U.N. warns of catastrophe as hungry people top 1 billion

Article

High food prices have pushed another 105 million people into hunger in the first half of 2009, the head of the U.N. World Food Program said Friday, raising the total number of hungry people to over 1 billion.

I couldn't help but wonder what will happen when the countries who are giving aid are themselves no able to help any more and struggling to survive.

That means that one sixth of the planet is hungry. Perhaps we really do not know what our world looks like. Do we see it and choose not to pay attention?

What are your thoughts about this?

reply to post by xman_in_blackx


Some people see it and don't care. Others see it and although they do care they are powerless and can do nothing about it, except perhaps on a small scale. The small group at the top of the global economy have different priorities and we all know what they are!
It is a sad indictment on all of us that we allow this to happen. The world's resources are more than capable of supporting the current population, if only the will was there. Who knows perhaps the internet will eventually lead to a global awakening of sorts and mankind will eventually grow up and out of it's self centred childhood.

Agent Smith in 'The Matrix' summed it up, Mankind, "A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet."

How big can our population get before we burn this planet out? Nature will find a way to pare us down. The more we push it back, the bigger the implosion.

We're way overpopulated. Unfortunately those who contribute the least have lots of time on their hands to breed.

reply to post by Dbriefed


Human beings cannot be compared to a virus or a cancer that is just superficial and silly.
Our population could double and we would still have more than plenty to go round that is of course if somehow the incentive was there to do so.
Nature won't pare us down we are nature.
Those who contribute the least are those who have the most.
I'm sure all those people with time on their hands in the likes of Africa or other third world countries would gladly exchange their nightmare lives for yours.
Sorry to be so contrary.

Originally posted by Dbriefed
Agent Smith in 'The Matrix' summed it up, Mankind, "A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet."

I don't agree with that, however I appreciate the reply. I agree with midicon that our planet could sustain a lot more people, but there are those who feel entitled to more than everyone else. More land than they need, more everything. How much money or stuff does one need? Those who do not have are breeding grounds for groups who will come and take it or wage war on those who have. Sadly, they will not rob from the rich to give to the poor, but keep it for themselves in the long run, thus turning into what they say they despise. How many helicopters and cars did Yassir Arafat need while his people struggled and starved? Mow much was in his bank account when he died? Only a small sample of our world. There are those, however, who will give you the shirt off their back to keep you warm. They will eat less to make sure you have at least something to eat. I think that those people are the majority of Earthlings. Salt of the Earth as some call them. No, they are not always the smartest bunch, but they have good hearts and plenty of empathy for their fellow humans.

I think we are on the verge of a transition of growth and perhaps hunger will be a thing of the past. Humans need to have a fair shake to grow and see our world as it is. We are all the same race. The human race. One people. One planet. We are all in this together.

reply to post by xman_in_blackx


People can see it. I can see it. It's another reason why the rest of the world dislikes us so.

The poorest in this country have it better than some of the "richest" in other countries. We've been living high on the hog and others are living in mudhuts...or dying in starvation.

That's what I hate about the war. Instead of spending money to REALLY help people...we just blow crap up and say we are doing it to help people.

I actually wouldn't mind even being taxed to help others eat. I'd much rather my money go to feed the poor and hungry than to fight a war.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by David9176]

So the suggestion is that we ration our pleasure to feed those who breed the most?
Why should I give up the pleasure of owning 1000 acres with a nice lake on it so that food could be raised for those who refuse to control their reproduction?
Are you going to take it away from me?

Why exactly should we be feeding those who cannot manage their oiwn resources well enough to feed themselves like they did in ancient times?

And just who exactly is going to put up the labor and pay for creating circumstances to feed another 6 billion have nots?

Why exactly do we need another 6 billion?

