The battle between feeding the impoverished and how large of an environmental impact justifies the obligation that society has for the needy is an important conversation. Peter Singer believes our obligation is to reduce the suffering in the world. Feeding the impoverished around the world is a worthy endeavor if the costs don’t outweigh the benefits. The process of completely eliminating hunger in the world would require a large ecological footprint that would put in danger the world. Currently, the food distribution in the world is disproportionately used by the wealthy countries additionally the food they have is wasted in large quantities. Reducing the waste from first world nations and having more donated to the third world would help.
…show more content…
Rolston points out that if we did follow the principle of feed the hungry above all else the results would cause a “paralyze[d] civilization” (Rolston 250). Rolston is right, having all resources being prioritized for just feeding the hunger would stall most trades, luxury product companies would go bankrupt and the employees would lose their job and would be adversely affected. Innovations would cease because the money would be needed to feed the hungry and the lack of new innovations would lower the future living standards. The environment is another factor that would be adversely affected by a hard focus on feeding the hungry over all else. Bringing back Brazil as an example, we see the Amazon forest being leveled and unprecedented numbers of species becoming extinct. The cattle being grown on the leveled fields are producing methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas, and the global temperature rises in response to the gas being in the atmosphere. Rising temperatures cause oceans to rise, more deserts, and extreme weather that all negatively impact humans, animals, and biodiversity in ecosystems. Feeding humans with reckless abandon for other principles can be devastating for the world conjointly, that includes the humans that society is trying to …show more content…
There may not be a dichotomy between the two options. Global hunger rates have fallen in the past twenty years from nearly twenty percent down to toady’s rate of ten percent. During that time, we have seen countries develop more ecological practices for food and deforestation. An example of this is in the United States, there is actual growth in the amount of forest cover. There is also a strong movement in the United States to move to organic foods and less harmful foods for the land health. On the nonorganic side, we have technological developments in GMO’s that increase yield size and food size while just using the same amount of land. These movements in first world nations are fantastic. However, they don’t address where the real problem lies, the growth in population in third world nations and the practices that are occurring in these nations. Advocacy and education would go a long way in helping people have more effective and ecological farming practices. Growing beans or even raising chicken instead of raising cattle would save the amount of land needed and the amount of greenhouse gases being produced. Education about safe sex practices and the economics of having children would help curb population growth naturally, a reduction in the growth of the population also helps in feeding the existing population and help with preservation
Rolston points out that if we did follow the principle of feed the hungry above all else the results would cause a “paralyze[d] civilization” (Rolston 250). Rolston is right, having all resources being prioritized for just feeding the hunger would stall most trades, luxury product companies would go bankrupt and the employees would lose their job and would be adversely affected. Innovations would cease because the money would be needed to feed the hungry and the lack of new innovations would lower the future living standards. The environment is another factor that would be adversely affected by a hard focus on feeding the hungry over all else. Bringing back Brazil as an example, we see the Amazon forest being leveled and unprecedented numbers of species becoming extinct. The cattle being grown on the leveled fields are producing methane, which is a potent greenhouse gas, and the global temperature rises in response to the gas being in the atmosphere. Rising temperatures cause oceans to rise, more deserts, and extreme weather that all negatively impact humans, animals, and biodiversity in ecosystems. Feeding humans with reckless abandon for other principles can be devastating for the world conjointly, that includes the humans that society is trying to …show more content…
There may not be a dichotomy between the two options. Global hunger rates have fallen in the past twenty years from nearly twenty percent down to toady’s rate of ten percent. During that time, we have seen countries develop more ecological practices for food and deforestation. An example of this is in the United States, there is actual growth in the amount of forest cover. There is also a strong movement in the United States to move to organic foods and less harmful foods for the land health. On the nonorganic side, we have technological developments in GMO’s that increase yield size and food size while just using the same amount of land. These movements in first world nations are fantastic. However, they don’t address where the real problem lies, the growth in population in third world nations and the practices that are occurring in these nations. Advocacy and education would go a long way in helping people have more effective and ecological farming practices. Growing beans or even raising chicken instead of raising cattle would save the amount of land needed and the amount of greenhouse gases being produced. Education about safe sex practices and the economics of having children would help curb population growth naturally, a reduction in the growth of the population also helps in feeding the existing population and help with preservation