You hear about some country where X people are starving. Possibly you see a child with a distended belly with stick like limbs peering up at whoever took their camera pitifully.
Food Aid could and is being sent and it never seems to be enough.
When they do get enough to eat, they breed more threatening us all and creating yet more starvation for their country further down the road.

What do you think the solution is to this situation?.
I think most of can agree that a starving person is immoral.
Should we ( people collectively in Industrilized nations which I will assume includes you since you have internet access) stop having hobbies or spending money on pleasures so we can donate money towards the starving. We'd be borderline poverty, but then everyone would be fed?.
Should things keep going as they are right now?..Our government sends some food Aid.

It's actually easy to help. There are many websites that you can donate food and such just by clicking a little bar. Or, like Facebook, get enough Lunch Money and use it to buy condoms to stop the spread of STDs and well, children. The main problem is, of course, too little money, but also, since they don't have many condoms, is that parents are dying and children are being created,when no one can pay for them.
But, I guess giving up a little of our non-needed hobbies and donating our saved money could help.
Maybe having a jar and putting all our pocket change in there. Then, at the end of each month/year, donate it. To save up for Logan's future, my sister does that. He also enjoys putting the "moneys" in it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be under the assumption that poverty and famine come due to a lack of resources. Whereas I would assert they are not lacking in resources such as food, but rather they simply do not have access to said resources. A better approach would be to address issues of inequality which stems from the imbalance of power between multinational corporations and the "developing world". Academics such as Vandana Shiva have written at length on the negative effects our imposed 'development' and 'progress' are having on regions such as India. How as opposed to actually helping them to feed themselves we are forcing them to undertake increasingly unsustainable practices.

This is further hurt by the approach with international institutions such as the IMF (International Monetary Fund) bring to the table. They do not exactly have the most promising of track records with their SAP's (Structural Adjustment Policies) more commonly having a detrimental effect on the countries which they are applied to.

So I would view these as important areas to address, if we are to try and remove the barriers which are being imposed on the 'developing world'.

I happen to say that the reason that they are starving is because they are over populated and that their country and land cannot supply their population with all the food they need. Technically, by letting more die by starvation, you let the others live better lives. Harsh, but completely natural. All without moving a muscle. Lowering their population means better future too.

Countries such as Africa however are still in massive debt to other countries... They are actually causing a debt crisis. We cannot really bail them out, and they are the cause of some of our woes. They owe us money.

Poverty and starvation will always be there. It is quite idealistic to say that we shall end world hunger, when it is not possible. More and more places are becoming industrialized. Since the southern hemisphere, where most of the starvation is, cannot become industrialized yet because of lack of money and can barely farm on their dry and only 40% farmable land, they will starve.

Originally Posted by Hatake Ayumi

I happen to say that the reason that they are starving is because they are over populated and that their country and land cannot supply their population with all the food they need.

Although in asserting that such a thing is the cause for the predicament they find themselves in, you have (purposely?) neglected to address the political forces which have been at play. Upon looking at the regions which are 'under developed', a few consistent details seem to emerge. Namely these are countries which are ex colonies, that is they were all victims of colonization. Secondly even when they were able to finally gain their 'freedom' from their colonial masters, they found themselves in a rather vulnerable state. As it had been of little benefit for their colonial masters to 'develop' their economies past a certain point, so this commonly had not been done. So not only were the blatantly exploited during colonialism, but once they threw these shackles off, they found themselves in a marginalized position.

Furthermore they have all fallen victim to Multinational corporations and unequal trade agreements. Like I mentioned people such as Vandana Shiva have gone into great detail the consequences that economic globalization have had on them. Quite commonly it has resulted in their most sustainable lifestyles forcibly being taken away from them and unsustainable practices being imposed in their place. She is not alone in these criticisms, as numerous people have observed that the hegemonic position that Western theorists have enjoyed over the field of development studies, commonly led to an imbalance between those classified as belonging to the 'developing world' and those belonging to the 'developed world'.

