ocean farming. we have vast swaths of unused ocean. sea weed, fish, mussel etc. i read that an area the size of the state of oregon could feed the world, so we have basically unlimited potential. plus sea weed captures a lot more carbon than trees do.
the USA should promote ocean farms to help alleviate hunger
USA is already a food exporter. We are one of the few countries that pays the farmers to NOT grow food.
more shitty liberal policies that will cost trillions
If you want to alleviate world hunger you have 2 options.
1) Reduce the birth rate.
2) Export Capitalism.
I vaguely read somewhere that the problem isn't with food. Globally we already produce enough food to feed everyone. The issue is getting the food to where it needs to be.
Sea is sacred. If you're gonna do this, truly respect the life.
And that failure is a direct consequence of capitalism.
Cause socialist nations can just wave a magic wand and instantly transport food into 3rd world shitholes controlled by warlords and crime cartels...
Keep it up Eurotrash.
Took the words right out of my mouth
I mean what benefit do these warlords have for not having a fed population?
If anything this would aid them since this means they'd have stronger and more soldiers at their disposal.
When you have the guns, you can afford to steal the food from USAID and sell it on the black market and buy even more guns with it. What food remains is given to the soldiers only.
Did you just fall out of the baby cradle? How do you not know this?
Here is a fun clip you can watch of a warlord burning food right in front of his people.
we make enough food to feed ten billion people, and we have like seven billion currently. within thirty years, we should have a full ten billion people where levels are expected to level off. so, the thing is, we'd have to ration our food to get it to everyone, assuming we could get it to everyone. everyone who knows anything about this topic knows we need a game changer in food production, but farmland isn't increasing in productivity enough. the game changer is to tap the oceans.
true, political instability is a bigger problem than food production. unlike parrot says, it's not so much capitalism that needs promoted, cause i would guess most thirty world countries are free market. the real solution is for them to stablize their institutions, like police and the rule of law. but not everywhere can produce their own food, even if we got them stable. there needs to be cheaper sources of protein and nutrition, and the only way to do that is ocean farming.
cause i would guess most thir(d) world countries are free market.
Lol, how far up your ass did you have to reach to pull this out?
If you want to alleviate world hunger you have 2 options.1) Reduce the birth rate.
For the most part birth rates slows as resultant of higher standard of living,
..the question becomes, what is the longer term detriment to ecological environment that sustains us all, in acquiring this higher standard of life with increasing ---even if slower birth rates exists--- human population,
2) Export Capitalism.
If Capatilism was the answer to human over population problem, they would not have instituted their one-child-per-family policies, and in fact, their increased acitvity to free market as allowed them to amend the one-child-policy for those who have the money.
Unification of all nations as one integrated humanity is the answer, not free market or capitalism.
Capitalism primarily makes for division of humanity into haves, and have-nots, and that is not a long term solution.
All good points. Perhaps natural hunger isn't really a bad thing. Most animals in nature die from hunger after all, and we don't think twice about it. Time to get back in touch with the planet.
This is an anecdotal claim, can you actually provide me studies or statistics done on the matter instead of one youtube video?
There are countless charities that aid these foreign countries that aren't killed.
Last I checked, I don't see these countries targeting these charity groups so why would they resist redistribution of food?
Even if you want to argue that there are several closed-off nations like North Korea and Venezuela which would resist. There are still countless countries that wouldn't resist as demonstrated by these organizations.
Why should we not help these nations who wouldn't resist our efforts?
Anecdotal? Really? How much literature have you read on the governments and the economies of 3rd world nations? Let's exchange ideas since you claim to be somewhat educated on the matter.
I just edited my previous post and I'd ask you to read it.
I cite to you countless organizations who give help to these warlord owned countries that don't resist.
Here is a quick summary of a good book on this topic. Unless you think books you do not agree with are "anecdotal" too.
Those links do not address the give a fish/teach to fish problem.
Charity will always be susceptible to massive corruption and waste in unstable 3rd world countries run by inferior governments. Sending aid isn't nearly as important to the well being of the people than solving the internal problems of the country, which in many cases is hampered by aid as it keeps the people from having an incentive to invest in their local nation.
You scoff at my video clip of a Venezuelan aid truck being set afire by Maduro, but Venezuelans are not going to see their lives improved nearly as much with aid trucks than they will with seeing Maduro gone. If you want to call that "anecdotal" that's fine because it's the collective experiences of 90% of the people remaining in Venezuela who want to see Maduro gone and 100% of the personal experiences of the 5 million people who want Maduro gone who had to flee the nation to feed their families. That's a pretty powerful "anecdote."
Those links do not address the give a fish/teach to fish problem.
