It seems like a better solution would be handing out condoms by the millions. This would have the effect of not only lessening the AIDS crisis, but also preventing unwanted pregnancies and more hungry mouths to feed. The only long-term solution to hunger and starvation is to get the population under control.

I am referring, of course, to those who drive $50,000 Hummers, eat foie gras and drink Fiji water, spend $600 on shoes and $3000 on fur coats, while this is going on in Africa.

Ben: A bunch of people who never should have been born

I am referring, of course, to those who drive $50,000 Hummers, eat foie gras and drink Fiji water, spend $600 on shoes and $3000 on fur coats, while this is going on in Africa.

---------------------------------------------------------

The money you spent on the computer to write the above could have been used to feed the poor in Africa, or the money you spent to rent the computer.

I highly doubt that you are sitting around naked feed loading computer time and only eat 800 calories and day and send the rest of your money to Africa.

Guess what, I'll drive my $50,000 car, eat my tasty foie gras, drink what ever what and buy whatever shoes I desire, and buy any clothes I may think I want.

Billions of dollars has produced nothing but more famine, and spending billions will only mean more famine in the future.

People are starving in Africa because much of it is a hellish place politically. Are we to invade and have 25 more Iraqs on our hand?

It was so nice to send food to Ethiopia in the 80s and have the government use it as a weapon.

Niger is either 80% or 90% Muslim, according to which source you read. They are part of the Muslim "ummah," the worldwide community of the followers of Mohammed. Yet, somehow, Americans and Europeans -- the kafir, the infidels -- always come in for the most criticism regarding our failures (which there are) to help keep people alive. I'm just asking -- where's the money from the astoundingly wealthy Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia to contribute to this effort? Or is it all bookmarked already for . . . other objectives? I'm truly interested in the answer.

The fact is, hunger is no longer a necessity brought about by our inability to harness nature:

The human race possesses the resources with which to end world hunger.

The fact that we have yet to use them effectively may be the biggest argument yet against Intelligent Design.

(Assuming that "intelligence" implies "empathy," which by my definition it does)

In the entire article there was not a single word about contraception.

Nevermind what $300+ million in food / agricultural aid would do, what would $3 million in education and contraception do?

Sadly, that seems to be even more of a political football than the "give a man a fish to feed him for a day" food aid.

I think many people on the right and left think that the US has limitless power and can do anything in the universe if only it really wants to. the right thinks that the US military is a god-like force that can clense the world of evil. (That didn't quite work out.) Some on the left think that the US can, via donations and education, solve problems that have plagued humanity for as long as we have walked upright.

The fact is that the US can't even conquer Iraq properly or give good medical care to everyone in our own borders, let alone end a worldwide issue as large as hunger. We can do many things, but not anything.

Understanding this, how would the US end world hunger exactly? Giving food or cash helps prop up the dictators and warlords responsible for the hunger. Removing the dictators and warlords in Africa is more difficult than dealling with angry groups in Iraq.

The real solution to hunger and overpopulation is to educate women and give them rights and access to birth cntrol. This worked wonders for Europe, the US, and Japan. The US and the west doesn't have the power to force the real answer on Africa, so not much can be done aside from emerency aid, which we are already doing.

Dear Editor,

Thank you for an article that raises awareness of the tragic starvations in Africa. But as rational beings we have a responsibility to take action based not just on our emotions, but on our reasoning.

It is so clear that these lands in Africa - Niger in this case - are tragically stressed. The land can not bear so much human life. Sure, the population might survive a lucky season or two, but the reality is that there are too many people for that dry difficult land. Flying in food is not the best answer. The best answer is family planning, education (especially of women), and commitment to sustainable growth. Providing emergency gruel to starving third, fourth, or even fifth babies doesn't make sense as a long-term plan.

So, while we have a moral imperative to assist the starving now, we have a more important intellectual imperative to prevent this from happening again.

Thanks

PT Black

Wow! This is the orneriest, meanest-spirited, narrowest-minded bunch of narcissists I've ever seen post anything on Salon.

At the mere mention that millions of people are going hungry--at a time when America is exploding from super-sized portions--a gaggle of Salon readers go apocalyptic and start shouting a far clumsier brand of social Darwinism than Dickens's anti-heroes.

I grew up in West Virginia, but having spent quite a bit of time abroad in Russia and Europe, I can say that people abroad are often stunned by the astounding self-interestedness Americans display. Here we are, in the richest country on earth, when most of us are born into lifestyles that are the envy of the world (even those who are considered less wealthy by American standards), and yet we wail like puppies whenever somebody implies that with great wealth comes a little responsibility. The facts are that we spend a miserly percentage of our national wealth on aid, despite consuming huge amounts of the world's resources, and that we simultaneously spend billions every week on lame and stupid 'national defense' projects like Iraq.

This author's piece was by no means a trailblazer--it's more like a routine reality check--but the basic point, which most of you narcis even failed to mention, is an excellent one. To wit: he argues not for more emergency aid--and still less for more let's help ADM kind of aid--but rather for more money aimed at really helping people feed themselves. Yes, money has been spent on such projects before. Yes, governments are corrupt. But the truth is that this is a human tragedy, we have the resources to at least try to make a difference, and that the hard-hearted 'tough love' most of you all are recommending is really just a fig leaf to cover our own stinginess and narrowmindedness.

Oh, and on contraception: many of you seem to imply that it's liberal PCness that prevents contraception from assuming a large role in our aid efforts. Nope. Christian nationalism does--in the form of lame, US sponsored abstinence programs designed to pull in more votes in Jesusland. I'm sure that barring such interference, our aid would take the form of boats filled with seeds and condoms, and not GM leftover corn and lectures on sex.