And you have another generation of starving African stick babies. And another crisis. And another. And another. How about food with sterilization? How do you say "STOP FUCKING" in African?

If people aren't starving they'll be making more people right up to the carrying capacity of their environment.

While it's tempting to believe that we could spend our way to the end of the persistence of hunger, it just doesn't seem to be the case: money is not the (only) issue. Political will, the ability to get the food to the people who need it, fighting entrenched kleptocracies, empowering women - all these things are as important, if not more important, as the "simple" act of spending money to provide for the hungry.

Most of the remaining chronic hunger in our world is directly caused by the social context - by deeply entrenched social conditions that systematically deny people the opportunity to end their own hunger.

I agree that world governments could and should spend more on this problem. But it's not as simple as sending sacks of grain, more's the pity.

If we can find $700 billion to bail out our banks, surely we can fund national health care and end starvation.

Nah. $700 billion to bail out our banks puts money in the hands of the already-wealthy. What's gained by funding national health care and ending starvation? Only more useless mouths and healthier people not likely to support the status quo. That's always been the rationale behind the "starve the beast" attitude of the right wing -- better to funnel public money upward or into the military than toward social spending, because once "the beast" (e.g., the American people) get a taste for social spending, they'll want more and more, and you'd be stuck with a government actually looking after its citizens, improving their health and standard of living. Healthier, happier citizens might be less inclined to just consume and more inclined to demand more of their government than the government's leaders are prepared to give.

Whereas shoring up the banks, well, that's money well-spent, because it keeps the status quo lurching along. The priorities are crystal-clear in this in how easily $700 billion is thrown out almost without commentary by the leadership, when not six months ago far smaller sums for issues like health care were considered beyond the pale, beyond consideration. The priorities of our current regime are nakedly apparent.

We should question a system that forces people to make these kinds of choices. Why perpetuate?

(and I'm not even including myself).

Useless mouths? They'll just breed? Jesus.

The big problem with fixing the food crisis in the Third World is delivery and the corruption in the governments of the region.

As for breeding, studies show that as wealth increases, families tend to have fewer children as fewer are needed to ensure that the line is passed on and that the family as a whole will survive. Fixing the food problem (and the clean water problem, increasingly) will reduce fecundity, not increase it.

How about food with sterilization? How do you say "STOP FUCKING" in African?

You mean teaching them about birth control and supporting abortion rights and condom distribution? All the things the Right Wing has been preventing these last few decades?

And those policies don't have the racist undertones "sterilization" and other parts of your post have.

As long as we're playing what ifs... what if, instead of pouring money into credit default swaps in hopes of being able to pay out higher interest rates, those banks had invested a portion of their funds in programs to teach permaculture here and abroad? For modest amounts of money, they could get modest profits, not be over their heads in un-valuable paper, take on hunger (and energy production) world wide... and as a bonus to the other posters... the mouths being fed would be making substantial, educated contributions to the world.

You know, there is serious darkness hiding in the shadows on this issue. The fact is, we could do a whole lot more than we do to at least reduce global hunger, and at very little cost to us, but we don't, so as to keep food prices up just those few extra pennies.

You see, right now, all over America and all over the industrialized world, there are vast stores of grain and other food crops that are just sitting there. Rotting. And there are numerous fields just not being used, not because the farmer doesn't want to use them, but because the government is paying them not to, so as to keep food prices higher. All of that food that's rotting and all of those fields lying fallow could be used to supply those who don't have enough food. But if we did that, some people would inevitably obtain food for free that they might otherwise have paid for. And those people would then not buy the food they might have bought. That would reduce food prices by cutting demand slightly, and if there's one thing the US government considers unacceptable, it's reduced revenue for farmers and agribusinesses (at least, it considers that unacceptable now--the African-American farmers growing dirt-cheap cotton at the turn of the century were left to fend for themselves).

Now, how to get the food to the hungry regions and ensure it gets to the right people is another matter. And whether the overall outcome would in fact be desirable is yet another. But the fact is, we here in the U.S. and other industrialized nations have, by way of inaction, demonstrated quite clearly that we don't give a crap about global hunger.

There are about 2000 languages spoken on the African continent. Next time you want to comment, maybe you should learn something about the subject first.

If farmers have no access to credit, they are unable to pay for seed and fertilizer and labor. If shipping companies have no access to credit, food doesn't move across the oceans.

Am I naive for thinking that a valid business model would make enough revenue from last years crops to by seed and fertilizer for next year? If you didn't make enough from this years crops for next years seed, then your farming business model is a losing proposition. Likewise with shipping ... shouldn't you have made enough revenue from the last shipment to pay your expenses?

When did people start expecting to be able to get those sorts of operating expenses from credit on future revenue instead of using savings from past revenue? I understand the need for credit to expand (though even there, I tend to think expansion should be done from existing revenue instead of on borrowed money from future revenue) a business, but for things like payroll, supplies, and other basic operating expenses, shouldn't the funding for that be coming from revenues you've already collected instead of from credit on revenues you expect to collect? If you can't meet your payroll, or buy your supplies, on your existing revenue, doesn't that mean your business plan is fundamentally flawed?

Ultimately, we've moved into a time when no one expects to have to actually capitalize a business with the revenues that its collected. Instead, our modern business model is built on expecting credit against future revenue, which increases the cost of doing business by adding interest you have to pay, and removing interest you can collect on invested revenue. This strikes me as an unsustainable model that simply can't keep going on ... ultimately, if you can't afford to buy seed for next year from the profits on last year's crops, perhaps instead of considering a loan, you should consider a different line of work.

Can someone explain why access to credit is necessary to cover basic operating expenses like the cost of seed and fertilizer, or the cost of fuel for your next shipment? Can someone explain why those expenses aren't able to be covered by revenues?