Why Help When Big Problem will Still Persist?

People have been telling me and posting on the blog that the issue of poverty will never be resolved. Though that is true, the issue of poverty should still be tackled. Even though the problem with poverty will continue on the big scale, it might not persist on the smaller scale. What that means is this: when someone helps a family in need, they are alleviating that family's needy disposition. The problem of poverty, even though it will persist on the large and national scale, it will not persist for that family that was aided from poverty. People who claim that helping people in poverty will not eliminate poverty are being ignorant; they want to find an excuse not to help others because they find that the big picture matters way more than the little picture. All I have to say to that is this: without the little picture the big picture would not exist. By helping anybody in poverty you are alleviating some aspect of their suffering, even if the big problem with poverty still exists overall it does not exists within the aided family. So when it comes down to relieving poverty, keep in mind while you might not be able to  change the overall condition of poverty you might be able to change the individuals that experience such poverty. 

Life

There is no arguing that poverty and hunger are major problems in our world. 12.2% of Americans do not currently have the financial stability to provide reliable sources of food for their families. I do not think there is an educated person on this planet that would deny that hunger and starvation are serious problems. The question then becomes what to do about this problem. As to the article about the Spanish Funds that were originally earmarked for Africa going to the United Nations, I find nothing wrong with this. If the Spanish Government feels that their own tax payers’ money would be of better use to citizens of Spain by going to the United Nations, then there is where the money should be going. It is, in the end, the Spanish tax payers’ money and it should help them. Anyone who criticizes this action should take a long look at the United States Budget and realize the hypocrisy in their statement.
By no means do I have a solution to hunger problem of the world. In truth, there is enough land and resources to provide food for every single person in the world. However, it is not economically practical. What benefit does a person have to growing food if they will not be reimbursed for their time and effort? Unless someone is willing to pay for the entire world to eat, then we are at a standstill.

NUMB=scary

Ok. First I will respond to Mr. Perkins's post on Aristotle's view of resource redistribution. Hypothetical, dreamy, perfect, Utopian situation: We lived in a world in which every adult is responsible enough (when going through tough times financially) to use the help of others constructively to get back on their feet. When your neighbor just lost his job, you loan him some money, he immediately begins searching for a new job, he eventually succeeds, and even if he lands a minimum-wage-paying fastfood job, 7$ an hour is better than nothing. He eventually does not need your help anymore, and then little by little, pays you back for your good neighborliness. OH, WHAT A WORLD! But, Aristotle, I'm sorry. There are just too many people with their hands open and waiting for Uncle Sam to "give a little," and the problem is, most of them forget step 2! THEY DO NOT LOOK FOR JOBS. THEY KEEP ON HAVING KIDS. THEY DO NOT CARE THAT RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS ARE PAYING FOR THEIR WRECKLESSNESS. (I understand that there are exceptions, but I'm simply talking about the majority) Until the day government stops being so lax, lenient, and self-destructive (in a well thought out, gradual program which REDUCES welfare, but does not end it in one swift step, of course!) I really do not think that our society can ascend to the level of morality, logic, and courtesy which Aristotle assumes in his proposition.

The second thing I want to say is that I am utterly embarrassed (rightfully or wrongfully so, I'm not sure) that, when reading the hunger articles, i was honestly, completely and absolutely, NUMB to every single word. I felt while reading them, that every number and statistic did nothing but make the paragraph pass more quickly, and I comprehended not a SINGLE stat. It's not as if I read an article on hunger every single day, so I cannot plead over-exposure as the cause of my insensitivity. I almost think that it is the effect of detachedness. I personally have never faced hunger, I personally eat well more than my fair share every meal, and nobody I personally know faces a situation unlike mine. Nonetheless, it is a problem. And, as we have seen from the articles and further posts on here, there are many ways to fight the problem. #1) Doing something is better than nothing. #2) after researching further on the economic efficiency of the different ways of helping, one should act accordingly, helping the hunger problem by using the method found to be most efficient economically/ most convenient. (whichever trait causes more participation) I do tend to agree that a lack of food is not the problem, but the distribution is. Whether sponsoring livestock to be grown or sending money to Haiti, help is needed. And as for having to pick which child lives, there is NO WAY on this earth that I would EVER be able to do it, but once again, i don't need to.

