fighting world hunger

[LAN]

You're right, she ran like hell when she saw me.

Did you run after her? Those lips ...

[Pinner]

I suppose going on a mission would open my eyes and answer some of my questions.

Yes, it will. But won't you miss your insulated suburban wonderland and that new-car smell while you're away?

[LAN]

Yes, it will. But won't you miss your insulated suburban wonderland and that new-car smell while you're away?

Gotta love people from the Colorado bubble.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Do you think it's more than just bringing them back from the brink of death? What about the subsequent problems with longstanding nutritional deficits? Sometimes I wonder if by sending "temporary aid," in the form of water/nutrition, if we're just getting those folks over the starvation speedbump. I suppose going on a mission would open my eyes and answer some of my questions.

It could be just getting them over that speedbump, but I'd say what's wrong with that? If they're not at risk of starving to death, at least there's the possibility for doing something of long-term good. The alternative seems to be just letting them die and writing them off as 'inevitable' casualties of politics, war, or overpopulation, and I don't believe we should look at people as necessarily bound for death. We can always do something to change their conditions.

[shamrockpow]

It depends how they spend the money. Some groups take a direct approach, purchasing food (with a meal going for under $1 in India, $1k goes along way). Some do development work, water, hospitals, etc. Some take a longer term view focusing on education. $1,000 would by 4 girls scholarships at Room to Read

I tend to agree with Spats' first point. Temporary aid should really only go to places like Darfur where the people are dying as a direct result of willful geonocide and denial strategy. Read this (and 4 more lengthy pieces on TNR.com) for the most accurate and up-to-the-minute assessment of HOW and WHY people are still dying:
http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=2732
Then send a buck to Catholic Relief Services, Jewish World Service, or your own favorite aid group.


Right now I'm working for an international public health NGO, but we do zero aid work. Most of our business is focused on training leaders and sharing best practices so that rural health systems can develop and make use of the resources that are accessible and affordable. Closing the knowledge gap is a big first step, but the long-term problems will only be solved through sustained economic development. This has only been the accepted dogma for about 5-10 years in gov't and multi-national organizations - hopefully we will begin to see even better results in the first half of the 21st century.

And Dex: We may be far from the maximum carrying capacity for the world, but if a billion Indians and Chinese plan on living like Americans do now, then we'll push up against that limit pretty quick...

[GFP]

shouldn't I be helping my own people, within my own country, before I reach out to help other nations?

it's hard for me to send my dollars to another country, when I could use my own two feet and hands to help people in our own country.

I've never understood this reasoning. I don't think anyone would claim that an American life is worth more than an African life, so why does preventing an American death take precendence over preventing a foreign death? Is this attitude just a remnant of wartime nationalistic thinking or is there a rational reason behind it? I find myself agreeing with cj001f on this issue.


No man is an island, entire of itself
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main
if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls
it tolls for thee.
- John Donne

[Pinner]

Gotta love people from the Colorado bubble.

...who've travelled around the world and seen and done enough things to appreciate the value of a broad worldview and who opt not to live or advocate a whitebread life either in practice or in a wider philosophical sense.

But enough about me. What's it like in your bubble, LAN? I mean outside of the cul-de-sacs and new car smell and all.

[Dexter Rutecki]

And Dex: We may be far from the maximum carrying capacity for the world, but if a billion Indians and Chinese plan on living like Americans do now, then we'll push up against that limit pretty quick...

Maybe, maybe not. 40 years ago it was widely accepted that the world could not support 6 billion people, and we hit that mark a while ago. I'm not advocating high birth-rates for poor countries (or Utah), I just tend to be skeptical of pronouncements that we've hit or are about to hit some sort of wall.

[Core Shot]

Maybe, maybe not. 40 years ago it was widely accepted that the world could not support 6 billion people, and we hit that mark a while ago. I'm not advocating high birth-rates for poor countries (or Utah), I just tend to be skeptical of pronouncements that we've hit or are about to hit some sort of wall.

