Interesting Stat About War And Hunger [Pic]

Submitted by: fancylad 6 years ago

Every 8 days? Holy crap!
There are 109 comments:
Male 65
Overpopulation contributes to poverty in developing countries. Not every country can provide its own food, and many countries import food from many other countries. But you can`t be poor and import all your food, you at least need to be able to sustain yourself without trade, or export something to encourage trade. Improving a country`s economy and condition of living will also decrease hunger, so it`s every man for himself because no one is going to bail out another country.
0
Reply
Male 312
"Wow, zazuch just...Wow. Are you really sure you thought your logic through? What you`re basically saying is "Good thing those Nazi`s killed 6 million Jews `cause the world would have had 24 million Jew`s if they hadn`t". "

You got a problem with that? The world is majorly overpopulated.
0
Reply
Male 286
"Or find a more egalitarian means of distributing the food / wealth that we have. "

There is no good way to distribute food. If you bring food from one place where there is a abundance to another where there is a shortage you will have hunger and over populated ares. So you think bringing more food in will make people less hungry that is a band aid over a big gash that will just make the problem worse. The only true way to end hunger is to force every place to provide there own food. The populace will die off till it reaches its status quo(there is production from the land to provide food for the people who live there). When that is reached then hunger will be over.

We are not above animals and intil we live like animals(ex live with in what the land can with stand) there will be hunger among people. That is the fact.
0
Reply
Male 2
@Zazuch

Or find a more egalitarian means of distributing the food / wealth that we have.

I mean, I think population control is a good idea; but through ethical means. Not through a mass cull. No authority on this earth has the right to decide who has the right to life. Adolf learnt that the hard way.
0
Reply
Male 286
The problem is that there are to many Africans living in Africa. The land can not support that many people. You take crops from lands like America farm fields or where ever and pump them into Africa all you are doing is making the problem worse due to the population boom you will make. Albeit cruel the best thing to do is to either move them out of Africa or let them die till they get below the population threshold of Africa.
0
Reply
Male 286
@Simcoe

I just used it as a clear number and its a number of deaths i have a good solid number from war fare causes. But yes i am saying its good in the fact that it drastically lowered the numbers of human mouths to feed for the big picture. But i do not support it in a moral or as in i hate jews and they deserve to die.

You guys complain about the hunger problem i am just pointing out that if it wasn`t for war the hunger problem would be much greater then it is now.

The short and sweet of point i was trying to make when i mentioned the holocaust is that albeit war(and the deaths associated) is a nasty and evil thing it is a necessity as it helps control the human population. humans fighting over land is no different then lions fighting over being alpha male then killing the cubs of the former alpha male.

And if you actually think about it hunger will never be fixed it will just be made worse the more you try to fight it.
0
Reply
Male 126
Wow, zazuch just...Wow. Are you really sure you thought your logic through? What you`re basically saying is "Good thing those Nazi`s killed 6 million Jews `cause the world would have had 24 million Jew`s if they hadn`t".

And for everyone who touts the benefits of war in reducing/curbing the planet`s population (ie. Earth`s carrying capacity): shame on you. You don`t seem to have a problem with innocent people dying as long as it`s not happening in your country.
0
Reply
Male 286
you cant fix hunger. You try to feed people then the ones that would have died from starvation live and reproduce more causing more people to be around and more hunger. Its a endless cycle that will eventually make humans meet a maximum threshold that the earth can no longer sustain any more humans then we all starve and die off.

Its a sadistic way to look at it but you think we have hunger today? Image all the people who died in war where alive today? Animal populations grow exponentially(yes humans are animals in the end) Image if the 6 million jews that died in the holocaust where alive. Given two generations that have passed that is roughly 24 million extra mouths that would have need to be fed from 1 war time act. (populations tend to double every generation or so) Now add that from all the wars that have happened and image how many more mouths there would have to be feed.

So again there is no solution to hunger. You try to fix it you will only make it worse.
0
Reply
Male 1,744
Thaaaaaank you sarah, thank you soooo much. Exactly what i was thinking.
0
Reply
Female 3,562
Hey, good luck getting fed if you can`t even defend yourself from others.
0
Reply
Male 2
Erm, Wheresmyskul, no. The USA gives most ODA, because of its overall wealth and size. When you take into account the % of Gross Domestic Average, USA comes in at 19. Above it is Canada, Australia, and the rest are European countries.

