| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
05 Apr 2007 04:07:34 PM |
| Object: |
Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger. I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day. That
wasted food goes to feed rats and other vermin we would
rather *not* feed in dumps and landfills, while humans we
would rather feed are starving. Much of the nutrition which
makes life possible--any amount or form of which is rare
and treasured to hungry people all over this planet--has
become nothing but a problem to get rid of for those of
us fortunate enough to have the "problem". Even if only
a small percentage of the people who have the problem
were to participate in organized group efforts, it's almost
certain that a large percentage of world hunger and
starvation could be reduced or eliminated. The garbage
from McDonald's alone could save how many human
lives?
How to do it? Organization and agreement to commit to
the projects would be a first step. What to commit to would
of course be a necessary consideration. How to store,
transfer and sanitize the waste food would be some of the
biggest obstacles to overcome. Making regular use of
food grinders, dehydrators, possibly crushers of some sort,
probably UV sanitizing methods, and packaging systems
would be required on both the private and commercial
participant level. Collection and distribution would
be on a bigger scale, and would require properly developed
business level organizations and facilities in order to make
productive use of what so many of us consider to be waste.
Some sort of incentive to participate besides simply providing
life for other humans would probably also be required, or else
systems such as that would have been established and
working for years already.
How to begin? The first thing would be to accept the idea
that it would be possible, and could be made practical and
maybe even beneficial to those who are willing to participate.
It would probably have to begin on a small scale, with groups
of interested people working together to help select other
groups and individuals in their local areas. It needs to be
kept in mind that those who would survive and benefit from
such a change in the thinking and efforts of those who could
help them, would be dependant on the stability of the system.
But there's already a surplus of food. So would it be a waste
of time? Even if we could dry, sanitize and package millions
of pounds of nutrition from our food waste every day, would
it be of no real value? Are people who are starving just going
to have to continue to starve, regardless of how much extra
food more fortunate people have to deal with? Would they
just become another dependancy...more trouble than it would
be worth? Or could it be practical to put together a system
like that?
.
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
05 Apr 2007 05:41:49 PM |
|
|
<dh@.> wrote in message news:s7pa13psis4bqaaa370spcnoibd16v1idc@4ax.com...
Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger. I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day.
<snip>
...and then one day some giddy prankster added poison to his garbage...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
07 Apr 2007 09:05:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 dh@.> wrote in message
news:s7pa13psis4bqaaa370spcnoibd16v1idc@4ax.com...
Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger. I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day.
<snip>
Garbage is indeed a resource (so long as the recipients don't mind
eathing our garbage); now, have you some scheme for getting somebody
to pay for the transport of said garbage to the various lands of the
various garbage eaters. I expect that nobody wants to invite them here
to clean our our bins for themselves.
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
07 Apr 2007 09:20:03 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 09:05:43 -0500, Don Martin
<drdonmartin@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 dh@.> wrote in message
news:s7pa13psis4bqaaa370spcnoibd16v1idc@4ax.com...
Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger. I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day.
<snip>
Garbage is indeed a resource (so long as the recipients don't mind
eathing our garbage); now, have you some scheme for getting somebody
to pay for the transport of said garbage to the various lands of the
various garbage eaters. I expect that nobody wants to invite them here
to clean our our bins for themselves.
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Not to mention that a lot of people who are starving are doing so
because some other group is preventing them from leaving or help to
get to them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TheLetterK" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
11 Apr 2007 02:07:31 PM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 09:05:43 -0500, Don Martin
<drdonmartin@comcast.net> wrote:
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 dh@.> wrote in message
news:s7pa13psis4bqaaa370spcnoibd16v1idc@4ax.com...
Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger. I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day.
<snip>
Garbage is indeed a resource (so long as the recipients don't mind
eathing our garbage); now, have you some scheme for getting somebody
to pay for the transport of said garbage to the various lands of the
various garbage eaters. I expect that nobody wants to invite them here
to clean our our bins for themselves.
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
Not to mention that a lot of people who are starving are doing so
because some other group is preventing them from leaving or help to
get to them.
Then there are the people dependent upon food aid, because the aid
prevents them from establishing commercially viable farms. It's very
difficult to sell wheat in a market flooded with free flour.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TheLetterK" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
11 Apr 2007 02:05:43 PM |
|
|
dh@. wrote:
Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger.
So would the surplus *unused* food. Or the crops that we pay farmers not
to produce. Either source is a much better choice.
I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day.
Keep in mind that a lot of that is 'food waste' like banana peels, or
fruit cores. Things that cannot be eaten by humans, which is why it was
discarded.
That
wasted food goes to feed rats and other vermin we would
rather *not* feed in dumps and landfills, while humans we
would rather feed are starving.
The problem is the ocean and underdeveloped terrain between us and them.
Much of the nutrition which
makes life possible--any amount or form of which is rare
and treasured to hungry people all over this planet--has
become nothing but a problem to get rid of for those of
us fortunate enough to have the "problem". Even if only
a small percentage of the people who have the problem
were to participate in organized group efforts, it's almost
certain that a large percentage of world hunger and
starvation could be reduced or eliminated. The garbage
from McDonald's alone could save how many human
lives?
