are there any aesthetic reasons for world hunger?

Answer 1

"Aesthetic"? so that one side of the globe can be obese/fat and the other malnourished... I don't know.. You have a non-post-modern sense of aesthetics. I don't like this bifurcation, this dichotomy. It's unfair and it doesn't do anyone any good! Diseases here and there.

Answer 2

Yes there are in some peoples minds? And then there are not any in others?
Opinions gathered are many but the truth to the situation there is world hunger now and always since the beginning of civilization it has been a problem to feed everyone. Knowing this the governments at hand (third world countries) did not plan or regulate properly to supply for the birth rates in their countries. They never organized as others have such as America Great Britain, France, etc., We still have starving people in America in all parts of the country and so do the others. However the others have millions upon millions starving and no plan to help but to have the Christian and Judaic peoples go on food drives and advertise to send to their funds to feed the starving all over the world. Some remote places never get their food, and when and if they survive from the famine they are also ridden with diseases, for their immune system has failed in some cases because of lack of nourishment. We have no choice as humans we have to eat to survive, but other places such as I mentioned dont have grocery stores or refrigeration systems. Some dont even have plumbing, electricity, or telephones? It is sad but true and certainly we would love to help the view (aesthetics) for those that think it is unsightly to be starving, but I am afraid it is impossible to over look.

Answer 3

Only if you like to look at bodies like skeletons and the swollen bellies of children with big, haunted eyes.

I saw some photos recently of fashion models who had starved themselves to the point of looking like concentration camp victims. They looked grotesque, modeling fashionable clothing with their bones showing through their skin. Is that aesthetic?

Another though comes to mind. Rich women would rather drive around in Mercedes and wear fur coats than help the poor. Another form of aesthetics.

Answer 4

Governments would rather fund war/violence and brainwashing techniques, than support human lives in need. It stinks, but that's the world of humans we live in. Most people would just assume that the world is hungry, because it's fat and has a really big appetite. Imagine how much the planet would have to eat for breakfast. That's world hunger for you.

Answer 5

I don't know what awsthetics would have to do with world hunger?

I never understood why you would send food to feed people that live on a land that can't sustain them. For what? So they can breed more people to sit and starve? That's crazy.

Or to send food to people who let cattle wonder around in their streets and feed milk to rats in temples but let themselves and their children starve? Is there a point to that...?

Change their conditions so that they can feed themselves and then let them do so. As long as you sustain poverty you will have poverty. Stop the hand-holding with the impoverished so they can use those freed hands to build themselves a better life.

Answer 6

Only if you consider that Madison Avenue proponents show only skinny women in their ads in hopes that the rest of the world would be skinner. Less food = hunger = money for designers

Answer 7

Proponents of agricultural biotechnology mince no works when they assert our moral obligation to support biotechnology. In an opinion piece in the Minneapolis StarTribune, the ambassador to the U.S. Mission of the UN Agencies for Food and Agriculture, former senator George McGovern, chastised biotech foes by stating:

Answer 8

Yes. Hunger is good. You won't be able to enjoy food if you are not hungry. Hunger makes food taste great. In fact, it is the best appetizer in the world!

Answer 9

Since the 'waif' look is out, no, there is no 'aesthetic' reason.