Solve world hunger (highly unlikely)

The human species can survive for over 24 hours without food or water. Many countries have a surplus of food, many countries have a lack of food. So what if one hemisphere fasted for a day while the other ate, then the next day vice versa.

Opinions? Is it possible, why or why not?

 

Well i like to say anthing is possible, but lmao there is know way this could ever happen. And every other day? thats still unhealthy people wouldnt wanna do that.

 

Obviously unhealthy, but over millions of years, thanks to genetics, we'd adapt quite nicely. And it's not about wanting to, it'd be enforced.

 

Enforced by who exactly?

 

Also, who exactly has defined it as a "problem" that we should worry about?

 

Here's my solution to world hunger and I think it would work quite nicely:
-We completely carpet bomb all of Africa, thus reducing the world's population by a whopping 1 Billion. (We should leave architecturally important places like Egypt.)
-After which we turn the entire area into a giant farmland, and we continually switch between the north and south plots of land so we can allow the other to regain nutrients.

Thus solving world hunger after the harvest reap.

 

Very unhealthy. People would be unproductive and disease would spread easily if people only ate every other day. This is irrelevant though, as people would still eat every day. Unless you were to incarcerate everyone in institutions where the authorities could monitor them, people would get food illegally.

Think prohibition times 10.

 

There would be no one to enforce this.

 

I can't tell if you putting that out to be a bad or a good thing but..

I wouldn't be so quick to place myself in any form of such. I just chose the best solution I could think of with my own personal morality thrown in.
I hold very little weight to the cost of a human life thus making this decision an easy one to put forth.

Now is it a communist ideal when im putting the needs of the whole above the needs of individual then yes that makes sense, but im sure other thing's i would think and say would differ to those ideals.

 

Really? When is communism ever a good thing?

Oh, what a great solution. As you saw with the Holocaust, genocide doesn't work with most people.

You're an idiot. Don't post here if all you have to offer is stupid ideas.

 

1.)Communism can be good in certain situations when its applied proactively.
2.) Actually I don't see the holocaust as a horrible disaster and more as a natural event of history that will continue to happen, it won't be the only genocide.
Also, I have more own opinions on the events during the holocaust so I'd rather not get into anything about it. (One of which i believe Hitler was a great leader and most if not all of his actions were justified by the course of events at hand)
3.) Im an idiot? What makes it a stupid idea? Im curious because my logic does make sense in the argument i made. Just because it conflicts with your ideals doesn't make it stupid it just makes it less appealing. So if you want to just call me an idiot go ahead, its just your form of retaliation when you have nothing to bring to the argument.

 

The only way this would be feasible is if the entire world was "United" under one totalitarian communist government. I have a feeling that the majority of countries in the world would have an issue with this.

Edit: At the asshat posting above me, my grandfather lost siblings in the holocaust. Tell the 11.5 million jews that lost their lives simply because they were jewish that Hitler's actions were justified. Great leader? Yes. The best in history, but that's no reason by any means to glorify his actions.

You're a typical "let's go against the grain" rebel. You latch on to ideals because you think that by believing in fringe ideals, you'll somehow be more unique. Say what you want about genocide, but realize that each and every death isn't a number, but a human life that has spent years developing into a unique experience that will be lost forever. Think about everything that your parents have ever experienced in their lives, the good, the bad, and the unique, and imagine wiping it off the face of the earth. Now multiply that by several millions. I live 50 miles from ground zero, and plenty of people can joke around about 9/11 and genocide, but when you see family's whose lives have been torn apart, you gain a different perspective on the matter. Spend a few more years experiencing the world, then form an opinion.

 

1 - that's the most selfish thing I've ever heard.

2 - If we did do that, then it would be a waste, because if we just turned it into a farmland, it's not a healthy agriculture for farming environment. So therefore, it'd a be a waste of time because everything would just die.

 

Sorry for the late responses. I've edited the OP as to make it more understandable, debate is actually picking up.

In my vision (take my original idea as you will, but this is how I saw it), each local government would enforce it. The United Nations would probably be the forerunner.

Do you have no heart my friend? People die everyday from starvation; do you not want to help them?

The land area vs global population doesn't make this statement feasible, but it is an interesting hyperbole..and I agree the U.S. does hold too much for itself and then tries to make attempts at acting like it's trying to assist the less fortunate countries.

...?