Like Victor said, resources are finite. But that does not mean we can just ignore the problem, saying that "hey, in a few centuries there won't be food anyway, so why bother now?" People do not live for centuries. Their lives are finite, too, and in this case, more finite than the resources fueling them. Therefore helping is both logical and moral, as long as we are perpetually trying to fix the CAUSE of the problem, and not just fix the immediate and current situation. adlskfj I mean I guess the point of ALLLLL of this is that we aren't actually there starving, picking out whether little joe or johnny lives, and so all we can really do is go off of what we got (potentially chillling, yet frighteningly uneffective--for me at least--articles), make a judgment (am i going to help or not?) and then act.

Hunger Articles

As much as i hate doing this...i have to refer to Carl Gibson. One day during his rants on something other than physics he showed us the iconic picture of the earth taken by the Apollo 11 astronauts on the moon. He said the earth was not infinite, our resources are limited and will eventually run out. After reading these articles that picture jumped right into my head. At the time i was just hoping i could learn about kinetic energy but now i see what he was talking about. The population of the earth is increasing dramatically and by 2012 its expected to reach 7 billion. Our population increases but our resources are finite. I believe the human race will follow the standard population curve. It will continue to increase until resources dip to the point where growth cannot occur, at which point it will level off. But when will we reach this point? If you look at the human race one clear things stands out; our need to improve our situation. We develop methods, invent things, learn things all to better ourselves. In a way these have all helped us increase our chances of survival, they are a higher order animals way of passing on genes and acknowleging darwin i.e. "hey i dont like small pox...no worries ill just develop a vaccine" or "man i wish my crops would grow, no worry ive got slash and burn, along with fertilizers." But i dont believe there will ever be a method to solving the problem of the finite earth. Even if the population problem is solved, which is highly unlikely, we still are trapped to the parameters of this place. The only way to truly solve this problem is to get yourself a paradigm shift and get off this rock. btw this is Victor

Articles Response

WHICH CHILD EATS WHICH CHILD DIES and HUNGER AMONG U.S. CHILDREN. I find the argument "even if we feed a few people the problem is going to exist, so we can't really do anything about hunger" to be exceptionally flawed. In addition to the large-scale solutions suggested by the article, I think another solution could stem from the idea that "2008 was a record year in terms of harvest. There's more food per person in 2008 than there's ever been in history. The problem is not food, but how we distribute it." It would take some innovation and will to solve the distribution problem, but it's not impossible. Hunger as a problem could be battled, not even taking into account the idea that helping individuals is as important--to those individuals--as trying to solve the overarching problem itself.

ART OR FOOD. I don't think it's useful to argue whether or not the $14 million should have come from taxpayer money to go to this ceiling; the representatives believed it was necessary, and it was effectually their call. The only aspect of the debate I can plausibly argue is that $1 million of that money was earmarked for African aid. Ethics aside, just looking at this from a governmental perspective, it seems quite clear to me that this ceiling does not constitute African aide. I suppose meetings held in the room may deal with human rights in Africa or something to that effect but really... when that $1 million were approved, I'm sure the intent was understood that the money would go to Africa. Not art. Throw back in ethics, and this expenditure is absurd. I have a hard time believing they could not find at least $1 million-worth more of private donors to fund the art.