There's more than enough *unused* food to feed everyone on Earth. The
problem is distribution. It costs a lot more to ship food aid to a
foreign country than it does to buy the food itself. Especially in the
poorer countries, where there is little or no infrastructure to
distribute the food out to the people who need it once it gets shipped
there. How do you move tons of grain and other supplies into an area
with no airfield and dirt roads that are only passable at certain times
of the year (if there are any roads at all)?
How to do it? Organization and agreement to commit to
the projects would be a first step. What to commit to would
of course be a necessary consideration. How to store,
transfer and sanitize the waste food would be some of the
biggest obstacles to overcome. Making regular use of
food grinders, dehydrators, possibly crushers of some sort,
probably UV sanitizing methods, and packaging systems
would be required on both the private and commercial
participant level. Collection and distribution would
be on a bigger scale, and would require properly developed
business level organizations and facilities in order to make
productive use of what so many of us consider to be waste.
Some sort of incentive to participate besides simply providing
life for other humans would probably also be required, or else
systems such as that would have been established and
working for years already.
Why bother?
How to begin? The first thing would be to accept the idea
that it would be possible, and could be made practical and
maybe even beneficial to those who are willing to participate.
I can't see how this would be more practical than existing sources for
inexpensive food aid. I certainly don't see how this would make money
for anyone but the people bilking the government out of our tax dollars
to go send garbage to the poor.
It would probably have to begin on a small scale, with groups
of interested people working together to help select other
groups and individuals in their local areas. It needs to be
kept in mind that those who would survive and benefit from
such a change in the thinking and efforts of those who could
help them, would be dependant on the stability of the system.
No kidding. Why not put this amount of effort into, say, building roads
in third world nations. You could probably get the materials cheaply
enough to make it feasible, and then charge a modest toll to fund the
creation of more roads elsewhere. It would be far more beneficial than
sending them garbage, since it would make traditional aid operations
more practical, and it would allow the nation in question to being
building their infrastructure on their own.
But there's already a surplus of food. So would it be a waste
of time? Even if we could dry, sanitize and package millions
of pounds of nutrition from our food waste every day, would
it be of no real value?
Yes, it would be almost completely worthless. And quite expensive to
produce.
Are people who are starving just going
to have to continue to starve, regardless of how much extra
food more fortunate people have to deal with?
Pretty much. It's too difficult to move the excess food around. Too
expensive for low-budget operations like food aid distribution.
Would they
just become another dependancy...more trouble than it would
be worth?
It would be more trouble than it's worth.
Or could it be practical to put together a system
like that?
It would be impractical.
.
|
|
|
| User: "the 2nd coming of christ" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
12 Apr 2007 06:18:51 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:05:43 -0400, TheLetterK <none@none.net>
wrote:
Keep in mind that a lot of that is 'food waste' like banana peels,
that's not waste, you smoke it! ;> sorry, couldn't resist...
--
``Since the standard for which behaviors were to be considered most advanced were those of the intellectuals who were the authors of the schemas, the data that differed most from their own beliefs and pracktices were taken to represent the earliest or most primitive stages of human life.'' --Greenfield
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
12 Apr 2007 12:22:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:05:43 -0400, TheLetterK <none@none.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger.
So would the surplus *unused* food. Or the crops that we pay farmers not
to produce. Either source is a much better choice.
I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day.
Keep in mind that a lot of that is 'food waste' like banana peels, or
fruit cores. Things that cannot be eaten by humans, which is why it was
discarded.
Starches and meats are what should be concentrade on,
imo.
That
wasted food goes to feed rats and other vermin we would
rather *not* feed in dumps and landfills, while humans we
would rather feed are starving.
The problem is the ocean and underdeveloped terrain between us and them.
Much of the nutrition which
makes life possible--any amount or form of which is rare
and treasured to hungry people all over this planet--has
become nothing but a problem to get rid of for those of
us fortunate enough to have the "problem". Even if only
a small percentage of the people who have the problem
were to participate in organized group efforts, it's almost
certain that a large percentage of world hunger and
starvation could be reduced or eliminated. The garbage
from McDonald's alone could save how many human
lives?
There's more than enough *unused* food to feed everyone on Earth. The
problem is distribution. It costs a lot more to ship food aid to a
foreign country than it does to buy the food itself. Especially in the
poorer countries, where there is little or no infrastructure to
distribute the food out to the people who need it once it gets shipped
there. How do you move tons of grain and other supplies into an area
with no airfield and dirt roads that are only passable at certain times
of the year (if there are any roads at all)?
How to do it? Organization and agreement to commit to
the projects would be a first step. What to commit to would
of course be a necessary consideration. How to store,
transfer and sanitize the waste food would be some of the
biggest obstacles to overcome. Making regular use of
food grinders, dehydrators, possibly crushers of some sort,
probably UV sanitizing methods, and packaging systems
would be required on both the private and commercial
participant level. Collection and distribution would
be on a bigger scale, and would require properly developed
business level organizations and facilities in order to make
productive use of what so many of us consider to be waste.
Some sort of incentive to participate besides simply providing
life for other humans would probably also be required, or else
systems such as that would have been established and
working for years already.
Why bother?
How to begin? The first thing would be to accept the idea
that it would be possible, and could be made practical and
maybe even beneficial to those who are willing to participate.
I can't see how this would be more practical than existing sources for
inexpensive food aid.
Maybe it wouldn't be.
