• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Elon Musk is ready to spend $6 billion to end world hunger, asks UN to provide a plan

He knows this is not possible with that sum.
Only reason he entertains the idea and makes it seem like he’s a good willed guy. Fucking cunt should just pay taxes.

edit: The Thread title is also wrong, makes it seem like it is his wish to end world hunger and is asking for help. In reality he is childishly replying to the claim that 6bn (2% of his wealth) could achieve this.
Moron who responds to thread after not reading said thread calls person implicated in thread a moron, then after realizing said mistake doubles down and calls the OP a moron for not explaining it more clearly for your inability to read past the title.


You should go into politics.
 
True too.

The global trend seems to be the poorer you are, the more kids you have. Whether it's irresponsibility, cant afford or access rubbers, or the people are just plain dumb, it's counter-intuitive to what you'd think.

IMO, a family with great parents and rolling in the dollars would be the ones having bigger families because they an afford it, not give a shit, and if you're going to spread the seed and family tree, you might as well do it when you got money to float the boat.

While someone who's poor, why the fuck would you have kids when you cant even support yourself and living in a shack? If I was broke, thats the last thing Im doing - having tons of kids.

Maybe, it' not even the food thing as you say. Instead, the long term game might be rich people to donate money so they can get an education, build up the city, get some well thinking people into government and grow the country grassroots style. From their (like every richer nations), when you grow the country, food and starvation is a non-factor. You got tons of it and enough smart people to figure out and give everyone access to it.

However, I have no idea how to get rid of corrupt governments. I'm just talking about poor countries honestly trying to improve (who knows if there's any that even have honest gov).
Here's a legit reason why in my part of the world: women's period. Thing of how poor you must be to not be able to afford regular ass tempons so the best course of action is to get pregnant and temporary stop periods for ~9 months. Of course, after that you gonna be thinking of another mouth to feed but at least when it comes to periods you have a sure fire solution..
I guess.
 

Razorback

Member
claims he wants to spend 6 billion
but won't pay taxes

hahahahahaha

He doesn't have $300billion in his bank account that he can just do whatever he wants with. He owns 22% of Tesla shares which are valued at that price.
In order to pay taxes, he would have to sell some of his tesla stock. The tax on that would be 53%. It would lower the value of the company, which could trigger a selloff.

 

Kenpachii

Member
To piggyback off a point StreetsofBeige StreetsofBeige made about teaching basic farming/gardening in smaller/poorer countries, the soil has to actually be fertile. While most countries can grow their own food, many areas within those countries don't have fertile soil. Fix that problem and hunger becomes less of an issue (along with education and training) in 50 years (wild guess).

Also, poorer people have many children not because they're irresponsible but because the more children you have, the more helping hands you have to cover the whole family. That's how it was done (along with the sad fact of high infant/child mortality) in ancient times.


Nothing to do with fertile soil, everything to do with cultures that don't function for shit. U see this over and over again in history. Hell we get our goldfish from a desert country that was poor as shit until a bunch of europeans migrated towards there. How does that work? because its ruled by a culture that works. enough examples of this.

In Israel, the main sources of drinking water is the Sea of Galilee and two underground aquifers. If the rainfall is short, so is the nation’s water supply. In 1953, Israel started building the national water carrier, a system of pipelines, canals, and reservoirs, that carry water from the Sea of Galilee to the rest of Israel. They did not have water, so they had to develop water technology.

......

Under the Negev desert, there is an underground ocean too salty to drink or desalinate. So Israeli settlers found a new way to use it. And instead of fighting against nature, they learned it is better to cooperate and coordinate with what you have. One Israeli company has brought the ocean to the desert by building fish farms using the warm salty water from underground. It is ideal for raising saltwater fish like tilapia, sea bass, and barramundi.

Culture.

This is also what china understands, there fragmented cultures, fragmented politics etc are all holding them back so they steamrolled it, made a new age. replaced people, destroyed there culture the next day or forbid it and new solutions are made like work culture on progression. And boom there you go.

Then look at old europe versus new europe and involvement into country's and u will realize why those country's never get out of poverty.

6b won't fix shit and elon knows it becuase he's not a idiot so he calls them out on it to provide a plan. They can't because they are grifters that parasite on other people's misery.
 

Enjay

Banned
This is a pretty good manipulation to generate good press. He'll never actually have to spend the money.
 

///PATRIOT

Member
Here's a legit reason why in my part of the world: women's period. Thing of how poor you must be to not be able to afford regular ass tempons so the best course of action is to get pregnant and temporary stop periods for ~9 months. Of course, after that you gonna be thinking of another mouth to feed but at least when it comes to periods you have a sure fire solution..
I guess.
For how long tampons and pads has been around?

Was the rest of the world like your are describing before tampons and pads?
 

///PATRIOT

Member
Nothing to do with fertile soil, everything to do with cultures that don't function for shit. U see this over and over again in history. Hell we get our goldfish from a desert country that was poor as shit until a bunch of europeans migrated towards there. How does that work? because its ruled by a culture that works. enough examples of this.



