Home | About | Donate

Number of Starving People Surged to 124 Million Last Year Because "People Won't Stop Shooting at Each Other," Says UN Expert


Number of Starving People Surged to 124 Million Last Year Because "People Won't Stop Shooting at Each Other," Says UN Expert

Jessica Corbett, staff writer

Largely due to armed conflicts, there has been "a staggering and stomach-churning 55 percent increase" in the number of acutely hungry people worldwide over the past two years, according to the head of the U.N. food agency.


No global warming according to Trumpsters though.


And, who would know better than David Beasley.

From Wikipedia:

"In February 2017, United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley (also a former South Carolina governor) nominated Beasley to be the next Executive Director of the World Food Programme.[7] United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres and U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization José Graziano da Silva appointed Beasley to the post in March 2017, saying the former governor brought “extensive experience with key governmental and business leaders and stakeholders around the world, with very strong resource mobilisation skills.”


sadly, you know someone, somewhere has a sad that it’s only 124 million. “We’ll have to try harder gentlemen!”


You couldn’t possibly be referring to the Military-Industrial Complex that Ike warned us about, could you?

Ah, both of you ARE referring to D’Uhmurika’s M.I.C. — that’s what I thought.

. . . and of course no GROSS overpopulation, either.  A growing number of humans crowded onto a planet with finite resources has NOTHING to do with it.   Right.   Keep hiding your ostrich heads in the sand and ignore the 800-pound gorilla in the room — works every time.

AH!  THERE’S the answer to overpopulation — instead of inhumanely decreasing the birth rate, we’ll humanely increase the death rate!   That should do it!!


Ah-yup, just like I said — overpopulation and competition for increasingly scarce resources obviously has nothing to do with food insecurity.  In a more enlightened 2100 – when our numbers have increased from
7.5 Billion to 10.5 Billion – everything will be just hunky-dorey.   Right . . .


Will CD please re-caption the photo “woman and malnourished child” for fucking crying out loud!


Take your fascist, crypto-racist, eugenicist Malthusian bullshit and shove it up your ass.

Population is not the problem - with fair economics humans can support 15 billion at least. Do you live in the eastern or southern USA? Look around where you live and see all the fertile land used to grow…nothing - thanks to capitalism. Please get an education.


Photograph seems to confirm that old saying –

“All war is on women and children”

We can’t really see what the condition of the woman is – she may be well fed –
but we can see that she is wearing the burka – covered from head to toe – in
the outfit assigned to her by male-supremacist religion which dominates her life.

Women must be able to protect the children they bear.
And where is that actually happening?

Global Warming is the Wild Card for everyone on this planet –

but, I think, that those studying hunger will still say that there is sufficient food to
feed everyone. Insufficient MONEY is the problem – and, of course, chaos of WAR.

We’ve had decades of new wars now since GHWB announced that we had overcome
the “Vietnam War Syndrome.” And their aftermath will also bring disease.


Pray tell me what is so wonderful about human beings that we need 15 Billion of us?  (See the very accurate description of humanity in the last paragraph of Dan Harris’ post, above.)   It should be quite clear to anyone reading your childish comment that YOU are the one who needs to get an education.

“Profanity is the desperate attempt of a feeble [or ignorant] mind to express itself forcefully.”

By the way, how do you propose to implement “fair economics”, and equitably distribute all that “support” (food and goods, I presume) without further significant damage to the environment in the construction of the vehicles needed to do so and production of the energy needed to operate them?     If we humans do not humanely – AND EQUITABLY – decrease our birth rate then Mother Nature will inhumanely increase our death rate significantly, and it will NOT be pretty.


This is some wisdom there Fester, and there is plenty of evidence to support it. Dig a little deeper in the soil of monoculture food production and you’ll find failed civilizations brought about by human interventions. Having all cultures doing the same thing is not diversity.


And the capitalists are making this violence possible in their own streets and abroad. So, I would have to conclude that capitalism is the central problem from ecological crisis to war.


Only 7.5 Billion of us have already succeeded in wiping out or threatening to wipe out many hundreds – if not thousands – of our fellow creatures, so take your speciesist bullshit and [expletive deleted].   Meanwhile, can you please explain what’s racist or eugenicist about advocating that every woman of every race & every class give birth to only one child for four or five generations – or at most two children for several generations – until the population of humans has dropped to level that can be supported indefinitely without serious adverse af­fects on what’s left of the natural environment and on all of the other species of life on our little planet?

And this desperately needed reduction in population need have nothing to do with fascism unless a korporate-controlled government were to force it on the masses; it should be only a matter of equitable education, as stu­dies have shown that the better educated a woman is the fewer children she desires.  And Malthus’ predictions are finally proving to be correct, but their effects were postponed by the unforseen development of modern agri­cultural techniques – especially artificial fertilizers and pesticides – that TEMPORARILY increased productivity but in the long run are destroying arable land at an ever-increasing rate.


The world governments are fixated more on wars and killing than saving the lives of the starving, particularly the starving children of the world. We have never had a contrast so extreme as it is now with gobs of resources going into wars while we as a planet experience the worst starvation ever in terms of numbers, millions of people.

Most of our national debt has been caused by our military adventures and wars on the other side of the planet. If we gave up our multi trillion dollar war addiction we would have the resources to feed the starving millions on this planet…


And the elephant in the room is zero population control. In every one of the countries where food insecurity & conflict is an issue, so is over-population. It’s not rocket science to work out that if you can’t feed one child, you shouldn’t have another twelve. The world can’t go on feeding these people while they continue to take no responsibility for their own. Yet no human rights group, no NGO is mentioning it, let alone taking any effective action to help tackle the issue for fears of being called racist. Because of that, millions will continue to suffer & die.