Fixing world hunger.

[amadeus]

That is an INCREDIBLY stupid list.

It's standard of living based on environmental damage.

If you were to base it on that, the American Samoa probably has the highest standards in the world.

 

[BlueMonday]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
That is an INCREDIBLY stupid list.

It's standard of living based on environmental damage.

If you were to base it on that, the American Samoa probably has the highest standards in the world.

Read the article! The list is an index between both the human wellbeing (which includes educational level and income) and the environemtnal wellbeing of the nation.

From the article: "The measures of human development used in the 'Wellbeing of Nations' include indicators of wealth and education as well as measures on freedom, governance, peace, order, education, communication infrastructure and basic services to give a much better yardstick of human wellbeing. Similarly, measures on the broad themes of land, water, air, biodiversity and resource use are combined to give a much sharper picture of the state of the environment."

 

[Magnus]

Hey that was pretty cool BlueMonday!

The best place for human well being? - Norway!
The worst? - Somalia!
The best place for ecological well-being? - Republic of Congo!
The worst? - Malta!

overall (the two factors combined) Sweden was #1 and Iraq was last)

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Magnus
Hey that was pretty cool BlueMonday!

The best place for human well being? - Norway!
The worst? - Somalia!
The best place for ecological well-being? - Republic of Congo!
The worst? - Malta!

overall (the two factors combined) Sweden was #1 and Iraq was last)

What do they define "human well being" as? Countries that lean as far left as possible?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

BlueMonday:

Wrong again. The U.S. is actually twenty seventh on the list.

Source: http://www.iucn.org/info_and_news/press/wbon.html

see also: http://www.iucn.org/info_and_news/press/wonrank.doc

This is not a Standard of Living list. This is a list that integrates standard of living with ecological impact. Further, you are once again splitting hairs while the logs rot. Whether or not the US's standard of living was highest is immaterial. The definition and descriptions I gave of SoL were accurate and informative. If another nation has a higher SoL, then bully for them.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by allan
"A Japanese businessman working in the US would find some things a trifle more expensive, but would have little difficulty locating sushi, a karaoke bar, or getting anime titles while in the US. And the golf courses!"

I'm not sure how the statistics (that 98.9% figure you mentioned) for "standard of living" were derived, but in terms of COST of living, Japanese certainly wouldn't find things "a trifle more expensive" here.

The figures I used were from a source that I read some years ago, and are apparently well out of date as a result. Thank you for the correction. I would point out however, that you were paying large city prices, if I am not mistaken. Doubtless, if you went to NYC or LA, you might not find the prices much different. In Sourghum Mississippi, folk wouldn't pay as much for a pack of cancer stix as people would in LA. More people = higher demand = higher price. Or something like that.

 

[floppa21]

Actually CA just taxes more heavily on tobacco products than some of the other states I believe. There's plenty of tobacco, enough for anyone who wants to smoke, nothing to do with number of people. More regional than anything.

Now SoL in CA compared to Sourghum?

 

[Whiskey Priest]

I remembering reading something about how farm animals (Cows, Pigs, and Chickens) in the first world are better fed then human beings in the third world. Doesn't this seem ridiculous. I was so pissed when I read I vowed to never eat meat again. I still eat fish though. If anyone read the same report I would love a link to it. Thanx.

 

[floppa21]

You're a vegetarian because of that?!!! Wow...

If it weren't for pigs and cows, I'd be a cannibal...

 

[allan]

I've heard somewhere that race horses raised on Kentucky farms often eat better than many of the poor rural folk in the same state. Maybe someone just blowing smoke said that, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were true either....

I eat red meat (well, not horse meat ) now and then, but I mainly prefer poultry or fish--for health reasons. Having a grandfather who died of congestive heart failure largely because of his heavy red meat-laden diet (although the smoking didn't help him either) made me start rethinking a few things as I got older.... I try to eat sensibly now, and red meat tends to clog the arteries (not to mention being hard on the digestive system)--but moderation is my key word, and I certainly won't turn down a good meal of red meat when it is offered me in someone's home....

It's true though that livestock takes up land that could feed many times more people if veggies were grown there. Perhaps the increasing health-consciousness of many Westerners will start reducing the demand for red meat, so that our land will start being used more efficiently. Of course, I would never go along with LEGISLATING this, just informing people of health advantages/disadvantages and letting them decide....

 

[BlueMonday]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


What do they define "human well being" as? Countries that lean as far left as possible?

Are you even reading anything? Look at my previous post, it's right there.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Have we solved world hunger yet?

 

[amadeus]

I won't hold that report in high regard, after all, it is produced by environmentalists...

And the first rule of environmentalism is -- that the United States is an evil empire, destined to kill and poison everyone, and large, obese men will be sitting in a stuffy room smoking those evil, deadly cigars, laughing at people's suffering...

Perhaps I may be exaggerating, but have you ever listened to Ralph Nader?

 

[Maj]

And the first rule of environmentalism is -- that the United States is an evil empire, destined to kill and poison everyone, and large, obese men will be sitting in a stuffy room smoking those evil, deadly cigars, laughing at people's suffering

I think the first rule of environmentalism should become -- Dispell all silly rumours and attacks made on environmentalism.

Although I think the first rule actually runs somewhere along the lines of "Clean up after yourself".

-Maj

 

[Apollo]

I'm concerned for the environment, but I wouldn't go as far as to call myself an environmentalist. My first rule of environmentalism would probably begin something like: "So you like to breath do you?..."

I don't think world hunger is something that can be solved by us making certain actions (us meaning 1st world nations). I think it is something that has to evolve. Something along the lines of westerners becoming more health-conscious and eating less red meat, which leads to more land being turned over to vegetable farming, which leads to more food overall in western countries, which leads to.... and in the end world hunger will be worked out. As these poor countries develop, as our world becomes closer together, as technologies improve, world hunger will go the way of smallpox and *I hope* terrorism. But by that point we will surely have other problems to overcome.

 

[amadeus]

Not eating meat is only going to cause problems here in the U.S.

 

[allan]

"Not eating meat is only going to cause problems here in the U.S."

How so? In capitalism, the supply side adjusts itself to shifting demands in the market, right?

 

[amadeus]

If nobody eats meat, nobody will supply meat. The people that work with meat will be out of jobs - McDonald's employees, butchers, cattle ranchers, some farmers, etc.

Sorry, but not everyone wants to become a peanut farmer like Jimmy Carter.

 

[Maj]

If nobody eats meat, nobody will supply meat. The people that work with meat will be out of jobs - McDonald's employees, butchers, cattle ranchers, some farmers, etc

This sounds a bit like tobacco industry rhetoric. If cigarettes were suddenly made illegal worldwide, the number of jobs and even national economies that would crumble without the employment infrastructure would be tremendous. Tens upon thousands would be out of work, the economy would grind to a halt and possibly shrink, millions would have nic fits, organized crime would step up and offer 'bootleg' cigarettes to those deprived of their addictive drug! Sure, most of us would be healthier, but what about the economy!?!

Of course, I'm being a bit dramatic, but I have yet to hear a solid counter-argument for this one. I'm not saying I agree with the aforementioned but am wonder whether anyone here has a good response

-Maj

 

[amadeus]

Nobody would be healthier if we banned tobacco.

There'd be more violence than a 50-year-long KKK march in Harlem, NY.