Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
enough to end world hunger. I feel confident that every
state, and maybe even every major city, produces
millions of pounds of food waste every single day. That
wasted food goes to feed rats and other vermin we would
rather *not* feed in dumps and landfills, while humans we
would rather feed are starving. Much of the nutrition which
makes life possible--any amount or form of which is rare
and treasured to hungry people all over this planet--has
become nothing but a problem to get rid of for those of
us fortunate enough to have the "problem". Even if only
a small percentage of the people who have the problem
were to participate in organized group efforts, it's almost
certain that a large percentage of world hunger and
starvation could be reduced or eliminated. The garbage
from McDonald's alone could save how many human
lives?

How to do it? Organization and agreement to commit to
the projects would be a first step. What to commit to would
of course be a necessary consideration. How to store,
transfer and sanitize the waste food would be some of the
biggest obstacles to overcome. Making regular use of
food grinders, dehydrators, possibly crushers of some sort,
probably UV sanitizing methods, and packaging systems
would be required on both the private and commercial
participant level. Collection and distribution would
be on a bigger scale, and would require properly developed
business level organizations and facilities in order to make
productive use of what so many of us consider to be waste.
Some sort of incentive to participate besides simply providing
life for other humans would probably also be required, or else
systems such as that would have been established and
working for years already.

How to begin? The first thing would be to accept the idea
that it would be possible, and could be made practical and
maybe even beneficial to those who are willing to participate.
It would probably have to begin on a small scale, with groups
of interested people working together to help select other
groups and individuals in their local areas. It needs to be
kept in mind that those who would survive and benefit from
such a change in the thinking and efforts of those who could
help them, would be dependant on the stability of the system.

But there's already a surplus of food. So would it be a waste
of time? Even if we could dry, sanitize and package millions
of pounds of nutrition from our food waste every day, would
it be of no real value? Are people who are starving just going
to have to continue to starve, regardless of how much extra
food more fortunate people have to deal with?

On Apr 5, 1:38 am, dh@. wrote:
> Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
> enough to end world hunger. I feel confident that every
> state, and maybe even every major city, produces
> millions of pounds of food waste every single day. That
> wasted food goes to feed rats and other vermin we would
> rather *not* feed in dumps and landfills, while humans we
> would rather feed are starving. Much of the nutrition which
> makes life possible--any amount or form of which is rare
> and treasured to hungry people all over this planet--has
> become nothing but a problem to get rid of for those of
> us fortunate enough to have the "problem". Even if only
> a small percentage of the people who have the problem
> were to participate in organized group efforts, it's almost
> certain that a large percentage of world hunger and
> starvation could be reduced or eliminated. The garbage
> from McDonald's alone could save how many human
> lives?
>
> How to do it? Organization and agreement to commit to
> the projects would be a first step. What to commit to would
> of course be a necessary consideration. How to store,
> transfer and sanitize the waste food would be some of the
> biggest obstacles to overcome. Making regular use of
> food grinders, dehydrators, possibly crushers of some sort,
> probably UV sanitizing methods, and packaging systems
> would be required on both the private and commercial
> participant level. Collection and distribution would
> be on a bigger scale, and would require properly developed
> business level organizations and facilities in order to make
> productive use of what so many of us consider to be waste.
> Some sort of incentive to participate besides simply providing
> life for other humans would probably also be required, or else
> systems such as that would have been established and
> working for years already.
>
> How to begin? The first thing would be to accept the idea
> that it would be possible, and could be made practical and
> maybe even beneficial to those who are willing to participate.
> It would probably have to begin on a small scale, with groups
> of interested people working together to help select other
> groups and individuals in their local areas. It needs to be
> kept in mind that those who would survive and benefit from
> such a change in the thinking and efforts of those who could
> help them, would be dependant on the stability of the system.
>
> But there's already a surplus of food. So would it be a waste
> of time? Even if we could dry, sanitize and package millions
> of pounds of nutrition from our food waste every day, would
> it be of no real value? Are people who are starving just going
> to have to continue to starve, regardless of how much extra
> food more fortunate people have to deal with?

There are all sorts of things we *could* do to help hungry people. We
could pay to send them the leftovers from McDonald's, or we could pay
for real food to be grown for them close to where they are. The
problem is that there are limits to the costs we are willing to bear
on their behalf. I'm not sure your suggestion is a particularly cost-
effective way of helping people. I think you'd find you could provide
people with better nutrition for the same or less money if you just
gave them some economic assistance so that they could buy their own
food, hopefully with a view towards helping them become self-
sufficient in the long run. If you want to help hungry people and
enourage others to do so, that's great.

