Slashdot Mirror

but people are not starving to death on the streets either.

Actually, they are:
https://www.wfp.org/stories/10...

What, do you really think a multi-billion dollar charity organisation randomly decided to send 100,000 chickens to a country that doesn't need them?

This is more about the ass-hat pride of the Bolivian politicians than any wrongdoing on the Gates foundations part. But hey, this is Slashdot, so obviously it's all Bill's fault.

Not sure if chickens are the right thing to deliver, but Bolivia certainly does not know how to feed their population properly: https://www.wfp.org/stories/10... or http://www.unicef.org/bolivia/... I am always baffled, when pride is willing to kill people.

Although obesity may seem like a problem in developed countries, the fact that there are more obese people than underweight people in the world means that starvation is much less of a problem than it used to be. We now have enough food to feed the world. This is a good thing. Better to be a bit chubby than die of starvation which in some parts of the world, people used to do.

You're assuming equal distribution of food which is not accurate. There's still plenty of starvation in the world.
https://www.wfp.org/hunger/sta...

So yes, there is enough food to feed the world - but most of it is consumed and wasted by the (relative) wealthy.

Health care and food. The two things that the US does export to Cuba, ever since the Trade Sanction Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000. Funny how that works out.

The US sells a lot of food to Cuba. In fact, only a few years ago, they imported 80% of their food, and the bulk of that from the US. That's down to 60% now, but about half their state-owned farmland (which in turn is 70% of all farmland) is sitting unused. Cuba could be a thriving place if it weren't so badly run.

The same goes for health care.

Simply saying something, whether you honestly believe it or not, does not make it true.

And yet opening with this sentence added nothing whatsoever to your comment. Adding facts to your comment does not increase the veracity or accuracy of your other claims.

World hunger is at the lowest it has ever been. https://www.wfp.org/stories/10... How exactly to interpret that to mean that the green revolution has led to starvation?

Try looking at India sometime. It is the poster child for the failure of the green revolution. People are starving in India right now because the croplands will no longer sustain the crops. Green Revolution agriculture destroys topsoil, turning it into an inert dirt medium for hydroponically growing crops. But the Indian farmer cannot afford the ever-increasing amount of synthetics which must be dumped on the plants every year to grow crops without them being able to get their nutrients directly from healthy soil, as they would do in a natural system. At best the Green Revolution may have postponed massive starvation — and exacerbated it. We're seeing precisely the same inability to produce food, and for the same reasons, here in the United States.

Producing foods by traditional means was a large part of the reason hunger was worse in the past than it is now. There were fewer people, more of them were directly involved in food production (both in real terms and as a percent of the population) and yet there was MORE hunger than today.

The problems, then as now, were primarily related to distribution. And, of course, overpopulation. Guess what? We're still not distributing food to starving people, even in our own country, and we're still making more people.

Going backward with regard to efficiency and yields is not a viable solution unless you are willing to let a lot of people starve needlessly.

Well, I'm glad that you agree that the Green Revolution is harmful. You can get dramatically better yields planting guilds and farming without tilth, but it does require more labor. You trade human efficiency for space efficiency, and for viability. The biggest problem with the G.R. is the use of synthetics; the pesticides, herbicides, and the fertilizers all kill off the beneficials in soil upon which plants depend. In fact, destroying topsoil in order to grow crops is grossly inefficient, because we depend on it and it's difficult and time-consuming to make. Just like burning oil is undoing millions of years of activity which made the globe relatively ideal for our use, we're basically burning topsoil with our farming practices as meaningfully as if we extracted all of its organic material and threw it into a furnace.

Going forward with the Green Revolution is going to lead straight back to global starvation. But that's precisely what we are doing with GMO crops designed to permit application of more pesticides. But when you plant guilds and don't plant monocultures you have trap crops, you have the opportunity for IPM and the mixed crops attract beneficials which attack your pests. Monocultures are part and parcel of everything that is wrong with modern farming; they breed plagues of bugs and they attract plagues of birds, actually permitting the creation of the largest flocks which could not even grow to such sizes without the benefit of these crops to consume.

