Sociopath Community

Where will the food come from?  Importing it from elsewhere provides plenty of its own problems with trade and shipping.  It is a limited resource anywhere, with priority to the native population.  But, leaning on the adage "give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for life", the ideal would be to install a means to grow the food locally.  That comes with all the caveats for building farms: what is sustainable, getting the land, getting the workers, protecting from poachers, etc.

You'd think it would be easy to employ your own army?  Why don't they do that already?  I think the answers are pretty obvious.  Even if one were to consider doing it on foreign soil, with different laws, it would certainly create plenty of legal and cultural problems that throwing money at it would quickly drain the well.

This is really specifically a question: can enough money solve the biggest problems?

I would imagine, if it were treated like a 20-year planned investment, there could be some progress.

(The trouble here is the laziness in looking into the fact of whether or not these programs are already in place, or what ideas have already been out there.)

This is a cartoonish perspective on the problem for clickbait. :P~

Buttered Toast said: 

Where will the food come from? 

Not sure, but there are groups with this kind of knowledge who have already set up the logistics for what would be needed. 

They could be consultants on this while the guy with money becomes the name to pen in history, and if it changes the world, that's not really the point when the goal is only solving world hunger. 

Importing it from elsewhere provides plenty of its own problems with trade and shipping.  It is a limited resource anywhere, with priority to the native population.  But, leaning on the adage "give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to fish, feed him for life", the ideal would be to install a means to grow the food locally.  That comes with all the caveats for building farms: what is sustainable, getting the land, getting the workers, protecting from poachers, etc.

In this case this isn't about installing infrastructure so much as setting up the means of distribution. Solving world hunger does not have to mean improving the world once you possess impractical amounts of wealth. 

If they could have a central location that sent drones to drop off food parcels then they don't have to be installed anywhere. 

You'd think it would be easy to employ your own army?  Why don't they do that already?

Because they want to go to Mars? 

The point here is moreso that, no matter what difficulties might be present, they could afford to delegate it towards people with the means but not the resources. 

This is really specifically a question: can enough money solve the biggest problems?

Many statisticians seem to think it could at least bandage it, and at the very least if the plans fail that'd be data for the next person. 

As if "solving world hunger" doesn't involve the world, ergo "changing the world".

Buttered Toast said: 

As if "solving world hunger" doesn't involve the world, ergo "changing the world".

I mean as in they don't have to franchise themselves in order to give people food. 

Companies are established to make money, not give it away regardless of how poor or starving people are. There is no incentive to better the world, for exploitation is too profitable. Many in third world countries work to survive and provide for their families. When one motivation is cut from their needs, they start looking for work that treats them like humans. Dehumanization is a powerful tool to leverage, and when people are treated fairly they start demanding other human rights. Who will work in the cobalt mines or apple sweatshop when people are provided basic necessities? Why incentivise them to rebel against the system? The poor will always be the stepping stone of the rich or successful. 

cx3 said: 

Companies are established to make money, not give it away regardless of how poor or starving people are.

There are however individuals who have enough wealth that they don't need to worry about losses, not in a practical sense anyway, and could likely throw insane amounts of wealth into a pet project like World Hunger. 

There is no incentive to better the world, for exploitation is too profitable.

Getting their name in history, that ought to be enough for people once their wealth becomes well above the tier of lifestyle costs. 

Many in third world countries work to survive and provide for their families. When one motivation is cut from their needs, they start looking for work that treats them like humans. Dehumanization is a powerful tool to leverage, and when people are treated fairly they start demanding other human rights.

It'd only take one person to cause this chain reaction though, even if the goal itself was idealistic and shortsighted in such a way as to have those other areas go down like a house of cards. 

Who will work in the cobalt mines or apple sweatshop when people are provided basic necessities? Why incentivise them to rebel against the system? The poor will always be the stepping stone of the rich or successful. 

They would still need to work for everything that isn't food. If anything the world economy would likely shift in such a way as to reflect food as a commodity while everything else inflates in price to make up the difference. 

Turncoat said: 

Buttered Toast said: 

As if "solving world hunger" doesn't involve the world, ergo "changing the world".

I mean as in they don't have to franchise themselves in order to give people food. 

Right; and I'm sure you didn't mean "solve world hunger" as in get everyone a sandwich, so that they aren't hungry for the time it takes to eat a meal.  It's still a question of which "solves" world hunger, as in it isn't a problem any more, right?  So, sustainability is of priority.

Installing local means of sustainable food sources would also likely help the economy, provide jobs, perhaps improve the quality of life as a whole, besides the noms.

It would become an analysis of which avenue -- importing or installation -- would provide the least obstacles and most sustainable gains, even just considering the goal of eliminating hunger (and not "changing the world" or culture or government or anything like that).

Imagine, though, if it was as simple as them all using GrubHub.

Buttered Toast said: 

Turncoat said: 

Buttered Toast said: 

As if "solving world hunger" doesn't involve the world, ergo "changing the world".

I mean as in they don't have to franchise themselves in order to give people food. 

Right; and I'm sure you didn't mean "solve world hunger" as in get everyone a sandwich, so that they aren't hungry for the time it takes to eat a meal. 

I kind of do, potentially anyway. 

Someone with realistic amounts of wealth would need to figure how to teach a man to fish, but someone with enough wealth to feed the world multiple times over could plan otherwise. When 2% of Musk's wealth is enough to supposedly solve World Hunger, what could be done with 20%? 

Seriously, there are groups claiming it's entirely solvable, at least as far as distribution rather than infrastructure: https://www.wfpusa.org/articles/how-much-would-it-cost-to-end-world-hunger/

Buttered Toast said: 

Imagine, though, if it was as simple as them all using GrubHub.

Or further financing the U.N. World Food Program. 

They won't, but I'd like to not be as cynical as to think it's just selfishness or privilege.