This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

For those of you on probation...

edited October 2008 in Everything Else
Freerice.com now features an English grammar category!

This is an excellent way to learn English grammar while also feeding starving people.
«1

Comments

  • edited October 2008
    I've never understood these sorts of sponsorship-powered donations. The way they generally work is a sponsor comes in and buys some advertising. The sponsor then agrees to give a certain amount of money to charity based on some arbitrary metric. You usually see this at sporting events where a company will donate $X for every home run hit by the home team.

    Why bother tying the donation to some metric like that? Sure it can be fun, but why not just donate the maximum you are willing to donate? Instead of having sponsors pay according to how many questions are answered correctly, why not just have them donate as much as they are willing? They aren't going to give more than that no mater how many questions we answer or home runs are hit. We're only decreasing the donation by tying it to a metric.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • I've never understood these sorts of sponsorship-powered donations. The way they generally work is a sponsor comes in and buys some advertising. The sponsor then agrees to give a certain amount of money to charity based on some arbitrary metric. You usually see this at sporting events where a company will donate $X for every home run hit by the home team.

    Why bother tying the donation to some metric like that? Sure it can be fun, but why not just donate the maximum you are willing to donate? Instead of having sponsors pay according to how many questions are answered correctly, why not just have them donate as much as they are willing? They aren't going to give more than that no mater how many questions we answer or home runs are hit. We're only decreasing the donation by tying it to a metric.
    Normally this is a marketing/awareness tool, not just to raise immediate funds.
  • I've never understood these sorts of sponsorship-powered donations. The way they generally work is a sponsor comes in and buys some advertising. The sponsor then agrees to give a certain amount of money to charity based on some arbitrary metric. You usually see this at sporting events where a company will donate $X for every home run hit by the home team.

    Why bother tying the donation to some metric like that? Sure it can be fun, but why not just donate the maximum you are willing to donate? Instead of having sponsors pay according to how many questions are answered correctly, why not just have them donate as much as they are willing? They aren't going to give more than that no mater how many questions we answer or home runs are hit. We're only decreasing the donation by tying it to a metric.
    Yeah, it does seem a bit weird, doesn't it? It's like the people donating are holding their money hostage until we jump through enough hoops. I think it's part of the whole idea of making the donation a game; it may actually encourage people to donate more money.

    Also, as Kate said, this is mostly a way to raise awareness. I mean, Freerice.com won't solve world hunger any time soon.

    It might help alleviate the plague of bad grammar, though.
  • I have an idea. You know those math problems that are unsolved and have huge prizes to the people who solve them? Why don't we put those problems on a web site like this, and offer to donate the prize's worth of rice. Most likely nobody will solve them, but a lot of people will learn some maths in the process.
  • You know how to solve world hunger? Stop keeping the starving people alive by feeding them just enough to not die. All this does is let them live and reproduce in horrible poverty, thereby putting MORE strain on the area's resources. If they and their children starve, the cycle is broken. It's called "carrying capacity." Look it up. As for hippie ideals like there is plenty to go around if everyone would just pitch in and share...The "haves" are never going to share enough of their wealth with the "not-haves" for this to happen, and it is ignorant to think they will. I don't care if it's humanely terrible to say so. Therefore, Freerice can play all the games they want to get people involved. At least this way it could actually benefit someone's education, instead of just prolonging starvation.
  • edited October 2008
    You know how to solve world hunger? Stop keeping the starving people alive by feeding them just enough to not die. All this does is let them live and reproduce in horrible poverty, thereby putting MORE strain on the area's resources. If they and their children starve, the cycle is broken.
    Step 2A better alternative: The conservatives must shut up while we teach family planning. That would be a big help.

    Edit: Me and my thick skull! Why didn't I look more closely? I thought she was saying that we weren't doing enough to help starving people. How could you believe allowing people to starve off is an appropriate mode of action? That is torture! Tell me, are you human?
    Post edited by Diagoras on
  • edited October 2008
    Honestly investing the aid funds into genetically engineered crops that can reproduce themselves and non-religious educational/vocational programs would help a lot more than a few bucks worth of rice.
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • You know how to solve world hunger? Stop keeping the starving people alive by feeding them just enough to not die. All this does is let them live and reproduce in horrible poverty, thereby putting MORE strain on the area's resources. If they and their children starve, the cycle is broken. It's called "carrying capacity." Look it up. As for hippie ideals like there is plenty to go around if everyone would just pitch in and share...The "haves" are never going to share enough of their wealth with the "not-haves" for this to happen, and it is ignorant to think they will. I don't care if it's humanely terrible to say so. Therefore, Freerice can play all the games they want to get people involved. At least this way it could actually benefit someone's education, instead of just prolonging starvation.
    Do you believe in any moral standards or morality?

    Also, on Freerice and similar things: I think the deal is it allows companies to give money to the poor from their advertising budget, not just their charity budget. It's a way of advertising in a charitable way.
  • You know how to solve world hunger? Stop keeping the starving people alive by feeding them just enough to not die. All this does is let them live and reproduce in horrible poverty, thereby putting MORE strain on the area's resources. If they and their children starve, the cycle is broken. It's called "carrying capacity." Look it up.
    That is possibly the most disturbing and disgraceful thing I've ever read on this forum. I'm appalled. And you should be ashamed. Do you genuinely believe what you wrote? Would you actively take steps to see your plan executed, if you had the power to do so, or are you just talking out of your arse?
  • edited October 2008
    You know how to solve world hunger? Stop keeping the starving people alive by feeding them just enough to not die. All this does is let them live and reproduce in horrible poverty, thereby putting MORE strain on the area's resources. If they and their children starve, the cycle is broken. It's called "carrying capacity." Look it up.
    That is possibly the most disturbing and disgraceful thing I've ever read on this forum. I'm appalled. And you should be ashamed. Do you genuinely believe what you wrote? Would you actively take steps to see your plan executed, if you had the power to do so, or are you just talking out of your arse?
    Yeah, I was thinking of posting this. Saying that, simply because the wealthy don't wish to give up a small fraction of their opulence, we should do nothing for the poor is bad enough. Saying that, because of this, we should let the poor die is morally repugnant.

    But then I figured that maybe Nuri just doesn't believe in morality, so I figured I'd ask.

    Also, while I agree that it's unlikely that the haves will ever voluntarily donate enough of their wealth to make living conditions acceptable for the have-nots, frankly, maybe that shouldn't be left up to them. I'm not advocating complete socialism, but when you have the crushing income inequality and wealth inequality, maybe a limited redistribution of wealth, enough to bring everyone or most people up to an acceptable standard of living (and an acceptable standard of living isn't really that high) would be a good thing.
    Post edited by rhinocero on
  • edited October 2008
    You know how to solve world hunger? Stop keeping the starving people alive by feeding them just enough to not die. All this does is let them live and reproduce in horrible poverty, thereby putting MORE strain on the area's resources. If they and their children starve, the cycle is broken. It's called "carrying capacity." Look it up.
    That is possibly the most disturbing and disgraceful thing I've ever read on this forum. I'm appalled. And you should be ashamed. Do you genuinely believe what you wrote? Would you actively take steps to see your plan executed, if you had the power to do so, or are you just talking out of your arse?
    Yeah, I was thinking of posting this. Saying that, simply because the wealthy don't wish to give up a small fraction of their opulence, we should do nothing for the poor is bad enough. Saying that, because of this, we should let the poor die is morally repugnant.
    Please note that Nuri didn't actually use the word "should", or any equivalent, at any point...

    In my opinion, Nuri's statement was a wholly impersonal one, and Nuri was not personally advocating this approach.
    There is no morality inherent in such a statement unless Nuri is advocating that approach. Saying something only implies that you believe it is true, not necessarily that it is right.
    Had Nuri used the word "should", or an equivalent, it would be a different matter, because the statement has an underlying worldview that is tied with its truth.

    While I completely agree with the rest of you that that approach is morally wrong, it is far more important to note that it wouldn't actually work. It would reduce the number of people in poverty, hence being reasonably effective, but it would be nowhere near "solving" the problem - there is a very large discrepancy between conditions in which humans are capable of living and conditions in which most people would consider it acceptable to live in.

    If I could be bothered to, I would hold it against the previous posters that rather than disputing the factual correctness of the statement, they chose to respond with an argumentum ad hominem against the morality (or lack thereof) behind the statement, when it wasn't even clear whether or not Nuri was advocating it...
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • You know how to solve world hunger? Stop keeping the starving people alive by feeding them just enough to not die. All this does is let them live and reproduce in horrible poverty, thereby putting MORE strain on the area's resources. If they and their children starve, the cycle is broken. It's called "carrying capacity." Look it up.
    That is possibly the most disturbing and disgraceful thing I've ever read on this forum. I'm appalled. And you should be ashamed. Do you genuinely believe what you wrote? Would you actively take steps to see your plan executed, if you had the power to do so, or are you just talking out of your arse?
    Yeah, I was thinking of posting this. Saying that, simply because the wealthy don't wish to give up a small fraction of their opulence, we should do nothing for the poor is bad enough. Saying that, because of this, we should let the poor die is morally repugnant.
    Please note that Nuri didn't actually use the word "should", or any equivalent, at any point...
    While I'm remaining neutral on the actual poverty/starvation debate, I feel that we may fall into a situation akin to the non-voter bitching about the government. I propose that anyone who starts talking about how we need to help third nation countries is required to post proof of their contributions to charities over the past fiscal year.

    Maybe this way we'll have a more intelligent discussion, as only those who have actually put up can talk smack.
  • I propose that anyone who starts talking about how we need to help third nation countries is required to post proof of their contributions to charities over the past fiscal year.
    That's a terrible idea which proves nothing and only stifles debate.
  • Please note that Nuri didn't actually use the word "should", or any equivalent, at any point...

    In my opinion, Nuri's statement was a wholly impersonal one, and Nuri was not personally advocating this approach.
    There is no morality inherent in such a statement unless Nuri is advocating that approach. Saying something only implies that you believe it is true, not necessarily that it is right.
    Had Nuri used the word "should", or an equivalent, it would be a different matter, because the statement has an underlying worldview that is tied with its truth.
    Sophistry. I read her words, as did rhinocero, and interpreted them to mean this was a view she personally held. The use of a term like "hippie ideals," and that she didn't "care if it's humanely terrible to say so" is evidence of this. Quite frankly, unless she had qualified the statement by writing something along the lines of "I don't agree, but some say..." or even "Some say that...", I have every reason to think it's a view she advocates. I may be wrong (I certainly hope so), but I doubt it.

    Look, I don't want to argue about how to solve world hunger. Many millions may starve before the problem is solved, or it may never be solved, I just don't know. But to suggest, even flippantly, that we should actively allow starving people to die is something that I can't allow to pass without comment. I'm sorry, it may make me look like an overreacting idiot, but bullshit like this makes me furious. I'm not an absolutist on many issues, but in this case, I'm making a stand.
    If I could be bothered to, I would hold it against the previous posters that rather than disputing the factual correctness of the statement, they chose to respond with anargumentum ad hominemagainst the morality (or lack thereof) behind the statement, when it wasn't even clear whether or not Nuri was advocating it...
    Yeah, way to fuck that up. It would be an ad hominem attack if I argued that she's wrong because she's immoral. I didn't. I don't know Nuri, I make no claims as to her worldview, I have merely expressed my distaste for what she wrote, and questioned her belief in it.
  • edited October 2008
    If I could be bothered to, I would hold it against the previous posters that rather than disputing the factual correctness of the statement, they chose to respond with anargumentum ad hominemagainst the morality (or lack thereof) behind the statement, when it wasn't even clear whether or not Nuri was advocating it...
    Yeah, way to fuck that up. It would be an ad hominem attack if I argued that she's wrong because she's immoral. I didn't. I don't know Nuri, I make no claims as to her worldview, I have merely expressed my distaste for what she wrote, and questioned her belief in it.
    An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
    To be honest, I'm not that sure of the specifics, and this is perhaps a borderline ad hominem, but it is plainly clear that what you did was reply to Nuri's argument by attacking her morality.
    Let me break my interpretation down:-
    That is possibly the most disturbing and disgraceful thing I've ever read on this forum
    is an obvious attack on her morality.
    Do you genuinely believe what you wrote?
    suggests that her words are wrong because she is immoral.

    Additionally,
    I make no claims as to her worldview
    contradicts
    and questioned her belief in it.
    We will have to wait for Nuri to respond as to whether or not she does, indeed, believe that what she suggested is a good idea.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • edited October 2008
    For the record, I'm not a conservative.

    You might note that nowhere in my post did I say we should attempt to solve world hunger. Assuming that I'd take steps to solve world hunger were I in power...that is your first mistake. And yes, I do genuinely believe what I wrote. You have a better plan to "solve world hunger"? I'd love to see one that will work that doesn't involve eliminating the overpopulation problem. Lay it out for us.

    Not recognizing reality may allow you the luxury of taking the moral high-horse and saying "Oh lordy, we must save the starving childrens. Here, I'll give you twenty dollars! Look at me helping to do my part!" and then feeling like you've saved the world. The fact that I recognize reality doesn't make me a terrible person. It just means that I'm not going to waste my time trying to "solve world hunger" with petty amounts of food when other equally pressing issues that are much less futile to act on (like eliminating disease, population control, etc) are better places to spend my time. It's all about priorities. I never said I was going to gun down millions of people in Africa to make our world a better place...but I also won't waste my time sending 10 people a year's worth of rice. Ultimately, that's not going to do jack shit to relieve the problem.
    Post edited by Nuri on
  • eliminating the overpopulation problem.
    What overpopulation problem?
  • edited October 2008
    You might note that nowhere in my post did I say we should attempt to solve world hunger. Assuming that I'd take steps to solve world hunger were I in power...that is your first mistake. And yes, I do genuinely believe what I wrote. You have a better plan to "solve world hunger"? I'd love to see one that will work that doesn't involve eliminating the overpopulation problem. Lay it out for us.
    Sure, maybe we can't solve world hunger, but we can alleviate it.
    Really, the question is therefore "What is the most efficient way to improve the global standard of living as much as possible?"
    I guess Nuri's suggestion is based around
    It just means that I'm not going to waste my time trying to "solve world hunger" with petty amounts of food when other equally pressing issues that are much less futile to act on (like eliminating disease, population control, etc) are better places to spend my time.
    The critical point in Nuri's argument is that spending money in other areas will result in a greater increase in the global standard of living, which I would say clearly needs a bit more back up than just her words.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • eliminating the overpopulation problem.
    What overpopulation problem?
    Precisely.

    We have the technology and the means to produce more than enough food for every living person to be healthy, and moreso. We also have enough physical space to house every person on earth comfortably. If we build arcology-like structures, that will be even more true.

    The problem of starvation is a problem of distribution. We can't get the food from where it is to where the people are in enough quantity, or with enough speed. And sometimes, even when we do get the food where it needs to go, warlords or dictators will steal it or hoard it.

    Take for example this TED vieo about Ethiopian economics. If you do not know, the southern part of Ethiopia is very fertile and is great for farming. The other parts are not so fertile. In the same year that the farms of Ethiopia produced more food than ever before, more people starved in Ethiopia than ever before. How can this be? It is because they did not have the means to distribute the food, even though they had it. Food was spoiled and wasted while people starved on the other side of the country. The TED video explains how by setting up a commodities market, and enabling the farmers with the tools to utilize that market, rather than be stuck with their simple local market, they were able to get a lot more food where it needs to go, and get farmers a lot more money for their work.

    If you want to solve the problem of people not having food there are two major things we can do. One, we can do things like what is in that video, helping to distribute food properly. Two, we can move people to places where it is easier to distribute food. In many ways it's a lot like people in the SouthWestern USA not having enough water. It's because they live in a desert! Why do people starve? Quite often it is because they live very far away from fertile soils.
  • eliminating the overpopulation problem.
    What overpopulation problem?
    Do you have ANY idea what the population density is in Africa compared with their resources? I actually studied this in college. Are you seriously going to try to assert that there is no overpopulation?

    Consider the lifestyle and wealth difference between the US and Most of Africa. Take a look at the GDP/GSP stats. African GDPs, US GSPs

    Now consider that there are only 10 states in the US that have a population density of over 100 people/km^2 as of 2007 (cite). In Africa, there were 12 countries as of 2002 that had an estimated population density of over 100 people/km^2, and the populations are growing (cite). Does it look like these African countries have the resources to support an increasing population?
  • Does it look like these African countries have the resources to support an increasing population?
    No, but the world as a whole does.
  • Globalism FTW.

  • Two, we can move people to places where it is easier to distribute food. In many ways it's a lot like people in the SouthWestern USA not having enough water. It's because they live in a desert! Why do people starve? Quite often it is because they live very far away from fertile soils.
    This is equal to acknowledging an overpopulation problem. The areas where these people live are not capable of sustaining them, and therefore the area is overpopulated. If the people move to a place that is NOT overpopulated, that is a solution to overpopulation. One of the problems is that often these people refuse to move or don't have the means to move. Don't sit there and tell me there's no overpopulation and then in the same post say people can't be sustained while living where they are living.

    Also, we have the technology to produce enough food, probably. But can we do it on a sustainable basis? Until our waste treatment, power, and other facilities equal our ability to produce food, we won't be able to keep up. Particularly with the waste treatment: there is already a problem with not having enough water. We have to have the base resources to put into the food before we can make the food. Just having the tech isn't enough. There is a lot of land that isn't being use right now for farming for a good reason; it's not fertile. We can throw fertilizer on it and try to grow things, but they will probably not be very nutritionally beneficial. One of the reasons that vegetables provide us with essential nutrients is that they pull them out of the soil. They have to BE there first for the plants to pull them up.
  • Does it look like these African countries have the resources to support an increasing population?
    No, but the world as a whole does.
    The whole world is not the issue, because as you have pointed out we don't have adequate global infrastructure to develop every area equally. Some areas are going to be overpopulated and some are going to be underpopulated, depending on what the local resources and infrastructure are.

    Also, I think you are mistaking the capacity to produce food for the capacity to support a population. People need more than just food. Water and waste treatment are BIG on the list of things we've gotta have. Once food stops being the limiting resource, something else will step up. If we're going to globalize, then it has to be all or nothing. You can't give people all the food they need and then leave them to wallow in their own shit and die from contaminated water.

    That is, unless you don't care about morals, as someone so carefully pointed out that I must not.
  • edited October 2008
    If you just look at the problem from a non-global perspective, it's hopeless. If a place is resource-poor and population-dense there's no way people will have good lives without lots of people dying, as you have said. When I look at the entire world I see a place that has enough resources for every living person, and billions of more people, to eat, drink, stay clean, and not live in poverty.

    The solutions I see to these problems come in a few forms. They come in the form of major technological advancements, like cheap water filtration or genetically engineered crops. They come in the form of putting economic systems in place that allow resources to be distributed to where they are needed. And they come in the form of things like what the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is doing.

    For example, micro-loans are an excellent tool that have helped people in extreme poverty get themselves started on the right foot. The problem is that many people default on their micro loans. Why? The most common reason is that someone in their family is ill, and they spend the loan on medical costs. If you make sure that people stay healthy, and actually able to use their loan on putting their best foot forward, good things happen. Medicine, economics, and technology advancing and working together with no national borders are the best shot we have of eliminating poverty.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • edited October 2008

    The solutions I see to these problems come in a few forms. They come in the form of major technological advancements, like cheap water filtration or genetically engineered crops. They come in the form of putting economic systems in place that allow resources to be distributed to where they are needed. And they come in the form of things like what the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is doing.
    All excellent points, and I agree with you. However, I think it's important to realize that these things have to go together. If we're going to put effort into one, then we have to work on the others as well. But these things must be done in order for us to alleviate starvation. We cannot just give them food and hope for the best. This is where I think we should be focusing our efforts, instead of worrying about whether freerice should be giving its maximum donation or not.

    edit: Oh, and it's also important to realize that this involves advances and work yet to be done. Before we have the capability to globalize and alleviate poverty, we have a lot of work to do.
    Post edited by Nuri on
  • The major point I'm trying to make is that reducing the population is not the answer. By framing the problem as overpopulation instead of framing it as poverty, it gives the idea that the problem is the people, not the management of resources.
  • Or you could just follow this guy and feed over a billion people.
  • Stop keeping the starving people alive by feeding them just enough to not die.
    If you ever run for public office let me know, I'll vote for you, or be your vice president!
  • The major point I'm trying to make is that reducing the population is not the answer. By framing the problem as overpopulation instead of framing it as poverty, it gives the idea that the problem is the people, not the management of resources.
    I think the problem is both, really. Uneducated people increasing their population beyond what their local area can sustain is a problem. (We see this in the US too. I believe there has been much discussion on GeekNights about the topic of people having children beyond their means.) Stopping it will not solve the poverty problem entirely, but it will help. It's part of the puzzle. You acknowledge that people having children without sitting down and taking a heavy look at their budgets and lives is a terrible idea, and that if they get into financial trouble because of it then it's their own fault. That is slightly different from 3rd-world countries that were poor to begin with, but the decision to have children definitely makes the poverty worse. If you don't have enough to take care of your existing family, having more kids is a bad idea.
    Or you could just follow this guy and feed over a billion people.
    :) He's not taking grammar quizzes sponsored by Freerice. He's working to increase our level of technology to deal with part of the problem, like we have been discussing. This is exactly the right approach. Note that he is not just giving people food; he is making better and cheaper ways for them to grow their own and support themselves.
    Stop keeping the starving people alive by feeding them just enough to not die.
    If you ever run for public office let me know, I'll vote for you, or be your vice president!
    Haha, thanks. ^_^;; Pretty sure my candor won't be appreciated in politics. I'm not much for softening truth with pretty words and empty promises. I wouldn't last long in a campaign.
Sign In or Register to comment.