response to the articles

I think the comment made by Wolff in the first article was really chilling: something about how anyone who has been born into an affluent, not-starving family is just lucky. And I agree with whoever said that being born into such a family presents those lucky people with a duty. A duty to realize that we cant always apply our reasoning or circumstances to these sorts of decisions...yes, maybe people should get their acts together and work on birth control and stuff but REALLY!!! I guess I can understand how people say that large families are just asking for it. But I cant believe that! Its easy to say, from our perspective, These people are pathetic and lazy and lacking in personal responsibility. But thats a pretty wide judgment to make and I think there are people who have ended up killing off their kids in Haiti from no fault of their own. So isnt it better to risk helping some bums and provide aid to the people who really need it? And give them the benefit of the doubt that not all these large families are the result of carelessness or manipulation or laziness? I mean, yeah longterm we need to teach them to fish I guess. But whos gonna be left to learn if we dont just assume they were acting in their own best interest and help them out? Its kinda like giving money to those people downtown who I just know are going to use it for cigarettes and stuff which is totally lame but do I need the money all that desperately??NO!! I dont think thats naive. They might as well have it to spend it however they want and thats not really helping them (---1.theyre using it in a bad way 2.they wont get any food or anything from it 3.it doesnt teach them to work for themselves) but I think that everyone should get the right to have some money!!! (argh that is kinda naive and pretty scarily liberal but Im not all sorted out on my moral beliefs?!?!?!) I guess that is a stretch and not quite part of the "duty" We All Have To Less Fortunate People and stuff but sorta same idea.

SO Im not sure that makes any sense but to kind of sum it up.... We can sit here and say that these people should have made more informed decisions but I really dont think anyone who hasnt been in that situation has that right. We have a duty to realize that our sorts of reasoning dont always extend to their situations. (---flashback to our "best convo of the year" that one day in class---)

And then...the third article about the UN ceiling. I forget who said in class that its all about how it was TAXPAYER money, but I think that really is the key thing there. And how Jill said that it was assigned to be used for a certain thing and then wasnt used for that certain purpose. So if youre gonna push a load of tax money into a pot called Relief and then go paint a ceiling with it, youre taking something (rights??) away from the taxpayers and the people who were originally going to get relief, whether or not they depended on it. SO, not fair.

So I BELIEVE that before you call the shots on somebody who is starving and choosing children in Haiti, you go live in Haiti and see how you feel. Until then, we might as well help them out. And eventually teach them to fish.

from Keane Mossman

The following is from Keane:


In regard to the first article concerning Hunger in Haiti, I do understand that hunger there is a significant problem, but the way the country historically has gone about solving the problem is not the right way to do it. As much as I hate to say it, if the woman there are worried about feeding their children than perhaps they shouldnt have as many children? Same pertains to the United States and a college education. Here we are pressured more than ever to get a college education but it is very expensive. So what is a woman in America supposed to do when her 5 children all want to go to college for 20,000$ a year? The solution is to think in advance. Morally it sounds terrible to say something like that I know, but as humans we cannot take on challenges that are bigger than ourselves if we have strong doubt that we cannot survive the struggle to reach the goals we set. The goals must be backed by something before they can be attained. In Haiti a woman should make sure that she can support 1 child, then if she can go on and support another. A person knows what kind of situation they are and what they are capable of doing and if they are in a very poor place with little resources bringing multiple people into the world only dispells the resources quicker. From a moral standpoint I believe we should help the people by teaching them how to grow or produce their own food rather than just giving it to them, but from a more realistic point we have limits in this world one way or the other and we cope with what we have and the key is planning for the future and learning from what you have...

