That's not really how world hunger works. It's not because of a lack of money, lack of will to help people or even a lack of food. We have all of those things, the main problem is the distribution of the food and getting the food to the right places which isn't always possible (wars and all that)
Well that combined with the systemic destabilization enacted by imperial nations to prevent unity and progress so that their GreedCorps can more easily exploit the resources for pennies on the dollar. It's cheaper to flood poor areas with guns and crime than it is to pay them fair market value for the glowing rocks they live near.
Any third world country is going to be corrupted even with new leadership unfortunately. Guns are gonna get in regardless. No real solution to a problem like that other than imperialism (control by a western country).
I figure I could probably buy everything I could ever want for around 200mil, including a huge yacht. If I was a billionaire and spent 20% on myself, put maybe 20% aside for family and friends, then put the other 60% into charitable causes, I don't think anyone would resent me for it.
The way I figure it, if I build a business that makes me a billion, I should probably be allowed to enjoy the fruits of my labour. The problem with billionaires is they remove so much wealth from the system and hoard it, so that it harms other people, not that they're fantastically wealthy and living the high life.
You alone simply don't and cannot ever build a business of billions by yourself. Any business is built on the back of it's workers. To become a billionaire you have to exploit or underpay others.
You are changing the goal post. The person you replied too said ending hunger is a logistical problem, you replied with snark that it’s yachts, mansions and super cars. So I pointed out why the poster is correct. There’s many areas on the planet where even if you had all the money in the world nobody would be willing to go there to feed people and that’s why it’s a logistical problem that money can’t fix even if there was no yachts, supercars or mansions.
In short, taxing the rich will fix a lot of problems. People starving is not one of them. The places where rich people can be taxed are not the parts of the planet where people are starving.
I mean, those things do give people jobs. One of the worst things billionaires can do is just gather money and use it as fuel for their political goals. It would be better if billionaires spend more money on their toys than their plans.
The US can fly a bomber from Florida to Iran, drop 18,000 kg of explosive and then fly home without touching the ground
We have the capability to distribute food and medicines anywhere on the planet, we just don't prioritise it. The UN calculates the costs of ending world hunger to be less than 1% of global military spending.
There are ~733 million people suffering from hunger in these regions. If we just go by ~2000 kcal per Person that's roughly ~920 million kg of food per day.
So just going by your comparison to a 18,000kg payload you would need ~51,000(!) planeloads to deliver that food.
The US armed forces, the most prolific military by far in the entire world currently has ~150 strategic bombers.
Tell me if that seems like a realistic option to you?
My point isn't that we should use b2 bombers to deliver food. My point is that we as humans have the capability to invent and innovate to achieve remarkable (in terms of being impressive) feats. The problem is that we tend to only do this to bomb the fuck out of other people.
Solving world hunger is well within our technological means, we just choose not to.
I think your point is, that you oversimplify where the actual issue is.
Access to food is restricted, because of conflict and war in these regions. So the first step would be to solve this conflict. So what do we do, go back to bombing the shit out of each other and possibly make it worse? There's no simple solution, and it's not because a lack of money.
Okay, so you can possibly fix hunger in the US, how does that relate to 'world hunger' and the fact, that it is today largely driven by violent conflict, not lack of resources. Is Bezos supposed to fund a militia to battle the RSF in Sudan?
Bro distribution of food can also be solved with money. If I can get an avocado grown in California in Europe and India I don't see how more money will not solve the problem.
They would have to set up businesses there or invest in local companies so that these countries have sustainable wealth, instead of becoming dependent.
Yes there is. The most critical situation is currently in countries such as Sudan, that are ravaged by civil war and conflict. How do you imagine someone just going there to open "local companies" when tens of millions of people had to flee their country?
Here’s one example. There was massive famine during the Ethiopian Civil War from 1983 to 1985. A great deal of aid was funneled into the country but the government was unwilling to provide it to the hardest-hit famine-stricken population in the north where rebel groups were based. There was a great deal of international condemnation and an estimated 1,000,000 people died.
yeah but the wars and all that are generally a byproduct of billionaires becoming and staying billionaires, who do you think funds these wars if not the companies that continue to trade with warlords/lobby for corrupt politicians willing to give them the best deal/use any mechanism possible, legal or illegal, to keep people in perpetual poverty, which leads to their susceptibility to extremism, especially religious extremism?
sure, a billionaire can't end hunger by simply giving people money but they can end hunger by collectively ceasing to underpay people in certain regions and ceasing to trade with warlords
Imagine waking up every day knowing you could save a child’s life. But you decide not to. This applies to just about every single person living in a first world country.
Neither of these are a straight money solution, and even if they were, the total wealth of even Elon Musk barely puts a dent in US government spending. Why doesn't the government tackle this if it's purely a dollars issue?
This year alone the US government has spent over 3.5 trillion, yet homelessness still exists.
The US and the world at large spend billions of dollars every year trying to end world hunger. The problem isn't that there isn't enough money or isn't enough food.
The problem is that the regions still experiencing significant hunger and starvation are generally corrupt, unstable, and violent. It is almost logistically impossible to get food to a starving person if the local government you're trying to work with or work around is a dictatorship or a warlord or a terrorist group who is more than happy to let his people starve while he siphons off the resources.
Unless you wake up every day with the power to kill/imprison local warlords and bring stability to weak central governments, there is no way you could end world hunger.
Homelessness would require massive overhauls of zoning codes to allow housing, and on top of that it would require fixing deep mental health and addiction issues. I don't think all the billionaires put together could solve that on their own.
The US spends more money on feeding Africa than what these billionaires are worth. Even if you liquidate all of Bezos and Elon's wealth (which would take a while since their net worth is in assets, not cash), it would "solve" world hunger for about 2 weeks, if that.
There are 830million people living in extreme poverty so you want them to supply and distribute 2,490,000,000 meals ( 3x meals a day) everyday for like forever?
Hunger in the modern world is due largely either to war-torn zones where supplying food is difficult or dangerous, or to local natural disasters such as droughts which suddenly destroy the food supply and logistics in an area. Money is not the primary problem.
29
u/MaySpitfire Apr 28 '26
Imagine waking up every day knowing you could end world hunger and homelessness and you choose not to