Register or Login

Support

Ask your question

Search

Visual Collection

Popular Questions

Most active users

  • Thai sean 952 posts | member since Nov 11, 2007
  • thedoc 1274 posts | member since Sep 10, 2006
  • April 826 posts | member since Apr 14, 2008
  • parabole 21 posts | member since Feb 8, 2010
  • Galactus 13 posts | member since Feb 8, 2010

Films

Question

3 responses | 0 votes

Nov 7, 2009 4:30:57 PM cite

If we solve world hunger, and everybody is fed, this would ultimately stimulate a growth in population resulting in more destruction of nature to house the growing population. So do you decide to feed everyone, or let nature do its thing?

by Roark Thurston

Please login to rate.

Nov 7, 2009 4:44:31 PM cite

The reason I ask this, is because the government pays farmers not to farm. We spend over 1 billion dollars to pay people not to farm. I do understand the economics of this. But why couldn't we pay them TOO farm, and donate the crops to charities that need food. It never hits the market to cause inflation because it bypasses the market by donating it. People are fed and "happy". But this goes back to my recent posting. Feed people and stimualte the population, which would result in the need for more housing and more food, or is this simply a way of population control?

by Roark Thurston

Please login to rate.