Donation per citizen, which is what you were talking about, the USA comes ninth, right behind the UK, at 14 dollars per head on average.

So... No. Just no.

I`m not blaming the USA for the worlds problems, I mean, your country`s too young to be THAT influential in the grand scheme of things, but you guys certainly aren`t the solution.
0
Reply
Male 105
You can also make diesel from algae which can be used to scrub flue gasses form fossil fuel power plants...
0
Reply
Male 605
I don`t agree that purely money can solve the worlds hunger problems. Its been almost a trillion dollars of aid pumped into Africa and its got worse
0
Reply
Male 247
@Earl Grey: I agree...even if those numbers are wrong...it is sad as drat.
0
Reply
Female 430
it`s more than the income of my country in a year...
0
Reply
Female 131
@wheresmyskul
yeah, but this is still sad as drat.
0
Reply
Male 2,220
Can`t fix hunger that easily. Not without controlling population. War`s good for that.

Yay - go war.
0
Reply
Male 247
The United States does more than any other nation to feed the poor. And before those of you who don`t know anything about it speak, I`m talking about charities, not the U.S. government. We are the most generous people per capita ON EARTH. We have our flaws (which most of our European friends in IAB like to point out), but we`re a gracious folk (again, there are exceptions to the rule).

As for the military--why does ANY nation need a military? Because peace, love, flowers, and pacifism will NOT repel those who do not believe in freedom for the common man. There are those in this world, who will always be here, who seek to subjugate you and me. Freedom does not come naturally to mankind. It can only survive with our constant vigilance against those who think that governments need to makes subjects out of its citizens. This post relies on a "pie-in-the-sky" idealism that cannot be reached. Poverty and hunger exist. In the meantime, nations need their military if they wi
0
Reply
Male 101
Fine, spend less on paying for military equipment and personel that keep you safe from the bad guys. Remember that you have your freedoms for a reason. and if you dont like how your freedom is given to you then start a protest or something and get the military to dismantle and prepare for slavery.
0
Reply
Male 784
@AntEconomist

Your name wouldn`d happen to be AntiEconomist?

If we agree that:
1 billion = 1 000 000 000
1 trillion = 1 000 000 000 000

and that 365:8 = 45,625 (it says every eigth day, not every day)

You will find that that:
30 billion x 45,625 = 1 368 750 000 000 (1,36875 trillion)

Which is not so far off the right estimates. If the military spendings are higher than that - it just the point of the post even more f...ed up.

Back to school U go!
0
Reply
Male 3,915
lol intaresting...
0
Reply
Male 68
AntEconomist, re-read the post and redo your math. Not one thing that you posted makes any sense.
0
Reply
Male 134
@xXamwxxXx. No more needs to be said.
0
Reply
Male 371
False. The US spends around $1 trillion *annually* on its military (and that counts not just department of defense but "related" expenses). The rest of the world combined spends about as much as the US, that puts the world at $3 trillion annually -- call it $5 trillion to be generous. $30 billion per day comes to $11 trillion per year -- not even close.
0
Reply
Male 34
feed the homeless to the hungry :D
0
Reply
Male 812
If it was up to me, I would have the opposers of peace shot to death.
0
Reply
Male 2,893
I call some serious bull sh*t.
0
Reply
Male 285
well the more people the military kills the less hunger there will be, plus remaining hungry people can eat the dead. So it all works out.
0
Reply
Male 603
@N-Vet When you create Biofuels on a mass scale that takes place instead of food production. This means food prices will rise as shortages are created. Which increases cost of everything.(which has already been seen to be happening) Biofuels also are not carbon neutral as people think. The problem of Nuclear with plutonium and uranium is the waste which lasts for thousands of years and as you said would only last for some a few decades. Thorium however...
0
Reply
Male 907
People don`t eat money. If you flooded the market with vast amounts of money specifically to buy food, the price would skyrocket since there would be more money chasing about the same amount of food.
0
Reply
Male 105
I forgot to mention that I have no problem with some "green" technologies which make economic and common sense.
I consider "eco-mentalists" people who do not want any technology that produces any pollution or even nuclear because of the hazardous wastes which could be minimized if we could recycle. Basically environmental extremists....
0
Reply
Male 105
Davy- You are missing the bio-Diesel, it could easily fill the gap of what we could have access to and also there is the conversion of cars to Natural Gas. One thing the US has in spades is Natural Gas Reserves.

