 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlink net> wrote
[...]
> At the upper range of those estimates, the $611 billion cost of the war
could
> have fed and educated the world's poor for seven years
There's cost and there's cost, unfortunately. When US goverment pays an
American arms manufactured $1000 to buy a weapon, most of that money is
infused back into the US economy in form of profits and wages, the real cost
is only that of consumables. When US gives $1000 to a third world country,
practically all of it is lost to her. It's not fair to compare such costs.
Also, what-if scenarios can ultimately be meaningless. What if we made every
table leg 0.5mm shorter and thinner, wouldn't that save hectares of forests?
We could also on paper feed the starving peoples if all of us ate half a
slice less bread in a week...etc...etc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Doing that to all areas in Africa (and other parts of the world with
> similar problems) which need help would probably require a lot more than
> 54 billions a year, especially taking into account how many years it takes
> to build a civilization which can support itself.
>
> I have hard time believing that 54 billions a year would eliminate
> starvation (on a permanent basis) globally by 2015. Temporarily perhaps,
> but if the 54 billions/year is cut right after 2015, I'm quite certain
> that the same problems would reappear in a few years again.
>
> --
>
- Warp
They dont call me "Q" for nothing .....
Cost is a non-issue. When, or if, everyone cared with a human capacity
(as opposed to dark heart/soul incapacity) about world issues, solutions
will/would be found.
Love hangs the moon and stars in the sky. Solving world hunger is not such a
difficult accomplishment. Being without such understanding says a little about
a person.
Caring forces are now moving. Enough is enough. There is a plan. I am going out
on a limb to relate this. Currently we are experiencing solution-less problems
because of the experiment, to see what will happen on planet of accurate
universal representation, all 3 energy types in one place.
What if dark, dominating, uncaring energy is more powerful than love? What would
you project for the outcome of the universe? The more powerful will surely
overrun everything given the length of time allotted to the universe.
Non-interference has been the policy for at least 200 years while this final
and 4th experiment delivers its results.
The solution is a solution that some would not have the courage to face.
Self-filtering solution I suppose.
Explanation attempt, not the final word:
The New World
It is likely that those who have only heard the words "new" and "world" within
the context of some "new world order" discussion, will automatically assume
that any mention of new world means "new world order". It does not.
What is "new world order"? The self-serving human and non-human forces of
manipulation on Earth and elsewhere may promise peace. But any peace will only
be by their world domination laws and their world dominating jails and the
threat thereof. Peace is not their motivation, though they might say so. Their
motivation is whatever they can take by being in a position of total
domination. That may get them a lot, but it will not and can never get them the
ultimate of desire.
So if not that, then what is the New World? If we look up in real historical
documents anyone considered to have been great, and search for the common
motivation, among the vast majority the decision to make a difference was
founded and produced in despair, tragedy, or crisis, etc. Too many will wear
the tinted glasses that only allows what they want to see. Too many want to see
anything that suggests that these great people were somehow preordained to live
such a life. In that light they can excuse and justify their lack of such great
actions and explain why they cannot do and be similar by creating erroneous
evidence, if that were possible. Choices and decisions are made all the time.
Even the decision to not make a choice is still a choice. Events occurring as a
result of choice and decision cannot be preordained because choices are made in
real time, right now in the present. Mental filtering allows the ego eye to see
linear events. Imagination imagines all of this. Imagination is real and so what
it imagines takes on the qualities given; e.g. time and linear events. Growth
and change is the mysterious magic that happens in the twinkle of an eye. Words
fail. I'll not belabor it further. This is not to say that great ones don't
enter the world. Just that what happens after that, is a result of decisions
they are making concurrently.
The ego's story is "woe is me, look what happened to me". The self's story is a
bit different. That story is about how they got out of despair and grew
themselves up into a caring and responsible adult.
Their personal great work is a story of how they made a difference. It is a
story of, not how much they mattered, but that they did matter to others at
some level and in some capacity.
Personal great work is not The Great Work. The Great Work is always changing and
is the big and sweeping story. Currently the great work is the evolution of a
human species, evolution of a consciousness. It is the evolution of futures to
a virgin future and a new world - not a new order to the world, but a new world
- not just a buffed and polished old world made to look new - a new world - not
a future that is a more perfect rendition of the past, but a future that is
virgin and new - untouched by human hands; A new world. That is now The Great
Work.
How do I participate? In the depth of mystery real choices and decisions are
made. Such decisions can be made out of hardship experience. Those not having
hardship or unable to enter the grace of mystery are, at the least, unlikely to
make such decision. In the depth mystery there is sublime dignity and elegant
character mixed with authority and freedom.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
alphaQuad <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> Solving world hunger is not such a
> difficult accomplishment.
Actually it is. The so-called "rich countries" (ie. mostly the so-called
"western countries" as well as other rich countries such as Japan) are not
rich by chance. They are not rich just because they happen to live in a
place with a fountain of abundance. These cultures did not form in one
night. It took centuries of development for these cultures to form, often
through hard work, education and civilization.