I always knew that hunger posts a big problem to the world. However, I was still surprised by the first two articles. "A child dies of hunger every six seconds, and hunger now kills more people every year than AIDS, malaria and tubercuosis combied." Everywhere, we hear about AIDS or other diseases. Although we all acknowledge the existence of hunger, at least to me, the problem of hunger becomes so obvious that it didn't seem as important as diseases such as AIDS. At first I thought, it is because I'm in America, where hunger is not as big a problem as in other countries. But after I read the second artical, I realized that, hunger is a big problem even to the U.S. I think the U.S. government has tried to help everyone in need with things like the foodstamp etc. However, is everyone taking advantages of the U.S. government? I have heard that, many N.C. students, who are in need, didn't even take advantage of our free/reduced lunch program.
Also, I didn't think even after I read the articles that the problem of hunger is food. Instead, I agree with Patel in the first artical that "the problem is not food, but how we distrubute it". U.N. Human Rights Council are spending $14 million on a stupid ceiling! Including the money ($1 million) that was suppose to be used in African aid. The problem is not that we do not have money, but we did not use the money well enough to help everyone in need. Also, it is ironic to me that the Human Rights Council are the ones behind this project. It is everyone's basic right (or even the most basic and important right) to be provided with food, like stated in the first article. If the Human Rights Council do not provide everyone with their basic rights, and instead, spending millions of dollars on an art project instead of food, then what the point of a Human Rights Council?

I am addressing the issue of personal responsibility in Haiti.  I think that the people in Haiti are very deserving of our aid and are in desperate need for food and other necessary supplies to provide them with adequate clothing and shelter.  Just as the second article comments, the poor people at Haiti are not at fault for being born into an impoverished country.  The only acceptable way to evaluate their personal responsibility is to judge the actions they have taken concerning their situation.  I believe that no one should have to choose which child should survive when dealing out food; however, the parents do have control over the size of their families.  I am not saying that people who are poor automatically should not have large families.  I only think that perhaps they should take into consideration the repercussions of economic hardships on their children’s lives BEFORE starting their families. 

            I agree that the government should get involved in eliminating poverty to a certain degree, but I cannot honestly support a government system limiting the number of children a family has (as they do in China to try and eliminate a great deal of poverty and prevent over-population).  I think that the individual families must make their own decisions regarding family size, and that it is their personal responsibility-not the governments-to insure they can provide for the children they choose to have or not have.  However, I also admit that many of the families may have no accurate way of judging how many people they can reasonably support and that there are so many families who are already large, that an outside group or government or SOMEONE must step in to solve the already existing poverty. 

            I like the idea of teaching the native people to make the Medika Mamba in order to supplement a great deal of the nutrients needed. Although this does not solve the problem of poverty, it certainly is a start to a temporary fix in certain parts of Haiti by providing the community with jobs and food.  Perhaps we need to have individuals and private agencies in the United States willing to step up and help these struggling people either by  providing them with a small degree of education, decent-paying jobs, or enough food/money/other handouts to get the family back on their feet.  As a way of giving back to the community for the blessings given to us as Americans, we need to help these other struggling people.  This should be something we do out of goodness and willingness to help others, not to be dictated by the government.  Honestly, if the government donates our money through taxes, we see little of its development and have no personal connection or knowledge to where the funds go---they could be used to purchase “300$ hammers” or other ridiculous projects.  By donating money as individuals, we are upholding our personal responsibility to the rest of humanity.  How sad is it that we have to have the government to take away our money and give it to the impoverished? How selfish are we as a nation that we cannot donate a few dollars through our own will? Donating privately also allows us to choose which charity/country/area/group of people/type of project we put our money towards.  Once we see the results of our own endeavors, won’t we be more willing to support new projects in the future?

            And as a response to the poverty project/ where the money is going; perhaps we should give the money instead to a program that purchases livestock for families in impoverished countries? For example, they purchase cows, goats, chickens etc so that the family can sell milk/cheese/eggs for profit and keep some of it for consumption? I will look more into the project and get a name and idea of how much money it costs. It may be a more direct way of getting involved, though

typical poverty article.

