3 ms·

Those numbers don't take into account the cost of achieving world peace. The plans admit that people will still starve in wars. However, those numbers include t

by HWR_14 2y ago

Those numbers don't take into account the cost of achieving world peace. The plans admit that people will still starve in wars. However, those numbers include things like creating more conflict-resilient infrastructure so fewer people starve in that case. Currently people are starving from lack of immediate money for food, for infrastructure to deliver it, etc. The interest off of the combined fortunes of Bezos and Gates would be enough to fix all the non-violent causes. Obviously, their fortunes are insufficient to fix climate change or achieve world peace. But world hunger is an actual solvable problem.

nradov 2y ago
That's just completely delusional. There is no amount of money that can create conflict-resilient infrastructure. If billionaires want to donate money to hunger relief then great, it will likely do some good. But the reality is that in conflict zones and failed states, most of the money and food aid gets stolen by corrupt local officials or armed groups. Aid workers can't directly distribute food to the hungry because they literally get shot for trying. World hunger is not a solvable problem. The best we can manage is disaster relief in countries that are still mostly functional.
- HWR_14 2y ago
  You can keep just saying it's impossible, but Oxfam and the UN have plans that use those two sums and claim to alleviate all non-violent causes for world hunger. The Oxfam plan also talks about plans to make the food system more resilient to effects like war. Instead of just saying it's impossible, please look up their plan and respond to it.
  - nradov 2y ago
    Which specific plans are you referring to? Please provide references. Oxfam and the UN do some good work on hunger relief. But the notion that some sort of plan can overcome extreme levels of corruption, theft, and violence is so ridiculous that it's unworthy of a serious response. The statements that I have seen from Oxfam and the UN on that issue have been so vague as to be meaningless. They essentially require good faith cooperation by the very militant groups that intentionally want to starve their enemies, or profit by embezzling money and stealing supplies.

by HWR_14 2y ago

nradov 2y ago

That's just completely delusional. There is no amount of money that can create conflict-resilient infrastructure. If billionaires want to donate money to hunger relief then great, it will likely do some good. But the reality is that in conflict zones and failed states, most of the money and food aid gets stolen by corrupt local officials or armed groups. Aid workers can't directly distribute food to the hungry because they literally get shot for trying. World hunger is not a solvable problem. The best we can manage is disaster relief in countries that are still mostly functional.

HWR_14 2y ago
You can keep just saying it's impossible, but Oxfam and the UN have plans that use those two sums and claim to alleviate all non-violent causes for world hunger. The Oxfam plan also talks about plans to make the food system more resilient to effects like war. Instead of just saying it's impossible, please look up their plan and respond to it.
- nradov 2y ago
  Which specific plans are you referring to? Please provide references. Oxfam and the UN do some good work on hunger relief. But the notion that some sort of plan can overcome extreme levels of corruption, theft, and violence is so ridiculous that it's unworthy of a serious response. The statements that I have seen from Oxfam and the UN on that issue have been so vague as to be meaningless. They essentially require good faith cooperation by the very militant groups that intentionally want to starve their enemies, or profit by embezzling money and stealing supplies.