We need to use all resources available including new nuclear technologies including recycling used fuel rods. If we recycle our fuel and use reactors that can burn a uranium/plutonium mixed fuel we wouldn`t run out of fuel for decades....
0
Reply
Male 66
umm helloo?? they dont want us here. they want us dead. do some research.
0
Reply
Male 603
@anonomarth20 I reckon its all a ploy to get Cornwall mining again :p

Also the funny thing is it will probably take a big war and being cut off from resources to instigate this type technological jump, yet again
0
Reply
Male 250
haha jayme, i felt quite chuffed to live in cornwall when it mentioned our wonderful granite :P
0
Reply
Male 9
jayme21 your article blew my mind
0
Reply
Male 603
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html

Want to cut your dependencies why not move to something you and your western allies have stockpiles and stockpiles of?
0
Reply
Male 4,793
But if we aren`t researching better ways to kill people, who will?!?
0
Reply
Male 12,138
[quote]To cut down on allies we should tap our natural resources which the NIMBY`s and Eco-Mentalists (I love Top Gear) prevent us from accessing... We need to become independent of foreign oil to lower our need to interfere with other countries.[/quote]
Yeah, I hear this a lot. Just need to point out a flaw in that argument. The US currently consumes 20 million barrels of oil per day (that`s 1/4 of world consumption), and produces only 5 million barrels per day. Even if you opened up the Pacific, Atlantic and Alaskan coasts fully to oil exploration, there`s not that much out there: certainly nothing like the Gulf of Mexico, and certainly not enough to quadruple oil production.

The irony is, the US needs to become MORE eco-mentalist if it wants to achieve energy independence, by reducing its energy consumption.
0
Reply
Male 250
xkeisix

granted a life as a soldier is very difficult and unforgiving but its the fault of the government that there in that position.

if, like i said before, we could remove war by uniting all nations into 1 giant collective country, we could feed, clothe and educate everyone to be good enough for a decent job, live a decent life and be happy for all time.

your friends picked a couragous job but that doesn`t make it a worthwhile job, taking the lives of others to further the growing needs of a country more interested in invading and determining the rights of another country based on there own ideas of riteousness or for resources that should be shared in the first place

war is a waste of resources and division causes that
0
Reply
Male 582
I`m not so sure this is true. 67% of people will believe something just because they read it.

(Coincidentally, the same number will also believe anything they read about percentages.)
0
Reply
Female 448
and family in the military.
0
Reply
Female 448
Flame me if you must, but this I gotta say:
I have huge sympathy for the U.S. military. When people think of "military spending" they think of war, bombs, and violence. They don`t actually think of the people. Typically,a U.S. Military unit is composed of 18-30 year old men who could not afford college due to socioeconomic means OR could not qualify due to poor test grades (typically the fault of the teachers). They have no where else to go and rather than turn to a life of crime and homelessness, they go and work for the U.S. government, risking life and limb, in hopes of having a better future for their families.

Currently, the U.S. Army cannot afford to have the trash pickup come weekly due to extensive budget cuts. I want you to imagine what it`d be like not to have your trash picked up for a month. These people are the most courageous and responsible men given their status in life and they should be treated like kings, NOT like demons. I pray for my friends
0
Reply
Male 250
sorry oxyl, we got poor people to feed! :P
0
Reply
Male 915
feed me a sammich!
0
Reply
Male 250
you wanna know what would greatly increase the chances of a warless and well fed country?

unite every country under the same flag.
no im not talking UN style thing.

im talking full on global country.
call it something like "pangea" or whatever and rid the world of its division.

that way, 1 country cant hog resources because there isnt another country to take it. spread all resources and everyone is fed

no wars either because there isnt an opposing country to fight. sure theres gonna be squabbling between beliefs but thats why you encourage tolerance amongst every religion and possibly some sort of incentive for their tolerance

division encourages greed and fighting
0
Reply
Male 603
@Uh No just given broad examples, example which has saved loads of lives Penicillin. While penicillin had been discovered pre-war by Sir Alexander Fleming, it took the war to force companies to develop a way of making the highly effective medicine on an industrial scale.

