Is it normal we can put a man on the moon but we can't feed everyone?
:.( ...........................
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[
Report Post
]
Comments ( 37
)
Sort:
best |
oldest
-
I hate this type of argument. It's as if space travel didn't have all sorts of economic returns and sounds as if the astronauts threw money out of a rocket in outer space on one hand and as if we sort of owe poor countries food while it's their local policies, closed economies, corrupt governments, lack of free market, religious fanaticism and lack of education that is to blame for their poverty.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
[Old Memory]
-
-
-
I'm not American but pro-captalism & free trade. How are these problems the fault of the US? I think it's in the interest of not only the US but also other countries such as the EU that all countries just have peaceful governments and indulge in free trade. This would be in everybody's interest but some people just choose to be stubborn and against free market capitalism so it's not the US's retaliation but the very lack of free trade that makes such countries poor.
Comment Hidden ( show )
-
-
-
-
-
Feeding everyone is far more complicated than putting a man on the moon. The scientists at NASA probably did not have to deal with nearly as many political, social, cultural and economic problems in building a rocket than required to solve a problem like world hunger.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
-
-
-
You're looking at it from an emotional and overly simplistic perspective and you seem to lack an understanding of where I am coming from in general. If it was so simply a matter of resources obviously we would have little issue.
And really, what the hell are we to do with our wasted food? Pack it up and send it to then? Jeez
Comment Hidden ( show )
-
-
-
-
Solving world hunger is considerably more complicated than sending a man to the moon. Getting to the moon requires quite a bit of capital for materials and obviously the technical skills required. World hunger however requires the cooperation of nearly the whole world, massive synchronization of transportation, the food itself, and some way to actually pay for such a project. A project of this scale must be done through governmental means and so not only do countries have to come together but also each country will face internal instability as well.
If we had a single world government (or even just a few) this might be a legitimate possibility. As it stands now, there's no real solution to the logistics issues that would be inherent in any attempt to solve the problem.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
Ok we'll keep spending money on rocket launches that we so need and let those little babies fucking starve. Your right how fucking stupid of me.
By the way what about the money spent on: smart phones, video game consoles, super cars, movies, tv shows, Justin Beaver downloads, porn, alcohol advertising, Ab blaster 2000's do you think that money could not go to feeding starving babies? No your right I'm a fucking dumbass, I will keep my mouth shut.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
You'd like to claim that money is the issue here? Let's take a look at relative costs then. According to wiki, the moon landings costed approximately 23.9 billion dollars adjusted for inflation. Seems like a lot of money, right? Not in an economy of scale. Again adjusted for inflation, the US GDP for 1969 was 4.26 trillion dollars. Let's then see what the population and average amount we spent on food was. The US population in 1969 was just shy of 200 million, and the mean amount spent on food was $234 per family (inflation again). Given that each family consisted of on average 3.2 people back then, that translates to 14.6 billion dollars being spent on food PER WEEK in the US.
If we actually want to feed the starving children, we're going to need absolute cooperation from nearly all the world's countries. I'd like nothing more than to see poverty, hunger, and disease be eradicated from the surface of the Earth, but each of these problems requires solutions that are magnitudes more complicated than simply throwing money at the problem until it goes away.
Comment Hidden ( show )
-
-
-
-
Again, the people starving are pretty much just Africans bro. Going to the moon was a big scientific step for us, in fact you wouldn't have your iPhone if we never had a space program, or sketchers! The reason why we can't feed everyone though got to the moon is one, we, America, don't have to help everyone else out and two, that it's not our probrem.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
-
One has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other. The world isn't just one big nation, it is made up of numerous nations. Some nations are rich because they are populated by intelligent, industrious people. Others are poor because their citizens are lazy and/or uneducated and have no ambition. The US can put men on the moon and people in countries like Ethiopia, for example, don't have a pot to piss in.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
-
The only reason we are able to go to space, is because our corrupt government and the crime lords that they are, take everyone's hard earned money away from them. So if you want to feed the hungry instead of fund space travel, then designate what charity your tax money goes to with tax credits and such like us smart Republicans, instead of paying straight up taxes and letting the democrats decide which lazy, free loading drug addict they want to fund next.
Comment Hidden ( show )