NationStates Jolt Archive

Delegates, please read and approve the "Feed the World Initiative" to banish starvation and hunger forever!

I.
Starvation and malnutrition are major world problems. Billions are undernourished and millions starve to death each year.

II.
Existing agricultural potential already exists to feed all of these people adequately without any new investment.

III.
Agriculture does not produce at its potential, and its products are not sufficiently distributed, because those who are hungry do not have the means to pay.

IV.
This situation is intolerable in an enlightened and wealthy world.

RESOLVED:

V.
That each member state of the United Nations shall undertake to produce, by means appropriate to its economic and governmental structure, so much food, suitable for shipment and storage, as it is able, on land already cultivated and with techniques already in use, employing existing or enlarged processing facilities as appropriate.

VI.
That the surplus of food produced, beyond that consumed within each contributing nation, shall be distributed by the United Nations to all those people in every member state who need it, beginning with those most in need.

VII.
The costs of distribution shall be born by the recipient states, if they are able, and by levies upon the whole United Nations, if they are not.

VIII.
When all of the worlds people are properly fed, whatever surplus of food remains shall be stored at United Nations expense.

IX.
When the amount stored is sufficient to provide for one year of free distributions, the amount of food contributions expected from each nation is to be reduced in proportion to the ongoing surplus, and to be adjusted thereafter as may be necessary to maintain a one year supply.

X.
This reserve of food shall be available to any or all member states of the United Nations which might, due to any circumstances, be in need of it, even if they are normally contributors of food.

I have a better idea--let's let the farmers themselves decide what they want to do with what they produce!

It's more moral and is easier to boot!

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

This proposal is logistically bound to fail. Consider:

We give nations food. What are the consequences?

1) The food spoils anyways. Starving nations don't have the infrastructure to distribuate it, nor do they have the capacity to sufficiently refrigerate it.
2) If refridgeration is possible, the influx of food causes massive strain on existing power grids
3) Cooking this food causes further strain on resources; either through fuels or electricity
4) So effectively no problem is solved

The solution to world hunger is, in my opinion, centered around debt forgiveness and increasing trade, as well as first world abolishment of tariffs in textile and agriculutural markets. Aid is clearly not a sufficient answer; trade and aid must be coupled in order to make a difference.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

This proposal is logistically bound to fail. Consider:

We give nations food. What are the consequences?

1) The food spoils anyways. Starving nations don't have the infrastructure to distribuate it, nor do they have the capacity to sufficiently refrigerate it.
2) If refridgeration is possible, the influx of food causes massive strain on existing power grids
3) Cooking this food causes further strain on resources; either through fuels or electricity
4) So effectively no problem is solved

The solution to world hunger is, in my opinion, centered around debt forgiveness and increasing trade, as well as first world abolishment of tariffs in textile and agriculutural markets. Aid is clearly not a sufficient answer; trade and aid must be coupled in order to make a difference.

Food spoilage isn't a problem. The resolution requires that food contributions be in a form suitable for storage, which would be canned, powdered milk, dried, etc. Cooking doesn't use that much fuel. Distribution is provided for in the resolution. Problem solved!

Why isn't aid a sufficient answer? If you give hungry people food, they'll have food to eat. That isn't so hard to figure out.

our position here is clear.
It is not the fault of the world nations that some countries starve while others lie in gluttony. if the people of these starving nations really wanted food on a regular basis, maybe they should;
A) move to where the food is.
B) become a nation of canibals and eat thier sick, weak, and elderly
C) eat some of those sacred cows

With this in mind remember, it is not the resposability of any nation to give handouts to those too lazy to achieve it themselves.

A) Are you going to let them into your nation and feed them there?
B) That's sick.
C) Most of them DO eat cattle.

I.
Starvation and malnutrition are major world problems. Billions are undernourished and millions starve to death each year.

This is true, but just FYI a year's supply of Centrum costs about US$30.

II.
Existing agricultural potential already exists to feed all of these people adequately without any new investment.

Okay...

III.
Agriculture does not produce at its potential, and its products are not sufficiently distributed, because those who are hungry do not have the means to pay.

No, it's because government agricultural subsidies artificially inflate prices of agriculture. In many third world countries starvation happens because prices are too LOW due to govenrment price regulation, which causes shortages in supply and requires food rationing... this is why 40 million people starved to death in China in 1958-61 even though in theory rice was so cheap everyone could afford it.

Besides, read Amartya Sen's book. MASS STARVATION IS NOT CAUSED BY LACK OF FOOD.

IV.
This situation is intolerable in an enlightened and wealthy world.

However, most starvation occurs in unenlightenend and poor places.

V.
That each member state of the United Nations shall undertake to produce, by means appropriate to its economic and governmental structure, so much food, suitable for shipment and storage, as it is able, on land already cultivated and with techniques already in use, employing existing or enlarged processing facilities as appropriate.

And after all of that land is destroyed by saturation farming, then what? Whenever the government tries to control how much food is produced, the result is tragedy nine times out of ten. This will also basically reduce all nations to agrarian societies with no ability to develop further.

VI.
That the surplus of food produced, beyond that consumed within each contributing nation, shall be distributed by the United Nations to all those people in every member state who need it, beginning with those most in need.

Here we go with the pillage and plunder again...

VII.
The costs of distribution shall be born by the recipient states, if they are able, and by levies upon the whole United Nations, if they are not.

Most of those 'recipient states' would probably rather spend the money on tanks for running over civilians rather than food.

VIII.
When all of the worlds people are properly fed, whatever surplus of food remains shall be stored at United Nations expense.

This will never happen because starvation isn't caused by lack of food. Starvation is almost always caused by either big government or nonexistent government.

Almost all Somali workers work in agriculture... but they still have starvation. Back in the 1850s, 1/4 of the people in Ireland starved to death and thanks to British regulations (the Corn Laws), Ireland was still EXPORTING wheat during the worst years of the famine. There was a lot of cheap food in the Ukraine in the 1930s/40s, and in China in the late 50s, but millions of people still starved to death because of price regulations. In the 1990s, Botswana and Zimbawbwe suffered 40% decreases in agricultural production, but neither country experienced mass starvation, whereas the agricultural production in Zaire decreased by only 10%, and that was enough to cause massive famine.

Under the Ming Dynasty in China, there was never starvation yet there were often food shortages, whereas in the end of the 1800s/beginning of the 1900s there was starvation even when there weren't food shortages.

IX.
When the amount stored is sufficient to provide for one year of free distributions, the amount of food contributions expected from each nation is to be reduced in proportion to the ongoing surplus, and to be adjusted thereafter as may be necessary to maintain a one year supply.

Read above.

X.
This reserve of food shall be available to any or all member states of the United Nations which might, due to any circumstances, be in need of it, even if they are normally contributors of food.

Read above. MASS STARVATION IS NOT CAUSED BY LACK OF FOOD.

And if you think it is how do you account for the following:
- No democracy has ever suffered mass starvation
- No country where the law is above the government has ever suffered mass starvation
- Mass starvation often occurs during times of agricultural surpluses

While this is definately a problem, I do not believe that the proper solution has been outlined. 1) This resolution gives governments too much control over private businesses (farms), 2) nations will not want to give up their food surplusses, as these may be important for the welfare of the people, which leads to 3) governments will end up rationing food to all their people, which is not a sound system. Another solution will have to be found.

Of course, mass starvation is not caused by lack of food! That is the whole purpose of this proposal, to ensure that the food available is distributed. Once the one year buffer supply is established, food production will automatically be adjusted to the amount actually needed. There is no need to deplete the soil by overproducing food.

Dictatorships might rather have tanks than distribute food, but this resolution isn't about tanks. It says they have to distribute the food, whether they like it or not.

This resolution is to feed the hungry of the world, even if they aren't fortunate enough to live in a peaceful democracy. Why should millions starve while food is plentiful, just because their governments don't care about them?

Of course, mass starvation is not caused by lack of food! That is the whole purpose of this proposal, to ensure that the food available is distributed. Once the one year buffer supply is established, food production will automatically be adjusted to the amount actually needed. There is no need to deplete the soil by overproducing food.

Dictatorships might rather have tanks than distribute food, but this resolution isn't about tanks. It says they have to distribute the food, whether they like it or not.

This resolution is to feed the hungry of the world, even if they aren't fortunate enough to live in a peaceful democracy. Why should millions starve while food is plentiful, just because their governments don't care about them?

They might not HAVE a government.

The three main causes of starvation are Dictatorship (this is MUCH more common than Anarchy), Anarchy (which is less common but still exists in places like Somalia), and Socialism-gone-horribly-wrong (like Maoist China and the Corn Laws in Ireland).