Work on Tetanus WW1. WW2 saw widespread and proper use of blood transfusions, also saw the first full-scale investigation into mosquito bites. Sir Neil Hamilton Fairley, using Australian soldier volunteers, probed the problem in some detail and paved the way for the work of Shortt and Garnham in 1948. Fairley showed that one tablet per day of mepacrine could keep malaria at bay. His work was matched by the Germans who produced atebrin.

So I`ll say it again War Kills costs lives but jumps mankind forward technologically and provides consumption making everyone who survives better off. War has given us a lot from the medicine we use ample food from new agriculture methods. And many others we don`t thin
0
Reply
Male 36,383



Also, any `renegade nation` which KEEPS their army will over-run everyone else, take everything and things will be worse than ever!

But it is a dream, someday, the wars will end!
0
Reply
Male 452
sources or gtfo
0
Reply
Male 37
Way to justify the industry of killing people jayme21. Twinkies obviously outweigh lives )-|
0
Reply
Female 535
We definitely have the money to feed everyone. It`s greed that`s stopping us.
0
Reply
Male 250
"Kill the Hungry?"

nope, introduce cannabilism!

half the hungry eat the other half of the hungry people :P making half the population of hungry people who end up well fed :P
0
Reply
Male 3,431
Kill the Hungry?
0
Reply
Male 603
What war does do is provide consumption disbanding every military and military related organisation would lead loads of people unemployed (biggest employer in the world Chinese military) and loads of businesses which support out of business. War was what ended the 1920`s recession.

War also has given mankind great advances in technology throughout history. Haber process in agriculture,twinkies, internet, Nylon, loads of medical advances and many many more throughout history all because of WAR
0
Reply
Male 105
Personally, I think we should get a little more isolationist in our military outlook unless the U.S. or one of our allies are attacked and need assistance. To cut down on allies we should tap our natural resources which the NIMBY`s and Eco-Mentalists (I love Top Gear) prevent us from accessing. We should also look into bio-diesel and diesel fueled cars (Peanut oil was the Diesel engine`s original fuel). Personally, I don`t know why they pushed Ethanol except for maybe lobbyist groups. We need to become independent of foreign oil to lower our need to interfere with other countries.
0
Reply
Male 7
message picture = $(priorities <> rational)
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Thank you Gurn, I deserved that. My words were wrong but they were meant to convey the fact that todays military is not fighting for my freedom. It`s a tag line I`m sick of hearing quite frankly.
0
Reply
Male 299
Trumple07:

I do understand what you mean, but I cannot help myself: Batman has no superpowers.
0
Reply
Male 105
The sad thing is that in countries that need it the worst, some if not most of food aid for the hungry get`s diverted to people or organizations it is not intended for. I.E. N.Y Times Article This is just one example from over the years of the corruption in some 3rd world countries....
0
Reply
Male 250
thats some clever poo, Gurn :P
0
Reply
Male 247
Madest - The Constitution does NOT grant you your Rights. Your Rights are inherent in your existence; the Constitution PROTECTS your Rights. This is not simple semantics. If the Constitution granted your rights, then your rights would be limited to those specifically mentioned in it. They are not; your rights are essentially limited only by the rights of others. Read the Constitution carefully. It never says anything about granting Rights. When Rights are mentioned, the wording always assumes that Rights already exist and predate the Constitution - "The Right of the People shall not be Infringed" etc., never "The People shall have the Right".
~HTH
0
Reply
Male 250
its cool, madest :P
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Yeah I`m sorry amonamarth20. I read it again and wondered who the hell I was responding to.
0
Reply
Male 250
thats my point madest.

you`d have to be blindly stupid to even try such a show of force to put it in such a weak position to have it smited by such a small group of well trained pilots.