Culture.

This is also what china understands, there fragmented cultures, fragmented politics etc are all holding them back so they steamrolled it, made a new age. replaced people, destroyed there culture the next day or forbid it and new solutions are made like work culture on progression. And boom there you go.

Then look at old europe versus new europe and involvement into country's and u will realize why those country's never get out of poverty.

6b won't fix shit and elon knows it becuase he's not a idiot so he calls them out on it to provide a plan. They can't because they are grifters that parasite on other people's misery.
As a person who was born in a third world country, I agree with the culture factor.

Poverty is not lack of money, but population education.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Thats' one thing I truly question. The whole fertile soil/agriculture thing.

I can totally understand people not having the skills, money, machinery and Monsanto shit to keep it humming along. This kind of stuff is bonus. You need some good land and lots of out it out of the gate to feed endless millions of starving people.

But just purely in terms of having some good starting land and soil, are most third world countries that beaten up with shitty starting land? The stereotypical shit you see on TV where it's tons of barren desert, mountains and rockey terrain it'll never be able to nicely farm enough food for the tons of people?
 
Last edited:

nush

Gold Member
The stereotypical shit you see on TV where it's tons of barren desert, mountains and rockey terrain it'll never be able to nicely farm enough food for the tons of people?

That's been proven to be correctable, but it takes investment, a change of local culture and patience.
 
I love Elon exposing this kind of Facebook socialist "fax" shit. If we only took x amount and eat the rich Africa would be saved! It took one sentence, basically saying "bet" and now they're trying to be like WELL ACCTUALLY it's more complicated. Yeah no shit. It's almost like those countries are ran by shit governments. Billionaires aren't the problem.
 
Last edited:

bitbydeath

Member
The whole world hunger crap is complete bullshit. You can give 999 trillion dollars and it still won’t solve world hunger because the idea isn’t focused. It’s all bandaid fixes spread over a ton of different areas where many individuals use it to fill their own pockets rather than a laser-focused approach to a single (just one) poor nation. If they could target just one area to inject the money, build farms, build schools, build housing, build shops, then one day it could actually be accomplished.
 

mxbison

Member
Elon Musk fanboys are the craziest thing man. Guess it fits the whole thing of celebrity worship and being proud of other peoples money though.

And that number is obviously complete bullshit. Who came up with that? I'm assuming some politician who is getting paid for things he's clueless about?
 

mxbison

Member
Also... Inequality is a huge thing... When the top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 50% (I think that's the math of it) COMBINED... when wages haven't adjusted to inflation in over a decade (not talking about white collar jobs)... You're bound to have levels of inequality. Many levels!

I don't believe this is possible to change anymore.

The top 1% have done such a good job of convincing the middle class that the bottom 50% are after their money and freedom.

Literal sheep.
 

wolfmat

Confirmed Asshole
I wouldn't start thinking about this in terms of world hunger because that's just ridiculous. Instead, think about the needs of one country that's obviously a good target to get right.

Let's pick Somalia: What does Somalia need to do to stabilize things in a manner that circumstances for the whole population are such that everyone is able to eat indefinitely?
Then target the part of those todos that's directly achievable with money.

I think the biggest issue is getting the workforce to change things. Before paying people, you need people that can be paid. You need people to implement bureaucracy, infrastructure, security and so on and so forth. Where are these people supposed to come from?

Even if you think longterm, you'd have to educate a hungry populace so that they've got the basic knowledge to fill the needed position. That's schools, teachers, management, infrastructure.

And do the people of Somalia even allow such an intervention in their local affairs?

Once you've got an understanding of Somalia's way out of hunger, multiply the magnitude of the issue by 10 or so.

I don't think the number is $6B even for Somalia only. Money isn't key either. I also don't think what's needed to get Somalia out of the shitter is achievable on a worldwide scale.

I agree that Musk is just being cheeky here.
 

wolfmat

Confirmed Asshole
You can buy work with money. 🤷🏻‍♂️
The question is: From whom are you buying that work?

Again, think in Somalia terms. Imagine you're shipping the materials needed for getting education off the ground to there. Just to make Somalia self-sustainable in terms of knowledge they can use to feed themselves.
Who's going to build the school buildings? Who coordinates the building process so that the buildings are in the right location? Who sets up the needed infrastructure? Who are the teachers? Can Somalia supply this workforce demand? If not, who else is going to fill those positions? It gets complicated real fast.
 
Last edited:

FunkMiller

Gold Member
He knows this is not possible with that sum.
Only reason he entertains the idea and makes it seem like he’s a good willed guy. Fucking cunt should just pay taxes.

edit: The Thread title is also wrong, makes it seem like it is his wish to end world hunger and is asking for help. In reality he is childishly replying to the claim that 6bn (2% of his wealth) could achieve this.

ERMERGERD!

Elon is such a massive cunt!

…for offering to help solve world hunger.

Kill him! He’s a monster!