TL;DR: Unless we go back to saving our shit and using it to grow our food, the only way it will be possible to produce food on any kind of scale will be hydroponically. We are destroying our topsoil.

Simply saying something, whether you honestly believe it or not, does not make it true.

World hunger is at the lowest it has ever been. https://www.wfp.org/stories/10... How exactly to interpret that to mean that the green revolution has led to starvation?

Producing foods by traditional means was a large part of the reason hunger was worse in the past than it is now. There were fewer people, more of them were directly involved in food production (both in real terms and as a percent of the population) and yet there was MORE hunger than today. The modern techniques were developed because the worked better, not out of some perverse desire to make people less food secure. Large agriculture takes feeding the world as a mission statement. Every conference I've ever attended is peppered with references to the disconnect between population projections (going up FAST) and available land projections (trending downward in developed countries, and stagnant in developing ones).

We need to produce twice as much food in 2050 as in 2010, yet we need to do it with LESS land and finite resources than we did in 2020. Going backward with regard to efficiency and yields is not a viable solution unless you are willing to let a lot of people starve needlessly.

"FAO calculates that around half of the world's hungry people are from smallholder farming communities, surviving off marginal lands prone to natural disasters like drought or flood. Another 20 percent belong to landless families dependent on farming"

"there are 842 million hungry people in the world"

http://www.wfp.org/hunger/who-...

Wrong! The world produces more than enough food, and agricultural output grows four times for every three times the population grows. World hunger is a distribution problem, not a production problem. In fact, fully a third of the food produced in the world is wasted.

Well... not "disagree", exactly, but I'd consider it up for some debate. Borlaug did indeed save hundreds of millions of lives from starvation, but it created other problems of overcrowding (lack of access to water, increased violence from too many people crammed in together, disease, etc.) In some places it simply shifted the problems of starvation to larger populations. The number of hungry people in the world is expected to hit a record billion people:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29231
http://www.wfp.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/600x400/photos/600_bis_Total_Hungry_People_2001-2009.jpg

I really don't intend this to diminish the sheer number of lives that Borlaug has saved, and some places have done much better in than others in taking advantage of the opportunity. For the past few decades the problem isn't really about quantity of food, per se, but rather the difficulty of getting it where it's needed despite local instability (including, just today, a murderous attack on UN aid personnel in Somalia).

But I do think that Borlaug's achievement doesn't reach its full capability without population control and decent government, and if we had those things Borlaug's extraordinary accomplishment might be unnecessary.

Most issues below have been raised above. Many inaccurately, or incomplete.

Soil v dirt. It is my understanding that to grow anything, all that is needed is something for the roots to grab, and the appropriate chemicals, water and sunlight supplied. True, crop rotation can reduce the chemicals required (Nitrogen a good example, use sub-clover.)

Grain costs. Ethanol can be made from most organic matter. Grains of any type are good producers of ethanol. The production of ethanol for use as a fuel additive certainly appears to have driven up the cost of grains. For instance, look at a graph of "world grain prices" v time. ( http://www.ifpri.org/node/8436 ).

It does seem logical that higher grain costs would correlate very well with the increased starvation of people (especially children, about 6 million per annum) in the poorer parts of the world. (e.g. http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats) There are reports that agricultural areas in third world countries are being bought up and utilized for ethanol production.

Just incidentally, Ethanol has a lower HCV (Higher Calorific Value) than petrol. (approx 30,000 MJ/Kg -v- 45,000 MJ/Kg.) This means that ethanol is only worth ~2/3 as much as petrol as a fuel, because it only does 2/3 the work. So for a (say) 10% mix (E10) the value per gallon or liter should be (0.9 + 2/3*.1)/1 ~ 0.967% of the straight (ULP) price. Or for each $1.00 paid for regular ULP, the price for E10 should be 3.3c less. For a 20% mix, (E20) the cost should be 6.7c per $1.00 less.

