Anonymous #1 3w

just because it resumes doesn't mean it wasn't briefly ended. it's semantic, but not untrue. world hunger is a systemic issue but a few billion here and there from a man who makes hundreds of billions would definitely make significant progress towards a truer end to world hunger. he could do like a billionaire bucket challenge

3

Anonymous #2 3w

True, but it didn’t really do that either. It provided vouchers to about 43 million people in countries at risk of famine. How are they supposed to use those vouchers for food if their country is in famine?

0

Anonymous #2 3w

i feel like with 6 billion we could build functioning farms of some sort instead of just paying for meals to be transported

15

Anonymous #1 3w

the vouchers included transportation of the food from non famined countries

9

Anonymous OP 3w

But it didn’t actually support the country suffering from famine in any way. Agriculturally, economically, it’s not even a bandaid

0

Anonymous #1 3w

it was concocted shortly after covid so i think its aim was to prevent the imminent deaths by starvation. i wish someone would calculate how much it would cost to make those countries self sufficient and sell the idea again to billionaires as the ability to save multiple generations from stravation

5

Anonymous #1 3w

i actually just don't really care about what was planned because my point is that billions of dollars absolutely could end world hunger over the coming decades. with the will and good strategy through smart people we could establish an abundance and availability of food and water across most if not all of the globe. much of the issue is distribution. but that would end many of their billionaire statuses because they rely on poor and hungry ppl to exploit across the globe. catch 22

2

Anonymous OP 3w

It wouldn’t help considering that many places dealing with famine are places with active military combat. Warlords, corrupt local governments etc would just take the aid and either sell it or keep it for themselves

1

Anonymous #3 3w

these things aren't permanent fixtures of life. hence why i said "over the coming decades". wars start and end. conflict is largely about land and resources. again, with the right will and strategy even war torn areas can be improved and eventually made stable and abundant. you're demonstrating incredibly binary, short term, elementary thinking

5

Anonymous #2 3w

But they’re right. These need to be heavily considered and monitored long term to prevent horrible leaders and military power to destroy the work. Which takes more money and incredibly substantial time

-1

Anonymous #2 3w

Not really look at Somalia, Haiti, Eritrea, the Congo etc. where for decades ethnic conflict and civil war has raged on. Yeah war torn areas can be improved but that requires the conflict to end first and if it’s just a one and off conflict rebuilding can never happen

0

Anonymous #3 3w

Are you guys simply not reading what they've said? Your responses imply as much

1