🚀 go-pugleaf

Kirby Urner wrote:
> I think it also begins with a scientific position: the we have the
> means to accomplish this result, have for some time.  That makes
> the current agony neither an 'act of nature' nor an 'act of God

Larry Stahl wrote:
> >"To eliminate starvation as a cause of death" must, of course, begin with
> >a certain philosophical position -- based on a certain principle -- to
> >become truly effective.
> 

Starvation on this planet is an act of man. As Kirby says we have the
means to solve the problem. It is politics, politicians, political
philosophy that gets in the way - these nasty p-words are all euphemisms
for greed. "I'm all right Jack, keep your hands off my stack..."(Pink
Floyd)
I don't think feeding the starving begins with anything other than a
feeling - compassion, empathy, sympathy, love - take your pick - the
starving would not mind if you were motivated by guilt - but without the
feeling no-ones going to do anything.
It is easy to indulge your self in philosophy and science with a full
stomach.
However, if we really want to do something about starvation, after the
feeling comes a willingness to sacrifice. Then the real issue becomes,
are we fat cat westerners prepared to take a cut in our standard of
living so that the starving get fed. It's not just a matter of handing
out food - long term it must be about allowing free trade on the planet
so people can feed themselves by being able to sell what they've got,
even if it is only their sweat and toil. And us allowing them to compete
in our markets - even if it costs us some jobs locally. 
But while we scramble for more, while we aspire to be the richest man in
the cemetery, we don't even see whose back we are trampling over and nor
do we care.
I'll bet more money is spent on the issue of obesity in the US (and it's
related problems) than is spent on aid to the starving - isn't that
insane????