this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2025
242 points (99.6% liked)

World News

50860 readers
1243 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Ending hunger by 2030 would cost just $93 billion a year — less than one per cent of the $21.9 trillion spent on military budgets over the past decade, according to the UN World Food Programme (WFP).

top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 35 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

The challenge here is that it takes more than money to solve world hunger.

You also need some way to prevent the greedy from hoarding food and using it as a weapon to subjugate others, keeping them hungry.

As usual, the problem isn’t lack of food or lack of money, it’s greedy people not wanting to share.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 8 points 1 hour ago (1 children)
[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

Or, like, US aid just this year

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

This has been the problem since time immemorial. If you have a solution, you are a better person than I.

[–] errer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

What if we sent so much food that the hoarders couldn’t hoard it all? Just a metric assload of food. Eventually food is so cheap and plentiful the hoarders give up.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 1 points 35 minutes ago* (last edited 33 minutes ago)

You flood their market with cheap food and you put all their domestic farmers out of business.

Dumping charity on developing countries rarely works. You need to help them invest in their economy. This was shown with that micro loans paper (which won a Nobel prize).

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 1 points 1 hour ago

The hoarders have guns. They will take it all, and they will be able to recruit more with the promise of that food.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

Yes, but do non-hungry people help rich people kill and rob others as well as weapons?

They never ask the right questions!

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 19 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Moving military funds into food aid would be extra effective considering that world hunger is largely created by military spending.

[–] CountVlad47@feddit.org 24 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

If he wanted to, Elon Musk could personally fund this five times over and still have a few billion left.

[–] Sibshops@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 2 hours ago

Good luck convincing Putin. Until that happens it isn't like many countries in Europe can cut on military spending.

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Why is an annual figure being directly compared to an "over the past decade" figure?

You missed the "by 2030" part, indicating that what's being compared to the decade of military spending is the overall, not yearly, cost.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone -3 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

Feeding people directly creates a dependant population, you need to solve the problems of food supply locally

[–] garbagebagel@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago

In some cases sure, but there are places that require emergency food supplies because their local sources have been destroyed (usually by war or colonization/genocide), so you need to be able to feed people in the interim while they rebuild their means of food production.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 4 points 2 hours ago

While I do agree it's more complicated than "money = food," a lot of this complexity is fueled by imperialism of one kind or another, so this isn't an "oh well that's just life" situation. People would be less hungry if, for example, the people keeping them hungry weren't financed and armed by America and (occasionally) China. The message of "we could fix this if we wanted" is still accurate.

[–] NotAnotherLemmyUser@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

This is an important point. Simply giving a ton of rice to an area will put the rice farmers in that area out of business.

They'll need to grow something else to make a living, but then when the next year comes around, no one is making rice anymore and they'll be dependent on that external flow of rice.