Three billion would be a lot more comfortable for all concerned.

reply to post by OhZone

Why do people in third world countries have large families? Perhaps that is a question you should ask yourself!
If it came to a down to a choice between taking away some of your 'pleasures' and saving a life? Is there a choice?
We as a species have created these inequalities and it is up to us as a species to grow up and deal with what is.
It is people like you who are part of the problems we face.
We in the west have grown rich on the backs of those in the third world.
I for one would take your land off you in a heartbeat, nobody has the right to own land!


[edit on 12-6-2009 by midicon]

Originally posted by OhZone

Three billion would be a lot more comfortable for all concerned.

3 Billion? Why not 350 million? Hell, why not just pare it down to an even million?

All fine and dandy as long as you aren't part of the other 5.99 billion who must vacate this mortal coil, right?

You have an interesting opinion indeed. I could never agree with it, but it is interesting to imagine your world and the horror it would be.

midicon, you can just donate the fruits of your labor to those over breeders.
Not I.
I'm for just leaving them to their own devices and let nature take its course. When it is all over, they will be much wiser.

Saving a life? For what? So that in a few years there are 5 more that need to be saved?

We cannot with good sense keep artificially propping up populations who will not take the responsibility for their own lives.

When our own food runs short, do you stilll want to share it?
You are a fool if you do not take care of your own first.

The world is not overpopulated. The world rather is pathetically caught up in wars and agendas, instead of the important things, like helping out nations with food and water and health issues. There are plenty of seeds and land and the ability to irrigate it... if they throw enough money at it.

I wonder how many many farms could be built, and people trained on planting and smart farming, from a mere month of funds spent on say, the Iraq war.

reply to post by OhZone


You are missing the point my friend. First of all you were talking about rationing your pleasure and weighing it up against the value of human life.
Now you are talking about running out of food and looking after your own, two entirely different things. I repeat my first question, why do you think people in the third world have large families? Do you not think people would gladly take responsibility for their own lives if the opportunity presented itself?
I would be happy to give the fruits of my labour to help anyone, unfortunately said fruits are hijacked by the government to fund programs not of my choosing. In truth this world could be a much better place without all the greed and profiteering, particularly by those in positions of power.
Lastly, am I a fool for showing compassion? You could do with a little yourself!

Originally posted by fleabit
I wonder how many many farms could be built, and people trained on planting and smart farming, from a mere month of funds spent on say, the Iraq war.

Right you are! That would also empower individuals who would have no need for governments. Those who govern could never have this for there would be no way to exploit the people.

There is plenty of land and there could be plenty of food and water if we chose not to pollute the water we do have but it comes back to exploitation of resources.

It is time for us to learn a sustainable way for us all to live. Permaculture is the way of the future.

Sure, we have resources to feed the 6 billion in the world now. But if we did that the third world nations would just breed even more kids and then there's 10 billion to feed and if we feed them .....

The third world has to adopt the small family philosophy of the west. Until they do that i say let them starve.

reply to post by Make Speed Limit 45


It is not only food the third world needs. What about education, medicine, contraception, hope for the future etc. Should the the third world adopt the philosophies of the west? It is the philosophies of the west that have created these problems.
Children don't ask to be born, but once they are they deserve every opportunity we and this world can give them.
Is this not the way it should be? Is this not the way of real progress?

Edit to add...'let them starve' just about sums up your attitude to life, it is people like you that holds humanity back.


[edit on 13-6-2009 by midicon]

I think people generally don't care that much.

People care to the extent that it's other people suffering, but most of us have no idea what it's like to live through it.

For an individual to do anything "meaningful" about it, that requires thousands of man hours and alot of money; people are too busy trying to help themselves than help anyone else. I don't think this is greedy, its simply that we have a bit more, we're accustomed to having more, and we work with our means.

For example, I am a student in Australia on government support. I work casual hours, occasionally do some freelance design work and study full time at uni (in honours). My boyfriend works full time. We rent. We don't have cable TV or new cars. We buy clothes from op shops and discount department stores. We eat fairly well; I like to cook. We don't go on holidays. We don't have alot of savings, past being able to support ourselves for a few months should we lose govt. support and him his job.