…yes, he should pay more taxes, but it’s incumbent on government to force him to.

fuck me.
 

bitbydeath

Member
I wouldn't start thinking about this in terms of world hunger because that's just ridiculous. Instead, think about the needs of one country that's obviously a good target to get right.

Let's pick Somalia: What does Somalia need to do to stabilize things in a manner that circumstances for the whole population are such that everyone is able to eat indefinitely?
Then target the part of those todos that's directly achievable with money.

I think the biggest issue is getting the workforce to change things. Before paying people, you need people that can be paid. You need people to implement bureaucracy, infrastructure, security and so on and so forth. Where are these people supposed to come from?

Even if you think longterm, you'd have to educate a hungry populace so that they've got the basic knowledge to fill the needed position. That's schools, teachers, management, infrastructure.

And do the people of Somalia even allow such an intervention in their local affairs?

Once you've got an understanding of Somalia's way out of hunger, multiply the magnitude of the issue by 10 or so.

I don't think the number is $6B even for Somalia only. Money isn't key either. I also don't think what's needed to get Somalia out of the shitter is achievable on a worldwide scale.

I agree that Musk is just being cheeky here.
Somalia as a whole is too big, they need to go much smaller to fix the problems. Start in a small town/city and build-up from there, looking at all the surrounding issues of food/water. Every worker is imported and trains a local to eventually take over, then moves onto the next area.
 

wolfmat

Confirmed Asshole
Somalia as a whole is too big, they need to go much smaller to fix the problems. Start in a small town/city and build-up from there, looking at all the surrounding issues of food/water. Every worker is imported and trains a local to eventually take over, then moves onto the next area.
Isn't that basically what the UN does..? (I'm genuinely asking)
 

HoodWinked

Member
I'm thinking if there is more abundance in food this would lead to accelerated population growth then there would have to be even more food so you'd be back to where you started.

Gate's goal is population control. Honestly that's probably how you come closer to solving the problem. Countries with the lowest fertility rates usually have societies where women are educated which makes them focus more on their careers only for them to realize they missed their child rearing years and adopt late in life. Also males have become more effeminate indirectly due to micro plastic pollution in the water supply, and synthetic estrogen in waste water from women on birth control.
 

Kev Kev

Gold Member
Here's a legit reason why in my part of the world: women's period. Thing of how poor you must be to not be able to afford regular ass tempons so the best course of action is to get pregnant and temporary stop periods for ~9 months. Of course, after that you gonna be thinking of another mouth to feed but at least when it comes to periods you have a sure fire solution..
I guess.
 

Ionian

Member
Look at Bob Geldoff and 'Live Aid'.

Most of the money sent was pocketed by politicians. That's what happens. Still made a cracking tune though. Used to have to sing it in school on a damn stage with my class.

Instead of "let them know it's Christmas time", I'd sing "Bring them all to McDonalds". Got in massive trouble for that, parents called etc.

What an amazing set by Queen and Bowie though. I'm sure everyone felt duped and never bothered again unless it was a local cause. Then again, tax write-offs!


EDIT: haha at Bono's stupid hair. Geldoff truly fooled them. He still got paid no doubt.
 
Last edited:

VN1X

Gold Member
Why not ask one of the pharmaceutical companies? Didn't Pfizer make over 30 billion eu last year?
 

saiws

Banned
Simple? You think intentional logistics are simple? Have you been paying attention to the supply chain issues first world countries are having? You are so naive it’s almost funny. You think feeding billions is simple?

You seem to think people are poor because other people are prosperous? Or could it be that other countries have horrific corruption, complete lack of education, infrastructure, social cohesion, etc? And you can’t just pull all those things out of your ass and give them to countries where they do not exist.

Spare me your studies by idealist theorists. It’s not a matter of money. Money doesn’t create reality. And the reality is these places are shit because they have structural and cultural problems that make them shit. Money isn’t the answer to those problems
i think you're misinterpreting the idea here- the solution is simple if we invest time and resources into distributing to those communities. additionally, you can consolidate those populations in need if you're able to provide what they need- most people will adapt to the situation that better suits their needs, and if that means moving to an area where distribution can happen then many people will follow the resources.

it's a fact that poverty exists due to resource hoarding and extraction. the structural problems you're referring to are generally due to exploitation and a consolidation of power which has served foreign business rather than the citizens of these countries. it's also very relevant to this conversation as elon musk's father made a great deal of money investing in an emerald mine in zambia- where so much profit went to him, a foreign investor extracting resources from the country.

money does not create the natural world but it is responsible for the great social, cultural, and class realities we have to contend with across the globe.
 
i think you're misinterpreting the idea here- the solution is simple if we invest time and resources into distributing to those communities. additionally, you can consolidate those populations in need if you're able to provide what they need- most people will adapt to the situation that better suits their needs, and if that means moving to an area where distribution can happen then many people will follow the resources.

it's a fact that poverty exists due to resource hoarding and extraction. the structural problems you're referring to are generally due to exploitation and a consolidation of power which has served foreign business rather than the citizens of these countries. it's also very relevant to this conversation as elon musk's father made a great deal of money investing in an emerald mine in zambia- where so much profit went to him, a foreign investor extracting resources from the country.

money does not create the natural world but it is responsible for the great social, cultural, and class realities we have to contend with across the globe.
And the current system has lifted billions out of abject poverty. That is not a small thing and you seem pretty ungrateful about it, if I’m being honest.

