Yeah!. Sharing is caring, right?. Like ' Comment . Share . 8 hours any near ' it military tr: kill all the hungry people? 26 minutes age: . Like Write an commen Yeah! Sharing is caring right? Like ' Comment Share 8 hours any near it military tr: kill all the hungry people? 26 minutes age: Write an commen
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (310)
[ 310 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
#100 - kridane
Reply +166 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
>Implying we actually have enough food

There comes a point where money is just paper.
#211 to #100 - klose
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Around 75-90% of all the worlds money is viral money, aka money in banks. The rest is the paper money.
#301 to #100 - nengcaste **User deleted account**
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #323 to #100 - lordmoldywart
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
We would if we weren't using lots of it for bio-fuels
User avatar #192 to #100 - theduckman
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
"When the Last Tree Is Cut Down, the Last Fish Eaten, and the Last Stream Poisoned, You Will Realize That You Cannot Eat Money"
#179 to #100 - triggathepirate
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Money is fabric


Fuel my masochism
#186 - ainsley
Reply +37 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
GUYS!
Guys

Hear me out on this one...
What if...
What if we recreate The Hunger Games with African children from each african country?
One kid from each country (there's like 50 countries)
Fight to the death, each time in a different location, one time it will be the savannah, next time the dessert, and etc. Give them crude weapons like spears and rocks. Televise and sell in Pay-per-view. The winner gets to move to America and be adopted by Brad and Angelina.
#188 to #186 - bramy
-1 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
#189 to #188 - ainsley
Reply +8 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
a) I've read each book 4 times
b) It's a joke

... I'm sorry but you're reading comments on funnyjunk and think that we're being serious?
User avatar #210 to #186 - elitetroll
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
itll be like UFC but better
#196 to #186 - xbenas
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
#10 - draxdiesel
Reply +22 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
well as great as it would be if there were no starving people the fact is that current food production is struggling to provide for all people on the earth now, let alone the population if no one starved. easy for me to say here in my house with a nice plate of pasta beside me but people do actually have to die for the world to work.
User avatar #21 to #10 - jewpiter
Reply -12 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Not if everybody was communist. Then we could allocate enough people to farming, animal breeding, and food processing to feed everybody in the world. And there would be no more wars because everybody would be equal. (I'm going off of pure Communism, not the ****** up version that all modern "Communist" countries use.)
#32 to #21 - gritsreborn **User deleted account**
+10 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #33 to #32 - jewpiter
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Please read comment #28, I already answered this question.
#38 to #33 - gritsreborn **User deleted account**
+2 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #42 to #38 - jewpiter
Reply -3 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
1) The removal of freedom stops when the people want it to stop. Instead of a judicial system for large matters such as this everybody would have a vote on weather removal of a certain freedom is necessary or not for the greater good.

2) Police will force people to go along with what the majority believes is the right choice.

3) Punishment would obviously depend on the severity of what the criminal does or refuses to do.

4) Again all the people make the decisions and police/common sense enforces these decisions.
#47 to #42 - gritsreborn **User deleted account**
+3 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #51 to #47 - jewpiter
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Not quite sure how politics relates to biology but for social function of humans institution of a new government usually comes with a large societal revolution. If a Perfect Communist government comes to rule it will probably be ushered in by a change in how humans come to view other humans.
#59 to #51 - gritsreborn **User deleted account**
+3 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #75 to #59 - jewpiter
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Oh now I see what you mean. Communism doesn't have to be a world without art, music, movies, or literature. There would still be room for that. And there would still be Capitalist fringe groups just like there are Communist fringe groups now. America is Capitalist because the majority have the mentality that it is the right way to run the country, so is it really so crazy to believe that the opposite could happen where America becomes Communist because the majority feels that Communism is the right way to run the country?
User avatar #96 to #75 - anonymouslive
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Would just like to say, No country has ever succeeded at perfect Capitalism or perfect Communism. Neither system would work in reality. In theory, they make sense, but because it is such a huge system if would not work. You're speaking of having every single person in the world abide by the same rules and be equal. That doesn't work, because people will realize that in a communist society, people who do a ton of work get the same as people who are lazy. Say you work in a factory, you make the same wage no matter what, because you are all equal. This means you could do half the work of your peers and get the same pay. Sure, you're told to work for 'The Common good' but some people would not do so. They would do as little as the legally could to get paid because quite frankly, a lot of people are lazy and selfish, as is human nature.
Pure Capitalism doesn't work either, and America is far from purely capitalist. A pure Capitalist state would have no government control. The US, though, has regulations. They have less control then most places do, but they still have control to some extent in their economy. There are still public institutions and publicly run companies. There is no economic or political ideal that works flawlessly, and this is why most successful nations run on parts from every side. This forms a liberal state, one that has some government controls and some free-market ideals.

