7 ms·

Yet who shows up for the 3.1 million children who die of malnutrition every year? Every 3 minutes we lose more children then were in the cave. We can comprehe

Yet who shows up for the 3.1 million children who die of malnutrition every year? Every 3 minutes we lose more children then were in the cave. We can comprehend 13 people and the struggle against nature, while the scope of world hunger is far too complex and emotionally incomprehensible to mobilize enough people.

nxc18 8y ago
I keep coming back to this. How many lives could have been saved it improved with the expense we put into saving 12 people who went caving in monsoon season? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad society found a way to save them, I just wish we took the every day threats to human life more seriously.
- addicted 8y ago
  I’d bet 0. The money “saved” from not helping these kids would probably have saved exactly 0 other people. Because for better or worse, that’s not how most money is redistributed.
- conjectures 8y ago
  When you think 'the money', you're probably counting sunk costs. What do Thai Navy divers do? If there's no war on, they're probably training. What better training than a live rescue mission? I.e. the wages for those highly skilled Thai teams have probably been paid down already. Similarly international forces benefit from co-operation because it's something they would want to do anyway: good will, training in co-operation, skills training. As for volunteers their time is hardly a cost in the same way. But if you're a cave diving medic, the expected utility of using your time to save people in a cave is probably better than working and donating to a charity.
- coryfklein 8y ago
  I think you're viewing this wrong. This wasn't a one-time $2M spend on saving 12 people, this was cashing in on an insurance policy where citizens of Thailand pay premiums in forms of taxes. Failing to save these kids is the case you want to think about - that would be sending the message to the public that if your kid gets lost in the mountains we're not going to save them. Sure this particular "insurance claim" (in this impromptu parlance) was an expensive one, but most of the others aren't, and the thing about insurance is that it is there particularly when the costs are catastrophic.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> We can comprehend 13 people and the struggle against nature, while the scope of world hunger is far too complex and emotionally incomprehensible to mobilize enough people These are different disasters. The cave impacted 13 random children. Hunger impacts millions of poor children. One is random, the other more predictable. There are utilitarian arguments for numbing oneself to tragedy which predictably strikes those without resources while defending those visited by random misfortune. (Note: I am not arguing for this utilitarian calculus. Just describing it.)
- csomar 8y ago
  Define random. The million of poor children are randomly selected too.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > Define random. The million of poor children are randomly selected too. Coarsely, what happened to these kids could happen to ours. Starvation, less likely. In-group selection is built into our natures, and that is on display here. Practically, saving these kids takes a short burst of effort. Their families will pick up the slack thereafter because they have—on average—the resources to do so. Saving children from hunger takes long stretches of coördination, together with efforts to ensure their education (to prevent the problem from repeating in the next generation). It is cruel, and there is probably a solution. But the analogy between these problems is flawed. With minimal assistance, the cave children will become self-sustaining again. That is not true for the chronically hungry.
    - csomar 8y ago
      My guess is that Thailand wanted to be on the spotlight. There are kids dying of hunger, disease, sex-enslavement, violence or negligence (car/house accidents). But they are very unlikely to be on the spotlight. We don't want to be humanly. We want to be praised for being humanly.
      - 8y ago
chx 8y ago
Is 3000 a low enough number? There are 3000 children in concentration camps in the USA separated from their parents. Edit: yes, I have chosen the words concentration camps to evoke the sceptre of the Holocaust. Also note my grandmother is still alive and an Auschwitz survivor. We. have. seen. this. before! 1. Classification 2. Symbolization 3. Discrimination 4. Dehumanization 5. Organization 6. Polarization 7. Preparation 8. Persecution 9. Extermination 10. Denial By my count, the USA is at step 8 of the ten steps of genocide. Or if you want, check the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Article 6 Genocide For the purpose of this Statute, ‘genocide’ means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Also note who signed the letter about the US not being part of said Rome Statute: https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9968.htm https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9968.htm Bolton was appointed on March 22, the disastrous zero tolerance memo came out on April 6 and I have a horrible feeling of Bolton reminding Trump and Sessions they can't be hauled to The Hague for committing a crime against humanity because the USA is not part of the ICC -- who would know this better?
- jumbopapa 8y ago
  > concentration camps This does nothing, but underplay the significance of the holocaust.
  - Jwarder 8y ago