At the risk of bringing one of Dexters ranting threads back to the subject of Ski/Snowboard, more population means more global warming, which means less snow, which means less skiing.
Maybe we should take a cue from our forefathers and try the opposite approach and start handing out infected blankets

[ill-advised strategy]

...who've travelled around the world and seen and done enough things to appreciate the value of a broad worldview and who opt not to live or advocate a whitebread life either in practice or in a wider philosophical sense.

But enough about me. What's it like in your bubble, LAN? I mean outside of the cul-de-sacs and new car smell and all.

****~zing~ ****

[zion zig zag]

But enough about me. What's it like in your bubble, LAN? I mean outside of the cul-de-sacs and new car smell and all.

Pinner, I think you're in the 'i hate anyone who is happy with their life/more successful than me' bubble.

[bklyn]

I think that it's misguided to think that you must choose between helping at home and helping abroad.

I think we can all help through volunteer action at home and abroad by supporting groups that are doing good relief work. Also important is how we choose to spend our money. Companies that give back locally and globally, etc.

[Pinner]

Pinner, I think you're in the 'i hate anyone who is happy with their life/more successful than me' bubble.

Thanks Dr. Phil!


Actually to be quite fair, since you clearly know shit about me I'll fill you in. I hate plenty of people who are less happy and successful than me.

I hate people who are taller than me, shorter than me, darker than me, lighter than me, fatter than me, thinner than me, who live in bigger houses than me, who live in smaller houses than me, people with more money, people with less money, people who live in larger cities, people who live in quainter ones, people who live anywhere except where I live, people who like food that's different than what I like, etc. In fact, I generally hate all people who aren't exactly like me.

And since you didn't ask, but seem to care, me making fun of LAN and Scoober's Uberaryan experience is a running joke between us and they seem to take it in stride without getting their noses too bent out of shape.

Thanks for playing though. 'Preciate it.



And speaking of world hunger, man I could sure use some guacamole and a Corona about now.

[Viva]

I think it depends on the situation, and what the money is used for.

The situation, as I undestand it, is that a portion of any monies that I contribute will be siphoned off to help defray the administrative costs of that charitable organization and that may be a good chunk.

Then, once the goods make it overseas, theives will make off with most or all of it. This is why things became so bleak in Somalia a decade ago. Warlords were taking everything while allowing the general population to starve. The more people starving = the more relief stuff getting sent over = the more that they could steal. They had (probably still have) a pretty good racket going.

Nature is cruel and wherever there's human suffering (animal suffering now, too) there will emerge people to exploit it for their own gain.

I'm all for finding ways to end human misery, but I'm more inclined to help at the local level, where my donation of time is often more valuable than my $$$s (well, in my case $). LAN's right; how can we help the world unless we figure out how to take care of ourselves?

[Woodsy]

Pinner, I think you're in the 'i hate anyone who is happy with their life/more successful than me' bubble.

see thats no true because Pinner likes me and I am better lookin, younger, smarter and happier than him.


as to aid, Viva is close.
Our aid actually can hurt.
root problems must be addressed locally and globally before anything changes.
speaking to African aid in a recent report

- U.S. food aid programs are plagued by inefficiency and are not addressing the long-term causes of hunger and food insecurity in the developing world, according to a new report by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP).

The report, U.S. Food Aid: Time to Get it Right, points out that the main beneficiaries of the U.S. food aid system are agribusiness companies bidding on food aid contracts, U.S. shipping companies that transport the food internationally, and private voluntary organizations (PVOs) that rely on sales of food aid in developing countries to generate funds for their other aid work (a practice called monetization).

The report found that this unusual political alliance blocks urgently needed reforms of U.S. food aid. The U.S. practice of sending food for sale or distribution in countries facing hunger is inefficient, expensive and slow. The U.S. should move towards food aid programs based on cash for purchasing food in or near the country where food aid is required. Almost all other major food aid donors have moved away from the donation of commodities.