I certainly don't see how this would make money
for anyone but the people bilking the government out of our tax dollars
to go send garbage to the poor.
It would probably have to begin on a small scale, with groups
of interested people working together to help select other
groups and individuals in their local areas. It needs to be
kept in mind that those who would survive and benefit from
such a change in the thinking and efforts of those who could
help them, would be dependant on the stability of the system.
No kidding. Why not put this amount of effort into, say, building roads
in third world nations.
It's not either or. It's do it or not. It's something that people
could contribute to a lot more easily than building roads.
You could probably get the materials cheaply
enough to make it feasible, and then charge a modest toll to fund the
creation of more roads elsewhere. It would be far more beneficial than
sending them garbage, since it would make traditional aid operations
more practical, and it would allow the nation in question to being
building their infrastructure on their own.
That would be a good thing regardless of what we do with
our garbage.
But there's already a surplus of food. So would it be a waste
of time? Even if we could dry, sanitize and package millions
of pounds of nutrition from our food waste every day, would
it be of no real value?
Yes, it would be almost completely worthless. And quite expensive to
produce.
Are people who are starving just going
to have to continue to starve, regardless of how much extra
food more fortunate people have to deal with?
Pretty much. It's too difficult to move the excess food around. Too
expensive for low-budget operations like food aid distribution.
Would they
just become another dependancy...more trouble than it would
be worth?
It would be more trouble than it's worth.
By now I'm convinced that's the case. Let the poor unfortuates
starve on.
Or could it be practical to put together a system
like that?
It would be impractical.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
05 Apr 2007 11:55:22 PM |
|
|
dh@. wrote:
Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger. I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day.
There is certainly a lot of waste and a lot of that comes from picky people
who will not buy bruised fruit.
There is also a lot of food wasted when the pull date comes up. We feed
about 120 people a week with stuff from about six super markets and still
hundreds of pounds a week go to feeding animals. (typically they will have
about 30 pounds of food for $6.00 a week, the cost of a typical apple pie)
But you can't transport food that will go bad in a few days thousands of
miles in any reasonable fashion.
Why bother with waste when the excess could be skimmed off the front end and
sent when it is fresh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "the 2nd coming of christ" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
06 Apr 2007 04:41:57 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:55:22 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger.
since most our food IS garbage, you're right that people are able
to subsist with it--people must or they would die starving. only
reason why you have garbage as representing the left-overs is
because you started with trash as your main source. if you start
out with healthy food your garbage is ALSO going to be healthy
food. No reason to throw any of it away, in the first place.
I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day.
There is certainly a lot of waste and a lot of that comes from picky people
who will not buy bruised fruit.
i hate that too when they have to artificially try to alter the
natural look of fruits. Like, what's wrong with the way god
intended it to look. What are they saying , god is a retard? what
exactly is the message that they're sending.
Why bother with waste when the excess could be skimmed off the front end and
sent when it is fresh?
or just eat a lesser amount of quality food vs larger amount of
crappy food, and try not to waste any.
--
``Since the standard for which behaviors were to be considered most advanced were those of the intellectuals who were the authors of the schemas, the data that differed most from their own beliefs and pracktices were taken to represent the earliest or most primitive stages of human life.'' --Greenfield
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
07 Apr 2007 10:28:34 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:41:57 GMT, (the 2nd coming of christ) wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:55:22 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Why bother with waste when the excess could be skimmed off the front end and
sent when it is fresh?
or just eat a lesser amount of quality food vs larger amount of
crappy food, and try not to waste any.
The idea is to get surplus food to people who are starving.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
08 Apr 2007 11:34:24 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:28:34 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:41:57 GMT, (the 2nd coming of christ) wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:55:22 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Why bother with waste when the excess could be skimmed off the front end and
sent when it is fresh?
or just eat a lesser amount of quality food vs larger amount of
crappy food, and try not to waste any.
The idea is to get surplus food to people who are starving.
Sure, that is the IDEA. The PROBLEM is who pays the transport?
Through a jaundiced eye darkly--rheum with a view.
The Squeeky Wheel
http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "the 2nd coming of christ" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
07 Apr 2007 05:19:06 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:28:34 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:41:57 GMT, (the 2nd coming of christ) wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:55:22 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Why bother with waste when the excess could be skimmed off the front end and
sent when it is fresh?
or just eat a lesser amount of quality food vs larger amount of
crappy food, and try not to waste any.
The idea is to get surplus food to people who are starving.
then start out with good healthy raw food and you might have
something of any value when it comes to the leftovers. Processed
food is bad to begin with (before any putrefaction has even
occurred)--how much worse after it's old. No food at all is better
than some of the crap people eat in our fast-food based society.
Teach people to fish rather than give 'em fish... I mean don't eat
fish if possible, but if you don't need to be bothered about the
'morality' of eating and do eat it... I guess it's legal... It's
not like I can arrest you for murdering a shrimp or what not...
--
``Since the standard for which behaviors were to be considered most advanced were those of the intellectuals who were the authors of the schemas, the data that differed most from their own beliefs and pracktices were taken to represent the earliest or most primitive stages of human life.'' --Greenfield
.
|
|
|
| User: "TheLetterK" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
11 Apr 2007 02:16:25 PM |
|
|
the 2nd coming of christ wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:28:34 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:41:57 GMT, (the 2nd coming of christ) wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:55:22 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Why bother with waste when the excess could be skimmed off the front end and
sent when it is fresh?
or just eat a lesser amount of quality food vs larger amount of
crappy food, and try not to waste any.