The first article was well-done, but frankly, not surprising, interesting, or anything unique. It's a typical world-hunger/poverty awareness article. The problem does exist, like the article elaborately explains. A solution is given: "The problem is not food, but how we distribute it." Redistribution of food? He's right--the problem isn't the amount of food. The problem is the leaders of these impoverished countries and the poor decisions of adults to have children if they can't afford to feed them. Wealthier countries are wealthy for a reason. To solve this problem, we must rely on organizations that help curb world hunger and encourage representative democracies, capitalism, and true liberty. Succeeding economies reached through free markets mean more products and more food. On a more basic/personal level, parents need to be responsible for themselves, their lives, and their actions. Don't have kids if you can't afford them. In the words of Neal Boortz, "Don't buy a yacht if you can't afford one. Don't have kids if you can't afford diapers." The problem is a big one...and certainly one that concerns me. But redistributing wealth from one country to another is a temporary solution. Like the article mentions, teach them to fish, don't just throw one at them.

We can't change it

This may make me a horrible person, but I wasn't moved by any of these articles. They're sad, but I was already aware of the dayly struggle for families to provide nurishment for their children. I have a hard time caring about people I don't have to interact with on a daily basis, problably like most of the students in this school who don't realize that students, sometimes their classmates, don't eat on a regular basis. As the world is right now, nothing can be done for the millions of starving individuals in the world, so I don't worry about something I can't change. My influence is limited and even if I attempt to help those dieing from starvation I can't help everybody. But I don't mean to say that nothing can ever be done. I just done believe a group of unknown highschooler can solve anything. Even if we feed a thousand people the problem will still exist. The root of the problem is the lack of resources which in this lifetime cannot be solved, so I didn't get worked up over information I already knew, and I don't think anything can change my mind.

The first article had the strongest effect on me. I prefer to look at the problem of hunger and poverty using my emotions and not just focusing on the numbers involved-- how many people, how much money-- I think when people just focus on that it creates a disconnect between the people suffering and ourselves. Even though the second article was focused on poverty in the United States I felt the most disconnected with that information, because there were too many numbers too many statistics, and  by the end those numbers could have been anything their significance got lost in the lists of all the statistics. I liked the first article because it included a real example. A choice that although I am not even close to being able to truly understand I can imagine to the best of my ability and it makes me feel bad for the people starving and the children dying. Also, I agree most with the method of aid the first article suggests. Teaching the people of Haiti to make their own food is the best solution in the long run, but I don't think the United States can really use the same approach to deal with the US hunger mentioned in the second article. In Haiti most people have land they can grow food on or they have agricultural communities but in the United States the people starving in the middle of cities, where are they supposed to plant their crops?I think the third article did a good job of putting the whole situation into perspective and illustrating how the aid funds aren't being used correctly. But, I'm not all that shocked by the amount of the money spent, because I feel like the United States is constantly throwing large sums of money around on things like war that I feel could be better used to help those suffering in our country. I think the difference in this case is that money was supposed to be used to help people and spain claimed that building this mural was helping people. I don't really know how I feel about this in this moment if I was one of those tax payers I would be upset, but I can imagine that 50 years from now when the economy is better the people of Spain might be proud of their mural in the UN building. All three of these articles do a good job for the most part of illustrating the problems with hunger and the problems faced in combating hunger, yet sadly none of it was stuff I didn't already know or haven't heard before. Hunger might be getting worse but it has been present forever and we've failed to fix it so I don't think unless there are some drastic changes in strategy that we'll be able to help combat hunger and starvation today.

Too Many People

To me, these articles really just say that there are too many people alive today. The problem of hunger is only magnified by having more people; the arable space of the world is finite. Expecting to solve world hunger in the face of current overpopulation isn't realistic. We should deal with that first.

Okay, everyone should read the articles and understand that hunger is a real issue both in third world countries and also in the US. However, I would be shocked if anyone was surprised to hear that people are starving. Yes it's a horrible truth that people die from starving, but these articles seem to just restate what we already know but conveniently forget: people go hungy everyday and die from starvation. I hope that people would donate to a soup kitchen or hunger charity and try to excite others to do the same instead of just complaining about people eating steak.