    But they are literal concentration camps. Concentration camps have existed before and after the Nazis; that's not some idea they invented. The horror of the Holocaust is focused around the death camps more than the concentration camps.
    - kazinator 8y ago
      The phrase "concentration camp" in the English language no longer has any literal meaning that is simply composed of "concentration" and "camp". It refers strictly to the WWII Nazi concentration camps. Anyone using the phrase and then insisting that the literal meaning was intended is thoroughly disingenuous. That speaker or writer is deliberately using the loaded term in order to troll the intended audience with a crystal clear Nazi reference.
bitL 8y ago
It's not just hunger. There is a failure on the part of their parents, i.e. by not being prudent and being selfish having kids they can't take care of; but one could argue that it's how "nature designed it" in order to increase genetic variability and a chance for the species to survive by pruning the traits not beneficial in changing environment, which we observe as inhumane deaths of small children. In the "civilized" world, unwanted children are dealt with the way they don't even register on any human statistics.
- dkural 8y ago
  Famine and malnutrition hits people with one children or many. Also, Subsaharan Africa, where hunger is highest per-capita, is not an "overpopulated" subcontinent, having roughly 990 million people, and a massive amount of fertile land, rainforests, natural resources. It actually has fewer people per square mile than most places. In fact arguably this is one reason for having higher mortality: People are spread over vast distances, so it's more expensive to build infrastructure to distribute food when one region is hit with a draught/famine, distribute healthcare, etc. It's simply under-developed and has not become industrialized. When American or European children were dying at higher rates it wasn't because their parents were selfish. It reflected the rate of development of the continent. Hunger was an issue after World War II in most of Europe, and the US came to their aid. The hunger there was not due to parents being selfish either.
BurningFrog 8y ago
Globalization lifts 138k people out of extreme poverty per day. http://www.newsweek.com/now-good-news-poor-are-getting-richer-696286 http://www.newsweek.com/now-good-news-poor-are-getting-riche...
- trissi 8y ago
  But about 3 times as much new people are born, most of them in poverty....
  - los_angeles 8y ago
    But a lower percentage are in poverty every year.
  - monkmartinez 8y ago
    My opinion on this is unpopular, but I will say it anyway; People shouldn't have more kids than they can afford.
    - los_angeles 8y ago
      Well, sure, but the people having 8 kids in Sudan probably aren't checking the comments on HN for family planning advice. So they are probably (well, not probably)... they ARE going to have more kids whether you like it or not. The question becomes how do we (Western society, which has more resources than we know what to do with) address the issue and try to do good in the world.
      - sangnoir 8y ago
        > The question becomes how do we (Western society, which has more resources than we know what to do with) address the issue and try to do good in the world Be involved in how your governments and MNC's behave in these countries. These entities are more likely to pay attention when you, as a voter or customer with more disposable income, say something compared to the citizens of poorer countries who have less of a voice.
HeavyStorm 8y ago
Should I quote Stalin now?
- sysbell 8y ago
  Something something tragedy; something something statistic! Now off to the Gulag!
dilap 8y ago
I think you need to be even more cynical. E.g., we're actively assisting in creating famine in Yemen.
los_angeles 8y ago
>Yet who shows up for the 3.1 million children who die of malnutrition every year? Bill Gates and tens of thousands of aid workers globally. The Chinese Communist Party and businessmen who outsource labor from the overfed first world to the underfed third world are by far the biggest help. Also your aunt who volunteers at the soup kitchen. Often these efforts funded by donations or aid grants (tax money, paid by you and me) from our democratically elected governments. >We can comprehend 13 people and the struggle against nature, while the scope of world hunger is far too complex and emotionally incomprehensible to mobilize enough people. Most of us can comprehend two (or more!) things at once. People are extremely mobilized about ending hunger and we have made strides against this in the last century: https://slides.ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-food-provision/ https://slides.ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-food-provision/ A few hundred people showed up to the cave for a few weeks. Tens of thousands show up to fight hunger every day.
hajile 8y ago
Do children eat dollar bills for dinner or are humans evil? If there is no food to spare, then all the money in the world won't solve the problem. If there is food to spare and people let children starve to death, then people are evil. (edit: there technically exists a third potential that there is absolutely no means of delivering food, but at that point, any discussion is pointless) EDIT: I suppose this idea makes people uncomfortable because it implies that those same people might be evil even though they don't see themselves as evil. We all want the world to be a better place, but we don't want to be inconvenienced. Rather than do something, we give a few dollars in hopes of absolution. Writing posts about starving kids is easy. Moving 100LB bags of food 12 hours a day in Sudan is much harder. "Be the change you want to see in the world"