These countries are developing and working on it. However, I fail to see where this gets rid of incentivization.
Can you provide me examples of charities stopping countries from developing on their own? Believe it or not, these countries run by warlords want to be self-sufficient and not live off of welfare for their entire life. Let's compare this to the welfare system in the United States since by your logic, welfare should disincentivize people from working.
According to this source ever since welfare programs in the United States increased, poverty has steadily declined massively.
By your logic, the poverty rates should be increased due to the amount of government assistance which simply isn't true.
Not to mention later on in the article it points out that in 2016 only 10 - 20 Percent of people on welfare were frauds.
This is a decent chunk however you're really going to let the 80 % suffer because a chunk of people cheat the system?
Not to mention a lot of the charities I've cited don't just donate water, food, or housing.
A lot of the organizations I listed such as charity water and water.org actually go out and give education on ways to catch water, provide them pumps and wells, and how to make their own rain catchers.
There are also plenty of other charities that build schools and provide education to less fortunate people in poorer 3rd world countries.
So actually yes this is solving the problem you're bringing up because I agree I do believe we need to provide them education and assistance and not just hand them food.
The steps we ought to take is to provide them food, water, and housing and then provide them education.
This way they have everything they need to survive but aren't reliant on us.
Sending aid isn't nearly as important to the well being of the people than solving the internal problems of the country, which in many cases is hampered by aid as it keeps the people from having an incentive to invest in their local nation.
No citation to back itself up. I previously provided welfare statistics so this time I'll provide healthcare statistics.
Statistically, the United States currently is leading in innovation technically.
However, if you actually think about it, the innovation data doesn't include the size of the countries as the United States is one of the largest countries in the world with a higher population than most developed nations with socialized healthcare. IE Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, and Switzerland.
Once you take into account innovation per capita and population size and do calculations on the data, you'll find out that the United States when keeping in mind population, doesn't lead in innovation.
The article I'll provide a link to is very long and full of fluff so I'll make it easier on you and quote the important part where he/she breaks it down.
Here's what I did to provide us with data on this question that's actually informative: Using statistics provided by Data.WorldBank.org, I totaled up the GDP and the populations for these countries, calculated each country's respective percentages in these two areas, and I then compared these percentages against the percent of new drugs produced in each country.
- Picture of the data table
Here's how to interpret this data: Basically, if the percentage of NCEs produced is higher than that country's GDP and population percentage, they can be classified as more innovative, because they're producing a larger share of new pharmaceuticals, per capita; conversely, if the NCE percentages—the numbers in blue—are lower than the GDP and population percentage, then we can classify the country as less innovative, because that country is producing fewer new pharmaceuticals, per capita.
- How to interpret it.
Let's first look at the United States. As we can see, in 1980, 90, and 2000, the United States' share of NCEs produced was actually substantially lower than both its share of GDP and population: about 12%, 11%, and 6% lower, respectively. So historically, the United States has actually been underperforming in terms of pharmaceutical innovation!Only by the year 2010 did the United States' NCE percentage surpass both the GDP and population by about 9%. So Crowder is actually presenting us with an inverted and misleading interpretation of this data: What's portrayed as U.S. dominance is actually the United States struggling to catch up with these other countries—only in the most recent years slightly surpassing them!Let's now take a look at the average of these other five countries: In 1980, 90, and 2000, the percent of NCEs produced was higher than both the GDP and population percentages. That is to say, these countries have been more innovative, historically, than the United States. Even in the year 2010, the percent of NCEs produced still matches up with their percent of the GDP and population, so these countries have been doing—and continue to do—just fine in terms of pharmaceutical innovation. Any argument that these countries aren't sufficiently contributing to this area, while the United States is picking up all the slack, is simply not in agreement with the data.
Summary: The United States isn't leading in innovation due to it being privatized. It's only because of population sizes since when you take this into account, the United States historically hasn't been leading. However, coincidently it's now leading once more socialized medicine programs such as Obama care and Medicaid are introduced.
This data provides us insight that socialized healthcare doesn't halt innovation when the United States once introducing welfare programs is now slightly leading but historically hasn't been leading until recently.
I've now provided to you two full examples of socialized programs, not disincentivizing innovation.
That's a pretty powerful "anecdote."
You've cherry-picked out one country of many that haven't resisted foreign aid. Yet completely ignored the entire lists of countries that haven't resisted foreign aid.
So no this isn't a powerful anecdote, especially when you consider that Venezuela is one of the most closed-off countries in the world.
The picture of a data table is a google search on a sizing guide for Nike shoes.
Sorry, I tried to see if I can post a link to a google search containing the picture but it didn't work.
I apologize however anyone reading this will just have to scroll down and find it.
It's the 6th photo down.