As i've said, we'd eventually adapt to the health risks. Unproductive? The human race would invent something to keep our energy levels up; just look at four hour energy, it's HUGE in the U.S. How would it effect disease at all? I'm thinking you mean because it would weaken immune systems?

People would get food illegally, people get everything illegally in today's world; however the main system still functions. You can't expect 100% support.

Please don't spam, this comment about another member had nothing to do with world hunger or my hemisphere-alternating plan.

Stated above.

......?? <-- once more. Do you see the bolded part? That made everything above totally lose the shard of respect it had. There are countless fallacies in your argument and you accuse him?

Stated above..a new form of global government isn't necessary.

I'm really sorry about your grandfather, the ban was well deserved. The SFA forum is strict; as it should be.

Thanks for taking care of him.

And Utilitarianism or Totaltarianism aren't necessary at all, stated above.

 

First, let's look at most of the poor countries.
They are mostly equalatoral, which means that these countries are mostly near the equator.

Now ironically, these countries are the best for growing agricultural goods.
Lack of water? No, that's really not that important.
Germany is one of the countries with the scarcest quantity of water, but they don't exactly have much problems with agriculture, do they? (This actually a reason why they have so much beer, you get like 500ml beer from 100ml water)
I'm just trying to point out that water scarcety is not much of a big problem, but if somebody doubts it, I will bring more sources..

So why exactly are these countries hungry, when they could be the richest with the most agricultural goods?

It is because of constant wars, druglords, and corrupt governments.

As I said before, the United States produces surplus food and actually try to send the leftovers to africa, but that's really not working out.

Unless these wars stop and governments are overthrown to meet the standards of modern-day democratic nations, I don't think that we will ever get over the food problem.

 

I agree the most with this,Africa is only fucking itself up anyway.So many seperatists groups with guns and the rest of the population is dieing with aids while making more babies.

/Carpet bomb ftw.

Edit:Seems as though other countries are doing pretty fine compared to them.

 

I'm going to challenge you on the scarcity of water thing, not because it's not a problem with agriculture (which it is, plants require water and in most poor places people rarely have enough to drink, nevermind the plants) but most places near the equator get the most rain..rainforests?

Then you make no sense. You say we must overthrow the corrupt governments to meet the standards of modern-day democratic nations. Even being the ruler of the smallest piece of land or the most minute amount of people will go to your head. Every government is corrupt. Also, the United States is the most powerful country in existence at the moment, so I don't see what standards you're comparing a country's current government to; or what you think exists in "modern-day democratic nations".

I'm not going to even grace you with an intellectual response. Let this go as a warning; if anyone else suggests a "carpet bomb" or the complete elimination of an area without logical reasoning, you will be reported.

 

You can't report for that,one because it's not going to happen.And two I'm not suggesting it,i'm simply agreeing with it.But go ahead and report your report will be useless.

Edit:Also without logical reasoning,there is truckloads of logic behind carpet bombing Africa.They are litterally doing nothing for us.I've watched many shows and reports about it on National Geographic.

The Africans make children dig all day to find diamonds,witch they then sell to other countries for guns/drugs/supplies (Blood diamond)

The Africans create more children with more diseases knowing they cannot feed them.

I would continue but my grandad is bitching.

 

Incorrect.

What National Geographic do you watch? First of all, you do realize Africa produces 2/3 of the world's diamonds correct? It's not exactly easy work. Second of all, you have no respect for the life of a human. I could make a case for carpet bombing every single piece of land in the world; doesn't mean it's viable. For example, let's bomb the US and kill everyone, all they do is bully everyone?

The Africans make children dig all day? What a hyperbole.
a) people of all ages search for diamonds.

b) another case for bombing the US, we rip them off.

c) It's spelled "which" not "witch"; and the proper definition of this phenomena is "a diamond mined in a war zone and sold to finance an insurgency, invading
army's war efforts, or a warlord's activity", they haven't had any invading armies for years, when money went from gold to paper, they lost all power.

d) If you were poor would you not want to have babies? Every human is entitled to the right. Believe me, I realize the benefits one generation of people not reproducing would have, but every human is guaranteed unalienable rights in the United States, and should be everywhere in my opinion. The only decently powerful country I know of that sets limits is China, Africa doesn't.

e) You've only made a comment on one country and the way it operates, what does that have to do with world hunger? It produces too many sick babies? Look at China, there's your over-reproduction.

Unintellectual. Come back and post again or edit your previous post, I don't care why your post is 5 lines instead of 6.