5 ms·

Sorry to say it, but that list doesn't include the most obvious cause of hunger. _People who reproduce when they don't have a reasonable expectation of feeding

by crusso 13y ago

Sorry to say it, but that list doesn't include the most obvious cause of hunger. _People who reproduce when they don't have a reasonable expectation of feeding their offspring._ It seems like a whole class of possible solutions to the problem of hunger are ignored with such a tunnel vision approach to the problem.

tremendo 13y ago
First sentence: "The world produces enough to feed the entire global population of 7 billion people."
- crusso 13y ago
  What does world surplus food have to do with someone's reasonable expectation that they can get food for their future children? Bill Gates has surplus millions but I'm not going to build a new garage for the Porche I can buy with all his excess money.
DanBC 13y ago
Most people have children with the expectation of being able to feed them, and then things change. You claim it's the most obvious cause of hunger, but do you have anything to support that claim?
- crusso 13y ago
  Most people have children with the expectation of being able to feed them See already you're off base. Someone's individual expectation is not at all necessarily a "reasonable expectation". There are lots of gamblers in Vegas who expect to win big tonight... doesn't mean their expectations are reasonable. but do you have anything to support that claim What, like statistical evidence? No. I don't have statistical evidence that my car is parked outside either, but I'll still take a chance on it by walking to the spot where I left it earlier.
  - 011011100 13y ago
    "See already you're off base. Someone's individual expectation is not at all necessarily a "reasonable expectation". There are lots of gamblers in Vegas who expect to win big tonight... doesn't mean their expectations are reasonable." How should people make decisions if they can't trust their own judgment? You're going to one extreme and saying "lots of people are unreasonable". Ok, great. Lots of people are also very reasonable. "See already you're off base." That's just a fancy way of starting off the conversation by saying "you're wrong". No, he probably just doesn't agree with you. You should stop trying to frame everything in this objective manner. It's actually really obnoxious.
    - crusso 13y ago
      That's just a fancy way of starting off the conversation by saying "you're wrong" Not pointing out when someone is demonstrably wrong in a discussion is as useless and futile as pretending to want to solve poverty and hunger but not addressing the core issue. Discussing topics like this on the Internet is already fairly useless. No sense in making it worse with a bunch of disingenuous and logically incorrect validation of opinions.
      - DanBC 13y ago
        > demonstrably wrong Your inability to demonstrate it has been noted.
        crusso 13y ago
        Your insistence that this is even a discussion about statistics and proof or based on an article that isn't almost purely an opinion piece without statistics or proof is noted.
        DanBC 13y ago
        Hey, I'm giving you the opportunity to change my mind. I'm listening to you, and asking you to provide information that will change my mind. You haven't done so. That leads me to think that your first comment was a knee-jerk opinion with nothing to support it, and that you're continuing to defend that position because you "feel" it's correct, even though it could well be wrong. Your weird insistence that it's right, even though you're unable to provide any evidence to support it, is odd. I freely accept that the article I submitted is opinion - but it's informed opinion from people who work in this field. The article has links to other organisations who've published research on hunger, and the website for WFP contains a lot of their published research. So, I'm faced with a multi-national multi-government agency with a lot of published research and many years of expertise saying one thing. And I have some random Internet commenter saying something else, and getting defensive when asked to supply any kind of citation for their claims. At the moment I'm dismissing what you say. But, like I said, I'm open to persuasion.
- lnanek2 13y ago
  That seems wildly unlikely to me. Most people have kids. That's it. They sure as hell don't plan them out and make sure they will be able to provide for them. What's next, do you think most people plan out and save for their retirement too? Why do you think we need a social security program instead of just letting people expect to be able to retire? Answer: people don't.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    > They sure as hell don't plan them out and make sure they will be able to provide for them. But they don't start from a position of being dirt poor, in a situation where they don't have land to farm. They start with having land, and seed, and health. And then HIV/AIDS kills the family, removing a generation, leaving young children and grandparents to farm. Or there's a drought, lasting five years, destroying crops. Or there's a flood, destroying livestock. Or their main crop (eg Quinoa) becomes fashionable, driving up prices, leaving them without food. The sentence I'm responding to is: _People who reproduce when they don't have a reasonable expectation of feeding their offspring._ but actually people are successful farmers who's life changes after multiple, year on year, disaster. http://www.irinnews.org/printreport.aspx?reportid=94947 http://www.irinnews.org/printreport.aspx?reportid=94947 That article gives a pretty good overview of the multiple events that cripple farmers. See also the slide show "Too Poor To Farm" http://www.irinnews.org/photo/?id=43 http://www.irinnews.org/photo/?id=43
kephra 13y ago
Its natural human behavior, that the wealthy middle class people have only few children and invest in their education, while the poor have lots of children, in the hope two of them survive long enough to feed their parents, once they retire. The only solution to this problem is fighting poverty, and educating women.
- jk4930 13y ago
  >natural human behavior, that the wealthy people have only few children It's a socioeconomic phenomenon of the Industrial Age's middle class, the upper class continue to multiply like in the good old times, having 3 to 6 kids is not uncommon.
  - kephra 13y ago
    Sorry, thats not limited to industrial age, Ancient Greek, Rome and Babylon had the same problem.
    - jk4930 13y ago
      Ancient world: fertility rates are positively correlated with prosperity. (E.g., the Roman Empire's decline of fertility rate at the end is caused by the economic troubles of the dying empire.) Industrial Age: fertility rates (of the middle classes) are negatively correlated with prosperity.

by crusso 13y ago

tremendo 13y ago

First sentence: "The world produces enough to feed the entire global population of 7 billion people."

crusso 13y ago
What does world surplus food have to do with someone's reasonable expectation that they can get food for their future children? Bill Gates has surplus millions but I'm not going to build a new garage for the Porche I can buy with all his excess money.