On 6 Apr 2007 23:25:05 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:

>On Apr 5, 1:38 am, dh@. wrote:
>> Our garbage...our food waste...would almost certainly be
>> enough to end world hunger. I feel confident that every
>> state, and maybe even every major city, produces
>> millions of pounds of food waste every single day. That
>> wasted food goes to feed rats and other vermin we would
>> rather *not* feed in dumps and landfills, while humans we
>> would rather feed are starving. Much of the nutrition which
>> makes life possible--any amount or form of which is rare
>> and treasured to hungry people all over this planet--has
>> become nothing but a problem to get rid of for those of
>> us fortunate enough to have the "problem". Even if only
>> a small percentage of the people who have the problem
>> were to participate in organized group efforts, it's almost
>> certain that a large percentage of world hunger and
>> starvation could be reduced or eliminated. The garbage
>> from McDonald's alone could save how many human
>> lives?
>>
>> How to do it? Organization and agreement to commit to
>> the projects would be a first step. What to commit to would
>> of course be a necessary consideration. How to store,
>> transfer and sanitize the waste food would be some of the
>> biggest obstacles to overcome. Making regular use of
>> food grinders, dehydrators, possibly crushers of some sort,
>> probably UV sanitizing methods, and packaging systems
>> would be required on both the private and commercial
>> participant level. Collection and distribution would
>> be on a bigger scale, and would require properly developed
>> business level organizations and facilities in order to make
>> productive use of what so many of us consider to be waste.
>> Some sort of incentive to participate besides simply providing
>> life for other humans would probably also be required, or else
>> systems such as that would have been established and
>> working for years already.
>>
>> How to begin? The first thing would be to accept the idea
>> that it would be possible, and could be made practical and
>> maybe even beneficial to those who are willing to participate.
>> It would probably have to begin on a small scale, with groups
>> of interested people working together to help select other
>> groups and individuals in their local areas. It needs to be
>> kept in mind that those who would survive and benefit from
>> such a change in the thinking and efforts of those who could
>> help them, would be dependant on the stability of the system.
>>
>> But there's already a surplus of food. So would it be a waste
>> of time? Even if we could dry, sanitize and package millions
>> of pounds of nutrition from our food waste every day, would
>> it be of no real value? Are people who are starving just going
>> to have to continue to starve, regardless of how much extra
>> food more fortunate people have to deal with?
>
>There are all sorts of things we *could* do to help hungry people. We
>could pay to send them the leftovers from McDonald's, or we could pay
>for real food to be grown for them close to where they are.

We already have the food grown though, and there are
no worries about whether there will be a good crop, or what
it's doing to the environment, or people stealing it, or
destroying it out of hatred, or anything like that. We would
have to transport it farther, but that would be the only
disadvantage over growing locally. Also, growing locally would
require that the food be stored in the area, which would involve
another whole universe of problems, transportation still being
among them.

What I imagine to begin with would be for organizations
like McDonald's, schools and universities, the military, hospitals
etc, to set it up so they can sanitize and dehydrate food, maybe
crushing it down to a granular type of substance in the process.
They would probably need to seal their final product, buy maybe
not if more sanitization was done after it left their hands. Vitamins
and flavoring would probably be added later by the distribution
and bulk storage organizations. After getting it into a form like that,
handling should become easy. It could be kept in bags or boxes or
bottles or drums...with no need for refrigeration. People could eat
it dry, or mix it with water or milk.

>The
>problem is that there are limits to the costs we are willing to bear
>on their behalf. I'm not sure your suggestion is a particularly cost-
>effective way of helping people.

Some costs would have to be paid by some people somewhere
along the line. But voluntary contributions of food and some of the
labor involved with the first steps of processing could take a big
bite out of total costs. There would probably have to be a way of
writing it off of taxes for the contributing organizations too, and/or
some type(s) of incentive. It would be good for public image though,
and a positive thing for our society in general. It could encourage
a more considerate and generous feeling in people overall. And
even though in some cases it would defeat the old "eat your food
because there are people starving" "argument", what replaces it
might end up being worth that loss.

>I think you'd find you could provide
>people with better nutrition for the same or less money if you just
>gave them some economic assistance so that they could buy their own
>food,

It seems likely that in most cases there would be none within
their reach availble to buy. When it gets down to starvation
like that, the value of things can probably change greatly from
what we are familiar with.

>hopefully with a view towards helping them become self-
>sufficient in the long run.

I'm sure every situation is different, and there are different
reasons why people aren't getting enough to eat. Maybe there
are situations where the people just can't figure out how to
feed themselves, but in most cases I'm pretty convinced that
there are limitations preventing them from being able to do so.
So why do they stay where they are? What could be useful
in their area? They are potential laborers, and I saw a
documentary about slavery in which people were trying to
become slaves. One of the things required was for them
to strip off their shirt and be beaten with a cane. That is
some people who *want* to become slaves! If people
wanted to start industries in such areas they could have
almost free labor...just give them a certain amount of
the food and maybe some water in return for a certain
amount of labor. It could be done in an inhumane and
totally exploitive way, or it could be made good for everyone
involved, depending on the greed of those in charge.

