All could be fed, all could be housed

[edhopper]

globally. But we have a world where a few hold onto more resources than multiple generations could use. Humanity is just not up to the task of managing the planet we dominate.
I could make a list of doable, rational things that would make this world better for everyone and ensure an better future. But not enough have the will or foresight to move. We will either muddle along as things remain bad for far too many, or descend into a decline we will not recover from for a long time, or at all.
I think about the threats of climate change and the coming redundancy of a large part of the work force through AI, to name two crisis.

Meanwhile, we are one election away to see if our Democracy survives.

I hope we work to do the best we can do, but the best we can do could be well short of what we need to do.

[H2O Man]

1. Recommended.

Well said.

[LoisB]

2. Very well stated.

[Hortensis]

3. On the bright side :), there are huge trends toward

feeding and housing humanity, toward sustainable living for all. Human life spans are now long beyond all imagining before and will continue to grow.

Most of this has happened during your adulthood, much of it in this century so far, continuing to grow in spite of all the dangerous reverses and growth of problems also. Incredibly more is in the works, happening now and going to be.

Aspirations and expectations for the betterment of mankind are not held by a tragically few but actually by the many.

"Yes, we can" is proven, Ed. Because we are.

[godsentme]

9. On the bright side

You filled my glass half full. I do agree with Ed, then you came along and helped me to remember that there really are more good humanitarian people that are striving to make a better world. ☮

[Alice Kramden]

11. Love this

[edhopper]

20. I hope your vision

is truer than mine.

[Hortensis]

21. Already proven. Another starting point is needed

than goals that are literally impossible to achieve, though. Impossible is not aspiration.

Right up top "all could be fed, all could be housed." That wouldn't be possible even without global warming increasingly destroying homes, whole towns and regions, destroying sustainable living for people all around the planet. Even without war it wouldn't be. Even without people who refuse help.

We're actually moving toward sustainability for by far most people almost all the time, which is why it is a real goal in many nations that real people are working on.

Btw, in this country, the Democratic Party has been trying since the early 1960s, or perhaps earlier, to base most monetary-type aid eligibility simply on income -- no bureaucratic blocks to eligibility. Not enough money for food and shelter? You qualify.

How about applying on line, including place to send relief, to qualify for at least temporary immediate relief? Get confirmation of amount of aid available to draw on the spot. That's the way we set Medicaid assistance for ACA applicants up (applying and being accepted n that case literally amounted to filling in one box with an estimate of the next year's income and hitting send, so quick it didn't occur to me we were now "on" Medicaid).

We know it's possible because we're doing it. Next to get it for everyone -- backed by a hefty bureaucracy checking that the need is real and offering further assistance toward sustainability. DOABLE.

Of course, every person who doesn't vote Democratic is putting a stick in those spokes, every time they don't, but we have more successes over the years than setbacks.

[edhopper]

22. I disagree about hunger

estimates are that $25 to $40 billion a year would end hunger globally. Compare this to the $2 trillion spent on military globally.
Work that out, 2% of the military budget would end hunger. It is far from impossible, mankind doesn't have the will to do it.
Hell, we just passed legislation that makes it harder for those in need in this country to eat.
It's not the logistics, it's the unwillingness to act.

[Hortensis]

24. Ed, impossible goals are NOT aspiration.

In fact, it's the opposite and imo a tragic syndrome to fall into. Idealism that must fail.

It's also a very common trap for opponents to try to maneuver people into -- to redefine Democratic success as failure because we achieved the progressive goals WE set -- instead of some goal they "set" to be failed. In fact, by this malign spin, Democrats fail as soon as we set an achievable goal and then we fail again by being foolishly glad and proud of achieving it.

Btw, speaking of achievable goals, how about saving our democracy? A starting point here is that success is inextricably dependent on the trust and confidence people have in the Democratic Party.

Commitment to succeed.

[edhopper]

25. Yes

I realize what I say is impossible, that's the point. We can work and hope to get small incremental changes. But we are at a point where that might not be enough.
Mainly I am saying there is a solution to all this, but that solution would require a different society and different species.
I do not expect mankind to suddenly wake up to what it is doing.

[Hortensis]

26. Agree. A critical minority waking to what

we need to do is about the best we can hope for. The critical "mass" who've always dragged humanity forward, though often not in time.

Before, my hope was that "slowly" would take place in a much shorter time frame, but the bad guys won that one. Like you, I spent the last half century watching that happen while planetwide disaster built, and passed various points where what we could do might mostly have been "enough."

New achievable goals are in order. At least more now realize we have no choice. The plus side of a storm of disasters.

But now saving democracy (!) has to come first. The next "increment" if you will, but everything we would do depends on it.

I swear, though, if I had the slighted bit of religiosity in me, I'd be sure the gods were battling it out. How else to explain it?

[edhopper]

27. Your last sentence

That is why I see the Greek Gods making more sense than the Judeo Christian one.

