Who's job is it to feed the world?

[GG]

The issues self-conflate.

 

Of course they do ...

[Wacka]

Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa. Then Mugabe took power.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Of course they do ...

The title of the thread begs the question "Whose job is it to feed the world?" (well, technically is states "Who is job to feed the world?", but I digress...). This implies that it is, in fact, an assigned job.

 

Which means that the question demands two answers based on a single assumption. You're simply disregarding the second. You're free to do that, of course, though I find it silly.

[GG]

The title of the thread begs the question "Whose job is it to feed the world?" (well, technically is states "Who is job to feed the world?", but I digress...). This implies that it is, in fact, an assigned job.

 

Which means that the question demands two answers based on a single assumption. You're simply disregarding the second. You're free to do that, of course, though I find it silly.

 

Not my problem that the OP doesn't understand the miss-link between his questions and the article he posted. There's plenty of available food to feed the world. The countries that are starving have bigger issues to fix than finding arable land. USA's job is to help those countries fix their problems.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Not my problem that the OP doesn't understand the miss-link between his questions and the article he posted.

I think his question was geo-political, rather than physical.

 

There's plenty of available food to feed the world.

And with this phrasing you've acquiesed to his desire to make it geo-political rather than physical. There is plenty of food available. What to do with the food is in the province of those who own it. It's possible, however, that I'm misunderstanding your meaning. Do you mean: "There is enough food in the world, that were it to be equitably allocated, no one would be hungry." And, if you do mean that, aren't you implying that there is a desirable system for equitable allocation?

 

The countries that are starving have bigger issues to fix than finding arable land.

I don't know that they have bigger problems, but they certainly do have more immediate problems, however, I won't quibble here.

 

USA's job is to help those countries fix their problems.

This is a bit ambiguous. Is this a fiat declaration that America's government is responsible for helping these countries fix their problems? If so, how? We've already agreed that both aid and military intervention will only serve to make things worse. If it's rather a more general statement that individuals and private entities, such as a private charity I'm involved with that helps teach African farmers and villagers to dig clean water wells, irrigate fields, and rotate crops, can assume this mantle themselves if it suits them, then I don't disagree.

Edited August 14, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[Tiberius]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130801125704.htm

 

 

 

How about we devote Africa to producing the worlds food supply?

 

Food supply isn't the problem with feeding the hungry, logistics, finance, management of resources are. Agricultural production is always based on what can be sold, if more could be sold production could be massively increased in many nations. Take a drive through western PA and look at all the Fallow land as an example

[keepthefaith]

Food supply isn't the problem with feeding the hungry, logistics, finance, management of resources are. Agricultural production is always based on what can be sold, if more could be sold production could be massively increased in many nations. Take a drive through western PA and look at all the Fallow land as an example

 

Yes and this is further support that excess CO2 is a good thing. We need it to feed plants. What liberals can't see is how well mother nature can take care of us. Burn coal and oil which will generate more CO2 to feed plants while the increased temperature melts icecaps and increases the water supply. We're !@#$ed when we run out of coal and oil because this will starve vegetation and likely put us into another ice age cycle.

[GG]

I think his question was geo-political, rather than physical.

 

 

And with this phrasing you've acquiesed to his desire to make it geo-political rather than physical. There is plenty of food available. What to do with the food is in the province of those who own it. It's possible, however, that I'm misunderstanding your meaning. Do you mean: "There is enough food in the world, that were it to be equitably allocated, no one would be hungry." And, if you do mean that, aren't you implying that there is a desirable system for equitable allocation?

 

 

I don't know that they have bigger problems, but they certainly do have more immediate problems, however, I won't quibble here.

 

 

This is a bit ambiguous. Is this a fiat declaration that America's government is responsible for helping these countries fix their problems? If so, how? We've already agreed that both aid and military intervention will only serve to make things worse. If it's rather a more general statement that individuals and private entities, such as a private charity I'm involved with that helps teach African farmers and villagers to dig clean water wells, irrigate fields, and rotate crops, can assume this mantle themselves if it suits them, then I don't disagree.

 

Food is plentiful in a physical sense. Its distribution is a different issue. Watch the ongoing fireworks of the Smithfield buyout.

 

There are plenty ways for the US to be involved in Africa outside military intervention to help stabilize and reform the wayward nations. I'm not saying it will be easy or quick. But leaving the countries to their own devices and rekindled tribal warfare is not a viable option, either.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Food is plentiful in a physical sense. Its distribution is a different issue. Watch the ongoing fireworks of the Smithfield buyout.