The idea is to get surplus food to people who are starving.
then start out with good healthy raw food and you might have
something of any value when it comes to the leftovers. Processed
food is bad to begin with (before any putrefaction has even
occurred)
Ahh yes, let's go back to eating raw meat off the carcasses of dead
animals, like our early ancestors did. Surely, Homo habilis had a more
balanced diet and more fruitful lifestyle than we have today...
No food at all is better
than some of the crap people eat in our fast-food based society.
Don't get carried away. Processed soy paste is much better than nothing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
07 Apr 2007 10:28:49 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:55:22 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger. I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day.
There is certainly a lot of waste and a lot of that comes from picky people
who will not buy bruised fruit.
There is also a lot of food wasted when the pull date comes up. We feed
about 120 people a week with stuff from about six super markets and still
hundreds of pounds a week go to feeding animals. (typically they will have
about 30 pounds of food for $6.00 a week, the cost of a typical apple pie)
But you can't transport food that will go bad in a few days thousands of
miles in any reasonable fashion.
Why bother with waste when the excess could be skimmed off the front end and
sent when it is fresh?
If that would work it would be better. Maybe it wouldn't take a very
large percentage of our surplus food to make a difference, if it could
be made practical to get it to people who could use it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "the 2nd coming of christ" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
07 Apr 2007 05:29:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:28:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:55:22 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger. I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day.
There is certainly a lot of waste and a lot of that comes from picky people
who will not buy bruised fruit.
There is also a lot of food wasted when the pull date comes up. We feed
about 120 people a week with stuff from about six super markets and still
hundreds of pounds a week go to feeding animals. (typically they will have
about 30 pounds of food for $6.00 a week, the cost of a typical apple pie)
But you can't transport food that will go bad in a few days thousands of
miles in any reasonable fashion.
Why bother with waste when the excess could be skimmed off the front end and
sent when it is fresh?
If that would work it would be better. Maybe it wouldn't take a very
large percentage of our surplus food to make a difference, if it could
be made practical to get it to people who could use it.
How did Africans survive for billions of years. Obviously they do
whatever it takes to survive. Maybe the rough environment is what
makes people that descend from Africa usually stronger physically
speaking than say Europeans. I know they have weaklings there,
too. I'm saying 'on average'. Maybe by trying to help them too
much we'll only hurt the delicate natural balance that they
themselves maintain and so end up hurting more in the long run.
Make sure it doesn't end up like the Iraq-War, is all I'm saying
--
``Since the standard for which behaviors were to be considered most advanced were those of the intellectuals who were the authors of the schemas, the data that differed most from their own beliefs and pracktices were taken to represent the earliest or most primitive stages of human life.'' --Greenfield
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phil MacDouglass" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
08 Apr 2007 11:22:57 AM |
|
|
i heard a theory that africans eat each other.
~Mary Stewart
~Phil MacDouglass
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
08 Apr 2007 12:21:01 PM |
|
|
(Phil MacDouglass) wrote in
news:25609-461916E1-359@storefull-3333.bay.webtv.net:
X-WebTV-Signature:
i heard a theory that africans eat each other.
~Mary Stewart
~Phil MacDouglass
WebTV strikes again.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"As to the evil which results from censorship, it is impossible to measure
it, because it is impossible to tell where it ends."
-Jeremy Bentham
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TheLetterK" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
11 Apr 2007 02:35:28 PM |
|
|
the 2nd coming of christ wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:28:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:55:22 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger. I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day.
There is certainly a lot of waste and a lot of that comes from picky people
who will not buy bruised fruit.
There is also a lot of food wasted when the pull date comes up. We feed
about 120 people a week with stuff from about six super markets and still
hundreds of pounds a week go to feeding animals. (typically they will have
about 30 pounds of food for $6.00 a week, the cost of a typical apple pie)
But you can't transport food that will go bad in a few days thousands of
miles in any reasonable fashion.
Why bother with waste when the excess could be skimmed off the front end and
sent when it is fresh?
If that would work it would be better. Maybe it wouldn't take a very
large percentage of our surplus food to make a difference, if it could
be made practical to get it to people who could use it.
How did Africans survive for billions of years.
If you're talking about "Africans" in the "bipedal hominid" sense, then
you need to revise that date. Try "about 4 million years ago."
Obviously they do
whatever it takes to survive.
Early human ancestors had an advantage--they had much smaller brains,
which didn't require nearly as much fuel as ours do.
Maybe the rough environment is what
makes people that descend from Africa usually stronger physically
speaking than say Europeans.
There is no such genetic difference in human populations. We just aren't
a particularly (genetically) diverse species, as one would expect from a
long-lived species that nearly faced extinction in the geologically
recent past. Any such physical differences will be at an individual
level, and would be based entirely on the experiences of the individual
or the cultural expectations of the immediate society.
I would also like to point out that all modern humans have an ancestor
that came from Africa at some point.
