3 ms·
Does it end hunger any better than the U.S. has ended hunger? * Children neglected by their parents: still hungry. * Mentally ill or drug-addicted people who
by dkarl 16y ago
Does it end hunger any better than the U.S. has ended hunger?
* Children neglected by their parents: still hungry.
* Mentally ill or drug-addicted people who are unable to care for themselves (e.g., the homeless): still hungry.
* People who remain persistently unaware of government programs available to them, despite outreach, or who fail to take advantage of them for whatever reason: still hungry (or at least paying more elsewhere.)
* People who spend their food dollars on soda, chips, and pizza rolls, regardless of the availability of cheaper and more nutritious foods: still malnourished.
Giving people easy access to nutritious food only solves the EASY cases. This program is to ending hunger as driving an RC car across an empty parking lot is to the Darpa challenge.
- dkarl 16y agoNot sure why I was downvoted, but maybe I was unclear. My point is that they're just providing access to cheap nutritious food, which 1) is not something that has "never been done before" 2) punts on all the hard social problems that make hunger a difficult problem to solve: neglect, ignorance, mental illness, drug addiction, stigma attached to social services, and a kind of general incompetence (not meant to be insulting; nobody is born knowing anything) that prevents people from taking advantage of existing resources.