Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

World hunger and the cost of food......?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/17/hunger.week/index...

This article on cnn talks of the costs of distributing food to combat world hunger. Why doesn't it suggest population control as a method of combating world hunger instead of changing eating habits?

Update:

It seems biased. We can expend oil and energy to ship food but suggest retarding the population growth...NEVER! China couldn't keep up with their population, they enacted procreation laws. I don't see why it is not considered as an option in other scarce food countries. Is this article supposed to guilt the US population into eating less meat?

4 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    It is biased. You'd be hard pressed to find an unbiased news source these days. The media, be it MSNBC or FOX or anyone in between, has an agenda. They're no longer ONLY in the business of selling advertising, they're in the business of selling a suggested point-of-view to the highest bidder.

  • 5 years ago

    The world isn't hungry from a lack of food. In most of the industrialized world starvation is virtually unknown. Certainly there are some people that go hungry occasionally. There are a fair number of people that for one reason or another can't provide for themselves, and while the government provides enough to live on, it's not a life that you could ever be comfortable with. Outside the industrialized world, starvation in particular, but hunger in general, is caused more by politics and infrastructure, than by an absolute lack of food. During the 1980s Ethiopia had a terrible drought, and the world sent thousands of tons of food. When the first ships arrived at the ports, much of the food was offloaded into trucks that disappeared to feed the armies fighting a civil war. Even after the world learned to better control the food, there were few roads which could carry trucks to get food out to the people starving in the countryside. In the 1990s North Korea experienced terrible drought. The world sent thousands of tons of food, and again, the military took their share first, and the rest of the world was never able to maintain very good control over the food, because of North Korea's restrictive society. Just a couple of years ago there was a terrible earthquake in Pakistan, and there were worries about people starving or freezing to death in the mountains. Food had to be airlifted in by helicoptor because all the roads had been destroyed. So, it really all does come down to money, and power. You need the money to hire the ships and the trucks and the planes and the helecoptors, and the people to load and unload the food. And you need the help of the people in the area that see food as power, because a starving person will likely do whatever you tell them to, in order to provide for themselves and their family.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    That is the 2 ton gorilla in the room. Population. Throwing all the food we make onto tankers, and burning up oil to ship food to baron wastelands where the poor have moved in Darfur will not solve the problem in the long run. Unless we can manage to grow food in this type of arid region, there is no way for a population of humans to be supported there. Ultimately it will probably be more cost effective to send over condoms than corn.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    you mean stop the children of Gods be born?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.