So there we have it. If you want to (1) help the farmers, (2) damage your car's engine, and (3) help the environment by (4) killing off millions of children in third world countries, then just vote to increase the mandated amount of ethanol in petrol.

I fail to see how the world food programme, the construction of refugee camps, malaria and AIDS prevention, child protection and education are bad for anyone, let alone "the rest of us."

Unless, of course, you mean that you're unwilling to pay taxes to support such efforts. In which case you'd seem like a selfish bastard but I'd reluctantly agree that human decency should be optional. I would go on to point out that most of the UN's humanitarian programs are financed by voluntary contributions from member states.

http://www.wfp.org/ - WFP is the world's largest humanitarian agency fighting hunger. WFP is funded entirely through voluntary donations.

No, I'd say your energy is misdirected. There already are many researchers dedicated to finding a cure for diabetes. Your energy would be better spent doing something besides hounding someone who's already busy trying to solve a major problem.

http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats

No, the battle is GM vs non-GM. I will not buy GM food. Nor will many other people. How about this, have GM food labeled then see how many people buy it. Companies like Monsanto fight attempts to require labeling.

The push for profit has given us radical increase in agricultural yield over the past 80 years

One, for most of those 80 years foreign genes were not inserted into plants. Two, more than one thing accounts for increases in yield, And three, a lack of food is not the problem. The problems are political and armed conflicts. With neoliberal policies yields only went up modestly. Here's a story about millions of metric tons of wheat rotting away in a warehouse in India. Another one says how the supply chain is messed up, "Industry experts estimate more than 30% of all fresh produce is lost or spoils before it reaches the market." Many more stories like these can be found. How about in Africa? In the Democratic Republic of Congo looting of crops by armed groups and general insecurity has undermined farming. Or take Zimbabwe. Before Robert Mugabe came to power the country was a bread basket for southern Africa, ie a net food exporter. Food was the one of the biggest if not the biggest cash earner for Zimbabwe. After he came to power he forced white farmers off the farms then gave the land to his cronies, who do not know how to farm. Now Zimbabwe does not grow enough food for its own population.

Quite simply GM will not "fix" the problem of too little food. There's plenty of food so genetic engineering is not needed. To go further Infrastructure: The new gold explains how infrastructure is part of the problem. It blames the rotting food in India on the "country's creaky infrastructure".

Falcon

Drupal is just not ready for the mainstream.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/
http://www.theonion.com/
http://www.fastcompany.com/
http://www.wfp.org/

ORLY?

*cough*

I'll agree - Drupal does have a steep learning curve. With regards to theming/styling, though, it's no different than any other CMS. Designers will have to fight cross-browser css compatibility issues with whatever CMS or template engine they're using.

Actually, all the research and money put into developing an ICBM would be better spent feeding the North Korean people.

According to the UN's World Food Program, 8.7 million North Koreans will need food aid this year. That's roughly one third of the population.

I was in India last year; the poverty and malnutrition in the outlying areas is simply heart-breaking. Worse than anywhere else that I've been. Call me old-fashioned, but before a gov't starts acting on all of their world-stage aspirations, shouldn't they feed their citizens?

I guess that one could make the case that India's space program is an investment in the future, but I wouldn't want to be the one to try to sell that to people who don't have enough food.

Want to listen to better music and still help the people of Sudan? Check out the Genocide in Sudan compilation. All proceeds go to UNICEF and The UN Refugee Agency. Or you could donate directly to UNICEF, the UN Refugee Agency, or the UN world food programme

India is not so much of a starving country, so as it seems to the western eyes. India's grain storage were spilling with wheat last year, alas if only it can reach those in need.Corruption and burecracy has taken its toll on food distribution programme, but India doesn't need and expect world to feed its huge population.You must be living under rock, but India is actually a big donor to the World food programme. India was 5th largest supplier of food to Iraq. http://www.wfp.org/operations/current_operations/R esUpdates/103600.pdf India supplies food and aid to countries like Bhutan,Nepal and other African countries.