mikec3010 8y ago
> who die of malnutrition Do they die of malnutrition or governmental corruption? I thought it was proven in the 1980's that the problem isn't a lack of food, it's the degenerate political systems blocking aid from reaching those who are dying. At least that's the prevailing narrative on reddit.
- vkou 8y ago
  It's both corruption, and economics. A lot of places with famines are capable of being self-sufficient, in terms of food production, but it's just not profitable for farmers to grow it (And sell it domestically). When a million people died in the Irish potato famine, it wasn't just because the United Kingdom prevented foreign aid from reaching Ireland. Ireland was the breadbasket of the empire - throughout that entire time, it was a net exporter of food.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- Maken 8y ago
  There is also the issue that food is not free and people starving can't pay for it.
  - mikec3010 8y ago
    Which fuels corruption. Charity imports tons of food for the poor, only to be intercepted by someone in the government and resold for profit. I admit that's a generalisation and I have no idea what actually happens. I've only read that the food has a very hard time making it to those who need it most. Which is why I applaud Gates' charity for rethinking it and trying to get to the root of the problem.
  - coryfklein 8y ago
    I honestly think this is an oversimplification. 1. Food is free for the starving in many places around the world. 2. Where it isn't free, a meal of rice and beans is usually within reach of even the poorest. 3. Where it is out of reach of the poor, it may be due to corruption; ie North Korea redirecting food supplies to the army instead of the public, and withholding it from prison camps. Don't fixate on the price or you'll miss the forest for the trees.
lisper 8y ago
It also has to do with drama (saving a kid from starvation doesn't make gripping television) and the perceived futility of it. So you give a kid a meal. Then what? The next day the kid is in exactly the same situation as before. To say nothing of the fact that most starvation is caused by distribution problems that are ultimately rooted in intransigent-seeming politics. When you try to get a kid out of a cave there is at least some hope of lasting success.
chongli 8y ago
Yet who shows up for the 3.1 million children who die of malnutrition every year? Billionaires like Bill Gates. Countless volunteer aid workers with organizations such as MSF. Fact #1: Since 1960, child deaths have plummeted from 20 million a year to 6 million a year. [1] This was posted quite recently here on HN. Perhaps you missed it. At the end of the day, the problem of child poverty and the death and suffering it causes is an enormous one but we are making progress on it. Could we do better? Yes. Could we do worse? Oh yes, way way worse. [1] https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Max-Roser-three-facts-everyone-should-know https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Max-Roser-three-facts...
- tomjen3 8y ago
  I hear that argument a lot. 6 million is a holocaust a year, I don't know if that is worth celebrating.
  - dkasper 8y ago
    It is worth celebrating because 14 million per year were saved.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    20 million a year minus 6 million a year is 14 million a year. That's over two holocausts a year that are no longer dying. That's worth celebrating... ... without forgetting the holocaust a year that is still happening.
  - mikepurvis 8y ago
    Focus on celebrating the 14 million not dying, and the trajectory that it represents.
  - coryfklein 8y ago
    You literally turned the number on its head. Obviously OP is not celebrating 6 million dead, but celebrating the 14 million saved.
    - 8y ago
blhack 8y ago
Every person who works at Monsanto or pioneer seed? Every tax paying American, person who gives to charity?
Shivetya 8y ago
13 people were in their situation by chance and bad luck. 3.1 million people are in their position likely because of corrupt governments. We can help the 13 because government is not the cause and there is nothing to undo, we cannot help the 3.1 as easily because it would take either removing the government in power to putting the 3.1 in further jeopardy trying to fix it. So the real question becomes, when will the world recognize that some small countries need outside governance to see to the needs of their people. Right now sovereignty is absolute unless the nation in question threatens a neighboring country.
class4behavior 8y ago
It's about conceptual accessibility to the solution. When you have a small group dying of hunger because of a drought, it is easy to perceive what to do and your ability to realize it. So people are more likely to speak up. If a drought affects an entire nation, you're at least aware this must be a complicated task. So you're more reluctant to criticize inaction. That behavior is especially problematic when the solutions are abstract or long-term.
IkmoIkmo 8y ago
A ridiculous amount of people, institutions, resources. There's just no media drama. The effort is there, although not large enough imo.
coldseattle 8y ago
"Obesity a bigger problem than world hunger, Lancet study says" https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/obesity-a-bigger-problem-than-world-hunger-lancet-study-says-20160317-gnlbwk.html https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/obesity-a-bigger-problem-t...
pascalxus 8y ago
but you have to admit humanity has made great progress in reducing extreme poverty over the last 40 years.

