Saving the World with $100 billion.

[RustyLugNut]

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.

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by Xist

we are trying to have a serious discussion.

Lol, well no, I mean you have to look at the specifics, for folks living in a non-farmable area, there isn't a chance to be food independent. If they don't have industry then they can't buy food. If you go to the middle class in country A and say "lets give them a crapton of money" it will be either to give them an expensive fish, or take fishing jobs away from home.

I suppose if you can dig into the specifics, identify which regions have the largest hungry populations and why, and what options there are, you might have a paper. Some populations might have to relocate to be sustainable, others might have trade options.

There are a few projects (though with all the lib hype) such as the heifer project, and other startup loans for various business in the developing world (man that phrase bothers me, that we are presumptuous to call ourselves "developed"). But if they want our lifestyle, or our cognitive dissonance compels us to impose our lifestyle, then they have to act the part.

It's $100 billion, you better put some thought into it

[user removed]

Pop got lucky once and caught a lot of fish, in the middle of the great depression when thay had 13 family members and $100 a month in income. People were going hungry big time in 1932.

When he tried to give some of his surplus away, the potential recipients wanted to know if the fish had been cleaned!

We have enough debt now to cover the total net worth of over 17,000,000 millionaires (a fictitional millionaire worth exactly 1 million US dollars).

What's another 100,000 millionaires (fictitional)? I guess it's like what does it matter if the financial tsunami is a mile high or a mile and an additional 100 yards high. In either case it will be catastrophic.

It's gotten so bad the news yaps can't even get the number right, millions, billions, trillions. the only problem is one is a million times the other.

My uncle caught a 600 pound grouper off of Key West, carreid it to the fish market in Key West. They told him they could not use it. he sat outside the market, hacking chunks of grouper off the carcass and gave it to every potential customer before they got to the market. After about 30 minutes, they decided they could use the rest after all.

regards
Mech

[redneck]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

^ = ROFL

The title says "saving the world" but we're only talking about the U.S. Which is it?

According to the first post. The title says "saving the world" but the body of the post leans more towards the U.S. problem.


>

[Xist]

Rusty, P-hack, and Old Mech, thank you for your responses. I probably should have chosen a title less ambitious than saving the world, but if this plan were to work (and it were ever implemented in the first place), we would expand from there.

Rusty, we have recently discussed nuclear power in my classes. People do not seem open to the idea, which brings us back to the world not wanting to be saved.

People really like the idea of solar power, but without being able to connect dark parts of the world with light parts, it just does not seem reasonable. I can only imagine how big the power cord for an entire country would be, and how difficult it would be to span continents. I cannot imagine that it would ever be viable to build a solar power satellite.

P-hack, yes, it would make sense to research sustainable areas. Some people do migrate for better opportunities, although I am not going to pretend that everybody would be able to.

Old Mech, I believe that there have been innumerable examples of the News sources not being accurate. My best friend always talks about Walter Cronkite being one of the first to editorialize, and we have continually suffered with news opinion since.

[Xist]

Redneck, you have had some great contributions to this discussion, and I thanked you for them.

I wrote that world hunger was too big to handle and at the time my solution was to remedy U.S. hunger, although the money would only last for a year or two. However, we moved past that almost immediately, and I wish that everybody would let it go. I have been trying to discuss the same idea since post #25, but people prefer trolling.

Originally Posted by Xist

There is a world outside of America?

Originally Posted by Xist

Then take 4.9 billion and find some desolate villages and using as much local labor as possible, give them a clean water source, vaccines, make sure they can grow their own food, support the local schools, and provide scholarships for the best students.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post409777

Can we please discuss that or any actual ideas how to help people throughout the world, instead of one comment by one guy in one country that did not want to be too ambitious, and overreach his grasp?

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Xist

Rusty, we have recently discussed nuclear power in my classes. People do not seem open to the idea, which brings us back to the world not wanting to be saved.

I assumed I have the ability to obtain the 100 Billion and implement the plan.

The average person is an idiot when it comes to nuclear power. I have to assume that some of the 100 Billion dollars would go towards effectively educating the public about Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

I assumed I have the ability to obtain the 100 Billion and implement the plan.

The average person is an idiot when it comes to nuclear power. I have to assume that some of the 100 Billion dollars would go towards effectively educating the public about Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.

I was just thinking that I might spend the entire paper trying to educate my professor only to receive a failing grade.

[user removed]

Precisely one of the reasons why I did not pursue a "higher" education. Learned more in and from the library.

Maybe the best way would be to use the method Morgan Freeman used in the Shawshank Redemption toiget his parole, but you risk a crushing grade depending on the philosophy of the teacher-professor, which is truly sad.

regards
Mech

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Xist

I was just thinking that I might spend the entire paper trying to educate my professor only to receive a failing grade.

Call it the jelly belly reactor. The point is, cheap, plentiful power is what started us on the industrial path and is what is needed to allow everyone to live this dream ( of a modern lifestyle ).

Show how modern societies have reduced birthrates along with higher standards of living and how plentiful and diffuse energy sources eliminate the societies need to war on each other to maintain and grow this standard.

Is this paper yours or his? Writing to please a professor is far different than writing to find answers for yourself and foment honest discussion. I have received failing grades for differing with my liberal professors. But, I believed as strongly about my position and had educated myself in the process of research that I was able to defend my position in a student board of inquiry and force a retraction of the failing grade from the professor.

It's up to you. Do you go to school to learn or to pass a class?