Bernice: That would be nice. Hunger is a huge problem in the world and it doesn't have to be that way.

Artful Dodger:
Of course excessive population creates many other problems as well. A common argument is that there are enough resources to sustain an even greater population.
That may be the case with less waste, but that's an ideal that doesn't exist with capitalist economics. In an ideal world nuclear power too would be safe, but we don't live in an ideal world.
Medical advances have greatly reduced infant mortality but have not reduced birth rates. Maybe starvation is the solution rather than the problem.

Dark Prince:

> Of course excessive population creates many other problems as well. A common argument is that there are enough resources to sustain an even greater population.
That may be the case with less waste, but that's an ideal that doesn't exist with capitalist economics. In an ideal world nuclear power too would be safe, but we don't live in an ideal world.
Medical advances have greatly reduced infant mortality but have not reduced birth rates. Maybe starvation is the solution rather than the problem.

We could just skip starvation altogether and accelerate things a bit. We can take those nukes that plague our not-ideal world, and then use them to nuke the poor out of existence. We would solve hunger and poverty in one go!

Of course, there is another solution. Give people a good sexual education, make contraception widely available, teach men to accept vasectomy as a safe, cheap and viable means of birth control, accept abortion as another means of birth control, etc. In general use aggressive education and family planning.

But then, the Pope says condoms and contraception are wrong. Nobody wants abortion on religious grounds. Sexual education is wrong because it tells young people how to have sex without getting pregnant. Family planning goes against Genesis and the commandment of being fruitful and multiplying. It generally goes against religious principles.

So on religous grounds starvation is more acceptable. And using the nukes even more so because it spares the poor the agony of a slow death.

Übergeek 바둑이:
I agree with a fair distribution of wealth, but I can't say "fair and equal" does enough to encourage excellence.

Using nukes adversely affects all life. There's already too much habitat destruction from human encroachment not to mention resource exploitation. Nuclear weapons have condemned many to slow agonizing deaths.

Dark Prince:

> I agree with a fair distribution of wealth, but I can't say "fair and equal" does enough to encourage excellence.

I suppose that it depends on what "excellence" means. Is it making a lot of money? Is it becoming famous? Is it being fair to other human beings? Or sharing what you have?

I think that the problem is that we insist on measuring achievement in terms of how much money a person makes, how famous they become, how many inventions they create and how much money they make from them, etc. I rarely see anyone say that the best person is that one who helps the most human beings without asking anything in return. My mother does a lot of work to help poor people. She has spent countless hours collecting money, raising awareness, showing others not to be so selfish, etc. I never saw anyone say that my mother had "excellence" in her. When my mother dies nobody will remember her except those of us in our family. I see people crying over the death of somebody famous who made a lot of money or who became very powerful. I never saw many people shed a tear when some aid worker gets killed in some conflict zone. In capitalism excellence is money. Nobody cares about scientists or artists who made no money, even less about those who put time and effort to help other human beings. People care only when some rich, powerful man gives to charity, because it somehow convinces people that capitalists are a-OK. Don't get me wrong, they do great work and help thousands. But who remembers those who dodge bullets to bring food to a conflict zone?

> Using nukes adversely affects all life. There's already too much habitat destruction from human encroachment not to mention resource exploitation. Nuclear weapons have condemned many to slow agonizing deaths.

Of course, I was talking sarcasticly!

Übergeek 바둑이:
I agree with much of what you said. It is a conundrum.
I think such judgments can only be made realistically on a local community level. That too would be difficult in our disjointed societies in which there is a great deal of fluidity with large numbers of individuals relocating with some regularity.
I don't think any national or state policy could adequately address the issues you expounded.
In the world as it is, the real problem is that people work for corporations instead of corporations working for people. Of course corporations should make profits, but profit above all else is a disastrous model both for the environment and the work force.

Bernice:

> perhaps USA, UK, AUS should just invade the countries and feed the poor.....mainly the USA because their spend on "WAR" is phenomenal

On the surface it seems reasonable. Specially when the cost of the food is a lot less than what is spent on military budgets. However, giving away free food does not eliminate the underlying causes of poverty. It is like putting a bandaid on a wound without first cleaning and disinfecting the wound.

We can give away free food, but that does not mean that we are getting rid of dictatorship, fascism, corruption, imperialism, predatory capitalism, religious fanaticism, exploitation, abuse, etc.

The poor of the world do not need charity. What they is social justice and the fair and equal distribution of wealth. That is the one thing that capitalism can never offer to them. Taking from the rich and redistributing equally among the poor is the stuff that revolutions are made of, and nobody in our capitalist world wants that.

So we look at poverty from far away. We know it is there, but we walk around pretending that it is not there, or hoping that somebody will come up with a good idea. We know what the medicine is, but it pains us to accept it.