Feed the hungry?

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Nosferatu_Alucard, Feb 17, 2009.

  1. Nosferatu_Alucard

    Nosferatu_Alucard Undead Intellectual

    Why should we feed the hungry? Is wanting to feed the hungry helping us or hurting us?

    We increase food production to feed the "hungry". The more food, the more we reproduce. The more we reproduce, the more people. The more people, the less food to go around. People begin to starve. The more starving, the more we increase food production to feed them. Are we really helping them? Might we be actually allowing them to produce more to starve? The more starving, the more we feel obligated to feed them. There can only be so many resources. We are on the ascent our carrying capacity. Maybe we should start trying to control the population.

  2. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    I think the point you're going to encounter is that most people gorge themselves, meaning our food production is off the charts because we overindulge. If people weren't so fat (basically), we'd be able to feed the hungry.

    Charity work is the best we've got at the moment so yeah, why not feed the hungry if we can?
  3. oxyMORON

    oxyMORON A Darker Knight

    I would try to teach the hungry how to fish, rather than keep giving them fish, so to speak. I guess that means we'd be better off teaching them how to make their own rather than handing them food. I do think it gets pointless if developed nations just keep giving their food to developing nations. But like Constantine said, we wouldn't need to increase food production that much, or at all, if we just didn't indulge so much and so often. However, that's a lifestyle few are willing to give up. :shake:
  4. Nosferatu_Alucard

    Nosferatu_Alucard Undead Intellectual

    Even if we all started to eat less, population is still going to rise. When we do not have control of the population, there are hungry people regardless of how much we eat. If we ate the absolute minimum to get by, the population will still rise. A higher population calls for more food production. It is a cycle that is going to continue until we cannot maintain our species on Earth. Feeding the hungry is bringing us to eventual oblivion.
  5. Stab-o-Matic5000

    Stab-o-Matic5000 Cutting Edge in Murder

    Would you advocate the mass murder of starving people in third world countries? They are, after all, just leading to the demise of our species based on the opinions that you've put forward.
  6. icegoat63

    icegoat63 Son of Liberty V.I.P. Lifetime

    This is kinda funny because I was thinking about creating a thread pondering the question "Should the US just stick to Isolationist standpoint" after reading the replies in the immigration thread.

    Me personally, I'm all for non-interventionism and Protectionism. I'd rather see US Dollars stay within our borders and keep our hands to ourself. Third World Countries have a tenancy to go to the highest bidder. Thinking out, how many places in Africa have we helped out only to have them turn around and have their government bought by some Drug Lord that threatens the liberties of the people there?

    Think about if all the money that was pumped overseas to places like that, if all the Special interest groups that cater to the sick over there, if all that were kept on the homeland and used for the betterment of US Citizens and Structure... imagine how much more nice it'd be here.

    I'm just curious what inspires the US Machine to think it has a Big Brother Complex where it must help out these places?

    So feed the hungry... I dont understand why that has to be our duty.
  7. Stab-o-Matic5000

    Stab-o-Matic5000 Cutting Edge in Murder

    The question seems like it's not a question of "Should the US feed the hungry?" It's more of a question of "Should the hungry be fed?"

    The argument that American tax dollars shouldn't be spent on such a thing is one thing, but Nosferatu is arguing that feeding the hungry shouldn't be done period, since they breed and create more hunger.
  8. icegoat63

    icegoat63 Son of Liberty V.I.P. Lifetime

    well if you put it in that context.

    Its like giving cash to a bum. If you feed a habit to someone who isnt willing to work for themselves, then they'll never learn to fend for themselves and thus just be a parasite sucking the blood out of its host.

    I'm with Oxy in the sense of, teach the Hungry how to feed themselves. At least then they'll be able to cope when we cant do it anymore.
  9. Nosferatu_Alucard

    Nosferatu_Alucard Undead Intellectual

    No, I would not. That is not what I said either.

    If people are not able to provide themselves with food, there is a reason. We are screwing with nature in our attempts to feed the hungry. Whether or not we realize this, we are going to suffer in the long run. Our amazing adaptations have made us able to bypass nature, but nature is going to catch up with us.
  10. Stab-o-Matic5000

    Stab-o-Matic5000 Cutting Edge in Murder

    The problem with that logic is that it assumes that these people are starving because they don't know how to farm. What about people who are subjugated by corrupt despots?
    See my argument above about the reasons why people aren't able to provide themselves with food. Some of it is overcrowding, but some people live in hellholes that were created by the acts of man.

    I'm just saying, if the argument against feeding the hungry is because it will make overpopulation a bigger problem, why not cut out the middle man of starvation ourselves and just kill them? After all, a quick and painless death would be preferable to the long and torturous process of starving to death.

    By the way, for those who couldn't tell, that last paragraph was sarcastic.

    There is a big difference between what Ice and Oxy are saying and what you are saying, Nos. Ice and Oxy are proposing to better their condition by means other than just giving them food, while your argument is essentially that it is better for them to die.

Share This Page