i mean it`d be pretty similar with us brits but it`d be more difficult as we have a smaller body of water to protect than you guys but probably the same dealio none the less.

naval insertions worked in WW2 cos a sufficiently mobile and responsive solution wasn`t available to the nazi`s or us for that matter
0
Reply
Male 422
If people like batman and spidey actually USED thier superpowers, we wouldnt have any problems! Jeeeezz....some people
0
Reply
Female 94
But think about how many people the military employs and supports, including their families. You could look at any large corporation and ask why they are making money and not sending it all to help the homeless and starving.
0
Reply
Male 743
*Sigh* The war debate. I`m pro strong military. Even if the whole world demolished all of their militaries, eventually someone somewhere would just create a new one, rise to power, a rebellion would ensue... etc. It`s human nature, and living nature in general, to assert dominance and use a fight or flight mechanism to solve problems. War will never end. And that`s a damn good thing for blood thirsty Marines like myself =)
0
Reply
Male 25,416
hmmm/...
0
Reply
Male 250
"riiiight, because everybody knows boats and airplanes have difficulty with large bodies of water..."

do you know how easy it is to bring down a plane? or a boat?

imagine say 10 container ships worth of vehicles, men and equipment tried to invade the US. you know what it would take to destroy such an impressive army?

10 FA-18 superhornets each carrying 1 agm-84 harpoon missile with an escort of say another 10 raptors. thats 20 planes to sink an invasion force that could annihilate any country if they travelled over land

im not even gonna start on an airforce because desite the awesomeness of aircraft, they are extremely fragile to bullets, let alone a missile to the base of the wing
0
Reply
Male 1,625
*slow clap* Madest. =)
0
Reply
Male 776
"Not really green_batman, The Atlantic and Pacific act as our deterrent."

riiiight, because everybody knows boats and airplanes have difficulty with large bodies of water...
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Not really green_batman, The Atlantic and Pacific act as our deterrent. Our armed populous keeps us from being occupied.
0
Reply
Male 250
"It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war." John F. Kennedy

and what he failed to realise, preparing for war perpetuates the need for other countries to do it too and thus the arms race continues to exponentially grow as each side gets more advanced. that and people suck
0
Reply
Female 728
madest: Having the strong military that we have deters military action against this country. In that way, the soldiers secure our freedoms. If we didn`t have a strong military, we would make a wonderful target for hostile takeover because we are so prosperous. Conflict over land is not solely a thing of the past.
0
Reply
Male 7,378
Oh please. There is not one soldier in active duty today fighting for my freedom or the freedom of any American. In fact the military is becoming less of a freedom fighter and more of a religious cabal. My rights are granted by the constitution not the military. Our armed forces have become somewhat of an outdated joke that relies on old slogans to give them the air of respectability. It`s our actions in peace that make America loved, our military actions make us look out of control.
0
Reply
Male 54
how come such a simple straightforward thought occurs to somebody and though exposed to many,poo still just goes on?
0
Reply
Female 24
"It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war." John F. Kennedy
0
Reply
Male 87
well i guess the world could take 8 days of peace and feed hungry people, but they probably wont,

cus they`re fat and want the food for themselves
0
Reply
Male 36
Sources now. I refuse to believe anything of the sort without definitive proof.
0
Reply
Male 394
"things need to change and the only reason govt`s go to war is to make more money. fact."

Sadly enough, this is the one and only reason that wars happen, both in human and other animal societies. The dominant individuals assert their dominance by sacrificing less dominant individuals.

The fact that we`re unable to outgrow and inequality as a species, though, just serves to prove how we`re absolutely not different from all other living organisms on Earth. Especially the warmongers and the war apologists.
0
Reply
Female 1,798
@ auburnjunky:

......................................
0
Reply
Male 233
the thing that i see people saying is "oh if we never had a military we wouldn`t have this or that..."

military force was needed in the past, i think it is arguable to say it is not needed anymore. just like the argument that people say the US constitution is outdated because the people who wrote it could never be able to predict todays environment and etc.....things need to change and the only reason govt`s go to war is to make more money. fact.
0
Reply
Female 1,798
"Why is it that most people commenting here are saying violence is the only way in which anything can be solved.. Countries don`t HAVE to go to war to settle things or claim land or become rich. They just do."

