Quote:
Originally Posted by Xist
Poomanchu, we are trying to have a serious discussion. How would you contribute to the world with $100 billion?
|
. . . and as such, you can expect a wide range of responses.
With that said, if you cast aside all the politics, religious and cultural discussion, you can boil it down to simple economics.
The United States is an example. Our agricultural sector produces far more food than our population needs and is a net exporter. And yet, as pointed out, there is still hunger in our population. The world picture is much the same. The agricultural capacity we have could feed our entire population easily.
So why the hunger?
Production is one thing - distribution is another. Getting the food to population centers that are in need is often the largest cost in food prices. That is why hunger in America is largely centered in larger urban settings where food must be brought in. Families with borderline incomes find their food costs inflated. The same is true for third world countries that see local declines in food production and the inability to import food at a locally affordable price.
So, what is your answer? It isn't that simple of an answer, but I will respond with - energy. If your energy costs are as low as dirt, your production and distribution of the food stuffs will be also. Again, this sets aside the obvious political, religious and cultural issues that cause the hunger in the first place.
I would invest that 100 Billion dollars into bridging nuclear power technologies. I would specify liquid thorium reactors. This is a proven and viable technology that could carry us into the age of fusion - whenever that happens. This would allow our current "standard of living" to be spread around the world - a standard that needs to be redefined of course, but one all societies strive for. A high standard of living results in reduced birth rates bringing population stability.
This subject is so expansive, we can only scratch the surface.