fighting world hunger

[ill-advised strategy]

see thats no true because Pinner likes me and I am better lookin, younger, smarter and happier than him.

That's what those Smallitude Healthcare benefits will do for ya.

[GFP]

A good theme movie for this thread is Beyond Borders with Angelina Jolie and Clive Owen. A bit too Hollywood for the subject matter, but all about international aid and helping here vs. helping there.

Check it out the next time you're at Blockbuster

[TJ.Brk]

[trying not to be preachy...]
Whenever I stop to think about it, which seems to be more and more often these days, it kind of sickens me to realize how many people are starving and dying in different places. I'm never sure what can really be done, but every now and then I try to remember to give some money to an anti-famine organization. I've given to wfp.org, which is associated with the UN, a few times. This past time I thought that maybe some other maggots would do the same, or could tell us about a better place to donate (I can't figure out how much of their donations actually is spent on feeding people, but I'm just hoping they're efficient about it).
Donations are tax-deductible, too, if that makes a difference.
I know it would be better to solve the conflicts and government problems that create much of the hunger in the world, but as that seems fairly hopeless I like to think these donations help people.

Also, found this site, don't know anything about it, but it claims to provide money simply based on people clicking on the sponsor ads (doesn't cost you anything), so I figured why not.
http://www.thehungersite.com/cgi-bin...jects/CTDSites

Thanks for the link dex. Great thread. I give to the UN myself and a few others that are taken out of my paycheck. Doctors without borders do alot of famine work ontop of the medical. Great place to start when looking to help feed the hungry.

[LAN]

Beyond Borders was okay.

[Platinum Pete]

The political and economic barriers that make sending money to aid organizations inefficient bother me. That's like the paperwork pushers at work who claim they cannot push a button without the proper form, despite the fact that the button is directly in front of them and they agree with my reasons to push the button now without needing the form. How can I just reach across the counter and push the facking button?
As someone who has skirted soldiers guarding boarders and evades busy work bullshit with a passion, is there any way I can contribute my skills and effort to get necessary aid to those in need? I'd do it for subsistence pay. I hate my professional job and if I had the opportunity to become a professional smuggler of international aid to the starving I'd jump at it. How does one enter that racket?
I'm a helluva salesman, too; how can I get into development work for aid organizations? (pssst, Shamrockpow: your earlier post mentioned work in this area - holla at me)

[Spats]

I'm not saying there isn't a limit to the earth's human population, just that no one has any idea what it might be--all past guesses seem to have been wrong, and it's impossible to predict what might allow us to surpass the current carrying capacity.

The real question is: how much is each of us willing to suffer in order to pack more people onto the planet?

A huge and growing population means that each of us has smaller and smaller slices of the earth's diminishing fresh water, topsoil, and oil, and each of us must work harder every day to compete for them and stay alive.

A huge and growing population means that we go to war and kill each other more often in order to protect our own shrinking resources or steal those of others.

A huge and growing population means we have a lower margin of survival, and are forced to live in less hospitable and more risky places, where we get killed by tsunamis, droughts, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions.

A huge and growing population means that even our most inaccessible wildernesses are overrun with people and subject to a confusing thicket of fees and regulations. It means our favorite trails and open spaces will continue to be erased by subdivisions, and our favorite towns and resorts will continue to be overrun by massive development and timeshare condos for rich out-of-staters. It means that we will have to work harder and harder to keep the standard of living we have now until it's no longer possible at all.

And what benefit do we get from more people? If everyone is using all their time just trying to survive, what point is there to life? People starving in grinding poverty with no electricity and no clean water don't have the time or resources to educate themselves so they can cure diseases, paint masterpieces, discover clean energy sources, write symphonies, make inventions, or do anything except try not to die.

And that's why I don't feed starving children in Africa.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Some of those are all possible outcomes, but none of them are inevitable. To suppose otherwise is wrong. A huge and growing population simply means that we need to find ways to make that population self-sufficient and part of the industrialized world, with its lower birth rates and minimal growth.
Deciding that people are not worth feeding, in effect not worth life, because we are scared of their very existence threatening 'our' resources, is needlessly heartless and robs us of our own humanity. I can't think of any real way in which feeding the hungry threatens me or anyone I personally know.
Using 'threats' to trails and open spaces from rich out of staters as justification for ignoring poverty seems little more than convenient rationalization for being selfish--and I wonder if the threat our cars, power plants, waste, and other massive consumption of resources could somehow be used by Africans to justify not feeding us. The logic would seem to lead that way, as we are certainly the greatest environmental threat around.

[shamrockpow]

If everyone is using all their time just trying to survive, what point is there to life?

You really would have disliked the first 120,000 or so years of human existence.

Only in the last 3000 years or so have humans become wealthy enough and endowed with enough free time that simply living became "pointless." I (and most other individuals on the planet) do make mental justifications for "our purpose" and "our meaning" in this world, but the bottom line is that these are psychological exercises that then drive the rest of our lives. Keeping our "relevance" in context is usually a good thing.

[sea2ski]

I think you've got it backwards. $10 for Africans can keep several people alive for a day, I doubt the money does the same here. As to which group is more likely to eventually be able to sustain themselves, I think that it's possible the American needy might be in that category, but it's not definite.

Ever taken a close at the administration costs of the organizations helping the hungry in Africa. CT Food Bank has about 6% of every dollar going toward administration costs. Based on what I read in the development publications to which my mother used to subscribe, worldwide relief organizations are more around the 50%-60% level when it comes to administration. There may be organizations which are better than that but the ability of worldwide type of organization to get volunteers to do a lot of the work will always be limited as compared to organizations in the US. It's not the food which is you major cost it's the people.

The sustainability of children into adulthood is the other part of the equation which you seem to be already aware of based on your comments. I guess I look at saving a child from starvation at birth so he can be recruited into a militia in his teens isn't doing him a favor. I think the statistic I read was more people have died from small arms in Africa since the end of the cold war(When the US and the USSR really stopped really caring about most of Africa when it came to foreign policy and foreign aid as far as I'm concerned) than died during all of World War II. I don't disagree African starvation is a problem but until the political problems are solved seems nothing will be solved.

[cj001f]

The sustainability of children into adulthood is the other part of the equation which you seem to be already aware of based on your comments. I guess I look at saving a child from starvation at birth so he can be recruited into a militia in his teens isn't doing him a favor. I think the statistic I read was more people have died from small arms in Africa since the end of the cold war(When the US and the USSR really stopped really caring about most of Africa when it came to foreign policy and foreign aid as far as I'm concerned) than died during all of World War II. I don't disagree African starvation is a problem but until the political problems are solved seems nothing will be solved.

Saying you don't want to save someone's life because they might grow up and be drafted, shot, die of disease, etc is just rationalizing inactivity. They just as well might grow up and campaign for peace, make a stunning discovery, or just run a small business and raise a family. There's no reason they shouldn't have a chance to. Hey, maybe some of the political problems will be solved by the time some of the children and infants are teenagers?

Sure there's more overhead to running overseas aid organisations. There are a number of American charities that have large overheads as well. That doesn't mean there aren't foreign aid organisations that can do greater good with your dollar than domestic organisations.

[Spats]

You really would have disliked the first 120,000 or so years of human existence.

Only in the last 3000 years or so have humans become wealthy enough and endowed with enough free time that simply living became "pointless."

Not true. Read Marshall Sahlins' "The Original Affluent Society". An excerpt:

"Reports on hunters and gatherers of the ethnological present -- specifically on those in marginal environments -- suggest a mean of three to five hours per adult worker per day in food production. Hunters keep banker's hours, notably less than modern industrial workers (unionised), who would surely settle for a 21-35 hour week."

http://www.appropriate-economics.org...ls/Sahlins.pdf

[shamrockpow]

Not true. Read Marshall Sahlins' "The Original Affluent Society". An excerpt:

"Reports on hunters and gatherers of the ethnological present -- specifically on those in marginal environments -- suggest a mean of three to five hours per adult worker per day in food production. Hunters keep banker's hours, notably less than modern industrial workers (unionised), who would surely settle for a 21-35 hour week."

http://www.appropriate-economics.org...ls/Sahlins.pdf

Granted, but short work weeks didn't ensure they didn't die (or have to emigrate 100s of miles) every time there was a flood, locust, drought, disease, etc.

Life has gotten much less precarious overall and the quantity of leisure activities is XX times as great as in the days of cave drawing. Also keep in mind that children aged 8-20 are a pretty prime labor supply if you don't bother with schooling them and shit...

[LAN]

And on a sidenote, Pinner still hasn't had the tact to answer my PM. Figures ...

[Blurred]

And on a sidenote, Pinner still hasn't had the tact to answer my PM. Figures ...