>If you want to help hungry people and
>enourage others to do so, that's great.

Thanks. It's something to think about anyway. Even
if it will never do any good, it's fun to figure out how
things *could* be worked out.

>
> We already have the food grown though, and there are
> no worries about whether there will be a good crop, or what
> it's doing to the environment, or people stealing it, or
> destroying it out of hatred, or anything like that.

your new food supply would have no effect whatsoever on the environment? It
will be immune to theft? It would be immune to destruction out of hatred?
or anything like that?

if that is true, nobody would want to eat it inthe first place!


>

>>The
>>problem is that there are limits to the costs we are willing to bear
>>on their behalf. I'm not sure your suggestion is a particularly cost-
>>effective way of helping people.


true. nobody is strving due to a lack of food on this planet. People are
starving due to politics and corruption.

>
>>I think you'd find you could provide
>>people with better nutrition for the same or less money if you just
>>gave them some economic assistance so that they could buy their own
>>food,

you would do better by ending the corruption, and allowing them to grow
their own food, become eductated, and pull themselves up, rahter than
throwing even more money, however well intentioned, down the rat hole.

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 15:49:29 GMT, "Gil Faver" > wrote:

>
>>
>> We already have the food grown though, and there are
>> no worries about whether there will be a good crop, or what
>> it's doing to the environment, or people stealing it, or
>> destroying it out of hatred, or anything like that.
>
>your new food supply would have no effect whatsoever on the environment? It
>will be immune to theft? It would be immune to destruction out of hatred?
>or anything like that?

There will always be such worries, but the chances of them
happening vary in different parts of the world.

>if that is true, nobody would want to eat it inthe first place!
>
>
>>
>
>>>The
>>>problem is that there are limits to the costs we are willing to bear
>>>on their behalf. I'm not sure your suggestion is a particularly cost-
>>>effective way of helping people.
>
>
>true. nobody is strving due to a lack of food on this planet. People are
>starving due to politics and corruption.
>
>>
>>>I think you'd find you could provide
>>>people with better nutrition for the same or less money if you just
>>>gave them some economic assistance so that they could buy their own
>>>food,
>
>you would do better by ending the corruption, and allowing them to grow
>their own food, become eductated, and pull themselves up,

Part of the idea would be to prevent them from starving before
that happens.

>rahter than
>throwing even more money, however well intentioned, down the rat hole.

On Apr 4, 11:38 am, dh@. wrote:
<snip>
> But there's already a surplus of food. So would it be a waste
> of time? Even if we could dry, sanitize and package millions
> of pounds of nutrition from our food waste every day, would
> it be of no real value? Are people who are starving just going
> to have to continue to starve, regardless of how much extra
> food more fortunate people have to deal with?

Please cite the study/reference which leads you to somehow make the
statement that the waste products of approx 300 millions can be
salvaged to feed the larger masses of the hungry. That sounds like a
negative supply equation if ever I heard one. You obviously don't have
any real idea of the size/scope of the problem. You want to "sanitize"
it? Process something that is presently unsuitable for human
consumption into something that is? Furthermore, you want to incur a
massive energy debt to produce this product and then deliver it to its
destination? More greenhouse gases that the planet does not need.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green

a fictional story (probably before your time). An interesting tale on
a somewhat related topic.

The law of supply and demand will reign supreme. Food in sufficient
quantity has to be produced in near proximity to where the consumers
live. If it cannot be, famine is the unpreventable result which will
bring supply and demand back into balance.

GrtArtiste

On 8 Apr 2007 07:17:27 -0700, "GrtArtiste" > wrote:

>On Apr 4, 11:38 am, dh@. wrote:
><snip>
>> But there's already a surplus of food. So would it be a waste
>> of time? Even if we could dry, sanitize and package millions
>> of pounds of nutrition from our food waste every day, would
>> it be of no real value? Are people who are starving just going
>> to have to continue to starve, regardless of how much extra
>> food more fortunate people have to deal with?
>
>Please cite the study/reference which leads you to somehow make the
>statement that the waste products of approx 300 millions can be
>salvaged to feed the larger masses of the hungry.

Maybe not. It could sure feed millions of them though.

>That sounds like a
>negative supply equation if ever I heard one. You obviously don't have
>any real idea of the size/scope of the problem.

How many people are starving?

>You want to "sanitize"
>it? Process something that is presently unsuitable for human
>consumption

Only because someone may have licked it or something.