It’s also not a fact that poverty is due to resource hoarding or that structural and culture failings in many places are the fault of foreign interference. That’s noble savage kind of thinking. Most problems in most places are due to problems that originate in those places. The idea that resource extraction is why a place would be poor assumes that a corporation would invest in that area without the profit motivation or that someone the local population would put the resources to use themselves.

That isn’t to say that there isn’t exploitation. Of course there is. But to look at the world and miss the massive increase in the base standard of living while also having a population boom in the third world is missing most of the picture. If all you see is the exploitation, you’re viewing the world through a myopic lens. The world isn’t perfect. But it’s better than it has ever been. You should try having a bit of perspective.
 

saiws

Banned
And the current system has lifted billions out of abject poverty. That is not a small thing and you seem pretty ungrateful about it, if I’m being honest.

It’s also not a fact that poverty is due to resource hoarding or that structural and culture failings in many places are the fault of foreign interference. That’s noble savage kind of thinking. Most problems in most places are due to problems that originate in those places. The idea that resource extraction is why a place would be poor assumes that a corporation would invest in that area without the profit motivation or that someone the local population would put the resources to use themselves.

That isn’t to say that there isn’t exploitation. Of course there is. But to look at the world and miss the massive increase in the base standard of living while also having a population boom in the third world is missing most of the picture. If all you see is the exploitation, you’re viewing the world through a myopic lens. The world isn’t perfect. But it’s better than it has ever been. You should try having a bit of perspective.
percentage-wise the world is better than it was a few hundred or thousand years ago. but by the numbers there are more people suffering now than at any point in human history. also, the stats that talk about the significant reduction in global poverty more recently are greatly skewed by china which is not exactly a role model for quashing wealth inequality.

your argument about resource extraction does not make sense- using the example of a heavy metal or precious gem mine, there is no inherent value to local communities for those resources as they are commodities, and the heavy machinery and expertise to extract them are only available from MNCs or foreign governments. so then these companies can wield a huge amount of power as they can provide profit kickbacks to whoever is in power while retaining the majority of the wealth. and if the human and labor rights are awful for the workers there is enough plausible deniability for the company to look the other way. before you say "see, the local powers are the ones at fault" understand that power in many of these countries was taken violently and someone had to sell weapons to those people, which is something the west loves doing. we loved outfitting saddam, bin laden, saudi royals, guatemalan death squads, etc.

i don't think i'll change your mind but i think it's hard to look at history over the last ~500 years and not come to similar conclusions about the artificial nature of wealth and resource distribution. the groups responsible for human and environmental suffering need to be held to account, and there are receipts.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
And the current system has lifted billions out of abject poverty. That is not a small thing and you seem pretty ungrateful about it, if I’m being honest.

It’s also not a fact that poverty is due to resource hoarding or that structural and culture failings in many places are the fault of foreign interference. That’s noble savage kind of thinking. Most problems in most places are due to problems that originate in those places. The idea that resource extraction is why a place would be poor assumes that a corporation would invest in that area without the profit motivation or that someone the local population would put the resources to use themselves.

That isn’t to say that there isn’t exploitation. Of course there is. But to look at the world and miss the massive increase in the base standard of living while also having a population boom in the third world is missing most of the picture. If all you see is the exploitation, you’re viewing the world through a myopic lens. The world isn’t perfect. But it’s better than it has ever been. You should try having a bit of perspective.
Exactly.

There's always going to be poor people. Unless the world wants to turn communist and every doctor and mailman makes the same money, there will always be a gap. Even in poor dictatorship countries, I bet a high level worker still makes a lot more than a restaurant worker.

If other people around the world cant get with the times over the past couple hundred years where it seemed Europe and the US advanced forward a lot while other governments and people were still dicking around doing their usual thing, thats on them. If anyone reads up on ancient history, China and that whole Mid East kind of region actually had the lead and were the most modern for probably 1000+ years. Europe was a wasteland. And the US and Canada were all natives who did their own thing. Not one pilgrim boat hit the eastern coast of North America until 500 years ago and started building cabins and cities from scratch. You probably had 100s of cold hungry people killed by grizzly bears. But it progressed even though a lot of shit had to shipped by boat across the atlantic!

Even for something as common as running water, toilets and bathtubs which is standard in rich countries, it was still a long time slog to get there. Were talking 100+ years of innovation and implementation over giant land masses. Who the hell wants to live off river water or heating your home burning wood and coal?

You got to have a government and people mindset to strive for better. If just one of these falter, you're fucked.