We aren't rich by any stretch of the imagination, we get by and then a little bit. But for us to actually do anything to help, anything major, well, we just don't have the money or the time. We donate money to things such as the tsunamis, bushfires, red cross appeal etc. we arent entirely selfish, but we just don't have the money to really "help" anyone. I'd love to volunteer in Africa but I'm afraid I just don't have the credentials, the contacts or the ability to completely uproot our lives right now.

Forgive me if it sounds selfish, but it's merely a snapshot into the millions of similar stories throughout the world right now.

There is absolutely no reason for this!!! Maybe some of these hoarding billionaires should step in and show some responsibility and repair the devastation they have caused on this planet.

I grew up in L.A. in the late '60s/'70's when there still were dairies and orchards near the downtown L.A. area. By the '70s there were no more dairies or orchards.As the population grew and started crowding people out, my family and others moved to the rural L.A. Valley area which was primarily orchards and ranches.

By the late '70s the L.A. Valley area became industrialized and also became overpopulated. The infrastructure could not comfortably support the population. L.A. is a desert, so to supply water to the population we had to take water from the Colorado river and northern California. The growing population created dust and smoke which which became the famous L.A. smog. We had smog alerts and stayed inside. Overpopulation also created the famous L.A. traffic jams.

In the late '80s I moved to Silicon Valley, which was mostly orchards. Over time this area also became overrun. The sprawl grew out to the central valley and farmlands were turned into suburban developments. It became common for people to commute 2hrs each way, some people commuted longer even from Sacramento.

Most land cannot be turned into farms without lots of water and throwing the local ecosystem out of balance. Water is taken from other areas or lowers the ground water table, and creates large changes with unknown consequences.

Dense populations restricts how you can live. Freedom means no one can tell you what to do. In a densely populated area everyone wants to control you. Overpopulation makes us less individual and more a group member.

Nature works. It will step in and control this human population explosion. Humans fail. when we took wolves from Yellow Stone park, the coyote, elk and deer populations exploded, then became diseased and weak and over grazed the park. Once we understood the wolves benefited the park, we reintroduced the wolves and restored the balance. When humans try to control nature, it always fails. We humans have no natural predators, and our own population explosion is unchecked.

Without automation, farms could not support the global population. Our population level is artificially supported.

1 Billion starving... this is 'codex alimentarius' in action ... sadly this is just the begining. The WTO, WHO, UN, FAO state in their own words that this number will rise to 3 Billion starving with 1 Billion outright starving to death THEIR OWN WORDS!!

Look this up and read about it its the scariest thing I have read and its real and documented in plain sight.

ATS thread on it

Abovetopsecret.com.....

and a very good vid explaining it all

Codex Alimentarius...

This isn't theory nor gossip, it's documented fact from their own mouths .... and thats the scary part..

Originally posted by OhZone
midicon, you can just donate the fruits of your labor to those over breeders.
Not I. I'm for just leaving them to their own devices and let nature take its course. When it is all over, they will be much wiser.
Saving a life? For what? So that in a few years there are 5 more that need to be saved? we cannot with good sense keep artificially propping up populations who will not take the responsibility for their own lives.
When our own food runs short, do you stilll want to share it?
You are a fool if you do not take care of your own first.

The words of an insensitive, incompassionate, and unthoughtful human being.
We are pretty much just lucky that we were born somewhere with vast natural resources and opportunities. I'd like to see you "take responsibility" for your own life if you were born somewhere such as Somalia or Ethiopia. People don't CHOOSE to be hungry, they don't CHOOSE to have limited-to-no opportunities.
If we simply took a fraction of the money that our oh-so-wise government throws away on the defense budget, we could conceivably fix this problem.

Unfortunately, many in Washington apparently see things with a mindset more like your own. Despicable really.