Phatscotty wrote:Oops, forgot everything is based on "to each according to their needs" and wouldn't understand Americans helping out their neighbors that they see with their own eyes and have skin in the same game, and expect the help to be redistributed to strangers on the other side of the planet who's government is probably hostile to our own and we are just feeding their soldiers.....
It is indeed human nature to feel more kinship for those around them, who they are close to and possibly see on a regular basis. But that does not justify a moral stance where people are dying of preventable problems and we can be the ones to prevent them, and instead we do nothing. If people are dying and living in extreme poverty, even if they are halfway around the world, should we not help? Should we let this awful state continue because we cannot see them? I don't know how one can justify this. If there were Americans living like those in sub-Saharan Africa, you would have a strong argument. But Americans have a much higher standard of living than those in undeveloped nations, even the Americans under our poverty level. From a moral perspective, I would argue we need to solve world hunger and world poverty as a foremost priority. That is not necessarily exclusive
with also helping out those in America, obviously, nor should it be. It would be senseless for a government to abandon its citizens. But doing both would require a significant rethinking of how our government collects and spends money, and it is not a change that can happen quickly.
Phatscotty wrote:Yes, you suggested meat be taken away. I'm sure that will happen someday under an advanced planning program through Obamacare, because banning meat would save the government millions on treating heart disease
Actually, it may very well happen someday, but because of the very same food shortages we are talking about and not by choice. See, for example, this article
Phatscotty wrote:I knew it! I think if we solved world hunger, there would instantly be a billion more mouths to feed by the end of the first year. I do see your points partially, and they are good points, but I think the main factor is that access to and production of food is the main driver of population growth.
Well, that is true in the sense that as long as we are able to keep producing more food, there will be no natural incentive for global population growth to decline. But the people who run the numbers on this seem to come to the conclusion that population growth is going to continue and eventually outstrip food production increases (in fact, this may already be happening -- the Guardian article talks about this a little bit). In other words, it looks like people are going to continue to have babies even if there's not enough food to put in their mouths. I mean, isn't this what has already happened? We couldn't have gotten to the situation we're in without unchecked population growth. In fact, we may very well have been in a Malthusian scenario if the Green Revolution had not occurred. That held off the issue for a few decades, but population growth hasn't slowed, and we're going to face the problem again in the coming decades.
Since taking steps to end world hunger would end suffering that is occurring now
and at least has a chance of slowing population growth (based on the argument I made about how developed nations have lower fertility rates in general), I believe it to be the morally correct choice.