 
Last edited:
percentage-wise the world is better than it was a few hundred or thousand years ago. but by the numbers there are more people suffering now than at any point in human history. also, the stats that talk about the significant reduction in global poverty more recently are greatly skewed by china which is not exactly a role model for quashing wealth inequality.

your argument about resource extraction does not make sense- using the example of a heavy metal or precious gem mine, there is no inherent value to local communities for those resources as they are commodities, and the heavy machinery and expertise to extract them are only available from MNCs or foreign governments. so then these companies can wield a huge amount of power as they can provide profit kickbacks to whoever is in power while retaining the majority of the wealth. and if the human and labor rights are awful for the workers there is enough plausible deniability for the company to look the other way. before you say "see, the local powers are the ones at fault" understand that power in many of these countries was taken violently and someone had to sell weapons to those people, which is something the west loves doing. we loved outfitting saddam, bin laden, saudi royals, guatemalan death squads, etc.

i don't think i'll change your mind but i think it's hard to look at history over the last ~500 years and not come to similar conclusions about the artificial nature of wealth and resource distribution. the groups responsible for human and environmental suffering need to be held to account, and there are receipts.
This is ahistorical. To point to wealth and power imbalance and attempt to lay it at the feet of the West when it has literally existed for all of human history is nonsensical. These are problems that exist in all societies for all time. The current system has improved the lives of humanity to a greater degree than any other. Obviously it’s not perfect, but no perfect system exists. Just wishing we could create a perfectly fair and just system is daydreaming.

You talk about holding people to account but you don’t want to actually do that because then you’d have to account for all the good, which significantly outweighs the bad. What you want is grievance theater and struggle sessions.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
This is ahistorical. To point to wealth and power imbalance and attempt to lay it at the feet of the West when it has literally existed for all of human history is nonsensical. These are problems that exist in all societies for all time. The current system has improved the lives of humanity to a greater degree than any other. Obviously it’s not perfect, but no perfect system exists. Just wishing we could create a perfectly fair and just system is daydreaming.

You talk about holding people to account but you don’t want to actually do that because then you’d have to account for all the good, which significantly outweighs the bad. What you want is grievance theater and struggle sessions.
Historical imbalance was much worse.

You had slaves and servants ruled by royalty sitting on fucking thrones. The king and church controlled every point in life. And if you didnt pay taxes, even the poorest guy seemed to get squeezed for every last cent and then got whipped by a guard for good measure.

If you translated that to modern day, we'd be all doing shitty jobs dirt poor, live in shitty wooden huts and thinking constantly if we have enough food and resources to eat and stay warm in winter.

Unless someone is third world country poor like someone starving like it's a Live Aid concert, the average poor person is doing 100x than a poor person 1000 years ago.
 

Cleared_Hot

Member
If the wfp is anything like California's team for homelessness, which I bet it is, it's full of people making six figure-plus salaries
 
Last edited:

saiws

Banned
This is ahistorical. To point to wealth and power imbalance and attempt to lay it at the feet of the West when it has literally existed for all of human history is nonsensical. These are problems that exist in all societies for all time. The current system has improved the lives of humanity to a greater degree than any other. Obviously it’s not perfect, but no perfect system exists. Just wishing we could create a perfectly fair and just system is daydreaming.

You talk about holding people to account but you don’t want to actually do that because then you’d have to account for all the good, which significantly outweighs the bad. What you want is grievance theater and struggle sessions.
we're talking about a specific point of power imbalance that i substantiated with facts and reasoning, compared to you just saying it's "ahistorical" and pointing to generalized inequality over a much longer time period than what i am discussing. you can't even debate with someone without these meaningless intuitive arguments that i guess you want me to break down for you.

the other points being made in this thread still don't recognize the main thrust of what i am saying- that the actual amount of people suffering nowadays is more than ever in human history, and the resources and industry we have can change that for the betterment of all of us if we directly invest in addressing the problems at hand.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
we're talking about a specific point of power imbalance that i substantiated with facts and reasoning, compared to you just saying it's "ahistorical" and pointing to generalized inequality over a much longer time period than what i am discussing. you can't even debate with someone without these meaningless intuitive arguments that i guess you want me to break down for you.

the other points being made in this thread still don't recognize the main thrust of what i am saying- that the actual amount of people suffering nowadays is more than ever in human history, and the resources and industry we have can change that for the betterment of all of us if we directly invest in addressing the problems at hand.
Are you talking absolute number of people or % of people?

If you are talking absolute numbers, that a very dishonest way of looking at it since the world is creeping up to 8 billion people. So in terms of pure numbers, modern day will have more poor people than the year 1000.
 
we're talking about a specific point of power imbalance that i substantiated with facts and reasoning, compared to you just saying it's "ahistorical" and pointing to generalized inequality over a much longer time period than what i am discussing. you can't even debate with someone without these meaningless intuitive arguments that i guess you want me to break down for you.

the other points being made in this thread still don't recognize the main thrust of what i am saying- that the actual amount of people suffering nowadays is more than ever in human history, and the resources and industry we have can change that for the betterment of all of us if we directly invest in addressing the problems at hand.
What specific point of power imbalance are you referring to? Because I must have missed it. Maybe you don’t want to discuss these things in the broader context because it makes your complaints look ridiculous and blows your characterization of the current situation out of the water.