Think about how many Africans will die (malnourishment, diseases) because you use your "charity" budget on stuff that makes your life better.

Think about exactly why you would be outraged if millions of people died of hunger or cold (think Pakistan) in your country, yet this is not such a big deal if it happens far enough away.

Think about how much suffering could be prevented if you gave 10% of your income, how little suffering that would cause you, and why you (like most people) consider it okay to give much less than that.

International Red Cross
Médécins sans frontières
UN World Food Programme

I'm kinda disappointed and surprised by this.

Here we have a country that (according to the UN) holds 50% of the world's hungry:

"Nearly 50 percent of the world's hungry live in India, a low-income, food-deficit country. Around 35 percent of India's population - 350 million - are considered food-insecure, consuming less than 80 percent of minimum energy requirements.

Nutritional and health indicators are extremely low. Nearly nine out of 10 pregnant women aged between 15 and 49 years suffer from malnutrition and anaemia. Anaemia in pregnant women causes 20 percent of infant mortality. More than half of the children under five are moderately or severely malnourished, or suffer from stunting."

This is straight out of the UN Food Program webpage (http://www.wfp.org/country_brief/indexcountry.asp ?country=356).

So, they put this satellite up for what? To better see their people starving ?

Well, you made me stop and think long enough to do the math.

With 12.5 % of a population of 295,000,000 at the poverty level, or 36,875,000. Following the previous poster's chart of $250 billion donated, that means that each person at the poverty level in the United States could receive $6779.66. (No links, you can do your own math.) I'd say giving each impoverished American a newer used Volvo is pretty generous. Of course, if it was donated more wisely instead of more freely, it might actually get where it is needed.

Also, if you'd care to check around on your 'American' spirit you leftist commie pinko America hating Michael Moore wannabe moron, on such sites as The World Food Programme, you might see that America normally gives more to humanitarian causes than the rest of the world combined.

If you wanted to start a "save the world" thread on slashdot, it would have probably been more beneficial and more 'interesting' to suggest we all visit thehungersite.com.

I'd also be more inclined to suggest that the author possibly donate his old PC to the local library after he upgrades or something that seems maybe a little less forceful than "screw your wants and needs, give your hard earned money away".

Btw, to the author, since you seem to be interested in SFF, the Asus S-presso has a nice look to me.

In fact, I'm betting with that kind of money programs could be put in place to feed quite a few people across the world. Or retool an out-of-date workforce in the US and abroad. Or even both.

Some blue-collar guy would probably say "How does this give me a job?" and it's true, it will create some jobs. But we couldn't we get a better bang for our buck than building a space rocket? We may discover some great things on Mars but do we really seem like a nation, or world for that matter, with our priorities inline?

//Fine, mod me down, but will you be able to sleep at night?//

You can help save intelligent life here on Earth by donating to the World Food Programme. The World Food Programme's donation page is here.

Incidentally, the U.S. Government is the largest donor:

In 2000, the USA was the most substantial donor, with more than US$796 million given to WFP activities. Japan was the second largest contributor, with almost US$260 million donated over the same period, followed by the European Commission with US$118 million.

Oh well, I'm sure we can get the money from the defence piggy-bank... right, guys?

The Department of Health and Human Services received about 501 billion dollars in 2003 compared with the 388 billion that the Department of Defense received. Look here.

If you're in the U.S. and want to do more to help locally right now, try here. Remember, there are people in your local community that are suffering just as much as other people around the world. If we all help locally, we all help globally.

You can help save intelligent life here on Earth by donating to the World Food Programme. The World Food Programme's donation page is here.

Incidentally, the U.S. Government is the largest donor:

In 2000, the USA was the most substantial donor, with more than US$796 million given to WFP activities. Japan was the second largest contributor, with almost US$260 million donated over the same period, followed by the European Commission with US$118 million.

Oh well, I'm sure we can get the money from the defence piggy-bank... right, guys?

