Some people argue that solving the problem of hunger in the world requires a fairer distribution of Earth's resources while others feel that reducing population needs to be the main focus. Where do...
Some people argue that solving the problem of hunger in the world requires a fairer distribution of Earth's resources while others feel that reducing population needs to be the main focus. Where do you stand?
(Explain both viewpoints and why you support it)
In order to answer this question, what you really need to do is to think about what it is that is causing hunger in various parts of the world. Your conclusion about what causes hunger should lead to your answer about the best way to fight hunger.
You might believe that hunger is caused by excess population in the world. If you believe this, you have to believe that all of the food that is being produced in the world right now (or that could be produced with reasonable effort) is not sufficient to feed everyone in the world. This is the only way that you can really make a case for reducing population. (Please note that you could also argue that we need to slow the growth of the population, which is a different thing than actually reducing population.)
You might also believe that hunger is caused by poor distribution of resources. If you believe this, you have to believe that there is enough food in the world, but that A) some people are getting too much food and/or B) it is too hard to get food to people in some parts of the world. I definitely believe that this is the case. You can see this in the fact that so many people in the rich world are obese. You can also see it in how much food we throw away in the United States. There is clearly more than enough food here. It is also true that when we try to help people who are hungry, one of the main problems is getting food to them. For example, we might send them food, but their governments might take much of the food and sell it to line their own pockets.
I would argue that we have the capacity to feed everyone in the world. The problem comes from poorly distributed resources. If we could get food to people in need, the problem would be solved. It might also be solved if we could get them better agricultural technology so they could grow more for themselves. It is these factors, not overpopulation, that are causing hunger.
I think that both solutions are good and bad, But how will we get these resources? How will we lower the population? Getting fairer resources turns to foreign countries that requre money to give us the proper resources, which will then turn to larger taxes, and i believe that America is already in bankruptcy as it is. Lowering the population probably means the killing of many innocent people, maybe even an increase in abortion? I think the easiest route is turning to foreign countries so we can avoid killing people. Even though im strongly against the second choice, it would also be so much easier to avoid world hunger.
i think both can be a good solution. we cant solve this big problem just by using one way, we need to use different ways to get to the goal. the first way can be really effective, but it needs a strong desire from the rich people to change the world to a better world, and not all the people is a good people. on the other hand, the second way will be very hard to control, becouse of the huge increases of the number of humens. so i think we can have a good result if we try Combining the two methods to solve this big problem