Indeed the same problems which were present quite strongly in Nineteenth Century Evolutionism (The Anthropological theory) found themselves a new home to come to in Development studies. Namely the belief that all societies were naturally progressing towards the state of societies in the Western world. Furthermore that this was the most desirable thing, thus only our knowledge was valuable and theirs was quite simply a 'barrier to progress'.

Originally Posted by Hatake Ayumi

Countries such as Africa however are still in massive debt to other countries... They are actually causing a debt crisis. We cannot really bail them out, and they are the cause of some of our woes. They owe us money.

Although why is it that the victim gets the blame for their own marginalization. Even if we do not take into account the points I have already raised, we are still left with the SAP's which are part of the prescription which comes with accepting a loan from the IMF. It is quite an unfortunate side effect that these often have the effect of actually bringing harm to the countries in question. So I would strongly question your notion that it is the countries with a debt which have been the cause of the debt crisis. But rather I would assert that a fair amount of this blame can be placed on those wonder financial advisers who spend close to zero time getting to know and understand the real situation of the country they are forcing macro economic policy upon.

Originally Posted by Hatake Ayumi

Poverty and starvation will always be there. It is quite idealistic to say that we shall end world hunger, when it is not possible. More and more places are becoming industrialized. Since the southern hemisphere, where most of the starvation is, cannot become industrialized yet because of lack of money and can barely farm on their dry and only 40% farmable land, they will starve.

Maybe it is possible to eliminate or maybe it isn't. Either way I do not think we are in such a position that we can simply block our ears and ignore the negative impact which the 'developed' world has had. Indeed I hold it is extremely important to in fact do quite the opposite and actively engage with the reasons why a significant portion of the world find themselves in such a marginalized position.

Originally Posted by Hatake Ayumi

I happen to say that the reason that they are starving is because they are over populated and that their country and land cannot supply their population with all the food they need. Technically, by letting more die by starvation, you let the others live better lives. Harsh, but completely natural. All without moving a muscle. Lowering their population means better future too.

Countries such as Africa however are still in massive debt to other countries... They are actually causing a debt crisis. We cannot really bail them out, and they are the cause of some of our woes. They owe us money.

Poverty and starvation will always be there. It is quite idealistic to say that we shall end world hunger, when it is not possible. More and more places are becoming industrialized. Since the southern hemisphere, where most of the starvation is, cannot become industrialized yet because of lack of money and can barely farm on their dry and only 40% farmable land, they will starve.

Many of the countries which have a problem with starving people do not have one because they lack food. Take Ethiopia for example. They are given enough food aid to feed the population, but there are two problems which mean the poor continue to starve.

Firstly, they have a corrupt government. Many times, the Ethiopian government will do things such as give a family of eight enough food for a single person for two months. A single person's two month supply for eight people. Many times, they keep this food for the government and for the officials.

Secondly, many of the poor people who suffer from starvation live in remote places where people who want to help cannot easily reach, let alone with food.

We have enough food in the world to support our entire human population. I cannot stress this enough; we do not simply lack the resources to feed these people, we lack the empathy, work ethic, and will to help feed these people.

I cannot believe that you simply wish for these people to die. Are they not just as important, worthy, and deserving as you and I? It is the fault of the poor that their country has borrowed money? Certainly not, and at least...not near enough to let the people die. How can you ethically justify talking about their lives as though they are meaningless, and somehow beneath you?

Developing countries do have an economic dependence on their former colonists, and in this globalized world, their natural resources are being and have been drained to be used as raw material for the developed world. With globalization, the gap between the have nots and the haves has increased, so that the richest 2% of the world holds ~80+% of the worlds money and the poorest 20% (if I remember correctly) holds around 1.75% or less of the world's money. But one cannot stop globalization. With free markets, companies (usually outside the United States Borders) take advantage of people/ workers and countries in order to make a greater profit, not caring about the welfare of the people/countries they are leeching resources from.