TL;DR No one economic/political ideal such as Communism or Capitalism is perfect. We need a blend of both to form a successful state, and every democratic state is different.
#260 to #10 - xuberpwnagex
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
There is enough food in the world to feed everyone, the only problem is distribution.
User avatar #105 to #10 - imyourdaddy
Reply +24 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
***** please...The U.S. alone throws away up to 165 billion dollars worth of food every year. Even taking into account food that can't be salvaged it would be more than enough to make a difference. Also it is not uncommon to control and lower production of crops to the keep the price up
User avatar #106 to #105 - imyourdaddy
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
not uncommon* for large farms and corporations*
#224 to #105 - anon id: 8f659e0b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Most of that food is probably pizza crusts.
User avatar #259 - solinvictus
Reply +23 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Every time we send food/money/supplies to these countries it never actually reaches the people it is intended for. Instead, it either falls into the hands of warlords and rebels who use it to continue slaughtering people, or the money lines some corrupt asshole's pockets. The problem with places such as Africa is that everyone is corrupt, and this problem will only be resolved when the people in those countries decide they are fed up with their leadership and run their corrupt leaders out. Also, just as an extra fact here, it is known that in many cases when we send food and supplies over there it just prolongs the conflicts because, like I said above, all of the supplies goes to feeding the war machines over there.
User avatar #286 to #259 - sirformidio
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
So we poison the food.
If the warlords take it, they die. If the people get it, they die.
Problem solved either way.
User avatar #263 to #259 - masterfluffydubs
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Thank you for knowing things like this. :)

I am glad not everyone is so ignorant

Good day
User avatar #284 - BIGSEXYISBACKAGAIN
Reply +21 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
I may get be called heartless for this but I don't think we could feed the children. There is a reason that people starve there, because they are living in an area of the earth that can't provide enough food. That is not going to be solved by giving them food. There is no way to eradicate hunger. It will always be there as long as people are there. Say there are 1 million people in Africa.we could either let that one million people starve today and be done with it, or we could let half of them starve and let the rest have children. Then half of them will starve and the others will procreate. That's another one million people who have starved and the problem is still there. I believe that is more cruel than just letting them all starve right now.
#293 to #284 - anon id: 796b5374
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
i wanted to argue your logic but then i was like "what the hell! it is just funnyjunk"
User avatar #302 to #284 - mahdii
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
If you're saying the reason for starvation is due to geographic reasons, then i think you might be wrong because it would be the people in charge in Africa that obviously aren't doing anything about the starving kids/people. However I do agree that no matter what, there will always be starvation in this world as well as rape murder wars etc....as BIGSEXYISBACKAGAIN said, im not even trying to be negative but thats the truth about this world. Its only getting bigger and badder...
#313 to #284 - SemiAnon
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Biggest argument against this:   
"Emotions!"   
   
   
Just because it makes you people feel better, doesn't mean it's a better option.
Biggest argument against this:
"Emotions!"