And you want to come at me about “meaningless arguments”? How about this for instance? The idea that the raw number of people suffering is higher than ever is completely ignorant just in terms of statistical understanding of the current situation. There is more of EVERYTHING with regards to humanity than there has ever been.

So you’re either being disingenuous with that line or you’re just ignorant of reality. Either way, this has run its course. But I’ll just reiterate, you don’t actually want any “accounting” when it comes to this kind of stuff. You want to ignore that the good has vastly outpaced the bad so you can bitch about how if people would make you dictator, the world’s problems would be solved. As though you have answers to the worlds problems and everyone is just too greedy or stupid to make everything rainbows.
 
Last edited:

evolvaer

Banned
We would need to stop exploiting these countries racked with poverty in the first place. That would do a great good, possibly more in long term than one dump of money.

Many of the charitable organizations from outside influences also end up being more hurtful than helpful, as they force monocrop agriculture instead of what the native population is good at growing. Other feel good charity influences end up dumping money, creating solutions that wouldn't work in that environment.

The biggest help an impoverished nation can receive is to stop being exploited for it's resources by outside, more developed nations.
 

saiws

Banned
What specific point of power imbalance are you referring to? Because I must have missed it. Maybe you don’t want to discuss these things in the broader context because it makes your complaints look ridiculous and blows your characterization of the current situation out of the water.

And you want to come at me about “meaningless arguments”? How about this for instance? The idea that the raw number of people suffering is higher than ever is completely ignorant just in terms of statistical understanding of the current situation. There is more of EVERYTHING with regards to humanity than there has ever been.

So you’re either being disingenuous with that line or you’re just ignorant of reality. Either way, this has run its course. But I’ll just reiterate, you don’t actually want any “accounting” when it comes to this kind of stuff. You want to ignore that the good has vastly outpaced the bad so you can bitch about how of people would make you dictator, the world’s problems would be solved. As though you have answers to the worlds problems and everyone is just too greedy or stupid to make everything rainbows.
yes, sorry i had the expectation that you would try to read and understand my points as i made them. i’m sticking to specifics because we were originally talking about the subject of addressing world hunger but if you want to talk more broadly i guess we can.

there is a contextual point to the idea that more people are suffering now than ever. obviously you’re only looking at the statistics in terms of extreme poverty(less than $1.90/a day)which is also entirely disingenuous. i serve unhoused people who make much more than that every day and still are in great pain- should we be satisfied with this reality for them even though they don’t fit the international description for extreme poverty? additionally, there is the point that we have the resources to serve every person on the planet who is in need, but we spend much more money on gating those resources to those people in defense of your global system you defend. we have moral conscious individually but when it comes to actively serving those in need we like to defer to this idea that the order of things as they are is more important than serving those people adequately.

you still haven’t engaged me on any of my points, instead you’ve just used intuitive arguments to say that “the world is better than it used to be” which isn’t really an assessment of anything. and additionally, if you believe this global system is so great then why is it contingent upon the suffering of billions of lower class people in order to function? are you willing to look those people in the eye and claim “my comfort is worth your suffering”?

i don’t have answers to all the problems but i have a better understanding of these issues than you do. the only one being disingenuous here is you by saying my arguments and concerns don’t have merit because we don’t live in huts anymore basically.
 
yes, sorry i had the expectation that you would try to read and understand my points as i made them. i’m sticking to specifics because we were originally talking about the subject of addressing world hunger but if you want to talk more broadly i guess we can.

there is a contextual point to the idea that more people are suffering now than ever. obviously you’re only looking at the statistics in terms of extreme poverty(less than $1.90/a day)which is also entirely disingenuous. i serve unhoused people who make much more than that every day and still are in great pain- should we be satisfied with this reality for them even though they don’t fit the international description for extreme poverty? additionally, there is the point that we have the resources to serve every person on the planet who is in need, but we spend much more money on gating those resources to those people in defense of your global system you defend. we have moral conscious individually but when it comes to actively serving those in need we like to defer to this idea that the order of things as they are is more important than serving those people adequately.

you still haven’t engaged me on any of my points, instead you’ve just used intuitive arguments to say that “the world is better than it used to be” which isn’t really an assessment of anything. and additionally, if you believe this global system is so great then why is it contingent upon the suffering of billions of lower class people in order to function? are you willing to look those people in the eye and claim “my comfort is worth your suffering”?

i don’t have answers to all the problems but i have a better understanding of these issues than you do. the only one being disingenuous here is you by saying my arguments and concerns don’t have merit because we don’t live in huts anymore basically.
You have a better understanding of what exactly? The logistics of serving 8 billion people? Keeping them fed and sheltered, much less prosperous? You have zero idea what you’re talking about. The unhoused community? I guess I’m not sure exactly where you are working, but the unhoused community in the US is dealing with substance abuse and severe mental illness at a rate of 70-90%. That isn’t some have vs have not issue. That’s a human issue.

