Ending hunger by 2030 would cost just $93 billion a year — less than one per cent of the $21.9 trillion spent on military budgets over the past decade, according to the UN World Food Programme (WFP).

Ending hunger by 2030 would cost just $93 billion a year — less than one per cent of the $21.9 trillion spent on military budgets over the past decade, according to the UN World Food Programme (WFP).

    • arrow74@lemmy.zipEnglish
      3·
      9 days ago

      If farming is not allowed to be a business then everyone has to be a subsistence farmer, by definition.

      If you read my comment you’d not be saying this.

      Clearly I mean food production shouldn’t be only for profit. We should produce enough food as a service.

      Frankly you are using the most obtuse way to define buisness. While I’m sure it’s technically correct, it’s not the only way that term is used and you’ve basically made an argument over something that clearly wasn’t the point.

      You’re forgetting (or don’t know in the first place)

      No it’s purely irrelevant. I didn’t see the need to specify you need to grow crops suitable to land/region. This point is so bad I’m starting to believe you asked AI to make an argument for you.

      By centralizing farming decisions you make it more likely to have a catastrophic crop failure country-wide.

      Not if you listen to experts. Kinda funny how you believe that corporations can grow crops no issue, but the state can’t. Corporations already produce most of the global food supply.

      Most people new to farming fail at it

      Not if you listen to experts

      This is also why, for example, the Soviet Union experienced such terrible famines

      Because they didn’t listen to experts. Also did you already forget we were talking about regions already under famine conditions?

      Large corporations are guilty of this too, except they have a strong profit motivation so they find ways to preserve the knowledge they need to maintain profitability

      So it’s totally possible for the state to do it too. Corporations prioritize profit that’s why we burn crops to keep prices stable.

      Anyway, states don’t have a profit motive so they have no incentive whatsoever to preserve knowledge

      You came to an inherently untrue conclusion. The state can be motived just to take care of its citizens. That’s what we should aim for.

      So basically you made an argument that is overall unrelated, relies on the assumption the state must always fail, and that corporations are good. I’m unconvinced to say the least

        • arrow74@lemmy.zipEnglish
          1·
          9 days ago

          States do not care about their citizens. They only care about preserving their own power

          Objectively false. The state is a concept that can and has been changed repeatedly. It’s not some universal truth you can make such statements about.

          That is how it has happened every time.

          Not an accurate statement since there has never been an attempt without massive interference. Also not an accurate description since you are clearly thinking about a system i did not describe. I described a completely different system than those you’re likely thinking of

          totalitarian state

          What the actual fuck are you talking about. Nobody ever talked about a totalitarian state. I simply talked about state owned agriculture working in a not for profit fashion. And only to produce staple foods. Really not that different from socialized medicine.

          WE WILL FIGHT YOU TO THE DEATH

          Seems like a sane and reasonable response the the suggestion that maybe we should just try to feed people without trying to make money off of them.

          Honestly this reply is unhinged