Art just disagreed with the idea that helping to solve world hunger is good and right.
There are few things in this world that 99.9% of people agree on, but I think you have managed to find a reason to be in the 0.1% of every one of those debates. Congratulations!
Unless I'm missing something. Do you disagree that we need oxygen to live?
I think solving world hunger would be great, prolonging it, however, not so much. If you have 50,000 people in an area that has the resources to support 45,000, bringing in enough food so that all 50,000 are able to barely survive--and in most cases procreate--only ensures that there will be more people to starve during the next generation.
Maintaining an unsustainable population isn't a good thing for that population (even though it may be good, short term, for individual members of the population). It may seem oxymoronic, but feeding starving people dosn't end world hunger, it proliferates it.
As for needing oxygen to live...maybe long term
, but I could survive a little while without it.
Last edited by Art Vandelay on Tue Sep 15, 2009 7:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.