Further, the idea that we can snap out fingers and fix the worlds problems if we just had the will to do so is naive in the extreme. Again, you neglect to understand that much like in your “unhoused” community, the majority of the problems in these poor regions originate from within those regions. Corruption, cultural problems, historical baggage, etc.

You don’t seem to realize that simply pouring dollars into something doesn’t actually make it any better. But you should understand it since you deal with the homeless. How much has the exponentially increasing funding for the homeless increased the quality of life for the homeless on a statistical level? Why has the homeless population exploded despite the increase in money? If money and outside will to solve a problem is the answer, why can’t we fix homelessness? Is that the system or is that the fact the vast majority of people struggling with it have substance abuse issues and severe mental health problems? Should we force the homeless into solutions to their problems, often against their will? Is that the solution to poverty globally? Force them to do what we think is good for them?
 
Last edited:

BouncyFrag

Member
Leave the UN out of it.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like it'll solve world hunger for a year, then it's be hoping Musk donates another $6 billion every year.

Only way to solve it is to put in enough money, training and facilities so that poor countries can grow their own food and have the process of shipping and storing it so it networks out like richer countries with logistics spiderwebbing to every corner store. If all it's going to be are crates of United Nations of flour and water, that does nothing except drag it on.
This ^

To truly solve this there needs to be major agricultural and infrastructure changes made in third world nations/regions. Also security put in place to prevent warlords from stealing it all as soon as the blue helmets drop it off.
 

evolvaer

Banned
This is ahistorical. To point to wealth and power imbalance and attempt to lay it at the feet of the West when it has literally existed for all of human history is nonsensical. These are problems that exist in all societies for all time. The current system has improved the lives of humanity to a greater degree than any other. Obviously it’s not perfect, but no perfect system exists. Just wishing we could create a perfectly fair and just system is daydreaming.

You talk about holding people to account but you don’t want to actually do that because then you’d have to account for all the good, which significantly outweighs the bad. What you want is grievance theater and struggle sessions.

There is a term in social psychology which fits perfectly with what you, and a few others have been pushing. Fundamental misattribution theory, where you credit or blame the culture of the individual instead of the situation or environment.

Elon Musk is a modern day Iron man, Bill Gates is a genius. They were also born to great privilege and resources, and timing, and they were fortunate enough that their first few failures or ventures didn't bury them.

Likewise, thirdworld countries are in this mess because their culture is shit. It's on them to pick themselves up and work hard and make it like I did.

Both these ignore that some countries were able to develop faster than others, precisely by exploiting third world countries. Yes culture is a factor, but it's not the entire picture. We can throw 6 billion dollars and it wouldn't change much because we still exploit the resources and the people of those regions. No, they aren't perfect themselves, but name any modern disaster in western countries that didn't reveal a deep corruption and chance by some to exploit others.

This is what this conversation is missing. We likely all live in countries which thrived off the exploits and resources of third world countries, then turn around as recipients and say "Sheesh, they oughta get their shit shit together like we have."
 
There is a term in social psychology which fits perfectly with what you, and a few others have been pushing. Fundamental misattribution theory, where you credit or blame the culture of the individual instead of the situation or environment.

Elon Musk is a modern day Iron man, Bill Gates is a genius. They were also born to great privilege and resources, and timing, and they were fortunate enough that their first few failures or ventures didn't bury them.

Likewise, thirdworld countries are in this mess because their culture is shit. It's on them to pick themselves up and work hard and make it like I did.

Both these ignore that some countries were able to develop faster than others, precisely by exploiting third world countries. Yes culture is a factor, but it's not the entire picture. We can throw 6 billion dollars and it wouldn't change much because we still exploit the resources and the people of those regions. No, they aren't perfect themselves, but name any modern disaster in western countries that didn't reveal a deep corruption and chance by some to exploit others.

This is what this conversation is missing. We likely all live in countries which thrived off the exploits and resources of third world countries, then turn around as recipients and say "Sheesh, they oughta get their shit shit together like we have."
And you ignore that the third world wouldn’t suddenly have fixed their structural and cultural issues except for western influence. You also ignore that what you call exploitation is literally just human history. Trying to frame it as some morality thing is more of a religious discussion. I could ask whether the resources you’re so worried are being exploited serve more people when they are extracted and used vs sitting in the Earth waiting for the third world to modernize enough to take advantage of them themselves. Of course they also benefit from the increased economic generated when these corporations come into an area and develop of it. Certainly their are horrible situations, but on the whole, the idea that the current order hasn’t benefited more people, both in terms of raw numbers and proportionally, is nonsense. What I hear is a lot of ungrateful whining from people that both benefit from the system, but also want to appear moral by denouncing it, which I find tiresome.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
And you ignore that the third world wouldn’t suddenly have fixed their structural and cultural issues except for western influence. You also ignore that what you call exploitation is literally just human history. Trying to frame it as some morality thing is more of a religious discussion. I could ask whether the resources you’re so worried are being exploited serve more people when they are extracted and used vs sitting in the Earth waiting for the third world to modernize enough to take advantage of them themselves. Of course they also benefit from the increased economic generated when these corporations come into an area and develop of it. Certainly their are horrible situations, but on the whole, the idea that the current order hasn’t benefited more people, both in terms of raw numbers and proportionally, is nonsense. What I hear is a lot of ungrateful whining from people that both benefit from the system, but also want to appear moral by denouncing it, which I find tiresome.
Agreed.