 

There are plenty ways for the US to be involved in Africa outside military intervention to help stabilize and reform the wayward nations. I'm not saying it will be easy or quick. But leaving the countries to their own devices and rekindled tribal warfare is not a viable option, either.

I'm curious as to what could be done without military action or direct aid. We certainly can't build infrastructure or send over engineers and contractors or other American assets without needing to protect them; and we can't protect them without major military opperations.

Edited August 14, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[boyst]

So when we ship our food there and it shifts the supply/demand scale resulting in higher prices for us... why? Is it my job to make the best $$ I can with my meat? Or is it my job to provide my neighbors a food source?

[KD in CA]

While we're on the subject of global responsibility for individual basic needs, who's (sic) job is it to make sure everyone gets laid?

 

What about the shut ins?

Edited August 14, 2013 by KD in CT

[meazza]

While we're on the subject of global responsibility for individual basic needs, who's (sic) job is it to make sure everyone gets laid?

 

What about the shut ins?

 

Just supply more alcohol and problem solved.

[....lybob]

I'm curious as to what could be done without military action or direct aid. We certainly can't build infrastructure or send over engineers and contractors or other American assets without needing to protect them; and we can't protect them without major military opperations.

don't worry about that stuff China has it covered, engineers, infrastructure, doctors, banking - in 2012 they had about double the trade with Africa as the US and that trade will probably grow about 20% a year for a long time.

[GG]

I'm curious as to what could be done without military action or direct aid. We certainly can't build infrastructure or send over engineers and contractors or other American assets without needing to protect them; and we can't protect them without major military opperations.

 

The Chinese are doing it quite well without their military involved. Western oil, mining, telecom, etc. companies always do business in unsafe places without direct military intervention.

[TakeYouToTasker]

The Chinese are doing it quite well without their military involved. Western oil, mining, telecom, etc. companies always do business in unsafe places without direct military intervention.

The Chinese don't enjoy our "infidel" and "Satan's Empire" problems in that area of the world. Additionally, our domestic politics will prevent us from doing what China does.

Edited August 14, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[GG]

The Chinese don't enjoy our "infidel" and "Satan's Empire" problems in that area of the world. Additionally, our domestic politics will prevent us from doing what China does.

 

I don't believe most of Africans view US in that light. Maybe in some countries in the northeast.

 

Still cracks me up how little credit Bush got for his attention to Africa, because you know, "Bush hates black people."

[TakeYouToTasker]

I don't believe most of Africans view US in that light. Maybe in some countries in the northeast.

You're right, most of Africans don't; but they aren't the problem. It's the growing influence of Islamists, whose teachings prey very specifically on the impovrished, in a region in which more than 80% of the population below the international poverty line. The threat is very real, and has been reflected in AFRICOM's treatment of the region; with it's intellegence leaders claiming that our information gathering and tracking resources need to be increased by 1500% in order to effectively monitor the disturbing trend.

 

Still cracks me up how little credit Bush got for his attention to Africa, because you know, "Bush hates black people."

On this we whole-heartedly agree.

[B-Large]

We don't need any more ****. We just less poeople. A growing population will be the death of this planet.

 

I hate to say it, but I agree with Chef Jim on this...

 

While we're on the subject of global responsibility for individual basic needs, who's (sic) job is it to make sure everyone gets laid?

 

What about the shut ins?

 

Last I hear that was your mother

[GG]

You're right, most of Africans don't; but they aren't the problem. It's the growing influence of Islamists, whose teachings prey very specifically on the impovrished, in a region in which more than 80% of the population below the international poverty line. The threat is very real, and has been reflected in AFRICOM's treatment of the region; with it's intellegence leaders claiming that our information gathering and tracking resources need to be increased by 1500% in order to effectively monitor the disturbing trend.

 

Which is precisely why US should be much more active in the region.

[B-Large]

I don't believe most of Africans view US in that light. Maybe in some countries in the northeast.

 

Still cracks me up how little credit Bush got for his attention to Africa, because you know, "Bush hates black people."

 

There were two excellent pieces done on GW and Laura's involvement is help Africa with the AIDS epidemic (Tanzania, man I can't remember) on Meet the Press and Face the Nation a few weeks back... I was for one really glad to hear George Bush talk about about the work they are doing there, good for him... I didn't always agree with his policies, but I never saw Gerogie Boy as a mean spirited man... People often cite Katrina as an example of his dispise for Blacks, but put anyone in that position during that unprecendented disaster and see how they would looks after a few weeks...

 

On that note, on another board, I had a discussion with some retard about how he thought George and Laura were patronizing people in Africa with the premise that "White people are here to save you".... He is a dickhead Con, and one I am sure most Con's would say to go !@#$ himself.