They didn't borrow money for stupid reasons, they did it in an effort to industrialize that failed and because of the loans caused them to be in debt. It is not all their fault, but they do still owe a lot of money to the rest of the world. The IMF has a quite a lot of resources to help, though it is quite harmful, and the World Bank has low interest rates, but strings attached to their limited money supply. And when any country loans money, it wants profit and interest paid back on that loan.... I cannot think of a way to help the countries out of debt and into a position in which they can better themselves and feed themselves.

Edit: It is not easy to transport food to there, true. But a country's first priority should be itself, making sure that everybody within its borders is fed first, then to the other countries, but food expires quite rapidly for fresh food to survive such lengthy decisions and calculations.

We cannot go into another country's government and say "You are running your country poorly" and chastise them. Could lead to some oh so not very pleasant effects. It is unfair and corrupt. But can you really fix a corrupt government?

But in the long run, there will need to be decisions about who will live and who will die. It is an unpleasant thought, but one must think of the greater good. One cannot appease 100% of the people in one country, let alone the world. The world is over populated already. Soon enough it will come to the tipping point in which developed countries may not be able to support themselves. I'm not talking of immediate future. We might not be able to live to see such disaster. They are not at fault. But we cannot save everybody. There will always be the haves and the have nots, unless you want to go the way of communism and socialism, which have a low probability of succeeding on such a large scale. They shall die because of the inevitability of it. We might be able to save them. But not all of them. And not without risking the future.

It isn't something we can really help:

1. Corrupt government not giving people their fair share: What are we going to do then? Accuse them of corrupt to the whole world won't change them. Going with no authorization to distribute the food like we think it should would cause problems with that country on the grounds of "having violated their nation's sovereignty" and maybe even cause a war, and with the government being closer to their people than what we are, they'll most likely resort to cause mass xenophobia ["If they're willing to come in without our permit, what else will they do next? Colonizate us again?"], then the US yet again will be the "big bad imperialist guy" for trying to help.

The only way to destroy a corrupt government would be for a foreign country to come and decide which people are able to run such government rightly, or for their people to go against them, somehow suceed, and switch positions. They would still be corrupt then though. If there's any other way, then tell me.

2. People in unreachable places: Well, we can't reach them. Unless you're planing on sending them dried long-lasting food in planes. Though I'd be more willing to pay for someone so they would study their land, conditions, habits and needs so we can send thing they might actually be able to sustain themselves with. Like seeds, soil, eco-fertilizants, and a teacher. Because just sending them food is going to make them dependant on us again, what with you being oh so against colonization.

I agree with Ayumi that we can't really help the whole world. We can only teach them how to take care of/ sustain themselves. Unless everyone thinks it's your fault, calculate their loss and give it back. But helping them more than we should could result in people thinking we're just helping them to put them under more debts and ask things from them later on [ basing myself on an Accounting principle: You give, you receive in equal amounts and viceversa]

@ Reddeath: Solutions please? I tend to get distracted when people blame each other =]

@ Kris: Don't twist her words. To me she never suggested they're inferior or whatever - she just mentioned how nature works. These people shouldn't be there because they can't sustain themselves in such a hostile land, but just because they have an excuse the food isn't going to appear magically. It's nature than when any species can't sustain themselves in x environment, they'll die and there won't be more of these species in that x environment. To keep on living, they would have to a) Find a way to sustain themselves in that environment (hopefully without depending on anyone), or b) Adapt to that environment (though that may take centuries...)

My 8th grade science teacher did a lesson on how the same percentage of a population of any species will always be starving. If there's more food, they reproduce, and if there's less food, they die. It's just how the world is.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

@ Reddeath: Solutions please? I tend to get distracted when people blame each other =]

As I previously mentioned it is extremely important that we identify and address the causes behind such things as famine and poverty. Take for instance my example of the IMF and their SAPs, which have historically had a negative impact on the countries they are supposed to be helping. Addressing why they have such a negative impact would better enable the IMF and the 'developing' world to work together.

Another area which I have raised is the unsustainable practices which are being forced upon some peoples as a result of economic globalization and the increasing power and influence that multinational corporations wield.

