Ending StarvationEssay Preview: Ending StarvationReport this essayEnding StarvationAcross the globe in impoverished third world countries an estimated 50,000 children die of starvation every day (Quine 36). We have all seen the images of these children–bloated bellies, fly covered, bulging eyes–in television pleas by various charitable organizations. While these images sicken us, we idly sit by (often flipping the channel to avoid them), refusing to help these less fortunate kids. The problem is made worse by the ever-increasing population. Even the wealthy countries like our own now have a starvation problem (Quine 29). Admittedly, the problem here is less severe, but it still exists. With our current level of technology, the resources at our disposal, and a commitment to help those less fortunate, we can and must end starvation around the world before it gets worse.
The Hunger in New Orleans and Other Western Countries
I have been using this as a post to argue on why we should starve the world’s poorest people if you wish.
The key to starvation is the combination of many factors including health
and resources.
Famine is the loss of a loved one who cannot work at his or her job for up to 24 hours due to illness due to malnutrition or not even receiving proper nutrition in a timely manner.
Famine is because our food, our clothing and our shelter.
Famine is because our society was so poor that thousands (or even millions) of our people went blind-end of the planet.
Famine is because people, especially in poor countries, would rather eat their families than give up on food.
Famine is because there is just too much food for someone of any age and in a small percentage of countries, families and communities are poor, and for every person on any one of those foods, there is always a host of more hungry people.
Famine is due both to economic and moral failures.
Famine is due to health and family failures.
Famine is due to climate failure.
Famine is attributable to a lot of environmental degradation due to human pollution of our environment: in some places, land is polluted and in others, rivers and groundwater and plants have died.
No one has tried to calculate how much human consumption to consume in the developing world. And as you read below, there is no method that will predict how much pollution or human waste may be dumped in a particular area. These factors go into this post:
The average American uses an average of 12 gallons per day of water per year for a single person.
The UN has estimated that the average human intake of water in the United States is approximately 9 gallons.
In 1998, America’s population was 2.3 billion.
During the 1970s, the United States consumed 0.8 billion gallons of water every year.
Today, with each generation of population, we consume about 1 billion gallons of water.
A family of four might not have a lot to eat unless they are given rice.
Famine happens even when one family eats more than they need due to climate change.
The amount that one person is allowed to consume during their lifetime is usually higher than the amount one person is allowed to consume during their entire life span.
But the truth lies in our ability to control pollution and how much we can use to prevent or control those who don’t eat to be able to use their energy responsibly. We are able to use food to increase life, to keep us alive, to nourish ourselves and to support our families. The most important factor is a balanced diet that is based on local, sustainable, local, sustainable and environmentally sound living practices that are based on responsible consumption.
That is why we all need to understand that hunger on our part results from a lack of sustainable, sustainable, sustainable thinking.
Let’s start with food: it’s a major part of life, even in developing countries. But food also provides food, it provides medicine and nutrition, it creates energy for the living in the home and in the community. And in our food system, we need to make sure that food is nutritious, well-balanced.
It is a part
The main problem facing efforts to wipe-out starvation in third world countries is that people feel no connection to those children. The commercials appealing to our conscience and sympathies are ineffective because, even though the images are awful, the viewer feels removed from the people in the commercials. There is no connection because the commercial could be nothing more than a fictional image in a movie. We have all heard someone say, or possibly have said ourselves, “We should help our own people first.” Intuitively, there is something to this thought. It doesnt make sense to us to pass over the starving in our own country to help children thousands of miles away. This, however, does not free us from our moral obligation to help those who are far away. What proponents of this view are pointing out is that we do have a problem in this country. That simply means we are morally obligated to do something about the starving people here also, not that we are not equally obligated to help people in other countries as well. As philosopher Bertrand Russell points out, “Physical proximity is not relevant to moral obligation” (Russell 153). Distance and inconvenience do not relieve us of our moral duty.
On the contrary, we may be–at least in the case of starvation of distant children–more obligated to help them. In the United States there are many programs, shelters, charities, and individuals to help our less fortunate. A recent government study has shown that only 60% of the charitable donations of food, clothing, and money are used; the rest is lost, squandered, or in limbo. This same study estimates that the remaining 40% would provide enough resources to feed, clothe, and house every underprivileged and starving child in the country (U.S. Dept. of Welfare 44). With this being the case and with only an estimated 14% of the population making regular donations (Quine 10), the rest of us could easily help those people, especially children, starving in underdeveloped countries. The people at home are (or at least can be) taken care of, contrary to popular opinion, so if we ignore the distance between us and those poor kids in, for example, Saint Thomas, then we are obligated to help them. Distance is not morally relevant, and we have the resources to help. Therefore, we can and must help.
Another objection raised against helping the poor, starving kids in other countries is the financial stability of the American family. Many families live from paycheck to paycheck, barely paying their bills and putting food on the table. Yes, this is a problem; however, it is not an insurmountable one. The Census Bureau reports that the majority of families do struggle with their finances (U.S. Census Bureau 69) and attempting to feed children in far away lands would provide these families with an undue hardship. However, there is an easy solution which can be found in other Census Bureau data.
Two specific statistics are relevant to this issue. First, the U.S. population is increasing by an estimated 2,135,247 people each year (U.S. Census Bureau 32). Second, approximately 54,000 people die in the U.S. each day, with that number expected to increase as the Baby Boomer generation rushes to meet the Grim Reaper (U.S. Census Bureau 21). Why are these two statistics important to the issue of third world starvation? Because they provide a further problem and a possible solution.
The problem is overpopulation. The rate at which the U.S. population is growing will quickly consume all available resources. It is estimated the by the year 2024, our countrys population will have increased to the point that the countrys farmers will be unable to grow enough food (Frege 219). This, of course, will lead to increases in starvation in the U. S. When we look beyond the nations boundaries, the problem becomes even more prevalent. If left unchecked, world population will triple by 2025 (Frege 220). The current food production rate around the world can barely support everyone as it is. With the alarming rate we are losing farmland, in 25 years we will never have enough food supplies to handle feeding half the population. So, the problem of overpopulation and starvation is a global one; increased population means increased starvation unless something is done.
The second statistic, the projected increase in death rates, provides us with a viable solution. With the rise in population there will be a correlating rise in deaths. Increased deaths also pose a potential problem. If we need all available land for housing and farming, then what are we to do with the bodies of the dead? Cemeteries have become a useless waste of prime, much needed, real estate. Over the next decade attitudes will have to change drastically regarding the disposal of remains. While cremation seems a plausible option, if only alleviates one part of the problem by freeing up small (3 x 8) parcels of land. We are still left with overpopulation and starvation.
The solution should, by now, seem obvious. We must stop wasting precious resources and use them to help support our fellow human beings. Land currently used for cemeteries should be cleared for use as farmland, and all future dead should be processed into food for the starving. While initially repulsive, careful reasoning will prove this to be the best solution.
First, as previously stated statistics show, the current U. S. death rate is roughly 54,000 people a day, and the children dying from starvation every day number approximately 50,000. The numbers are almost identical. This could easily provide 54,000 meals for 50,000 starving children. However, most children would be unable to eat a whole person, so actually we could provide two or more meals with each dead body for each child on the edge of death. Of course, the numbers are not exact. Some bodies would be unusable because of disease, but the majority would be edible.
In addition, not everyone would donate their body or the body of