Maybe by trying to help them too
much we'll only hurt the delicate natural balance that they
themselves maintain
What delicate natural balance?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
12 Apr 2007 12:09:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:35:28 -0400, TheLetterK <none@none.net> wrote:
There is no such genetic difference in human populations. We just aren't
a particularly (genetically) diverse species, as one would expect from a
long-lived species that nearly faced extinction in the geologically
recent past. Any such physical differences will be at an individual
level, and would be based entirely on the experiences of the individual
or the cultural expectations of the immediate society.
I have been of the opinion that the blacks in the US were not
only deliberately bred to be strong etc, but that only the strongest
of them managed to survive the horrible ship crossings to their new
homes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "the 2nd coming of christ" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
12 Apr 2007 08:13:35 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:09:10 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:35:28 -0400, TheLetterK <none@none.net> wrote:
There is no such genetic difference in human populations. We just aren't
a particularly (genetically) diverse species, as one would expect from a
long-lived species that nearly faced extinction in the geologically
recent past. Any such physical differences will be at an individual
level, and would be based entirely on the experiences of the individual
or the cultural expectations of the immediate society.
I have been of the opinion that the blacks in the US were not
only deliberately bred to be strong etc, but that only the strongest
of them managed to survive the horrible ship crossings to their new
homes.
while it may be true that one can probably toughen up a human via
making them go through excrutiating pain and what not, there is
not any argument that's valid which exonerates slavery, that i
know of, due to it being a means to an end of improving the
species along its evolutionary trajectory.
it's just like palestinians trying to paint terror in the language
of 'liberation struggle'. 'fighting the occupiers', etc. nothing
justifies terror, period. (terror=taking innocent life). i don't
care how legit your struggle is, or how terrible it may all seem
or whatever but there are always correct avenues of discontent
such as artistic expression or peaceful protest and what not, and
one should just never use violence, period--much less against
innocent life, such as women and children.
i am personally opposed to all violence period, but if there's
going to be some violence, it should be under supervision of an
international oversight body in the proper ways of conducting
warfare to prevent misuse of governments and bring them into line
with the overall globalist ethics (which due to the fact of taking
in 'all' opinions on any topic has arrived at the best conclusion)
and prevent them from straying too far or becoming a fringe
government unwilling doing whatever they want, etc. (example: they
might have denied the US permission to attack Iraq in 2003.)
so in the same way, slavery can never be justified...no matter how
much you try to sanitize it and make it seem humane or leading to
some grand goal of improving the human species genetically.
torture, slavery and terror are just unethical actions regardless
of the way they may be promoted or made to seem justified.
octinomos
--
``Could it be that ... political theater is being staged, very much like the wrestling matches on TV, with the so-called neoconservatives and their so-called enemies, such as Pat Buchanan, loudly making public statements intended to convince the opponents of US foreign policy actions that these actions are the fault of 'the Jews'?'' --Jared Israel/Emperor's Clothes
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
17 Apr 2007 09:54:12 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 01:13:35 GMT, (the 2nd coming of christ) wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:09:10 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:35:28 -0400, TheLetterK <none@none.net> wrote:
There is no such genetic difference in human populations. We just aren't
a particularly (genetically) diverse species, as one would expect from a
long-lived species that nearly faced extinction in the geologically
recent past. Any such physical differences will be at an individual
level, and would be based entirely on the experiences of the individual
or the cultural expectations of the immediate society.
I have been of the opinion that the blacks in the US were not
only deliberately bred to be strong etc, but that only the strongest
of them managed to survive the horrible ship crossings to their new
homes.
while it may be true that one can probably toughen up a human via
making them go through excrutiating pain and what not,
No, that's not it. If I remember right the majority of them died
in the crossings, meaning that only the toughest of them are likely
to have survived to get over here and breed.
there is
not any argument that's valid which exonerates slavery, that i
know of, due to it being a means to an end of improving the
species along its evolutionary trajectory.
It had an influence regardless of the ethicality of slavery. The
influence itself is what was in question, not the ethics of slavery
and torture, etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "the 2nd coming of christ" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
17 Apr 2007 03:47:31 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 10:54:12 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 01:13:35 GMT, (the 2nd coming of christ) wrote:
while it may be true that one can probably toughen up a human via
making them go through excrutiating pain and what not,
No, that's not it. If I remember right the majority of them died
in the crossings, meaning that only the toughest of them are likely
to have survived to get over here and breed.
well, i meant subsequently the ones that remained alive might have
toughened up and become better at it learning from their
progenitors' mistakes and what not, or they might have remained
weak and stupid--who can say. i was merely postulating that
scientists might come up with such a theory and tried to test it,
or maybe they already did and i'm just not aware.
there is
not any argument that's valid which exonerates slavery, that i
know of, due to it being a means to an end of improving the
species along its evolutionary trajectory.
It had an influence regardless of the ethicality of slavery. The
influence itself is what was in question, not the ethics of slavery
and torture, etc.
i'm saying that i don't care how positive the influence might be,
that slavery, torture or terror should never be condoned. you
sometimes hear white folks say stuff like 'well black folks are
better off now in america after slavery than they would be now if
they had stayed free in africa' or words to that effect. don't try
to rationalize it, just admit it was an aberration and move on.
--
``Could it be that ... political theater is being staged, very much like the wrestling matches on TV, with the so-called neoconservatives and their so-called enemies, such as Pat Buchanan, loudly making public statements intended to convince the opponents of US foreign policy actions that these actions are the fault of 'the Jews'?'' --Jared Israel/Emperor's Clothes
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Clover" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
08 Apr 2007 10:26:11 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:28:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:55:22 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger. I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day.