Then there is the issue of 'progress' and 'development' being controversial terms in their own right. Like I also mentioned one of the problems with Development policy was that it falsely held the belief that there was only one path in which a society could travel down in order to gain said 'progress' and 'development'. This resulted in the policies being imposed on the peoples in question being highly ethnocentric and at times quite irrelevant to those they are trying to help. As such I would propose stronger utilization of the knowledge and understandings held by those who the policies are trying to help. Instead of simply trying to dictate what they should and shouldn't do, we should try to gain an understanding of what they want and need. As quite simply there is not a singular path of development, but rather it will differ from people to people. On that note here is a report from survival international which specifically looks at the negative impact which 'progress' has had on tribal peoples.

@ Reddeath: So, we have to make a list of every ethnic group's [not saying country because there are some tribes that have conflicts with each other, like with Somalia] needs, wants, what they're willing to do and what they're unwilling to do, and try to reach a personalized solution for them, so we adapt our methods in order to make it easier for them to feed themselves?

Countries that have starving poplulations should recive aid only if they implement and practice birth control. If the country is too poor to support an economy that can feed its population then they shouldnt keep having children that will starve to death. A lot of the countries with large starving poplulations have tyrants ruling the country that take everything including aid sent from other countries, for themselves. Many countries we send aid to take the food and supplies and sell them on the black market not give it to their poor. We should however send people and the type of supplies such as pipes, seed, farm implements to them and teach them to be self sufficient. That is where the most help can be done. We do do that to a certain degree but not enough. More should also be put into research for food that will survive in those regions. But that isnt going to help without some type of birth control.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

@ Reddeath: So, we have to make a list of every ethnic group's [not saying country because there are some tribes that have conflicts with each other, like with Somalia] needs, wants, what they're willing to do and what they're unwilling to do, and try to reach a personalized solution for them, so we adapt our methods in order to make it easier for them to feed themselves?

Firstly I quite like how you address them as ethnic groups, this was an oversight in my previous post. Such an approach would prevent us from seeing the fourth world.

I would strongly agree that we should be working with the people whom we are trying to help and attempting to draw on their local expertise to provide personalized help which is relevant to their situations. This comes from awareness the there is not simply a linear path of development. But rather there are numerous ways in which a people can develop. Whether or not a people need development and what this development is, should be up to them to decide.

I don't think there's any way people can solve this problem except for maybe cutting the population size, don't get me wrong but 6 billion people is a lot. No other animal species, besides an insect, has that many members in a population. I'm not saying we should just let them starve.

There just aren't enough resources in the world now and politics prevent a lot of things from getting done.

The only real way I can see for feeding everyone is to give up some meat. We can grow more corn than we can kill cows or pigs, plus a lot of the corn ends up going to feeding livestock, what a waist! We could be feeding people! Instead we're feeding cows!

I'm not saying to become vegetarian, meat is good for you, but maybe we should cut down how much we eat. Instead of having steak everyday, try once a week, but you know us americans, that will never happen.

So to me, there is no real solution, but if you want to be a good person, you can always donate ;)

@reddeath: But such a solution... Ya know how hard is to find a plan that doesn't conflict with their interests nor impacts negatively their ecosystem, culture or customs AND that will benefit them in a relatively short time? We wouldn't be able to help them all at the same time; instead, we would have to go group by group, each at a time so we ensure a correct study, a steady pace and enough vigilance to notice the second the original plan stops working like it should [usually when you deal with people, plans have to change with the same speed people and circumstances do].

However, doing so could create a feeling of favouriting in other groups, and produce a tide of migration to the zones we help, which then would create even more issues as the original plan would be for x thousands not for x + y thousands of people, and risk its effectiveness.

And seeing how the poor zones in Africa are more comprised of ethnic groups than united nations, trying to help one zone first could spark a war between ethnicities.

I'm pretty sure there's more to that but ehh....

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

@reddeath: But such a solution... Ya know how hard is to find a plan that doesn't conflict with their interests nor impacts negatively their ecosystem, culture or customs AND that will benefit them in a relatively short time?