To me, bad culture also relates to bad government. And a lot of those third world countries have it. Read up on Yasser Arafat. The guy was sifting a billion dollars into a secret bank account. You don't get that in first world nations. And oil rich countries where you got royal families worth billions right up there with Elon Musks of the world hoarding oil and tax money to live in giant palaces and their people live second rate.

In countries like that, a combo of bad culture and bad government.

You got iron fisted money hoarding gov on one hand, and then a set of civilians who dont really give a shit either who can be overly religious and not really strive for something better.

And to be fair, if the UN doesnt do much except drop off bag of money and food crates that doesnt help fix the root cause either (although I have no idea if thats their main focus or the truly want to provide solutions from the bottom up).

If the UN does try to fix it but cant because the gov or people dont give a shit, it's corrupt, then thats on the people there. If the UN said they are going to give $8.4 billion to let's say Netherlands, they'll say forget about food and water. The gov and people will use and fix up roads or bridges or put it towards industry. And no president or PM of Netherlands is going to pocket a billion of it.
 
Last edited:

saiws

Banned
You have a better understanding of what exactly? The logistics of serving 8 billion people? Keeping them fed and sheltered, much less prosperous? You have zero idea what you’re talking about. The unhoused community? I guess I’m not sure exactly where you are working, but the unhoused community in the US is dealing with substance abuse and severe mental illness at a rate of 70-90%. That isn’t some have vs have not issue. That’s a human issue.

Further, the idea that we can snap out fingers and fix the worlds problems if we just had the will to do so is naive in the extreme. Again, you neglect to understand that much like in your “unhoused” community, the majority of the problems in these poor regions originate from within those regions. Corruption, cultural problems, historical baggage, etc.

You don’t seem to realize that simply pouring dollars into something doesn’t actually make it any better. But you should understand it since you deal with the homeless. How much has the exponentially increasing funding for the homeless increased the quality of life for the homeless on a statistical level? Why has the homeless population exploded despite the increase in money? If money and outside will to solve a problem is the answer, why can’t we fix homelessness? Is that the system or is that the fact the vast majority of people struggling with it have substance abuse issues and severe mental health problems? Should we force the homeless into solutions to their problems, often against their will? Is that the solution to poverty globally? Force them to do what we think is good for them?
the only naivete being displayed here is your lack of understand of how direct aid can solve problems. homelessness is a great example- we spend a lot of money and legislative effort on gatekeeping benefits from low income individuals. then we cut off benefits as soon as people reach a level that can be charitably described as just outside poverty, where a huge portion of people end up falling back to a level where they are again dependent on government aid. what i'm suggesting in all of these cases is direct aid to the problems at hand. if we directly invest money into housing these people and providing case workers for mental health/drug abuse/therapy, we would see results that are more sturdy than these stopgap measures. if homelessness is not a case of the haves and the have nots, why are the majority of those who are homeless from low income households? if we provided education, healthcare, mental health resources, and subsidized housing for those people i highly doubt the rate would be the same.

as for your statement about the origin of third world problems, your ignorance on the subject exposes your severe lack of a historical understanding of the modern world. look at our funding of coups in central america in the last 70 years and you'll find numerous examples of how foreign interference can destroy developing countries.
 
the only naivete being displayed here is your lack of understand of how direct aid can solve problems. homelessness is a great example- we spend a lot of money and legislative effort on gatekeeping benefits from low income individuals. then we cut off benefits as soon as people reach a level that can be charitably described as just outside poverty, where a huge portion of people end up falling back to a level where they are again dependent on government aid. what i'm suggesting in all of these cases is direct aid to the problems at hand. if we directly invest money into housing these people and providing case workers for mental health/drug abuse/therapy, we would see results that are more sturdy than these stopgap measures. if homelessness is not a case of the haves and the have nots, why are the majority of those who are homeless from low income households? if we provided education, healthcare, mental health resources, and subsidized housing for those people i highly doubt the rate would be the same.

as for your statement about the origin of third world problems, your ignorance on the subject exposes your severe lack of a historical understanding of the modern world. look at our funding of coups in Central America in the last 70 years and you'll find numerous examples of how foreign interference can destroy developing countries.
What I see is a lot of excuse making. Your arguments always boil down to “more”. We just haven’t done enough to fix other peoples’ problems. Then you simultaneously argue that foreign intervention has been the cause of all these problems for poor areas. How convenient! So when the West tries to install a government they want to work with, they’re meddling in foreign affair and should stay out. But if they stay out and the place goes to shit, because the country and culture are corrupt, the west doesn’t care enough to fix it. What a nice worldview. It’s just an the evolution of the noble savage argument self flagellating western people are so found of these days.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom