The Borgen Project : US Leaders Can End Hunger (from ATSNN)

The Borgen Project is a non-profit corporation working to bring public and political attention to relief issues through mass marketing. Instead of simply funding aid agencies the Borgen Project is addressing the source of the solution: the lack of public knowledge and political will to address these issues. The Borgen Project is basically an awareness campaign much like ATS.



Their website consists of countless statistics ranging from the arms trade, to the iraq war, to global poverty and the costs of ending it.

This is one website I beleive we should all support and pass on to others.

borgenproject.org...

-raven

Related News Links:
borgenproject.org

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Edit: Removed all-caps title

[edit on 20-1-2005 by Spectre]

Why should it be JUST Americas responsabilty? Europe, Asia both have booming econmies why should it be just our problem?

So what? France could save the world if they gave away grapes instead making wine. Who cares? We spend our money the way we want to, not how the UN or the Borgen Project or any other group tells us to! We give plenty of food aid to starving people worldwide -- what we don't do is stop spending on our own defense and give all that money to dictators! These people need to get a life. :shk:

why should it be just our problem?

that's not what they're saying, that's only one example from the website where the US could divert minimal funding from its defense budget and make a HUGE difference in underdeveloped countries. in 1970, the world's nations agreed to provide 0.7 percent of their gross national income for development assistance. the only countries who have met this minimal pledge? Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. it's not just a US problem it's just that the US has the ability to make a big difference and chooses not to.

what we don't do is stop spending on our own defense

in my opinion i would say diverting some of the defense budget to help turn the world around would do far greater for US security then any amount of defense spending.

"For 45 years of the Cold War we were in an arms race with the Soviet Union. Now it appears we're in an arms race with ourselves."
- Admiral Eugene Carroll, Jr., U.S. Navy, Vice President Emeritus Center for Defense Information

-raven

[edit on 20-1-2005 by raven2012]

ANNUAL DEFENSE SPENDING
• $416 billion: U.S. Defense Budget
• $165 billlion: U.S. Defense Contracts.
• $22 billion: Lockheed Martin's DoD contracts.

ANNUAL AMOUNTS NEEDED TO SOLVE THE WORLDS TOP GLOBAL ISSUES
• $19 billion: Eliminate Starvation and Malnutrition
• $21 billion: Provide Shelter
• $30 billion: Retire Developing Nations Debt
• $10 billion: Provide Clean, Safe Water
• $21 billion: Provide Health Care and AIDS Control
• $4 billion: Remove Landmines
• $7 billion: Eliminate Nuclear Weapons
• $5 billion: Refugee Relief
• $5 billion: Eliminate Illiteracy

$4.4 BILLION: The cost of two
B-2 Bombers.

$3.2 BILLION: The annual
budget for the World Food
Program to assist 104 million
starving and malnourished
people in 81 countries.

-raven

While i agree that humans should not suffer, and that some charity is prudent.

Charity isnt going to make the places where its needed any more capable of supporting the humans living there...its only going to make the humans dependant on the charity more.

The planet already has too many people consuming too many resources, way too fast.
So i feel it os both illogical and against "nature" or darwinism by making it easier for humans to continue to overpopulate the globe.
This is self defeating, yet it makes us feel good to try and help.

At some point, if the system of food production even hiccups for a short time where wold production falls sharply...people will die slowly.
Why is it logical to help this problem grow?
I know this sounds harsh, but eventually nature is going to come calling, and man wont have enough basic things to keep us all alive....
Then darwinism will sort us all out.

providing aid after a disaster is one thing,
but
creating a class of people that are dependant, with little hope, resources, education, and other capasity to become self sufficiant seems like cruel torture and prolonged suffering if you ask me.
Id like to help,
but give me an exit strategy. Im not here to support the world, ive got my own to feed/shelter etc.

You talk of turning the world around...
according to whos design?
Even if we gave the aid, would they take it? would they use it like we wanted? Or would they restrict aid like in indonesia (for whatever reason)
or just pocket that aid like saddam (oil for food)
Ever hear, you cant save those that dont want to save themselves?

Emergency aid is noble,
but
welfare is welfare however you try and paint it, and it would only help people to stagnate in a no win situation.

I ahve the perfect solution, a way we can keep our military budget and end world hunger. Test all of our weapons on the starving. Nukes, daisy cutters, flame throwers whatever. We get to see how effective our weapons are and they don't need food anymore. Perfect solution

if we did this, the population would grow making it worse, requiring even more aid to just keep up.

if we did this, the population would grow making it worse, requiring even more aid to just keep up

ya this is a good point and actually crossed my mind as well. i think this is a major reason why we don't see much assistance taking place.

i just found the statistics of this website pretty staggering; how such a minimal effort from developed countries could make such a profound difference. but i guess that won't be in our best interest until we can find a way to extend the efficiency of the earth's energy sources to meet everyones needs.

-raven

[edit on 20-1-2005 by raven2012]

It's funny that we account for almost half the defense spending in the world, yet our military is pathetic in the sense that we can barely handle the situation we are in now.

What would happen if we got attacked now. Nothing, we'd get our asses handed to us.

We need to cut defense spending by at least 50%.