and how else would you propose solving problems? sitting on the quiet carpet, holding hands and working out a solution? c`mon, get real..we`re living in a world in which absolute power corrupts absolutely. those in power do not know the meaning of "compromise" and "non-violent solutions". sometimes the only way to get things done is to get dirty.
0
Reply
Male 394
"Sources please"

It is likely to be grossly oversimplified and not really true, but it`s the right order of magnitude. It`s a pretty easy calculation to make yourself.
0
Reply
Male 2,441
Sources please
0
Reply
Male 224
a week of vacation for the poor, uh, yes.
0
Reply
Male 394
"I like oh please`s solution. If we just spend 30 billion on a method for killing all the hungry people, then the problem is solved....."

But that would in turn create new poor hungry people, as the world`s hierarchy would probably be maintained.


@ auburnjunky, no. Just... No. Think about it for more than 10 minutes.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
@varrrrrpirate:

So you disagree that if we never had a military, we wouldn`t still be a British colony?

If not that, that we would be Mexican?

If not that, we would be German?

I don`t know about you, but I descend from none of those bloodlines. I wouldn`t exist.
0
Reply
Male 795
I like oh please`s solution. If we just spend 30 billion on a method for killing all the hungry people, then the problem is solved.....
0
Reply
Male 41
Why is it that most people commenting here are saying violence is the only way in which anything can be solved.. Countries don`t HAVE to go to war to settle things or claim land or become rich. They just do.
0
Reply
Male 1,196
i have to question this statistic because over 80 percent of statistics are made up. true story
0
Reply
Male 1,378
BUT WE HAVE TO KILL EACHOTHER!
0
Reply
Male 567
Have the military kill the hungry, there problem solved.
0
Reply
Male 514
Shows what gov`t true priorities are....
0
Reply
Male 15,510
There ya go
0
Reply
Male 1,815
War is what made those countries that have the money to spend on military so rich in the first place.
0
Reply
Male 699
it`s impossible to exist without war
0
Reply
Male 41
`Ha. Stupid military. War is stupid. The military is stupid. Don`t care who disagrees with me.`

I don`t disagree with you, however I do not believe you know what you are talking about :)
0
Reply
Male 394
"There`s no such thing as "eradicate hunger", or rather there is but 30bn won`t buy it. To remove poverty you don`t just provide food, it`s alot longer process and alot costlier than that."

Poverty isn`t the same as hunger, don`t be dumb.
0
Reply
Male 394
"Hiromi doesn`t realize that she wouldn`t have an internet without it.

Or food.

Or a house."

Ah, the "We`re brutally occupying a harmless foreign country on the antipodal of the Earth in order to secure our own militarily untouchable country`s safety" argument.

Très Nineteen Eighty-four. Incidentally, also hilariously stupid.
0
Reply
Male 590
...and the food required to end world hunger is... ALREADY AVAILABLE.... the problem isn`t that we don`t have the resources! All these "world hunger could be ended if..." campaigns are such tripe
0
Reply
Male 394
"Ha. Stupid military. War is stupid. The military is stupid. Don`t care who disagrees with me.2

Well, obviously can`t argue against that, but you`re oversimplifying things.
0
Reply
Male 84
I think the United States has been one of the major driving forces in ending world hunger for several decades. Unfortunately, they have been trying to force-feed the starving people by flinging little pieces of lead down their throats or quick injections of lead directly into the blood stream.
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Hiromi doesn`t realize that she wouldn`t have an internet without it.

Or food.

Or a house.
0
Reply
Female 14
Wow.
0
Reply
Male 6,737
There`s no such thing as "eradicate hunger", or rather there is but 30bn won`t buy it. To remove poverty you don`t just provide food, it`s alot longer process and alot costlier than that.
0
Reply
Female 1,299
Dayyum, to think what an 8 day military holiday would achieve.
0
Reply
Female 1,148
Ha. Stupid military. War is stupid. The military is stupid. Don`t care who disagrees with me.
0
Reply
Male 19,840
Link: Interesting Stat About War And Hunger [Pic] [Rate Link] - Every 8 days? Holy crap!
0
Reply