"The" Question

The most powerful part to the articles to me is the end of the first article. That question that many people bring up, why in the shuffling of the soul deck was mine placed in the united states of america into an affluent white family. Thinking about this too much makes my brain hurt so i won't try to put it down into words but i will explain what effect the question has on me. I have a duty. When i am at all able, in the time i don't divide between school, my job, and other activities i have something else to be doing. That is to find whatever way i can to help the problems in our world. It is too too unfortunate for these people simply to be born into a place where they dont have any chance to change their life, they simply don't have food growing up. The world is already scary enough growing up, realizing how big it is and all the bad things in it but to be starving at the same time is tragic. Because of this i feel an innate sense of responsibility that i should be doing something, anything whenever i can. This ranges from donating money to donating my time to just learning more about the problem so i can better explain it to others so they can help solve it as well. My point to all this is that everyone in good condition should find time to do this, i truly believe this is our human ethical and moral duty to others as it is said that the right to food is a natural human right.

Article Responses

Personally, the first article was my favorite out of the three. I thought that the employer in Haiti was very smart in her solution for helping people in a food crisis, by teaching them how to acquire their food. As the article stated, the solution does not solely depend upon each particular country. When countries collaborate, they create  more powerful and effective solutions. It is obviously awful that parents have to choose between their own children's lives, but I do have to say that it is partially their fault. It is not always their fault that they don't have food, but choosing to bring a child into the world knowing that they do not have the means for feeding is too careless. I don't wish to get political about it, but it does bother me that women, especially single mothers have a child and yet decide to have another child without means for feeding him or her. 

The second article is more specific to U.S. food shortages. These food shortages all connect to many other issues including poverty, unemployment, etc. In order to resolve the food shortage, it is necessary to try to reduce poverty. Simply feeding people is a temporary fix, and will by no means end the food shortage. The United States government needs to find a solution for all of the people in poverty instead of focusing on temporary fixes that aren't even working. 

The third article confused me a little. I don't exactly know what type of art work they were putting up but I think that the artwork is being blown out of proportion. The desire for a mural on a ceiling does not mean that the people working in the Council are not doing their job. Of course it would be better if they used that money in order to help the people that need it the most but I think it falls into a completely different category. The city of Indianapolis designates a certain amount of money for different purposes. The money that is in a welfare program is not in the same area as the money for landscape designing. Could Indianapolis function without landscaping? probably, but it does not have anything to do with the people in Indianapolis who are in poverty. That is the way things work, and unless there is a complete change in the entire world on these principles, there will be no difference. There must  be a complete paradigm shift. 

The first article provides a staggering perspective on the degree of poverty and hunger which is an everyday reality in the third world. The picture of mothers making a choice between their sons and daughters, deciding who will live and who will die, is enough to impress the grimness of the situation on anyone. If statistics are sometimes hard to comprehend and convert into meaningful understanding, this article provides a very real and very emotional description of what numbers might mean on the personal level. While I agree with Ryan on the immense weight of this experience and the impossibility of any of us to truly comprehend what it must be like, I think it speaks in a way that a number of dead on a battlefield cannot -- it gives us an example of the actual thoughts and pain which must pass through these individuals' heads.

The second article, focusing on poverty in the United States, takes a much more practical and statistical approach. Though its numbers are certainly alarming -- 11.9 million Americans went hungry in 2007 -- we are not given the same close and personal view of the problem. However, the article continues to impress the gravity of poverty -- it's not just a third-world issue, it's happening in staggering proportions right here in the United States.

These articles cast a negative light on the allocation of relief funds by the Spanish government described in the third article. While it is certainly important to build the infrastructure of international organizations, and the UN Human Rights Council is likely an appropriate target for relief funding, using aid funds for a $14 million painting is unacceptable. If the money were used simply to build the necessary headquarters for the council, funds intended for relief might be appropriate. However, a $14 million ceiling is an expression of decadence which is s distinctly unethical use of money clearly not intended for this purpose. When experts believe that "hunger can be conquered" and relief funding can provide mass quantities of valuable, nutritious food products like "Medika Mamba", there is no excuse for using aid funding for such a misguided purpose.