The report, authored by IATP Trade Program Director Sophia Murphy, and Kathleen McAfee, Visiting Scholar in Geography, University of California-Berkeley, can be read at: iatp.org.

“Food aid is about saving lives—often in desperate situations,” said Murphy. “But food aid also has to be part of a much larger strategy to build and protect food security. We have to make sure we are not feeding children now who will still be food aid recipients in 20 years. U.S. food aid today fails this critical test.”

U.S. food aid programs are a hot topic at the World Trade Organization (WTO), where other countries criticize the two practices that are largely unique to the U.S. First, the monetization of food aid generates development dollars for PVOs at enormous expense and often to the detriment of local producers and traders in developing countries. Second, taxpayer-funded export credits facilitate food dumping: overseas sales of program food aid for less than the costs of production. A European Union proposal at the WTO would require that all food aid be cash-based and untied from requirements to source commodities in the donor country. Food aid is expected to be a point of contention at the next WTO Ministerial in Hong Kong in December.

U.S. food aid also suffers from administrative confusion, according to the report. Two departments - USAID and the U.S. Department of Agriculture - oversee six separate programs. The U.S. is the world’s largest food aid donor, funding 57 percent of global food aid deliveries in 2004. Yet, the U.S. is the only food aid donor, aside from South Korea, that sells part of its food aid. All other countries donate all their contributions. And, the U.S. provides less food aid when food prices are high and aid is most needed.

The report concludes, “in the name of the poor overseas, very large sums of money are now paid to prop up U.S. shipping firms and to buy food at higher than market prices from U.S. based food processors and other agribusinesses.” The report found that most food aid is self-interested and politicized, rather than focused on the needs of the hungry.

While the world has seen increases in food production, food dependency in many developing countries has grown. Food production per in Africa is 10 percent less than it was in 1960. Sub-Saharan Africa now receives half of total food aid contributions. More than 200 million people in Africa are undernourished and of those, about 40 million in any one year face acute hunger. Countries in parts of Latin America and much of sub-Saharan Africa that once fed themselves and exported food are now net food importers.

“African farmers are capable of producing a lot more food for their communities and nearby regions. But policies of the U.S., the WTO, and the World Bank promote the use of African land and resources for export crops instead, and many African governments neglect agriculture for domestic food needs. This must change, or hunger will increase,” Dr. McAfee explains.

Food aid programs must have a two-fold objective: to meet emergency needs, preventing deaths today, and to help build sustainable and self-reliant food systems across the world for tomorrow.

The report makes a series of recommendations on how to improve U.S. food aid, including:

• Transition to an untied, cash-based food aid system;

• Phase out sales of food aid;

• Impose strict limits on in-kind food aid;

• Protect and promote people’s right to food;

• Protect and promote countries’ rights to determine their own food security strategy;

• Establish strong and enforceable multilateral guidelines.

[cj001f]

as to aid, Viva is close.
Our aid actually can hurt.
root problems must be addressed locally and globally before anything changes.
speaking to African aid in a recent report

The aid you are speaking of is US government aid - which is why they talk about porkbarrel dumping projects. That's different than what most private aid organisation do. Sure "root problems", whatever they are need to be addressed. That's what some charities like room to read do. Sitting on your ass and consigning generations to die because corruption isn't fixed is sick.

As for the administrative burden - ever looked at the books of the United Way, Nature Conservancy or GoodWill? They take a good cut out of your donations. Sure volunteering locally is good; I've found most local groups can't make good use of me.

[zion zig zag]

Thanks for playing though. 'Preciate it.

No problem man, it's what I do.

[zion zig zag]

I think the reason i'd be more inclined to help at home before i helped abroad is because it can have direct consequences in my community. That in turn helps me. Helping myself by helping others is not a bad thing i don't think.

