Nov 27, 2009 5:43:50 AM cite

“It appears to me there wouldn’t be world hunger if you lived where the foooooooooooood is. We have deserts, too, we just don’t live in them, asshole” Sam Kinison “The film crew could give this kid a sandwich – director interfering: DON’T FEED HIM YET. We need a hungry face on camera…” But to answer your question: During the process of feeding everyone, the reproduction rate would increase dramatically. Thus there would soon be more mouths to be fed … and so forth. Sooner or later you would have 9 billion to be fed. And if you do … 12 billion. And so forth … It’s a never ending process. There simply is no way around to approach this question without taking a close look at familiy planning and reproduction of our species/of our fellow human being. There are further questions to be considered: 1) A nation overcrowded with young males (which would be the necessary conclusion, since the old ones don’t multiply … just the opposite) tend to create future wars! Especially if guns are available and outside forces can make good money of it. This is known as YOUTH BULGE 2) What is known in biology science would drive off any species from the land that would logically be needed to increase the satisfaction of food for incresed population. So any of you folks out there that go like “Oh’ ain’t that qute, we gotta save that species” (while watching national geographic from your couch … ultimately being well fed … and complaining about the Africans driving off most precious and rare species) would end up being inconsequent liers. What I am talking about here is called INTRUDER PRESSURE on our fellow species of mammals…

by Strongheart

Mar 28, 2007 4:18:04 PM cite

Imagine someone else doing your job for free. You're out of work & there's no benefit money.How do you survive? In agricultural societies too much cheap food would cause the economy to collapse. Result: 3rd world countries stay dependant on the west?

by invisible

Feb 12, 2007 11:10:53 PM cite

We don't because we are selfish. We have the means to but we don't because we are to caught up in our own rat race!

by KevinSean

Jan 27, 2007 5:09:25 PM cite

the reason is purely a political one which will always be denied by the politicians ,...if food was made available to to everyone,they would multiply faster and so use the resources that the west regards as so precious,and keeps for the "superior white races",100% true

by gazsel

Sep 18, 2006 9:17:39 PM cite

The countries that have so many problems with food supply should look at the choice of having a child that cannot be fed. Why have a child if a person can barely feed themselves. Citizens in these impoverished nations should spend more time in social revolution and economic reform. The governments that care should help the citizens trapped in the "I must have as many children as possible in order to have a few survive" and help them understand the limitations that they have placed on themselves. If a family unit only has a few children, then the child(ren) willhave better chances if its large scale change. Maybe use a condom!!! If you dont believe in it, then why do you ask for the help of those that do?

by burlyrdc

Sep 9, 2006 7:25:22 PM cite

I do not think that humankind was unable to produce enough food. We could if we wanted to. So what are blocking reasons? Let's look at what keeps me busy. I get up in the morning, go to work, do my thing and hope to receive a reward for my doing: financial (income) and otherwise (social rewards). I am not alone in the world; I am one piece in a bigger puzzle. So is everyone in the food chain. It starts with a farmer, a dealer who distributes food, a processor who does something with the food, a dealer again maybe and the end consumer in the finally. Since we have left stoneage we have introduced the above complexity in our human interactions. No the farmer does not trade an apple for 1 MB of data transmitted on the internet. We have introduced a couple of things: money for one as a place holder for physical goods exchange. A trust and rights system that enable everyone in the chain to trust that agreed contracts are honored, that money will be exchange back to goods when need be. For this work there needs to be freedom: freedom to use my own brain, to do my own thing and rules that tell me how far my level of freedom goes. Yes it is easy to blame those non-tangible bodies: the state, the rich, capitalism, multi-national companies, etc. for doing the wrong thing. But in my mind whatever happens in human interactions is done by human beings, in the end always by one individual. And we know every individual has their own internal world of values. How realistic would it be to convince millions and billions of people to change their internal values? We know it is totally unrealistic. It could be saddening and I could feel so terribly sorry that the world is so bad to me. Why not follow a different strategy and start changing my own behaviour? I have the option to buy products from fair trade. I have the option to buy from my local bakery or butcher. I have the option to buy a non-genetically modified apple. I have the option to elect a party that demonstrates believe in people and liberal thinking versus a party that openly says we go to war. Many more examples. To conclude: in my mind the question we started with is wrong. It should be something like "what barrriers in ourselves do we need to overcome to enable the world to feed themselves"

by Mr Process

Sep 9, 2006 5:42:33 PM cite

Hello Amy: Because most politicians are corrupted and interested in power, because business and industry leaders are interested in money, and because the ones that live far away from poverty and hunger are not conscious about this huge and unfair issue. That's why more and more of us have to speak out, spread the word and get active. One grain of sand is nothing, many of those make a beach. Companies have to become more social and environmental responsible. But the most important asset of companies are people. No people, no company. So let them get, one by one, conscious about peace and social and environmental responsibilities. Let's buy products from companies that go in that direction. And so forth. All the best. Alf Giebler

by alfgiebler

Sep 9, 2006 2:39:14 PM cite

Giving people food does not make things better. It makes things worse. That is how we came to be (possibly). I've read ISHMAEL by Daniel Quinn and it seems as if an increase in food production leads to an increase in population. Part of the problem in world is that developed nations give food to developing nations and think it is a good thing. They feel good about themselves. But GIVING them food only makes them more reliant on you GIVING them food. I'll be back later.

by newhaventeacher