nxc18 8y ago

I keep coming back to this. How many lives could have been saved it improved with the expense we put into saving 12 people who went caving in monsoon season? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad society found a way to save them, I just wish we took the every day threats to human life more seriously.

addicted 8y ago
I’d bet 0. The money “saved” from not helping these kids would probably have saved exactly 0 other people. Because for better or worse, that’s not how most money is redistributed.
conjectures 8y ago
When you think 'the money', you're probably counting sunk costs. What do Thai Navy divers do? If there's no war on, they're probably training. What better training than a live rescue mission? I.e. the wages for those highly skilled Thai teams have probably been paid down already. Similarly international forces benefit from co-operation because it's something they would want to do anyway: good will, training in co-operation, skills training. As for volunteers their time is hardly a cost in the same way. But if you're a cave diving medic, the expected utility of using your time to save people in a cave is probably better than working and donating to a charity.
coryfklein 8y ago
I think you're viewing this wrong. This wasn't a one-time $2M spend on saving 12 people, this was cashing in on an insurance policy where citizens of Thailand pay premiums in forms of taxes. Failing to save these kids is the case you want to think about - that would be sending the message to the public that if your kid gets lost in the mountains we're not going to save them. Sure this particular "insurance claim" (in this impromptu parlance) was an expensive one, but most of the others aren't, and the thing about insurance is that it is there particularly when the costs are catastrophic.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> We can comprehend 13 people and the struggle against nature, while the scope of world hunger is far too complex and emotionally incomprehensible to mobilize enough people These are different disasters. The cave impacted 13 random children. Hunger impacts millions of poor children. One is random, the other more predictable. There are utilitarian arguments for numbing oneself to tragedy which predictably strikes those without resources while defending those visited by random misfortune. (Note: I am not arguing for this utilitarian calculus. Just describing it.)

csomar 8y ago
Define random. The million of poor children are randomly selected too.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > Define random. The million of poor children are randomly selected too. Coarsely, what happened to these kids could happen to ours. Starvation, less likely. In-group selection is built into our natures, and that is on display here. Practically, saving these kids takes a short burst of effort. Their families will pick up the slack thereafter because they have—on average—the resources to do so. Saving children from hunger takes long stretches of coördination, together with efforts to ensure their education (to prevent the problem from repeating in the next generation). It is cruel, and there is probably a solution. But the analogy between these problems is flawed. With minimal assistance, the cave children will become self-sustaining again. That is not true for the chronically hungry.
  - csomar 8y ago
    My guess is that Thailand wanted to be on the spotlight. There are kids dying of hunger, disease, sex-enslavement, violence or negligence (car/house accidents). But they are very unlikely to be on the spotlight. We don't want to be humanly. We want to be praised for being humanly.
    - 8y ago

chx 8y ago

Is 3000 a low enough number? There are 3000 children in concentration camps in the USA separated from their parents. Edit: yes, I have chosen the words concentration camps to evoke the sceptre of the Holocaust. Also note my grandmother is still alive and an Auschwitz survivor. We. have. seen. this. before! 1. Classification 2. Symbolization 3. Discrimination 4. Dehumanization 5. Organization 6. Polarization 7. Preparation 8. Persecution 9. Extermination 10. Denial By my count, the USA is at step 8 of the ten steps of genocide. Or if you want, check the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Article 6 Genocide For the purpose of this Statute, ‘genocide’ means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Also note who signed the letter about the US not being part of said Rome Statute: https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9968.htm https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9968.htm Bolton was appointed on March 22, the disastrous zero tolerance memo came out on April 6 and I have a horrible feeling of Bolton reminding Trump and Sessions they can't be hauled to The Hague for committing a crime against humanity because the USA is not part of the ICC -- who would know this better?

jumbopapa 8y ago
> concentration camps This does nothing, but underplay the significance of the holocaust.
- Jwarder 8y ago
  But they are literal concentration camps. Concentration camps have existed before and after the Nazis; that's not some idea they invented. The horror of the Holocaust is focused around the death camps more than the concentration camps.
  - kazinator 8y ago
    The phrase "concentration camp" in the English language no longer has any literal meaning that is simply composed of "concentration" and "camp". It refers strictly to the WWII Nazi concentration camps. Anyone using the phrase and then insisting that the literal meaning was intended is thoroughly disingenuous. That speaker or writer is deliberately using the loaded term in order to troll the intended audience with a crystal clear Nazi reference.