[Hortensis]

30. Far more, appallingly...rational sense.

[Magoo48]

4. Well said, edhopper.

https://www.facebook.com/1644376966/posts/pfbid02VxbRKp5cbu7a1MbyoUtGuBxj7ithp8VtQho9aPJe26K18Mgd5CHXY4RJmtRUsVdul/

[anciano]

5. Agreed.....

The 2024 election will present a window of opportunity (perhaps the last) to adjust our course. What we eventually evolve into is yet to be determined.

[Think. Again.]

6. Well said.

I remember reading somewhere that we produce enough food to keep ONE AND ONE HALF times the global population well fed.

And no, moving that food to where it is needed isn't the problem, the only problem is that unless a profit can be made from doing this, it just isn't done and that food is wasted instead.

[EX500rider]

46. Actually it is a problem

Most the places with starving people have a ongoing conflict that makes food delivery near impossible and/or local corruption that will steal the food:
The Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Haiti etc

Places with civil war and bandits and corrupt local officials make food delivery next to impossible.

[Think. Again.]

47. Good point...

Access to food is definitely used as a weapon.

But then there's this also:

10.2 percent (13.5 million) of U.S. households were food insecure at some time during 2021.

"Low food security—These food-insecure households obtained enough food to avoid substantially disrupting their eating patterns or reducing food intake by using a variety of coping strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting food from community food pantries."
https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/key-statistics-graphics/

[twodogsbarking]

7. I believe problems are solvable but you first must remove those who caused the problems.

They are a bigger problem than the original problem.

[2naSalit]

8. K&R

[Bayard]

10. I'm not kidding

I think replicators (ala' Star Trek), will be the answer to make plentiful food and housing. We already have 3D printed houses, which is sounding pretty close:

"A new home can be printed in roughly 10 days using alternate, native materials that require additional processing. Even something as large-scale as a multi-room two-story villa may be constructed in roughly 45 days for the utmost in 3D printed housing."

And synthesized food.

https://www.azolifesciences.com/article/Synthetic-Food-An-Overview.aspx

The positive effect on the environment would also be tremendous. No need for huge cattle ranches or mega farming.

[pandr32]

12. This coming election is that "one election".

We need to give it everything we can and everything we are. We must prevail.

[KPN]

13. Well and concisely said. I agree. We either rise to the occasion in the next decade or so or

nature will undo us sooner than we might expect.

[peppertree]

14. But then - how would billionaires compete with each other in the superyacht and space races?

For shame. Can't you spare a thought for them?

[madamesilverspurs]

15. Indeed.

.

[calimary]

23. DAYUM! That's a GREAT quote, madamesilverspurs!

Where’d you find that?

[madamesilverspurs]

28. Well..........

Since I didn't attribute it, it might be one of my middle of the night can't sleep because of too much thinking renderings. Maybe.


.

[calimary]

32. Well then, if I use it, I'll credit you!

[madamesilverspurs]

34. I'd be most honored, thank you! n/t

[Blue Owl]

16. K&R

[Evolve Dammit]

17. "...one election away." Yep

[Ferrets are Cool]

18. But, but, but.....

SOCIALISM!!!!!

[calimary]

19. Words to the wise.

Last edited Sat Jun 3, 2023, 04:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Good reminders never go out of style.

[roamer65]

29. It would take a global rationing system to make it equitable.

Countries like the US would have to give up a lot, so poorer countries could have more.

[edhopper]

31. 2% of the global military budget

Would end hunger. What would we really have to sacrifice?
The main ones who would have to give up something are those that have more than they or their heirs could ever use.

[roamer65]

33. People will want more than just food to eat.

First thing should be a global minimum wealth tax.

That would be able to fund development projects for 3rd world nations. No more loans. Allocate them money from this tax.

[edhopper]

39. wouldn't disagree with that

[sanatanadharma]

35. The USA could do more if we taxed the churches

Considering that the churches do too little for the nation that gives them free tax money.

How many migrants (for example) could Joel Olsteen house in his mansion.

[RainCaster]

38. We could do even better if we taxed the rich and corporations

You know, the "job creators", who buy yachts, jets and off-shore residences with the money we give them.

[Joinfortmill]

36. We're gonna destroy the planet unless it destroys us.

[usonian]

37. EAT THE RICH

Vegetarians, COMPOST THE RICH instead.

Saw this in a reply to my PFA thread.
https://democraticunderground.com/100217966762

[roamer65]

40. With Arby's sauce?

I might be game.

[usonian]

43. Maybe on the rich. It's wasted on the compost.

Act fast.
I hear that the fat rich people are disappearing.



To planet Kanamit.

[CTyankee]

44. I can't see him being very tasty.

[usonian]

45. There's no explaining Kanamits.

Must have some special cookware and techniques.

[roamer65]

48. He's probably better with ketchup.

[EX500rider]

41. Things have actually improved over time:

[edhopper]

42. Not here