's effects. Instead of pondering who should get the food/resources as a result of such a crisis, perhaps the question of: [how can humanity avoid such a insufficiency?] should be examined. Throughout the history of mankind there has always been struggle for resources and their distribution. Technology has opened many doors to the manipulation of our surrounding environment including mitigation of food/crop production. The application of bio-engineering has significantly expanded the potential of farming in otherwise unsuitable conditions for example. It seems however that technological gain without ethical application could be a hazard in itself.

It could be argued that it is a bit nonsensical to attempt to surmise an answer to a question that has plagued our civilications from the get-go. Distribution of wealth is seemingly more of a political/socioeconomical question than it is of ethics. Food chains are analogously present throughout nature and society alike and it is hard to imagine a world without some form of a hierarchical mechanism. Whereas the meaning of wealth itself seems to be more of the ethical issue as it pertains to the value of what is to be distributed. Before a means of equality can be achieved for example, it is nessecary to establish criteria which seperates the worth of the determining objective and subjective factors which create the concept of equality.

[wanabe]

scott-"[1]What exactly is the problem if any?

[2]Do we want to fix it?

[3]What social and political changes need to be made to fix it?

[4]Who would benefit from those changes?

[5]Who would benefit from not having those changes happen?

Those are questions I pose to all of you, and they are also questions I wish to try to answer. "

re: 1 the problem is: there is enough food to feed the entire world. but people starve to death regardless....why...because the right people don't want ENOUGH to feed every one because they feel possibly that:

1. it is not possible to feed every person because they are so manny. (i don't think this is a good reason)

2. the food will go bad before it gets to the mouth it needs to feed. (don think this is correct either)

3. people don't feel a reward from taking food from them self and giving it to some one else (this is getting warmer)

4. some don't care or want people to starve(sad but I'm sure they are out there most likely a minority group{those who want starvation})

re: 2 i want to fix it scott wants to fix it...manny want to fix it, but i think apathy stops a large group from wanting to fix it.

re: 3 social and political changes that must be made to fix the problem of world hunger are: socially: lots people need a reward motivation to help others. what can be this reward?...what can those being fed provide to those feeding them?... gratitude, happy pictures, trinkets, exchange of knowledge, friend ship. we need to develop a desire to act altruistically

politically: put money where religion is in politics. how? caps on campaign funding? force opposing politicians to work in pairs? force opposing industries to work together? ex: oil teamed with not other energy sources or machines but energy sources for living things, farming perhaps?

re: 4 all should benefit from this, but the benefits will be different depending on what group one is in. other groups may feel jealous of another other groups benefits. how can this be prevented? trading of benefits, risks nullifying the previous actions though deceptive trading....creating a third party to do the trading made up of all groups...creates a whole other kind of stock market...this could be bad, could be good.

re:5 who benefits from these changes from not being made, the people whose successes stem from funneling things from people who need them, to people who simply want them, perhaps in great excess.
_________________
Anything is possible; nothing is as it seems.Transcend feeble language by communicating through Direct Perception.I am attempting to transcend 'right and wrong', please help me."What you don't understand you can make mean anything."-Chuck Palahniuk

[Dewey]

Quality4go said: “Distribution of wealth is seemingly more of a political/socioeconomical question than it is of ethics.”

While I may not exactly agree with that idea as stated, I do think it points to the remedial path we need to take. Next to religion, ethics is the most ferocious battleground I know. Mounting our ethical high horse and righteously vilifying the wealthy folks and all resistors of our redistribution attempts will take us nowhere. The best chance of accomplishing our mission is by way of the less contentious socioeconomical highway.

[Belinda]

How right you are Dewey! I do vilify the sort of religion that passes itself off as
Christianity * while denying that all men and women are equal and should be treated as equals. 'Equals ' means that all have universal human rights to the fruits of production


*'Who is my neighbour?'

[wanabe]

"less contentious socioeconomical highway." how can this be created? Perhaps get rid of the highway so to speak. If people can earn comparable socioeconomic status though a wider variety of ways?

Currently there is: political/ educational. “below” that are: business/ entertainment. Those are 4 ways people can gain socioeconomic status...are there more that do not “overlap” areas of the other 4 .

if we erase money or social customs then everything becomes equalized....is equality good, wouldn't it be better to try and make everything perfect, rather than just equal? Both are impossible, but perfection implies constant progress towards perfection, while equality only equalizes and progress will stop once we are equalized....We would all be equal, if we were all perfect.?????????????????????????????
_________________
Anything is possible; nothing is as it seems.Transcend feeble language by communicating through Direct Perception.I am attempting to transcend 'right and wrong', please help me."What you don't understand you can make mean anything."-Chuck Palahniuk

[Dewey]

High wanabe,

Your comments about my reference to “the less contentious socioeconomical highway” are probably clear to everyone but me. Truth to tell, I know precious little about socioeconomics.

All I meant to suggest in my post was that, when presented with both the social and economic effects, the “haves” can be persuaded to share with the “have-nots”. When reproached in moral terms, they stop listening and cannot be persuaded to do much of anything.

The “haves” and ‘have-nots are alike. When one of them was a kid and did some naughty thing and someone told him that he was “a bad kid” he went right out and did some more naughty things? That’s not the way for parents or us now to go.

That's all I meant.

[wanabe]

I think you know a great deal about socio-economics, but you don't realize you do, Dewey.

this is the case with all beings, and all things.

I'm glad you explained your statement....how does one persuade the "haves", monetary reimbursement?
_________________
Anything is possible; nothing is as it seems.Transcend feeble language by communicating through Direct Perception.I am attempting to transcend 'right and wrong', please help me."What you don't understand you can make mean anything."-Chuck Palahniuk

[Dewey]

I’m not sure I feel complimented to learn I don’t realize what I know. But thanks anyway, wanabe.

Yes, offering monetary reimbursement to the “haves” is very persuasive. There’s just one problem. The “have-nots” don’t have the money to offer. Maybe we should try the socio side of this socioeconomics highway.

The philanthropic tendency of “haves” might be a gold mine for our cause. All we have to do is to help more haves == especially the younger ones -- to realize sooner rather than later what they may not realize, if ever, until they’re old. They need to understand they can’t buy their happiness and self-regard until after they return a good part of the wealth they have appropriated.

We’re already making some progress with this project. Just see what we got Bill Gates to do.

[wanabe]

I didn't mean that the have nots gave money to them, is suppose the government would gave this to them. or a more potent tax write off.

I agree, that is a very steady solution to the problem.

now, time to invade the private school system;)
_________________
Anything is possible; nothing is as it seems.Transcend feeble language by communicating through Direct Perception.I am attempting to transcend 'right and wrong', please help me."What you don't understand you can make mean anything."-Chuck Palahniuk

[theSingerNietzsche]

The problem doesn't necessarily involve what you've envisaged. Firstly, our agricultural resources are being severely wasted with the production of meat. For every acre of land used to produce meat, grain would reap ten times the quantity. Secondly, we get approximately 5% back from the resources we pump into feeding livestock. Stopping the production of meat or severely cutting back on it would solve a lot of problems. Admittedly, distribution is a different issue.