bitL 8y ago

It's not just hunger. There is a failure on the part of their parents, i.e. by not being prudent and being selfish having kids they can't take care of; but one could argue that it's how "nature designed it" in order to increase genetic variability and a chance for the species to survive by pruning the traits not beneficial in changing environment, which we observe as inhumane deaths of small children. In the "civilized" world, unwanted children are dealt with the way they don't even register on any human statistics.

dkural 8y ago
Famine and malnutrition hits people with one children or many. Also, Subsaharan Africa, where hunger is highest per-capita, is not an "overpopulated" subcontinent, having roughly 990 million people, and a massive amount of fertile land, rainforests, natural resources. It actually has fewer people per square mile than most places. In fact arguably this is one reason for having higher mortality: People are spread over vast distances, so it's more expensive to build infrastructure to distribute food when one region is hit with a draught/famine, distribute healthcare, etc. It's simply under-developed and has not become industrialized. When American or European children were dying at higher rates it wasn't because their parents were selfish. It reflected the rate of development of the continent. Hunger was an issue after World War II in most of Europe, and the US came to their aid. The hunger there was not due to parents being selfish either.

BurningFrog 8y ago

Globalization lifts 138k people out of extreme poverty per day. http://www.newsweek.com/now-good-news-poor-are-getting-richer-696286 http://www.newsweek.com/now-good-news-poor-are-getting-riche...

trissi 8y ago
But about 3 times as much new people are born, most of them in poverty....
- los_angeles 8y ago
  But a lower percentage are in poverty every year.
- monkmartinez 8y ago
  My opinion on this is unpopular, but I will say it anyway; People shouldn't have more kids than they can afford.
  - los_angeles 8y ago
    Well, sure, but the people having 8 kids in Sudan probably aren't checking the comments on HN for family planning advice. So they are probably (well, not probably)... they ARE going to have more kids whether you like it or not. The question becomes how do we (Western society, which has more resources than we know what to do with) address the issue and try to do good in the world.
    - sangnoir 8y ago
      > The question becomes how do we (Western society, which has more resources than we know what to do with) address the issue and try to do good in the world Be involved in how your governments and MNC's behave in these countries. These entities are more likely to pay attention when you, as a voter or customer with more disposable income, say something compared to the citizens of poorer countries who have less of a voice.

HeavyStorm 8y ago

Should I quote Stalin now?

sysbell 8y ago
Something something tragedy; something something statistic! Now off to the Gulag!

dilap 8y ago

I think you need to be even more cynical. E.g., we're actively assisting in creating famine in Yemen.

los_angeles 8y ago

>Yet who shows up for the 3.1 million children who die of malnutrition every year? Bill Gates and tens of thousands of aid workers globally. The Chinese Communist Party and businessmen who outsource labor from the overfed first world to the underfed third world are by far the biggest help. Also your aunt who volunteers at the soup kitchen. Often these efforts funded by donations or aid grants (tax money, paid by you and me) from our democratically elected governments. >We can comprehend 13 people and the struggle against nature, while the scope of world hunger is far too complex and emotionally incomprehensible to mobilize enough people. Most of us can comprehend two (or more!) things at once. People are extremely mobilized about ending hunger and we have made strides against this in the last century: https://slides.ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-food-provision/ https://slides.ourworldindata.org/hunger-and-food-provision/ A few hundred people showed up to the cave for a few weeks. Tens of thousands show up to fight hunger every day.

hajile 8y ago

Do children eat dollar bills for dinner or are humans evil? If there is no food to spare, then all the money in the world won't solve the problem. If there is food to spare and people let children starve to death, then people are evil. (edit: there technically exists a third potential that there is absolutely no means of delivering food, but at that point, any discussion is pointless) EDIT: I suppose this idea makes people uncomfortable because it implies that those same people might be evil even though they don't see themselves as evil. We all want the world to be a better place, but we don't want to be inconvenienced. Rather than do something, we give a few dollars in hopes of absolution. Writing posts about starving kids is easy. Moving 100LB bags of food 12 hours a day in Sudan is much harder. "Be the change you want to see in the world"

mikec3010 8y ago

> who die of malnutrition Do they die of malnutrition or governmental corruption? I thought it was proven in the 1980's that the problem isn't a lack of food, it's the degenerate political systems blocking aid from reaching those who are dying. At least that's the prevailing narrative on reddit.