There is certainly a lot of waste and a lot of that comes from picky people
who will not buy bruised fruit.
There is also a lot of food wasted when the pull date comes up. We feed
about 120 people a week with stuff from about six super markets and still
hundreds of pounds a week go to feeding animals. (typically they will have
about 30 pounds of food for $6.00 a week, the cost of a typical apple pie)
But you can't transport food that will go bad in a few days thousands of
miles in any reasonable fashion.
Why bother with waste when the excess could be skimmed off the front end and
sent when it is fresh?
If that would work it would be better. Maybe it wouldn't take a very
large percentage of our surplus food to make a difference, if it could
be made practical to get it to people who could use it.
Taking a stance which is inverse to my usual one, let me play devil's
advocate:
So we get the food to the people who are starving. Guess what? They
have more kids, and more of their kids live. They need more food.
Until you stop the conditions which are causing their population to be
so much higher than what their land can support, you're only going to
be creating a bigger problem in the future. As I would say if it were
happening in the U.S., they need to stop having so many kids and start
living within their means. If they absolutely cannot learn about
birth control, then you're not helping them by feeding more of them.
Note - this isn't necessarily my stance. It may be, it may not be,
but it's one stance I do know about, and am a bit curious as to what
sorts of responses people have to it. :-?
--
L8r,
Uncle Clover
__________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Every birth carries within
it the seed of its own
demise
__________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Narrow minds
breed thick skulls.
__________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Guns don't kill people -
husbands who come home
early kill people!"
- Deadrat, a.t-c
__________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "the 2nd coming of christ" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
08 Apr 2007 09:01:23 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 11:26:11 -0400, Uncle Clover
<UncleClover@NowhereNow.com> wrote:
Note - this isn't necessarily my stance. It may be, it may not be,
but it's one stance I do know about, and am a bit curious as to what
sorts of responses people have to it. :-?
the more the white man tries to mess with it the worse off it will
be in the end for the afrikaners. so just leave it alone... it may
seem worse at first but not in the long run...
--
``Since the standard for which behaviors were to be considered most advanced were those of the intellectuals who were the authors of the schemas, the data that differed most from their own beliefs and pracktices were taken to represent the earliest or most primitive stages of human life.'' --Greenfield
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
11 Apr 2007 09:05:49 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 11:26:11 -0400, Uncle Clover <UncleClover@NowhereNow.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:28:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:55:22 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger. I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day.
There is certainly a lot of waste and a lot of that comes from picky people
who will not buy bruised fruit.
There is also a lot of food wasted when the pull date comes up. We feed
about 120 people a week with stuff from about six super markets and still
hundreds of pounds a week go to feeding animals. (typically they will have
about 30 pounds of food for $6.00 a week, the cost of a typical apple pie)
But you can't transport food that will go bad in a few days thousands of
miles in any reasonable fashion.
Why bother with waste when the excess could be skimmed off the front end and
sent when it is fresh?
If that would work it would be better. Maybe it wouldn't take a very
large percentage of our surplus food to make a difference, if it could
be made practical to get it to people who could use it.
Taking a stance which is inverse to my usual one, let me play devil's
advocate:
So we get the food to the people who are starving. Guess what? They
have more kids, and more of their kids live. They need more food.
Until you stop the conditions which are causing their population to be
so much higher than what their land can support, you're only going to
be creating a bigger problem in the future. As I would say if it were
happening in the U.S., they need to stop having so many kids and start
living within their means. If they absolutely cannot learn about
birth control, then you're not helping them by feeding more of them.
Encouraging birth control etc could be part of it.
Note - this isn't necessarily my stance. It may be, it may not be,
but it's one stance I do know about, and am a bit curious as to what
sorts of responses people have to it. :-?
Me too. It seems to me when we break it down there are
three options:
1. let them starve.
2. feed them but encourage them to stop reproducing and be a last
generation in their area.
3. feed them and help them rise above their starving situation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Clover" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
11 Apr 2007 12:41:58 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:05:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 11:26:11 -0400, Uncle Clover <UncleClover@NowhereNow.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:28:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:55:22 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger. I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day.
There is certainly a lot of waste and a lot of that comes from picky people
who will not buy bruised fruit.
There is also a lot of food wasted when the pull date comes up. We feed
about 120 people a week with stuff from about six super markets and still
hundreds of pounds a week go to feeding animals. (typically they will have
about 30 pounds of food for $6.00 a week, the cost of a typical apple pie)
But you can't transport food that will go bad in a few days thousands of
miles in any reasonable fashion.
Why bother with waste when the excess could be skimmed off the front end and
sent when it is fresh?
If that would work it would be better. Maybe it wouldn't take a very
large percentage of our surplus food to make a difference, if it could
be made practical to get it to people who could use it.
Taking a stance which is inverse to my usual one, let me play devil's
advocate:
So we get the food to the people who are starving. Guess what? They
have more kids, and more of their kids live. They need more food.
Until you stop the conditions which are causing their population to be
so much higher than what their land can support, you're only going to
be creating a bigger problem in the future. As I would say if it were
happening in the U.S., they need to stop having so many kids and start
living within their means. If they absolutely cannot learn about
birth control, then you're not helping them by feeding more of them.