What is the source of the problem?

Last Thursday I had the opportunity go see my favorite author, Greg Mortenson, speak at DePauw University. After reading his book, Three Cups of Tea last year, I have sided with Mortenson's beliefs that the only way to fix poverty is to build schools and educate children. However, his real emphasis is to educate the girls of these poverty stricken villages of rural Afghanistan and Pakistan. By educating the girls of these villages, these villages will have foundations upon which they can grow and become more productive. Mortenson says that over time, this procedure of educating WOMEN will significantly reduce poverty, and thus, reduce world wide hunger.

Robert Malthus projected that there would be a day when the population would surpass the food supply that this world is capable of producing. I completely agree with these Malthusian ideas. Overpopulation in this world is the base problem for the hunger dilemma that is sweeping the earth.

Using a combination of Mortenson's and Malthus's ideas, the conclusion can be drawn that women need to be educated about the effects of bringing new humans into this world when they have no chance of supporting them properly. In article I, Haitians are troubled by terrible hunger problems because they live in horrible conditions and continue to have multiple offspring. If the article says they know they are faced to make the decision between which child gets to eat, and which child dies, then it seems plausible to think that they would be able to make the decision on whether to have sex and risk bringing another child into the world that will not survive.

Hunger.......Its Real and What We Need to Be Doing to End It

After I read the article that stated that "mothers in Haiti wait to name their newborns because so many die of malnourishment" I was like WOW, hunger is truly a terrible thing. When I wake up in the morning I usually try to eat breakfast. There are some mornings that I wake up for school late and then end up being in a rush and miss breakfast. I would go to school and as I sit there in Russell's class I would moan with hunger. Thinking back was I really hungry? Compared to these children and families in these impoverish conditions my hunger can't even be called hunger but rather meaningless complaints. These people go for days without the level of nourishment needed. They struggle on basic human needs, such as food and water. It is terrible what these people go through day by day, suffering the pain and struggle that is hunger. I find that the only solution is by education, not on math or science, but on food. We should teach these impoverish and hungry children and adults how to grow food properly,how to gather and obtain food, and the proper way to store the food for later consumption. We should also go about teaching these hungry individuals who are impoverish the art of properly financing themselves and their family, and just maybe, we can make them self sufficient and even hunger itself would not be an issue for them and their family.

Reconsidering Priorities

For starters, I don't know if this was intentional on Mr. Perkins' part or not, but I suggest that everyone read the articles in the order listed on the post. It puts the last article in a better perspective.

I pulled some quotes that I thought were especially important to me. A lot of these fit PERFECTLY with the conversations we were having on poverty and welfare.

"They try to keep them alive by feeding them, but sometimes they make the decision that this one has to go" -- I can read this sentence, but I don't think I can actually comprehend this statement. To me, it is like reading that 24 people died in a bomb attack in Iraq. The number seems staggering, but I realize that I will never (assuming our country does not take a significant downturn) be able to understand what it is like to choose between two children. What kind of way of knowing would you use to pick between two children. I think there is none. If this does not illustrate the severity of global poverty, what will ever cause people to take action? For most people, I sadly believe that it takes personal exposure to the experience before you can empathize. I think this is why the poor give a greater percentage to charities.

"The right to food should be seen as a human right" -- this quote simply posed a question. Is the right to food a human right? It is not in our bill of rights, and people die of poverty and hunger in the United States. The government attempts to combat this problem through social programs, yet "one in eight Americans struggled to feed themselves adequately." We afford even the worst criminals the right to food and shelter. Should this right be granted to everyone, regardless of circumstances or will?