vkou 8y ago
It's both corruption, and economics. A lot of places with famines are capable of being self-sufficient, in terms of food production, but it's just not profitable for farmers to grow it (And sell it domestically). When a million people died in the Irish potato famine, it wasn't just because the United Kingdom prevented foreign aid from reaching Ireland. Ireland was the breadbasket of the empire - throughout that entire time, it was a net exporter of food.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
Maken 8y ago
There is also the issue that food is not free and people starving can't pay for it.
- mikec3010 8y ago
  Which fuels corruption. Charity imports tons of food for the poor, only to be intercepted by someone in the government and resold for profit. I admit that's a generalisation and I have no idea what actually happens. I've only read that the food has a very hard time making it to those who need it most. Which is why I applaud Gates' charity for rethinking it and trying to get to the root of the problem.
- coryfklein 8y ago
  I honestly think this is an oversimplification. 1. Food is free for the starving in many places around the world. 2. Where it isn't free, a meal of rice and beans is usually within reach of even the poorest. 3. Where it is out of reach of the poor, it may be due to corruption; ie North Korea redirecting food supplies to the army instead of the public, and withholding it from prison camps. Don't fixate on the price or you'll miss the forest for the trees.

lisper 8y ago

It also has to do with drama (saving a kid from starvation doesn't make gripping television) and the perceived futility of it. So you give a kid a meal. Then what? The next day the kid is in exactly the same situation as before. To say nothing of the fact that most starvation is caused by distribution problems that are ultimately rooted in intransigent-seeming politics. When you try to get a kid out of a cave there is at least some hope of lasting success.

chongli 8y ago

Yet who shows up for the 3.1 million children who die of malnutrition every year? Billionaires like Bill Gates. Countless volunteer aid workers with organizations such as MSF. Fact #1: Since 1960, child deaths have plummeted from 20 million a year to 6 million a year. [1] This was posted quite recently here on HN. Perhaps you missed it. At the end of the day, the problem of child poverty and the death and suffering it causes is an enormous one but we are making progress on it. Could we do better? Yes. Could we do worse? Oh yes, way way worse. [1] https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Max-Roser-three-facts-everyone-should-know https://www.gatesnotes.com/Development/Max-Roser-three-facts...

tomjen3 8y ago
I hear that argument a lot. 6 million is a holocaust a year, I don't know if that is worth celebrating.
- dkasper 8y ago
  It is worth celebrating because 14 million per year were saved.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  20 million a year minus 6 million a year is 14 million a year. That's over two holocausts a year that are no longer dying. That's worth celebrating... ... without forgetting the holocaust a year that is still happening.
- mikepurvis 8y ago
  Focus on celebrating the 14 million not dying, and the trajectory that it represents.
- coryfklein 8y ago
  You literally turned the number on its head. Obviously OP is not celebrating 6 million dead, but celebrating the 14 million saved.
  - 8y ago

blhack 8y ago

Every person who works at Monsanto or pioneer seed? Every tax paying American, person who gives to charity?

Shivetya 8y ago

13 people were in their situation by chance and bad luck. 3.1 million people are in their position likely because of corrupt governments. We can help the 13 because government is not the cause and there is nothing to undo, we cannot help the 3.1 as easily because it would take either removing the government in power to putting the 3.1 in further jeopardy trying to fix it. So the real question becomes, when will the world recognize that some small countries need outside governance to see to the needs of their people. Right now sovereignty is absolute unless the nation in question threatens a neighboring country.

class4behavior 8y ago

It's about conceptual accessibility to the solution. When you have a small group dying of hunger because of a drought, it is easy to perceive what to do and your ability to realize it. So people are more likely to speak up. If a drought affects an entire nation, you're at least aware this must be a complicated task. So you're more reluctant to criticize inaction. That behavior is especially problematic when the solutions are abstract or long-term.

IkmoIkmo 8y ago

A ridiculous amount of people, institutions, resources. There's just no media drama. The effort is there, although not large enough imo.

coldseattle 8y ago

"Obesity a bigger problem than world hunger, Lancet study says" https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/obesity-a-bigger-problem-than-world-hunger-lancet-study-says-20160317-gnlbwk.html https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/obesity-a-bigger-problem-t...

pascalxus 8y ago

but you have to admit humanity has made great progress in reducing extreme poverty over the last 40 years.