Encouraging birth control etc could be part of it.
Note - this isn't necessarily my stance. It may be, it may not be,
but it's one stance I do know about, and am a bit curious as to what
sorts of responses people have to it. :-?
Me too. It seems to me when we break it down there are
three options:
1. let them starve.
2. feed them but encourage them to stop reproducing and be a last
generation in their area.
3. feed them and help them rise above their starving situation.
2 isn't true - they don't have to stop reproducing entirely, just like
rabbits. Anyone who reproduces that quickly will quickly produce a
population of starving people. Even if they're white & in the U.S.
It's not about who or where they are, it's about what they're doing to
make their own situation worse.
There is no way to do #3 as long as they're breeding as fast as they
are. It's one of the wonders of the modern era how so many thoroughly
starving people can think so much about sex, but they do, and many of
them don't realize that sex causes babies.
It's not a difficult solution, it's just a difficult implementation.
They so far have resisted any education in the matter. They don't
want to believe sex causes babies, and that causing so many babies is
why they're starving, then they're going to keep starving. It will
always get like that eventually, even if you start shipping all your
food to them. They'll continue putting rabbits to shame with their
breeding frenzy, and eventually will burden -your- food supply to the
point where you, too, are starving. As you won't be breeding nearly
so quickly, they'll put you out of existence - unless you just let
them be.
--
L8r,
Uncle Clover
__________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Every birth carries within
it the seed of its own
demise
__________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Narrow minds
breed thick skulls.
__________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Leak now, or forever hold
your pee..."
- Some Smartass
__________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
12 Apr 2007 12:17:29 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:41:58 -0400, Uncle Clover <UncleClover@NowhereNow.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:05:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 11:26:11 -0400, Uncle Clover <UncleClover@NowhereNow.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:28:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:55:22 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger. I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day.
There is certainly a lot of waste and a lot of that comes from picky people
who will not buy bruised fruit.
There is also a lot of food wasted when the pull date comes up. We feed
about 120 people a week with stuff from about six super markets and still
hundreds of pounds a week go to feeding animals. (typically they will have
about 30 pounds of food for $6.00 a week, the cost of a typical apple pie)
But you can't transport food that will go bad in a few days thousands of
miles in any reasonable fashion.
Why bother with waste when the excess could be skimmed off the front end and
sent when it is fresh?
If that would work it would be better. Maybe it wouldn't take a very
large percentage of our surplus food to make a difference, if it could
be made practical to get it to people who could use it.
Taking a stance which is inverse to my usual one, let me play devil's
advocate:
So we get the food to the people who are starving. Guess what? They
have more kids, and more of their kids live. They need more food.
Until you stop the conditions which are causing their population to be
so much higher than what their land can support, you're only going to
be creating a bigger problem in the future. As I would say if it were
happening in the U.S., they need to stop having so many kids and start
living within their means. If they absolutely cannot learn about
birth control, then you're not helping them by feeding more of them.
Encouraging birth control etc could be part of it.
Note - this isn't necessarily my stance. It may be, it may not be,
but it's one stance I do know about, and am a bit curious as to what
sorts of responses people have to it. :-?
Me too. It seems to me when we break it down there are
three options:
1. let them starve.
2. feed them but encourage them to stop reproducing and be a last
generation in their area.
3. feed them and help them rise above their starving situation.
2 isn't true - they don't have to stop reproducing entirely, just like
rabbits. Anyone who reproduces that quickly will quickly produce a
population of starving people. Even if they're white & in the U.S.
It's not about who or where they are, it's about what they're doing to
make their own situation worse.
There is no way to do #3 as long as they're breeding as fast as they
are. It's one of the wonders of the modern era how so many thoroughly
starving people can think so much about sex, but they do, and many of
them don't realize that sex causes babies.
It's not a difficult solution, it's just a difficult implementation.
They so far have resisted any education in the matter. They don't
want to believe sex causes babies, and that causing so many babies is
why they're starving, then they're going to keep starving. It will
always get like that eventually, even if you start shipping all your
food to them. They'll continue putting rabbits to shame with their
breeding frenzy, and eventually will burden -your- food supply to the
point where you, too, are starving. As you won't be breeding nearly
so quickly, they'll put you out of existence - unless you just let
them be.
That's what it seems to come down to. They're not going to
quit having sex, especially since that's probably the best thing
about their life. But the sex is what's destroying them in more
than one way even as it increases their population.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TheLetterK" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
11 Apr 2007 02:42:09 PM |
|
|
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 11:26:11 -0400, Uncle Clover <UncleClover@NowhereNow.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:28:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:55:22 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger. I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day.
There is certainly a lot of waste and a lot of that comes from picky people
who will not buy bruised fruit.
There is also a lot of food wasted when the pull date comes up. We feed
about 120 people a week with stuff from about six super markets and still
hundreds of pounds a week go to feeding animals. (typically they will have
about 30 pounds of food for $6.00 a week, the cost of a typical apple pie)
But you can't transport food that will go bad in a few days thousands of
miles in any reasonable fashion.
Why bother with waste when the excess could be skimmed off the front end and
sent when it is fresh?
If that would work it would be better. Maybe it wouldn't take a very
large percentage of our surplus food to make a difference, if it could
be made practical to get it to people who could use it.