DanBC 13y ago

Most people have children with the expectation of being able to feed them, and then things change. You claim it's the most obvious cause of hunger, but do you have anything to support that claim?

crusso 13y ago
Most people have children with the expectation of being able to feed them See already you're off base. Someone's individual expectation is not at all necessarily a "reasonable expectation". There are lots of gamblers in Vegas who expect to win big tonight... doesn't mean their expectations are reasonable. but do you have anything to support that claim What, like statistical evidence? No. I don't have statistical evidence that my car is parked outside either, but I'll still take a chance on it by walking to the spot where I left it earlier.
- 011011100 13y ago
  "See already you're off base. Someone's individual expectation is not at all necessarily a "reasonable expectation". There are lots of gamblers in Vegas who expect to win big tonight... doesn't mean their expectations are reasonable." How should people make decisions if they can't trust their own judgment? You're going to one extreme and saying "lots of people are unreasonable". Ok, great. Lots of people are also very reasonable. "See already you're off base." That's just a fancy way of starting off the conversation by saying "you're wrong". No, he probably just doesn't agree with you. You should stop trying to frame everything in this objective manner. It's actually really obnoxious.
  - crusso 13y ago
    That's just a fancy way of starting off the conversation by saying "you're wrong" Not pointing out when someone is demonstrably wrong in a discussion is as useless and futile as pretending to want to solve poverty and hunger but not addressing the core issue. Discussing topics like this on the Internet is already fairly useless. No sense in making it worse with a bunch of disingenuous and logically incorrect validation of opinions.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      > demonstrably wrong Your inability to demonstrate it has been noted.
      - crusso 13y ago
        Your insistence that this is even a discussion about statistics and proof or based on an article that isn't almost purely an opinion piece without statistics or proof is noted.
        DanBC 13y ago
        Hey, I'm giving you the opportunity to change my mind. I'm listening to you, and asking you to provide information that will change my mind. You haven't done so. That leads me to think that your first comment was a knee-jerk opinion with nothing to support it, and that you're continuing to defend that position because you "feel" it's correct, even though it could well be wrong. Your weird insistence that it's right, even though you're unable to provide any evidence to support it, is odd. I freely accept that the article I submitted is opinion - but it's informed opinion from people who work in this field. The article has links to other organisations who've published research on hunger, and the website for WFP contains a lot of their published research. So, I'm faced with a multi-national multi-government agency with a lot of published research and many years of expertise saying one thing. And I have some random Internet commenter saying something else, and getting defensive when asked to supply any kind of citation for their claims. At the moment I'm dismissing what you say. But, like I said, I'm open to persuasion.
lnanek2 13y ago
That seems wildly unlikely to me. Most people have kids. That's it. They sure as hell don't plan them out and make sure they will be able to provide for them. What's next, do you think most people plan out and save for their retirement too? Why do you think we need a social security program instead of just letting people expect to be able to retire? Answer: people don't.
- DanBC 13y ago
  > They sure as hell don't plan them out and make sure they will be able to provide for them. But they don't start from a position of being dirt poor, in a situation where they don't have land to farm. They start with having land, and seed, and health. And then HIV/AIDS kills the family, removing a generation, leaving young children and grandparents to farm. Or there's a drought, lasting five years, destroying crops. Or there's a flood, destroying livestock. Or their main crop (eg Quinoa) becomes fashionable, driving up prices, leaving them without food. The sentence I'm responding to is: _People who reproduce when they don't have a reasonable expectation of feeding their offspring._ but actually people are successful farmers who's life changes after multiple, year on year, disaster. http://www.irinnews.org/printreport.aspx?reportid=94947 http://www.irinnews.org/printreport.aspx?reportid=94947 That article gives a pretty good overview of the multiple events that cripple farmers. See also the slide show "Too Poor To Farm" http://www.irinnews.org/photo/?id=43 http://www.irinnews.org/photo/?id=43

kephra 13y ago

Its natural human behavior, that the wealthy middle class people have only few children and invest in their education, while the poor have lots of children, in the hope two of them survive long enough to feed their parents, once they retire. The only solution to this problem is fighting poverty, and educating women.

jk4930 13y ago
>natural human behavior, that the wealthy people have only few children It's a socioeconomic phenomenon of the Industrial Age's middle class, the upper class continue to multiply like in the good old times, having 3 to 6 kids is not uncommon.
- kephra 13y ago
  Sorry, thats not limited to industrial age, Ancient Greek, Rome and Babylon had the same problem.
  - jk4930 13y ago
    Ancient world: fertility rates are positively correlated with prosperity. (E.g., the Roman Empire's decline of fertility rate at the end is caused by the economic troubles of the dying empire.) Industrial Age: fertility rates (of the middle classes) are negatively correlated with prosperity.