You can't just pour money and abundance onto a different culture and
expect it to become a western culture in a decade. It requires a lot of
education and radical changes in the cultural, economical and political
infrastructures. (Not to talk that the current "politically correct" fad
is that trying to convert another culture into a "western culture" is
politically incorrect and a bad thing, and thus there's a lot of negative
hype surrounding this whole issue...)
Sure, there may be other ways for a civilization to become self-sufficient
than converting it into a western society, but that would require even more
time than just teaching them what the western world already knows. And it
certainly will not happen by simply pouring money onto them.
Believing that world famine can be easily solved with money is naive.
Money solves famine in the short run, but it doesn't solve the *problem*,
only its symptoms, and only for as long as there is money.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:47487b0a@news.povray.org...
> alphaQuad <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> > Solving world hunger is not such a
> > difficult accomplishment.
>
> Actually it is.
So you'd rather do nothing than try and possibly fail?
I don't think anyone's suggesting pour money into the country and stand
back. It's going to take money and a lot of hard work. Probably more of the
latter than of the former. It's also going to take effort over a long period
of time. 15 years is probably a concervative estimate.
Education, good governance, sustainable farming practices, mining
technologies, entrepreneurship, etc. Handing out money then sitting back is
a recipe for absolute disaster. On the one hand it encourages corruption
(and there's anough of that around here anyway) and on the other it results
in people with a sense of entitlement, 'the world owes me a living' (and
there's a fair bit of that around here too)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:27:06 -0500, Warp wrote:
> You can't just pour money and abundance onto a different culture and
> expect it to become a western culture in a decade.
Arguably, you can't bomb them into becoming a western culture, either.
The fact that it is more than just throwing money at the problem of world
hunger doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I don't believe that's what you're
trying to say, though.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
alphaQuad wrote:
> Solving world hunger is not such a
> difficult accomplishment.
I wish it were an easy problem. There are two major logistical problems
in solving world hunger, without even dealing with things on the local
level like tribal warlords who decide they need 100 times more food than
everyone else.
Problem 1: Where can food be grown?
Problem 2: How do you move that food to the people who need it?
Either people need to be able to grow, locally, everything they need for
a balanced healthy diet, or there needs to be a cheap effective
transportation infrastructure so the food can be delivered to those
people. Transportation is not going to get much more efficient. Problems
with oil prices may seem bad at the gas pump but it will be worse at the
grocery store*. There are only so many ways that food can be
transported, and some of it will spoil during that time in shipping.
The other option is growing more food closer to the people who need it.
On solution would be to put all the people of the world in one area. I
remember an article from the 60's or 70's, a demographer suggested that
there was enough space in Texas for every family in the world to have a
4 bed room house. This puts the transportation of food into a different
light, as now the food just has to be shipped to a central location and
distributed to everyone.
The problem is: How does the food get grown? People are required, and
the people are all in that one area. So some of them would either need
to live out side of that central distribution zone or would need to
themselves be transported to where the food is grown and then
transported home at night. The first solution devolves back to where we
are now, with some people spread out and lots of people clustered near
urban centers. The second solution requires a massive step up in
transportation.
It would be nice if hunger could be ended by something relatively
simple, like designing a peanut that will grow anywhere. Unfortunately,
that alone would just increase the supply of peanuts and would do little
for people who are too malnourished to farm peanuts and trade them for
the other food supplies needed for a healthy diet. Besides that, even if
they could farm that one plant, the price would decrease because of the
increased supply, netting them very little in trade-able goods.
*USA bias showing here.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail Shaw <initialsurname@sentech sa dot com> wrote:
> "Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
> news:47487b0a@news.povray.org...
> > alphaQuad <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> > > Solving world hunger is not such a
> > > difficult accomplishment.
> >
> > Actually it is.
> So you'd rather do nothing than try and possibly fail?
That's not what I said. I said that thinking that if we pour n billion
dollars a year to the problem it's going to get solved in a decade or two
is extremely naive. This is a problem which takes a lot of time to get
solved.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> The fact that it is more than just throwing money at the problem of world
> hunger doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I don't believe that's what you're
> trying to say, though.
The current aid model just doesn't work, that's what I'm saying. It's
only alleviating the symptoms slightly and temporarily, while making the
underlying problem worse, increasing dependency of the poor nations on
this aid and killing local entrepreneurship. Thinking that "50 billion
dollars a year will solve world hunger in 20 years" is naive and just
doesn't work.
And with this I'm not saying that poor nations should not be helped
at all.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I think there is something far more difficult than solving world hunger.
Take over the most deadly nation in the world, dance on its constitution with
corrupt law, ignore their rights, render congress irrelevant by veto and
install a complete idiot as a puppet president.
(I'd go on but the truth is far too, I said I'd not go on)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
alphaQuad <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> Take over the most deadly nation in the world, dance on its constitution with
> corrupt law, ignore their rights, render congress irrelevant by veto and
> install a complete idiot as a puppet president.
> (I'd go on but the truth is far too, I said I'd not go on)
Is there some reason you are posting these political rants here?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
