Also, just a wandering thought:

How much money is Sarah Silverman giving to feed the poor in Africa? I know that she wants to bash the Catholics and all, but I'd really be interested in learning how much she gives, too.

My point with that wasn't about religion, but about unreasonable views relenting to reason given time. I don't think racism in the 1800s concerning blacks was a direct result of christianity, or other religious beliefs.

The catholics church will never do that, although it'd be awesome to watch if they did.

Anyway whose going to buy Vatican city? If it is worth $500 billion or whatever she said you would have to put together like the 10+ richest people in the US just to afford it.

I thought world hunger already came to an end?

The way to end world hunger is to not give any aid to all the poor people now, so that they all die without reproducing, and then there won't be any poor people left

I'm sorry, this argument falls under "A 5 year old knows better" category ... The clichés that we’re told from the time we’re very little are so important because they are full of inherent wisdom; and the relevant cliché at the moment is "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life."

When you start factoring in price inflation that buying food to feed the hungry, selling all of the assets of the Catholic Church would only buy a couple of years worth of food for the hungry and then we're back to square one. Until we actually deal with the core problem (mismanaged resources in Africa), all foreign food aid does is prolong the suffering of people.

OR.... The people who could afford to buy the Vatican could just buy food instead.

That includes anyone on this board who has any extra money.

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, we will actually be hindering 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, then they may 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 now. 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).