"Instead of throwing fish in the crowd, we should be teaching people how to fish" -- This strikes exactly on the issue of personal responsibility that we discussed earlier. However, I think this illustration is significantly different. Those in the United States often argue in favor of personal responsibility because welfare is a drain on the system. This is not the same as the premise of personal responsibility that we use to argue. Instead, this refers to the necessity of TEACHING people how to grow their own food. I would argue that most of the starving Hatians are not starving because of a lack of personal responsibilty. They have VERY few ways of providing for themselves or getting an education, regardless of their willpower. Does our principle of personal responsibilty even remotely apply to a country without the opportunites that we have in America? Where do you draw the line in order to define personal responsibility? All Americans are not equal, just as all Hatians are not equal, yet I doubt that many would argue that these citizens are not in need of handouts, at least temporarily.

"The government said these people have several ways of coping -- eating less varied diets" -- interesting point that we talked about. Those in poverty rely more on processed foods and have less varied diet. It seems like a vicious cycle leading to poor health, high healthcare costs, less money for food, and a less varied diet.

"$14 million of taxpayers’ money to the project, including nearly $1 million earmarked for African aid" -- taxpayers money going to the arts over poverty? I think that this really poses important questions about the frivolity of society in general, especially in light of poverty. Is this spending justifiable? Even spending originally marked for African aid. It really makes us reconsider our priorities.

In light of this article, it makes me wonder if our intention to raise money for mosquito nets could possibly be redirected. The World Food Programme states: "hunger now kills more people every year than AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined." Though our idea is not bad, maybe this is a more pressing concern. Thoughts?

Read and Comment

Your assignment is simple. Read each of the following and offer your comments.

Which Child Eats, Which Child Dies?

Hunger Among U.S. Children

Art or Food? (Note: Restrict comments to the first part of this article about the U.N. ceiling.)

Aristotle's Thoughts

I was inspired by Victor's previous post and his reference to the practices of the Roman emperor Nerva. Interestingly enough, I was reading the following passage from Aristotle's Politics VI.5 today at lunch.

Where there are revenues the demagogues should not be allowed after their manner to distribute the surplus; the poor are always receiving and always wanting more and more, for such help is like water poured into a leaky cask. Yet the true friend of the people should see that they be not too poor, for extreme poverty lowers the character of the democracy; measures therefore should be taken which will give them lasting prosperity; and as this is equally the interest of all classes, the proceeds of the public revenues should be accumulated and distributed among its poor, if possible, in such quantities as may enable them to purchase a little farm, or, at any rate, make a beginning in trade or husbandry.

I will be interested to see what others make of Nerva's and Aristotle's ideas.

Some Things on Welfare

In our discussions the question of whether welfare is solving the problem, or is the problem has frequently come up. Welfare dates all the way back to the Roman Empire when Marcus Cocceius Nerva instituted programs that gave land to Rome's most needy residents, made loans to wealthy Romans whose interest was paid to impoverished families and he outlawed a 5% inheritance tax. In short...his plans wrecked the economy. Nerva was attempting to regain public support for the office of emperor which lost public confidence due to previous tyrannical emperorships , however his plans spent more than was coming in. Debts amounted to the point where chariot races and other fantastic games (hallmarks of the Roman society) had to be suspended. This is the problem many see today with our system. People are afraid of continuous aid without anything in return. In the U.S. our welfare system is set up so that people who are truly in need do receive aid, however they must contribute something for that aid and must eventually be weaned from it. Obviously our system has its problems with hundreds of fraudulent cases occuring. If these people will go so far as to cheat a system which has a goal of at the very least suppressing one of society's ills, than it tells a lot about the human character. Throughout human history there have always been the "haves" and the "have nots," however that is not necessarily an argument for ending welfare. I do not believe that with these programs we will cure poverty but we can at least alleviate it. I believe that when giving out welfare, you cannot give too much or too little. In government we discussed supply-side economics with an optimum marginal tax rate where the population would be taxed just low enough for it to have an incentive to work and spend money thus stimulating the economy while still having rates that could cover the U.S. budget. I believe that welfare can and should be modeled after this. The rate cannot be so low as to make it unaffective, but not high enough for it to be taken advantage of. btw this is victor