Who's job is it to feed the world?

[TakeYouToTasker]

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

I'm not disagreeing; I just don't see how it can be accomplished without a strong military presence at this point. I believe we're well past the point of no return here. We missed our window by about 10-15 years.

[Wacka]

Soylent Green!

[Chef Jim]

 

 

Just supply more alcohol and problem solved.

 

Ok but whose job is it to provide the alcohol and what's their number!

[600cc]

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.

 

PPP classic bait and switch. Dangle two quasi related topics out and see what tossed salad comes out. You see, I'm a lurker and I have been reading here for a while. It is fun to read and learn and other times just want to DC Tom people.

 

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.

Her question, or my question wasn't really a question at all but a link and a topic JumpStart.

 

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.

 

Yes that was intentional. I was surprised it took so long for some one to pick up on, but it was quite amusing.

I'm not disagreeing; I just don't see how it can be accomplished without a strong military presence at this point. I believe we're well past the point of no return here. We missed our window by about 10-15 years.

 

We are past the point of no return in many respects... That is why I am glad there are still many such as you, willing to provide valid discussion on items and topics that the rest of the world lets pass them by. Our strong military presence is our protection. What does america need protection from? All the issues that boil on the surface or just beneath. Beneath a media front of freedom of data access, there is so much hidden now- but who is there to care? Us.

 

Feed the world? It is no ones job. Yes there have been significant breakthroughs in science, food management, etc but politics and science do not always mesh well.

 

Where is the line between big brother and watch out for yourself? Where do you step in and say, OK this is enough? Throw in countries with varying viewpoints and making everyone happy and what do you have? A mess!

Edited August 16, 2013 by 600cc