English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

It's glaringly obvious that we in the developed world are eating far more than our fair share of the world's resources.

So I was wondering ... just what would be a "fair share"? Is there any way of finding out for sure, rather than just opinions?

2006-12-16 13:44:39 · 9 answers · asked by Girl Machine 7 in Social Science Economics

Could I have an answer in calories, for example?

2006-12-16 13:52:22 · update #1

Yes Mardy I do realise the reasons why there is such inequality. I just want to know what the answer is.

2006-12-16 14:36:53 · update #2

9 answers

The world is not suffering from a shortage of food. There isn't even a shortage of food in countries with starvation.

The problem is caused by breakdown in food distribution. Think about it - for something so important to life as food, growing the food takes time it needs to be refined and then redistributed - sometimes requiring refrigeration.

You only need a dumb government or a civil war to disrupt the food supply chain, and you create problems. Almost all famines are due to political or military causes: North Korea, China, Ireland, Ethiopia, Biafra, Bangladesh, Ukraine, Netherlands and now Darfur.

Farmers know their profession quite well and can quite happily feed the rest of humanity, as long as nobody causes problems.

If you want something worth fighting for, ask why doesn't the EU, Japan and Korea allow developing world to trade their way out of povery.

2006-12-16 14:27:25 · answer #1 · answered by Mardy 4 · 0 0

Probably just the right amount and there wouldn't be an obesity dilema in this country.

By the way, did you hear Taco Bell just invented the fourth meal?....

2006-12-16 13:49:17 · answer #2 · answered by public-opinion08 2 · 0 0

we would probably do fine , just look how much food is thrown out after closing time at restaurants , bars, grocery store , bakeries ,etc. it this food was spread over the population and we ate more sensibly , there would probably be lots

2006-12-16 13:52:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

i imagine in case your cat starts to get fat, he's lost the instinct to graze from being fed. so that you would ought to end having nutrition for all of it the time. perchance you need to get a feeder that dispenses small quantities each hour or so and get your cat decrease back into feeling his instincts to graze.

2016-11-30 20:59:19 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I believe they say that we produce about three times as much food as we need. So everybody would get plenty of food, more than we eat as it is.

2006-12-16 13:53:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Just one plate of food, with the portions equally distributed on the plate.No seconds. Only one plate of dessert.

2006-12-16 13:49:46 · answer #6 · answered by Barb 3 · 0 1

Not much, because as less people would be dying, there would be lots and lots more mouths to feed every year until the day would come that *everyone* was starving. Simple, what is needed is worldwide birth control.

2006-12-16 13:48:05 · answer #7 · answered by Clown Knows 7 · 0 3

sum up the whole world productiona and divide it with the population

2006-12-16 13:46:49 · answer #8 · answered by gp2much 2 · 0 2

I'm sorry but is that "Barbie" chick serious "AND ONLY ONE PLATE OF DESERT YOU STARVING LITTLE B*A*S*T*A*R*D*S "

2006-12-16 13:55:37 · answer #9 · answered by mojo755 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers