No, by highest standard I mean that we have the smallest percentage of the world population actually dying of hunger. That health and lifespans are increasing around the world.

You're right, relatively few of the worlds people have new cars, cell phones and flat screen TV's. But a bigger percentage of them have something to eat than has been true in history.

There is room for improvement, but we won't improve by saying "this isn't working, we have to do something else" when what we are doing IS working.

Thanks for giving us more of the reference, Michael! Yep, that's what I was using.

It's not only garbage off of people's half eaten plates. Most food goods are time and temperature sensitive. Cold ready to eat foods are only good for 4 hours after they are unrefrigerated. Same with hot food after it's removed from its heat source. Most produce has at best a couple of weeks before it spoils, even if kept at proper temperatures.

These kinds of foods have to be discarded immediately once they have been out of temp, or once they begin to spoil, because they are not food anymore but rather poison.

However, there are other reasons food gets thrown away. Did you know that in the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt ordered fresh produce t be incinerated, while people actually were starving? This was because of an ingnorant and fallacious scheme devised by his so called economists. They reasoned that the farmers weren't making enough money to stay in business because the price of their produce was too low, so they burned it in order to cause a shortage and artificially raise the price. They reasoned that the farmers would use the extra profits to plant more crops and make more food for everyone. It was a disasterous failure, and made things worse.

Why do children starve, when there is so much generosity everywhere? Because the principle, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," does not work. Human beings need to eat regularly. You can't merely give a homeless man a sandwich one time and think you've fixed his problem. In four hours he will need to eat again. In major cities, there are usually charities that try and supply food to the poorest people. But there are those who slip through the cracks, who don't know how to access the charities, and there are millions of people who don't live in cities. Even then, there are usually churches and generous people who will try and prevent someone from starving to death in front of them. But usually simply doesn't cover every case, and never could.

Some people starve their children from neglect. Some people starve because of drug addictions. Some starve because of physical illness, others because of mental illness.

But the majority of people on earth who are starving are in their situation for one simple reason only-- their governments prevent the means of production from advancing to the stage capable of supporting their population. What those people need is not gifts of charity, which will feed them for 1/3 of a day. They need capitalism, which will allow them not only to eat, but to flourish. Not only to live, but to make a living. That is something that can not be given to them, but must be taught, and possibly claimed by revolutionary means in some cases.

I agree with you, and disagree with about 80% of it. But there is a lesson to be learned...hmmm...will start a post...

Jan

I agree with you, and disagree with about 80% of it. But there is a lesson to be learned...hmmm...will start a post...

Jan

Thanks Jan (jlc) and johnpe1 for the comments on forests.
A little elaboration- it is possible that maximum coverage of the earth by forests was around 1700 to 1800. Major timber cutting took place at the start of the industrial revolution for many purposes such as ships, building and especially iron smelting. Then, people found out how to use coal and then big deposits of coal were found. Coal was the savior of forests as well as the source of energy that enables our very much higher standard of living. Now, forests are actually increasing in extent partly as higher atmospheric CO2 levels, released by oceans, increases plant growth, and as commercial forestry grows, this being private capital not government intervention.
The good news is that there are massive amounts of coal still available. More good news is that burning coal produces CO2 (tho' a small amount compared to that from natural sources), more CO2 is beneficial to all earth life forms. The bad news is the power of the green movement, a socialistic puritanical mental derangement, sometimes mistakenly called environmentalism, which demonizes coal. Without coal, the standard of living even of 1700 could not be maintained for the current population level. That could be why they support a currently expanding death cult. More bad news- this kind of nonsense always exists but this one has become so widespread due to the masses of government money spent on publicity.

Oh no, that actually was his point. The creater of the video absolutely expected the viewer to see the million pounds of food being thrown away, and the 30,000 kids dying of starvation, and conclude, "Well why don't we just give the unwanted food to the kids and save them?"

The problem is, it's not that simple. That plan would not work. Because what the video neglects to ask is why the million lbs of food is thrown away, and why the kids are dying of starvation.

If even one of these issues is even remotely understood, it becomes painfully evident why the kids aren't being fed with the wasted food.

And yes, there are starving kids, even in America. It is much less common here, which is only one reason people often prioritize the starving children in other countries higher when deciding which charities to support.

I see a lot of juvenile hyperbole, created by the very technology "Anonymous" decries.
It was very ironic to quote Ayn Rand about ignoring reality while at the same time ignoring reality.

That highest standard affects roughly 4 percent of the world's population. Of that 1 percent are wealthy and 1 percent are keeping up with the Joneses' the remaining 2 percent live paycheck to paycheck and the other 96 percent get by on 5 dollars a day or less.
Travel somewhere, but go someplace real, not someplace safe. Modern Mexico City is a cosmopolitan city with a ten mile safe zone and it is surrounded by thirty miles of tin and scrap lumber one and two room shacks with no running, potable water, and no electricity. They could fix this with 1 b of El Chapo's money or 1 year of US Foreign Aid, using it the way it was intended not as political bribes.

Effective condemnation of the modern consumer based economy and lifestyle, and particularly of those individuals, companies, and corporations that take because they can, that cheat because they can, and that are intentionally ignore needs that they could address, but chose not to, because there is nothing in it for them,.

the forest info wasn't the only inaccurate data. . the
assertion that oil is earth's "lifeblood" is silly; water is.
and 50 percent of u.s. tax dollars are not spent
on military stuff -- it's more like 16 percent. . and our
"exploitation of natural resources" is the capitalistic
system which Rand praised -- make the earth serve us,
not the other way around. . and our water supplies
are expanding, with more people accessing clean
water today than ever. . and the "poison food" statement
must be aimed at GMOs, which have made many
millions better off. . their message is a mess, IMHO. -- j
.

damned sand gets into everything! -- j
.

"You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the
consequences of ignoring reality." -- AR
.

Yes. You make a good point that those can be times ripe for revolution.

Thanks, I agree still. It's both the best of times and the worst of times, eh?

Thanks for your perspective and analysis. I like it a lot.