this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
182 points (97.9% liked)

World News

38553 readers
3387 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GataZapata@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

40 billion each year to end global hunger by 2030. Everyone is everyone in the whole world. These figures are from the Un food programme's. Population would not explode, because malthusian economics are for eco fascists. Rich people that have no food insecurity have Less kids, not more. See all of Europe and the US and many other countries as examples. Human population is not the graph about wolves and deer you saw in 10th grade biology.

https://www.wfpusa.org/articles/how-much-would-it-cost-to-end-world-hunger/

[–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

We literally tried this in the 90s, when we had tons of money and were in a good mood.

Warlords sprung up, pirated the shipments and controlled them for power throughout Africa, including somalia/Mogadishu.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do it anyway, but it's not as easy as it sounds.

Mostly, Saudi Arabia would do everything it could to disrupt this because they don't want poor people getting any food if it doesn't include indoctrination in their wahhabist Islam schools because as holders of mecca and Medina they believe they can use militant Islam to expand their influence throughout both the middle east and Africa (though isis backfired and made them think twice for a few years, they're back at it now).

[–] Dark_Blade@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the ‘religious fundamentalist’ angle. How many poor people are lured in by promises of food security?

[–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

All the organized religions insist on inequality, it's the only way to keep a pool of vulnerable followers.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Depends on how you define the word religion.

Buddhism is legally a religion for example, but has little in common with major middle eastern/western religions.

[–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So I did qualify as organized, but there are also tales where Buddhism becomes authoritarian and onerous, often small villages ruled by an elder monk and a few others.

I don't consider those examples representative, more as proof that religion is an easy thing to corrupt for power. Otherwise I'd agree Buddhism seems more resilient to this than most, which makes sense, in a way it began a protest against the corruption and brutality in Hinduism.

[–] treefrog@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Exactly.

And yeah, the monk's in Myanmar sold out. So, nothing is uncorruptible.