>into something that is? Furthermore, you want to incur a
>massive energy debt to produce this product and then deliver it to its
>destination? More greenhouse gases that the planet does not need.
>
>See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
>
>a fictional story (probably before your time). An interesting tale on
>a somewhat related topic.
>
>The law of supply and demand will reign supreme.

The supply is being thrown away, doing no good at all.

>Food in sufficient
>quantity has to be produced in near proximity to where the consumers
>live. If it cannot be, famine is the unpreventable result which will
>bring supply and demand back into balance.
>
>GrtArtiste

So are you saying never help starving people? Or only
do it so rarely that it doesn't matter what we do with our
garbage. Well, that's what we're doing now, so maybe
everything is as it should be.

On Apr 11, 10:05 am, dh@. wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2007 07:17:27 -0700, "GrtArtiste" > wrote:
>
> >On Apr 4, 11:38 am, dh@. wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> But there's already a surplus of food. So would it be a waste
> >> of time? Even if we could dry, sanitize and package millions
> >> of pounds of nutrition from our food waste every day, would
> >> it be of no real value? Are people who are starving just going
> >> to have to continue to starve, regardless of how much extra
> >> food more fortunate people have to deal with?
>
> >Please cite the study/reference which leads you to somehow make the
> >statement that the waste products of approx 300 millions can be
> >salvaged to feed the larger masses of the hungry.
>
> Maybe not. It could sure feed millions of them though.
>
> >That sounds like a
> >negative supply equation if ever I heard one. You obviously don't have
> >any real idea of the size/scope of the problem.
>
> How many people are starving?
>
> >You want to "sanitize"
> >it? Process something that is presently unsuitable for human
> >consumption
>
> Only because someone may have licked it or something.
>
> >into something that is? Furthermore, you want to incur a
> >massive energy debt to produce this product and then deliver it to its
> >destination? More greenhouse gases that the planet does not need.
>
> >See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
>
> >a fictional story (probably before your time). An interesting tale on
> >a somewhat related topic.
>
> >The law of supply and demand will reign supreme.
>
> The supply is being thrown away, doing no good at all.
>
> >Food in sufficient
> >quantity has to be produced in near proximity to where the consumers
> >live. If it cannot be, famine is the unpreventable result which will
> >bring supply and demand back into balance.
>
> >GrtArtiste
>
> So are you saying never help starving people? Or only
> do it so rarely that it doesn't matter what we do with our
> garbage. Well, that's what we're doing now, so maybe
> everything is as it should be.

dh would be eating himself in the garbage in,
garbage out world.

dh is the original garbage/humanoid.

On 15 Apr 2007 20:29:06 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" > wrote:

>On Apr 11, 10:05 am, dh@. wrote:
>> On 8 Apr 2007 07:17:27 -0700, "GrtArtiste" > wrote:
>>
>> >On Apr 4, 11:38 am, dh@. wrote:
>> ><snip>
>> >> But there's already a surplus of food. So would it be a waste
>> >> of time? Even if we could dry, sanitize and package millions
>> >> of pounds of nutrition from our food waste every day, would
>> >> it be of no real value? Are people who are starving just going
>> >> to have to continue to starve, regardless of how much extra
>> >> food more fortunate people have to deal with?
>>
>> >Please cite the study/reference which leads you to somehow make the
>> >statement that the waste products of approx 300 millions can be
>> >salvaged to feed the larger masses of the hungry.
>>
>> Maybe not. It could sure feed millions of them though.
>>
>> >That sounds like a
>> >negative supply equation if ever I heard one. You obviously don't have
>> >any real idea of the size/scope of the problem.
>>
>> How many people are starving?
>>
>> >You want to "sanitize"
>> >it? Process something that is presently unsuitable for human
>> >consumption
>>
>> Only because someone may have licked it or something.
>>
>> >into something that is? Furthermore, you want to incur a
>> >massive energy debt to produce this product and then deliver it to its
>> >destination? More greenhouse gases that the planet does not need.
>>
>> >See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green
>>
>> >a fictional story (probably before your time). An interesting tale on
>> >a somewhat related topic.
>>
>> >The law of supply and demand will reign supreme.
>>
>> The supply is being thrown away, doing no good at all.
>>
>> >Food in sufficient
>> >quantity has to be produced in near proximity to where the consumers
>> >live. If it cannot be, famine is the unpreventable result which will
>> >bring supply and demand back into balance.
>>
>> >GrtArtiste
>>
>> So are you saying never help starving people? Or only
>> do it so rarely that it doesn't matter what we do with our
>> garbage. Well, that's what we're doing now, so maybe
>> everything is as it should be.
>
>dh would be eating himself in the garbage in,
>garbage out world.
>
>dh is the original garbage/humanoid.

It might not seem like as much a waste if you could give
more consideration to animals.