He's got you right where he wants you, and youre begging for more.

Have to give it to Pinner, his game is effective.

No player hating here.
edit-spelin

[Plakespear]

Early man walked away as modern man took control.
Their minds weren't all the same, to conquer was his big goal,
So he built his great empire and slaughtered his own kind,
Then he died a confused man, killed himself with his own mind.
Go!
[x3]
We're only gonna die from our own arrogance. [x4]

-Bad Religion

[char]

Does anyone in the US actually live in poverty? I think not.

[LAN]

He's got you right where he wants you, and youre begging for more.

Have to give it to Pinner, his game is effective.

It seems as though he has you right where he'd like you. I'm just making a public service announcement that he who likes to make petty comments doesn't have the testicular fortitude to be a mature adult when questioned.

[LAN]

Does anyone in the US actually live in poverty? I think not.

Go down under the Alaskan Way Viaduct or check out 9th and James - you'll see plenty of poverty.

[char]

Go down under the Alaskan Way Viaduct or check out 9th and James - you'll see plenty of poverty.

I can get 3 square meals, a place to sleep and medical service in Seattle without a job and a home and without hardly moving. Hell, I can ride a bus for free (or just not pay) to all of the above. Not so in the 3rd world. Our definition of poverty is way out of wack in the US.

[LAN]

I can get 3 square meals, a place to sleep and medical service in Seattle without a job and a home. Not so in the 3rd world. Our definition of poverty is way out of wack in the US.

I would say that's a temporary luxury for someone who lives in poverty - the 3 square meals, a bed and medical care don't last forever.

[Blurred]

It seems as though he has you right where he'd like you. I'm just making a public service announcement that he who likes to make petty comments doesn't have the testicular fortitude to be a mature adult when questioned.

Wow, I never really noticed before, but you are trolling when you don't realize it, and that's why he's yanking your chain.

[cj001f]

I would say that's a temporary luxury for someone who lives in poverty - the 3 square meals, a bed and medical care don't last forever.

His point was some safety net exists in America. There is none in the 3rd world. Hell, in America can make a decent living panhandling.

I'm guessing you haven't done much, if any, travel in the "developing" world?

[char]

First thing that pops up when you google "American Poverty." It's the Heritage Foundation, but still.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1221.cfm

Some fun highlights:

In 1995, 41 percent of all "poor" households owned their own homes.

Ninety-seven percent have a color television. Nearly half own two or more televisions.

As a group, the "poor" are far from being chronically hungry and malnourished. In fact, poor persons are more likely to be overweight than are middle-class persons. Nearly half of poor adult women are overweight.

What pops up when you google "African Poverty"?

Don't see to many images like this of poor Americans do you?

[Spats]

Granted, but short work weeks didn't ensure they didn't die (or have to emigrate 100s of miles) every time there was a flood, locust, drought, disease, etc.

Life has gotten much less precarious overall and the quantity of leisure activities is XX times as great as in the days of cave drawing.

Did you actually read the article? If there is a natural disaster and you're a hunter, you hunt somewhere else. If you're a farmer, your crop is ruined and you starve. And yes, the quantity of activities is much greater, but the amount of time left for them is many times smaller.

All I'm showing you is that life in pre-agricultural times was much more than trying not to die, and was not, as is usually thought, "nasty, brutish, and short". As far as we can tell, it involved much more free time and much less misery than almost any agricultural or industrial society, only excluding certain social classes in certain countries in the modern age (like our own).

[Spats]

Don't you think we have more people in here, living in deserts and complaining about droughts and also more living in flood plains and complaining to FEMA about their water filled basements? We tend to tame nature more than in other countries.

I agree with you.

The entire western Great Plains, and most of the Southwest (including the LA basin) is not someplace that very many people can or should be living -- there's little water there. What happens when the Ogallala Aquifier is pumped dry in about 10-15 years, and what happens when the Colorado River dams silt up? Or, for you LA residents, what happens if the pumps at Wind Gap stop moving water 3000 vertical feet over the Tehachapis?

Then there are the people living on the Gulf Coast whose house gets flattened by hurricanes every few years and the gov't pays to rebuild it. In Florida, no private insurance company will sell disaster insurance for homes on the coast. Period. The only reason homes can be built there at all is the *government* insures them. This means you and I are paying for the Redneck Riviera to be rebuilt every five years.

And so on.