Taking a stance which is inverse to my usual one, let me play devil's
advocate:
So we get the food to the people who are starving. Guess what? They
have more kids, and more of their kids live. They need more food.
Until you stop the conditions which are causing their population to be
so much higher than what their land can support, you're only going to
be creating a bigger problem in the future. As I would say if it were
happening in the U.S., they need to stop having so many kids and start
living within their means. If they absolutely cannot learn about
birth control, then you're not helping them by feeding more of them.
Encouraging birth control etc could be part of it.
Note - this isn't necessarily my stance. It may be, it may not be,
but it's one stance I do know about, and am a bit curious as to what
sorts of responses people have to it. :-?
Me too. It seems to me when we break it down there are
three options:
1. let them starve.
2. feed them but encourage them to stop reproducing and be a last
generation in their area.
3. feed them and help them rise above their starving situation.
You forgot 4: feed them and promise a continuation of future aid. Which
is what we're doing right now. As far as anyone can tell, there is no
way to provide direct food aid while still encouraging local producers.
The very act of handing out free or cheap food destroys the market the
local producers need in order to remain profitable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
12 Apr 2007 12:14:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:42:09 -0400, TheLetterK <none@none.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 11:26:11 -0400, Uncle Clover <UncleClover@NowhereNow.com> wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:28:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:55:22 GMT, "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger. I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day.
There is certainly a lot of waste and a lot of that comes from picky people
who will not buy bruised fruit.
There is also a lot of food wasted when the pull date comes up. We feed
about 120 people a week with stuff from about six super markets and still
hundreds of pounds a week go to feeding animals. (typically they will have
about 30 pounds of food for $6.00 a week, the cost of a typical apple pie)
But you can't transport food that will go bad in a few days thousands of
miles in any reasonable fashion.
Why bother with waste when the excess could be skimmed off the front end and
sent when it is fresh?
If that would work it would be better. Maybe it wouldn't take a very
large percentage of our surplus food to make a difference, if it could
be made practical to get it to people who could use it.
Taking a stance which is inverse to my usual one, let me play devil's
advocate:
So we get the food to the people who are starving. Guess what? They
have more kids, and more of their kids live. They need more food.
Until you stop the conditions which are causing their population to be
so much higher than what their land can support, you're only going to
be creating a bigger problem in the future. As I would say if it were
happening in the U.S., they need to stop having so many kids and start
living within their means. If they absolutely cannot learn about
birth control, then you're not helping them by feeding more of them.
Encouraging birth control etc could be part of it.
Note - this isn't necessarily my stance. It may be, it may not be,
but it's one stance I do know about, and am a bit curious as to what
sorts of responses people have to it. :-?
Me too. It seems to me when we break it down there are
three options:
1. let them starve.
2. feed them but encourage them to stop reproducing and be a last
generation in their area.
3. feed them and help them rise above their starving situation.
You forgot 4: feed them and promise a continuation of future aid. Which
is what we're doing right now. As far as anyone can tell, there is no
way to provide direct food aid while still encouraging local producers.
The very act of handing out free or cheap food destroys the market the
local producers need in order to remain profitable.
It's probably nearly impossible to successfully grow food around a
bunch of starving people. Even if only a small percentage of them
successfully sneaked into the fields stealing food, it could still be
enough to prevent successful outcomes for the farmers.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Our garbage could save millions of lives... |
08 Apr 2007 12:19:24 PM |
|
|
Uncle Clover <UncleClover@NowhereNow.com> wrote in
news:a72i13lcdh08v7akq3t51ilung82mbbm6q@4ax.com:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 11:28:49 -0400, dh@. wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:55:22 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
dh@. wrote:
Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger. I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day.
There is certainly a lot of waste and a lot of that comes from picky
people who will not buy bruised fruit.
There is also a lot of food wasted when the pull date comes up. We
feed about 120 people a week with stuff from about six super markets
and still hundreds of pounds a week go to feeding animals.
(typically they will have about 30 pounds of food for $6.00 a week,
the cost of a typical apple pie) But you can't transport food that
will go bad in a few days thousands of miles in any reasonable
fashion.
Why bother with waste when the excess could be skimmed off the front
end and sent when it is fresh?
If that would work it would be better. Maybe it wouldn't take a
very
large percentage of our surplus food to make a difference, if it
could be made practical to get it to people who could use it.
Taking a stance which is inverse to my usual one, let me play devil's
advocate:
So we get the food to the people who are starving. Guess what? They
have more kids, and more of their kids live. They need more food.
Still worse, free food drives the local producers out of the market,
making still more people dependent. Think about it. If food is given
away free to the local villagers, who does the local farmer sell to? Not
to the local villagers. They get food free. Not to the developed
countries. They protect their farmers with tariffs and other trade
barriers. No, the only way is to make local food production possible and
profitable. Perhaps buying food locally, then giving it away would work,
but runs afoul of agri-businesses in developed countries. Turning part
of our foreign aide into crop subsidies for local farmers to keep
production profitable and prices down, just like we do with milk in the
United States.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"The Jews, Muslims and Christians got it all wrong. The people of the
world only divide into two kinds: one sort with brains and no religion,
the other with religion and no brains."
-Abul Al Mali, Syrian poet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