I am not going to pretend that this will be an easy approach. However as I mentioned there is not a singular path of development which all peoples are following. Any attempt to simply use a universal model does more harm than good. Indeed looking back at the history of developmental approaches to peoples and we find that even when those trying to help have had the best of intentions, their lack of understanding has at the best of times been simply ineffective and at the worst highly damaging. Two examples spring to mind here.

During the colonial era of Australia (although some might question whether this has ended), a few missionaries came across some aborigine tribes which were still using stone axes. Applying what they understood to be true of development, namely that there is a single path ALL peoples are going to towards increasingly developed states, it seemed only obvious that providing these tribes with steel axes would be of great benefit. Being the type of people who wanted to make a positive difference that is exactly what they proceeded to do. Unfortunately they were not aware of the rituals behind the stone axe and how this contributed to social cohesion and stability among the tribes. Due to this unfortunate oversight they ended up causing quite a bit of harm and damage to the tribes in question as opposed to actually helping them. This example demonstrates how even changes which can be seen to have no negative impact, may have much greater and negative consequences than anticipated. If this was the impact that those wishing to help had, it is no surprise that around 90% of the Aborigines got wiped out by the 1930s as a result of colonization.

Originally Posted by progress can kill

The Aboriginepopulation then was around 750,000,although it was rapidly reduced to just over 70,000 by the 1930s

Another example I find quite fitting came from a conversation I had with someone who worked for an NGO (Non government organization). They were helping to develop communities somewhere in Africa I believe (I forget the exact location). Well anyway they came across a small village and upon arriving they noticed that there was no well. Indeed the females from the village would walk for miles to retrieve water from the nearest water supply. From this observation the NGO decided that the ideal approach would be to build a well, thus removing the need for the women to walk so far for water. So they proceeded to do this and before too long had a functioning well. A while later they returned to see how the well was going. Much to their surprise while the well was working perfectly fine, the females were still walking several miles to get the water. Upon questioning them, they found out that this walk provides them with a valuable opportunity to build on social relationships and cohesions. Indeed if the NGO had actually asked them if they wanted or needed a well, they would of been told no.

So in this example you can see that working with the people in question would of actually saved time and resources. This would not be an isolated situation as quite often, people simply wish to retain their independence and way of life.

Originally Posted by progress can kill

This report explores the reasons why landless and ‘assimilated’ tribal peoplestoday suffer such high levels of physicaland mental illness. There are many factorsthat can tip a group from an independent,healthy life to dependency and earlydeath, but underlying them all is a lossof rights over their ancestral land andpoverty created by the loss of anindependent livelihood.

Indeed it has come as a result of the attempted imposition of development and progress onto peoples that much of the harm has been dealt to them. This raised awareness was one of the motivators behind the adoption of the UN declaration of indigenous rights.

Originally Posted by United Nations adopts Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples

The Declaration emphasizes the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain and strengthen their own institutions, cultures and traditions and to pursue their development in keeping with their own needs and aspirations.

It also prohibits discrimination against indigenous peoples and promotes their full and effective participation in all matters that concern them, and their right to remain distinct and to pursue their own visions of economic and social development.

Originally Posted by Progress can Kill

But indigenous peoples have not always been so unwell, and those who live independent lives on their own lands,eating traditional foods, continue to be healthy and strong.4 These groups maybe poor in monetary terms, but are rich in many other ways. They typically have many of the characteristics that have been found to raise happiness, including strong social relationships, stable political systems, high levels of trust and support,and religious or spiritual beliefs, which give their lives meaning. A study exploring happiness and ‘life satisfaction’found a high score among a traditional group of Maasai who had resisted colonial attempts to change their way of life and who had largely avoided the market economy. The Maasai had a similar life satisfaction rating to those on the Forbeslist of the 400 richest Americans.

So, for those of you who thin it's okay to simply let these people die without a care in the world about them, what do you think of children who suffer from starvation in the US? Is it just the way it is, just nature, okay for them to "die out" because the environment was suiting for humans in the US? Is that alright?

If it were nature's way, then yes.

But for the gray moral/ethical view humans claim they have developed, seems like no.