Government causes starvation either:
- Intentionally, to get rid of troublesome people
- Unintentionally, thorough things like rationing and price controls

Lack of government may also cause starvation due to conflict.

Distributing food evenly won't help... the rationale behind the Great Leap Forward in agriculture was that if you distributed the food evenly no one would starve... that failed miserably and led to the worst starvation in history with 40 million people dying in three years.

While this is definately a problem, I do not believe that the proper solution has been outlined. 1) This resolution gives governments too much control over private businesses (farms), 2) nations will not want to give up their food surplusses, as these may be important for the welfare of the people, which leads to 3) governments will end up rationing food to all their people, which is not a sound system. Another solution will have to be found.

1) This resolution doesn't give any government control over anything. Government are authorized to operate within their existing economic structure. If they are a free market economy, that means the government will buy the food. If they are a socialist economy, the government will arrange for production. If they are in between, government will pursue a mixed strategy.
2) How can food surpluses be important for the welfare of the people? By definition they don't need them, and the UN will have a huge reserve of food available to them in the event of a disaster, so there's no need to stockpile.
3) Governments will not ration food at all. Those that don't have enough food will distribute food, but they won't ration it; the amount provided will be sufficient. Food contributors will only contribute out of their surplus. They can eat as much food as they can stuff into their guts.

How is it more moral to let people starve?
Because each individual alone is responsible for his own life. If he chooses to take care of his own life by using things produced by someone else, that's fine, but those producing it have to provide it voluntarily.
The government would, in theory, reimberse the farmers for this food.
Would they be FORCED to provide the food whether they wanted to or not?

1) This resolution doesn't give any government control over anything. Government are authorized to operate within their existing economic structure. If they are a free market economy, that means the government will buy the food. If they are a socialist economy, the government will arrange for production. If they are in between, government will pursue a mixed strategy.

If the government buys all the food, it won't be a free market for long.

Remember that government doesn't actually produce anything... its money comes from taxation, thus by making it a major investor you are artificailly "setting" prices which hasn't worked too well historically.


2) How can food surpluses be important for the welfare of the people? By definition they don't need them, and the UN will have a huge reserve of food available to them in the event of a disaster, so there's no need to stockpile.

In case there is a food shortage later.


3) Governments will not ration food at all. Those that don't have enough food will distribute food, but they won't ration it; the amount provided will be sufficient. Food contributors will only contribute out of their surplus. They can eat as much food as they can stuff into their guts.

What's the difference between government distribution and rationing?

End starvation! Save the big butts!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

End starvation by not eating...

TREASON!

This proposal is logistically bound to fail. Consider:

We give nations food. What are the consequences?

1) The food spoils anyways. Starving nations don't have the infrastructure to distribuate it, nor do they have the capacity to sufficiently refrigerate it.
2) If refridgeration is possible, the influx of food causes massive strain on existing power grids
3) Cooking this food causes further strain on resources; either through fuels or electricity
4) So effectively no problem is solved

The solution to world hunger is, in my opinion, centered around debt forgiveness and increasing trade, as well as first world abolishment of tariffs in textile and agriculutural markets. Aid is clearly not a sufficient answer; trade and aid must be coupled in order to make a difference.

Food spoilage isn't a problem. The resolution requires that food contributions be in a form suitable for storage, which would be canned, powdered milk, dried, etc. Cooking doesn't use that much fuel. Distribution is provided for in the resolution. Problem solved!

Why isn't aid a sufficient answer? If you give hungry people food, they'll have food to eat. That isn't so hard to figure out.

It's a tragedy of the commons; if you provide people with food for free, you are effectively moving the shortage from food into energy; moreover, there is no solution here aside from continued donations. I would also be unwilling to donate food to nations unable to control their own population controls, particularly in Latin America where the state tends to take a strong anti-birth control stance.

The real problem with this proposal is that it gives people a supply of food whether or not they are able or willing to produce it for themselves. If they can get unlimited quantities for free, there is no incentive for third world countries to make any effort to improve their agricultural output, or to curb their population growth. In effect, they can go on welfare and stay there.
Current food production might be enough to feed six billion people; it won't feed twenty billion. But if the nations that are now breeding themselves into starvation are enable to continue growing at the same rate, we'll be at twenty billion soon enough - and then forty billion, and a hundred billion... is this really what we want?