Although World Hunger may seem to be completely solved for the majority of people in developed countries, it is not entirely true. Diverse issues concerning this global problem can be considered urgent or damaging for some nations or even continents. For example, despite the presence of several developing and industrial countries in Africa, most of the continent’s inhabitants lead an agricultural lifestyle and live under conditions of constant hunger. Therefore, an appropriate solution requires to be found in order to provide broad-based prosperity and admissible living conditions.
World hunger can be caused by diverse reasons, which lead to the establishment of different concepts about the issue. The most common reasons for famine are poverty, food shortages, war, armed conflicts, global warming, the economy, poor public policy and food nutrition, gender inequality, food waste, as well as forced migration. Hence, the global understanding of world hunger can be viewed in correlation with other ubiquitous issues, and the reason for various solutions is the distinctions between its diverse concepts and directions.
For example, poverty tends to be one of the most significant factors that contribute to global hunger. In terms of famine, inadmissible living conditions lead to the inability to purchase healthy food. Additionally, the majority of poor families often sell their household goods, devices, and clothes to provide their relatives and children with the minimum amount of food and water. Living under the line of poverty results in a decrease in health levels, higher death rates, and expanding world hunger, especially in poor domestic areas. The Democratic Republic of Congo can be presented as an example of these factors’ influence. The second enormous problem causing global hunger is the ubiquitous food shortage that is mostly applicable to African countries as well. Generally, in this case, famine emerges under the affection of global warming, inappropriate weather for cultivating activities, the overall poverty across certain regions, and the population’s low educational level. In addition, global hunger shows a tendency to fluctuation depending on the year’s seasons; for example, when in certain tribes, the food from the previous harvest is ceased.
War or armed conflicts are often the primary reason for broad-based hunger. For example, in such countries as Sudan, Syria, or Iraq, the confrontations among diverse belligerent groups led to poverty, the decay of natural and human resources, and a shortage of land suitable for cultivating activities. Under such conditions, the populations of specific countries suffer from famine and struggle to get access to nutritious food. Hence, it can be stated that several reasons and issues for world hunger can be grouped based on their distinctions and similarities, such as economic, martial, social, or environmental factors.
A number of scholars and scientists express their concerns about global hunger and often consider it the most significant social problem comparable with the climate crisis. For example, Peter Singer and Garrett Hardin depict the importance of famine and suggest diverse solutions for the cease of the problem in their publications and scientific research. Both researchers argue about helping the less lucky and wealthy ones or leaving them without support and donation. The issue is rather controversial. Hence, scientists express diverse opinions regarding the world hunger and poverty problem. Singer’s main idea is that if people can provide starving, dying, and struggling people with help or financial support, they should definitely do it (Boesch, 2021). However, Hardin argues his viewpoint and supports the idea of “no sharing,” which means no donation from the wealthy ones (Hardin, 1974). Those viewpoints cannot be defined as correct or incorrect, ethical or unethical, because both have their risks and benefits. Therefore, they require to be examined and estimated to find the right compromise for solving this existing catastrophe.
On the one hand, people living in wealthier and more economically developed countries cannot be forced to donate to save other people from dying. Additionally, it cannot be considered an ethically inappropriate decision as such citizens do not bear any responsibility for the lives of poorer nations. However, when individuals see some donation or volunteering proposals and do not perform any actions, they generally feel guilty despite their non-participation. Singer explains that if there is any chance of helping someone to survive, then this opportunity has to be taken, and the person needs to be saved. Due to the complexity of people’s lives, this cannot be taken as the only right decision. For example, many people in the United States live under the line of poverty and often cannot afford to buy even vital products. However, American citizens prefer to donate to children in Africa instead of helping those who live only several miles away. In addition, Singer’s idea is rather extreme as it requires every citizen living under appropriate or satisfying living conditions to donate their money instead of buying more goods and services for themselves.
In comparison to Singer’s opinion, Hardin takes just the opposite position on the issue. However, the no-sharing concept can be considered extreme as well. For example, celebrities having millions or even billions of dollars could take part in diverse volunteering activities to encourage others willing to help to do so. Business corporations could apply a particular part of their profit to the establishment of specialized funds for helping people in need.
Such a viewpoint cannot be considered totally correct as well due to the broad-based integration and international relations between different political leaders and countries. Hardin thinks that people should not share their incomes or wealth with the poorer representatives of the community and focus on the increase of their own well-being (Hardin, 1974). No evidence is needed to state that the refusal to donate and invest in poverty and world hunger will lead to an enormous difference in economic and socio-cultural levels among various countries and continents. This situation will not be beneficial for both sides as such causes as lowering international trade volumes, growing number of immigrants and refugees, as well as overall economic stagnation will be seen. Therefore, the concept of no sharing might be inappropriate based on its radicalism and damaging outcomes.
Blind donations cannot help other nations succeed or fight the problem. More than money, such countries need support in developing and implementing advanced technology and learning to deal with climate change and diverse natural disasters. Additionally, modifications in the political, economic, and social spheres would be beneficial; hence, developed countries and their citizen would play a greater role by teaching volunteers than by donating. Hence, the right solution for the issue can be found by overlapping both Hardin’s and Singer’s suggestions. The donations should continue; however, those actions should be voluntary; therefore, only those who want to help should do it. Such funds are relevant in combination with the increase of knowledge, development of production, and economy. Donations and sponsorships without an actual rise in productivity are irrelevant and unprofitable.
References
Boesch, B. (2021). Ethics and absolute poverty: Peter Singer and effective altruism. 1000-Word Philosophy. Web.
Hardin, G. (1974). Lifeboat ethics: The case against helping the poor. The Garret Hardin Society. Web.