The Department of Health and Human Services received about 501 billion dollars in 2003 compared with the 388 billion that the Department of Defense received. Look here.

If you're in the U.S. and want to do more to help locally right now, try here. Remember, there are people in your local community that are suffering just as much as other people around the world. If we all help locally, we all help globally.

You can help save intelligent life here on Earth by donating to the World Food Programme. The World Food Programme's donation page is here.

Incidentally, the U.S. Government is the largest donor:

In 2000, the USA was the most substantial donor, with more than US$796 million given to WFP activities. Japan was the second largest contributor, with almost US$260 million donated over the same period, followed by the European Commission with US$118 million.

Oh well, I'm sure we can get the money from the defence piggy-bank... right, guys?

The Department of Health and Human Services received about 501 billion dollars in 2003 compared with the 388 billion that the Department of Defense received. Look here.

If you're in the U.S. and want to do more to help locally right now, try here. Remember, there are people in your local community that are suffering just as much as other people around the world. If we all help locally, we all help globally.

Absolutely, but not before giving at least a small contribution to the World Food Programme, which is in desperate need of funds to combat starvation in both Iraq and sub-Saharan Africa at the same time. Then there will be enough people alive to use the internet!

Software as morals is decadant, selfish, and immature. Face it, it, RMS, and you are irrelevant.

Decent infrastructure has more benefits than you can imagine. My dad works for the World Food Program and that org has used many different technologies for communication throughout the world.

At his last post (Nicaragua) they used Toyota Land Cruisers to get around. Those vehicles were equipped with a multitude of antennas, including some to communicate in the UHF range. For more remote locations they used motorcycles to transport satellite phones where needed. Now he's heading up operations in Angola and i'm not sure what sorts of techs they use there, but i've heard talk of satellite phones and in the capital, Luanda, he uses a cel phone (talking to him from MI, USA is a pain, phone cuts out and is quite laggy).

While starving sucks, it sucks even more when you can't communicate with anyone that you are hungry. In the past it was necessary to physically visit every single location to see how situations were there. Now, with better communication devices, when something serious happens (hurricane, landslide, refugee influx, etc) it can be communicated much quicker, response times are faster, and more lives can be saved.

As the site designer, I think that an end to the war *is* the issue. It requires incredible hubris to say that a website is not about what it is clearly about. A nonsarcastic group that I am in has three main points of unity:

1. Calling for an end to the war.
2. Fighting racism.
3. Preservation of civil liberties.

Further, I see the three above-listed issues as interrelated. I care about *people*, and see all people as important. The military doesn't. Bigots don't. The civil-liberties-destroyers don't.

While I totally respect your right to disagree, please don't tell me what I think. The NY Times has insisted since 11 Sep that anyone in favor of peace is "confused." Believe it or not, some people really *have* thought about the issues, and decided that killing people is not the best way to stop death.

Rather than try to steal money from other worthy groups, why not lobby the right people to support your cause?

I don't exactly know what you mean by worthy...In fact, what exactly does NASA do that is so important? Do you have concrete examples? If NASA does research that just happens to improve, say, something like weather prediction, why don't we simply decide to fund only those types of scientific developments?

I don't buy the argument that the research by-products of Space Exploration justify the huge costs, that, I might remind you, are funded by public tax dollars. Is there some way we can spend less money on Space Shuttles, and more money on issues that directly affect the US public. (My assumption here is that Space Shuttle missions don't really affect our general population!)

By the way, if you think "sandwiches" are the way to combat hunger problems (sometimes they can be - food not bombs!), you should check out:
The UN World Food Program!

Actually, 5 billion could make a huge difference. The UN World Food Program estimates that: the whole of the world population's basic needs for food, drinking water, education and medical care could be covered by a levy of less than 4% on the accumulated wealth of the 225 largest fortunes. To satisfy all the world's sanitation and food requirements would cost only $13 billion, hardly as much as the people of the United States and the European Union spend each year on perfume.

For more information on food supply and cost issues, try looking at:
Institute for Food and Development Policy
UN World Food Program