Just because it makes you people feel better, doesn't mean it's a better option.
User avatar #322 to #313 - chezburgadominator
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
I don't think you should've been thumbed down, you just summarized what everyone's going to argue..
#327 to #284 - anon id: 87d32b8b
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Little harsh, but I definitely agree, we wonder why people hate us when all we (Americans) do is spend money we don't have getting in every other countries' business where we don't belong. We have enough to worry about with us and our starving children that people seem to have forgotten about.
User avatar #325 to #284 - dengekisushi
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Exactly; if the land is too try or just not appropriate to support the growth of food, there's no way to end the hunger that goes on.
It's a terrible thing to know that young children starve on a daily basis, but there's literally no way to stop it unless their land becomes stable enough to support growing crops.
It's good to help those people, but trying to stop starvation is virtually impossible at this time and age.
#305 to #284 - nobodyhere
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
It is really easy to say that we should let all the poor people die out when you are sitting comfortably in your house with electricity, running water and a refrigerator full of food. I bet if you were in their situation, your take on the subject would change completely. I mean have some empathy for your fellow man. So what if feeding them means they will live and procreate? We simply feed the next generation as well. We could also try to make it so that there are proper educational facilities that would be able to provide them with the tools to better themselves and actually have money to buy food. We should also try to teach them about the importance of practicing safe sex to prevent overpopulation. There is more than enough food on the planet to feed everybody. Innocent children should not have to die from hunger whilst others sit at home and complain that they feel sick from eating too much food.
User avatar #320 to #305 - chezburgadominator
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Honestly, as comment #313 said, "Just because it makes you people feel better, doesn't mean it's a better option". Just because we have it better off doesn't mean we're obligated to help them. Of course, we can feed them, and of course, they will procreate. But if they procreate, then that is more mouths to feed. If the idea was to END WORLD HUNGER than bringing more into the population would not help. It's not as "simple" as you make it sound. See comment #259, that is the situation in most cases. Many still die each day regardless of the fact we are sending them more. It may be wrong to think that we shouldn't help them, I think it's nice that we are. But I think we're just allowing more to suffer in a life of starvation because their Population Growth was exceeded.
#385 to #320 - nobodyhere
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
The idea is to end world hunger but the reason for trying to accomplish this is so that the starving people do not have to suffer anymore. The answer for this is not to leave them alone and let them die out. That is like somebody saying,in order to end all suffering in humanity, we should release all the nuclear bombs and that way, there would be no more humans left to suffer. Also, who says that most die even when we feed them? Where are your sources for this? And even if most are still dying when we feed them, this does not mean that we should let them die out, it simply means that we need to be more efficient with helping them by either bringing them more food or bringing the food in a more timely fashion so that the people are not too malnourished by the time it reaches there.
User avatar #285 to #284 - oriolopocholo
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
I would give you thirty million thumbs if I could. Have one.
#205 - thetattooedone
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Don't give them food, give them ******* birth control so families who have 8 kids already will stop procreating and starving their children!

"Omg, we have 10 kids and we are starving, what should we do?"
"LET'S HAVE ANOTHER ONE!"
#256 to #205 - ttarshis
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Supply boats in Somalia and Kenya would give the people condoms, but that's not a perfect solution. So birth control would be better I think.
#142 - BobbyMcFerrin
Reply +19 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
i now understand why all hungry children sit like that. they're trying to eat their legs.
#160 to #142 - saxophan
Reply +5 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
They're actually getting closer to the dirt, which is superior nourishment.
#236 - kusalranawaka
Reply +18 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Who comes up with these ******** statistics?
Who comes up with these ******** statistics?
User avatar #242 to #236 - TarnRazor
Reply +13 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
It's simple really. Figure out the percentage of a country's military spending and cross reference it with their total worth. Then you find out the rate of starvation and cross reference that with the average price of food (Let's say for a day) and multiply that by 365.25. It's simple math, really.
#246 to #242 - kusalranawaka
Reply -6 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Firstly there is no such thing as rate of starvation, you cant measure how hungry someone is

Secondly if you could eradicate hunger with a measly 30 billion it would have been done by now. E.g in 2008 the All of UK's exports were 244.5 billion sterling pounds. and that's just the UK. Imagine the other major countries like USA and China that make even more. According to those facts if these three countries gave 10 billion you could get rid of hunger in a single afternoon
User avatar #252 to #246 - TarnRazor
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Well, you see.. The rate of starvation can simply be determined by poverty. That can be measured and, of course, depending on the area and how poor you are, you can be deemed starving. Granted, you may be right about the spending, you can still measure the funds it would take to feed the world for a year.
#255 to #252 - kusalranawaka
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
Yes you can measure the funds but what im saying is that the 30 billion statistic is ********. Its way, way lower than it should be
#304 - xxpathofpainxx
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
We are NOT a waste of money!
We are NOT a waste of money!
#184 - iamnewhere
Reply +10 123456789123345869
(11/06/2012) [-]
This image has expired