[shamrockpow]

Maybe, maybe not. 40 years ago it was widely accepted that the world could not support 6 billion people, and we hit that mark a while ago. I'm not advocating high birth-rates for poor countries (or Utah), I just tend to be skeptical of pronouncements that we've hit or are about to hit some sort of wall.

I'm not calling it a wall, just a natural equilibrium rate. Sort of like the difference btwn. ideal lab conditions and the real world.

Food is the perfect example. For more than 40 years we've had enough food (total) to ensure that no one in the world starves to death except by choice. Yet, real constraints (both economic and political) come into play to prevent this ideal outcome.

China seems willing to do almost anything to avoid becoming dependent on the U.S. for oil (a la Japan). And the fact is that China will double its oil requirements AND double their import requirements (from 40-80%) in the next 20 years or so (see http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2...50719china.pdf). This idea of a strategic rivalry is not the most healthy one, but it appears to be a legit concern in both Beijing and Washington. And between determined terrorists and retarded policy makers, I'd say there's a better than 50-50 chance of seeing a major nuclear strike before the Earth's population crosses 7 billion...

[Blurred]

No problem man, it's what I do.

You got schooled you little pussy. Is that all you got?

[LAN]

And since you didn't ask, but seem to care, me making fun of LAN and Scoober's Uberaryan experience is a running joke between us and they seem to take it in stride without getting their noses too bent out of shape.

My septum is deviated, but not from anything you've said. I think it's more of a running joke from your end. I'd actually like to discuss things with you, but seeing as though you won't answer your PM's, it's a moot point.

[LAN]

I've never understood this reasoning. I don't think anyone would claim that an American life is worth more than an African life, so why does preventing an American death take precendence over preventing a foreign death?

I'm not saying that one life is more valuable than others. What I'm saying is that I'm not the type to send $ to an organization and sit at home in my cushy cul-de-sac while others do the work. I'd much rather be the person delivering the good fortune to others. I've been lucky enough to do so within our own borders, but not yet in another country.

As far as the new car smell that you seem to be obsessed with, Pinner, neither of the cars that we drive are new.

[Blurred]

Pinners game.

Does his best to be witty, gains your respect by saying a few things that seem sophisticated. When he has you there, then he goes polar and makes little shots at you hoping you'll question yourself. If you take the bait, he'll say nothing abrasive in an attempt to keep you playing. Those not willing to tell him to go fuck himself are only exploited by him in their insecurities. [/Dr. Phil]

[Dexter Rutecki]

I'm not calling it a wall, just a natural equilibrium rate. Sort of like the difference btwn. ideal lab conditions and the real world.

Food is the perfect example. For more than 40 years we've had enough food (total) to ensure that no one in the world starves to death except by choice. Yet, real constraints (both economic and political) come into play to prevent this ideal outcome.

China seems willing to do almost anything to avoid becoming dependent on the U.S. for oil (a la Japan). And the fact is that China will double its oil requirements AND double their import requirements (from 40-80%) in the next 20 years or so (see http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2...50719china.pdf). This idea of a strategic rivalry is not the most healthy one, but it appears to be a legit concern in both Beijing and Washington. And between determined terrorists and retarded policy makers, I'd say there's a better than 50-50 chance of seeing a major nuclear strike before the Earth's population crosses 7 billion...

In my opinion the natural equilibrium rate is a sort of wall, non? I'm not saying there isn't a limit to the earth's human population, just that no one has any idea what it might be--all past guesses seem to have been wrong, and it's impossible to predict what might allow us to surpass the current carrying capacity. I guess there are people who argue that there is effectively no upper limit, and while I don't buy that either, I would say that by industrializing poor areas you can eliminate overpopulation as a concern by lowering birthrates. Maybe.

You lost me with the major nuclear strike thing, though. Are you talking about a war with nukes? Or just a terrorist use? I don't see the U.S. and China fighting with nukes at any point in the foreseeable future, regardless of competition for resources. Not really in anyone's interest.

[LAN]

Pinners game.

gains your respect

Maybe yours, but certainly not mine.