The way to end world hunger.

[highwaystar101]

HappySqurriel said:

highwaystar101 said:

I'm going to get warned for this, I can feel it. But stay with me.

We just stop the aid.

In "The descent of man" by Charles Darwin he wrote about how supporting the weak and forcing them to survive will be limiting our progression as a species by actually providing money and food and allowing them to reproduce. Natural selection is taken out of the equation.

He had a point.

By supporting those worse off and subsequently allowing them to reproduce and multiply then we are adding to the problem in the future instead of stopping it now.

For example. If we give one generation food now, and then they have four children per couple because we facilitated it, then we would have to give twice as many people food the next generation, and the one after that, and the one after that, and the one after that and so on. Before you know it, you've wasted all your money and the problem is 64 times larger.

So the logical step would be to stop aid and stop them reproducing. I know it borders on Eugenics and I too, like all of you, find that sick. But it would be a solution that could work.

(Although I would never support it personally)

While I don't support your reasoning, there are many people who argue that certain regions of the world (primarily Africa) have not developed primarily because of foreign aid. Foreign aid often protects and empowers dictators because it prevents the people from overthrowing these governments, and foreign aid is often stolen by the government to distribute how it sees fit (which typically means based on maintaining political power).

Don't worry I don't support my reasoning either. While I think it is a logical potential solution, I do not support in just about every moral way.

...

Your aid going to further empower the dictators argument. I couldn't agree more, aid will often end up in the hands of the government at some point and if that government is greedy and corrupt then it is just adding fuel to the fire. Stopping aid reaching these corrupt governments will prevent them from gaining further power over their citizens, which could lead to situation where the citizens can get their voice heard, or even overthrow their government.

...

However, that argument aside, stopping aid could still be a logical choice. Even if the government was 100% honourable and uncorrupt, then it would still be adding to the problem.

Aid facilitates population growth to unreasonable levels, more than the local environment can handle. The size of the population is a real strain on resources because the population size has been artificially inflated from external suppliers.

The population of many of these countries are already over the maximum capacity that could be supported because we facilitate a larger population than needed.

With each generation that we send aid, we are just increasing the amount of people who require it. We're not solving the problem at all, we're just adding to it.

...

Let me try an analogy.

If a school is drastically under-performing, what would be the solution?

Would you send twice as many pupils to the school the next year, and four times as many the year after; doubling the number with every year that passes. Which will increase class sizes exponentially, be an extreme strain on the resources and still keep the people who have run it so poorly in charge.

Or...

Would you take out the people (The government) who have ran the school so badly and replace them with someone who is competent. And work to keep the class sizes (population) at a manageable level which would be supported by the available resources that the school has, instead of inflating class sizes and straining the resources.

 

Logically the answer would be the second one. The first one is just increasing the problem for future generations as opposed to fixing it now. You see once you take out the moral and humanitarian problems (people starving, people dieing) the solution becomes quite clear. Which I think the school analogy shows this.

...

On a personal note: It's hard to argue for something you don't agree with lol.