The Right to Food and Shelter

[LadyStardust]

This is probably at least slightly off-topic, but I wonder if anyone in here has heard of "Freegans" (sp?). Essentially, these people rummage through garbage cans and NIM bins in search of edible food that is thrown away needlessly. They eat only what they find in this manner. Most "Freegans" actually hold down jobs and can easily afford groceries of their own. They do this as a form of protest against the wasteful mentality of Western society. I heard of them on a Canadian program, though, so I'm not sure if they're prominent abroad.

In an attempt to relate this to the thread, could we perhaps see this as a possible solution? There is so much food out there that is simply going to waste. Surely an effort can be made to make sure that people get as much out of the food as possible . . . but I'm grasping at straws, I think.

[BLEED REBELION!!!]

LOL.. I know some "freegans" They are really kick ass. I've eaten at there house a few times it wansnt bad it was actually really good and I would of never known it food someone had thrown away if they had'nt of told me..... "feegans" kick ass... they were also vegetarians .. one of them only ate r.aw food... They had me eating so much healthy food It was great.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by LadyStardust

In an attempt to relate this to the thread, could we perhaps see this as a possible solution? There is so much food out there that is simply going to waste. Surely an effort can be made to make sure that people get as much out of the food as possible . . . but I'm grasping at straws, I think.

It's all good. Actually, that is one of the benefits of Skyfarms. Because the food is all hydroponic and close the the customer base, there's far less waste. As far as waste after it gets to the consumer; well, that has more to do with health regulations, which are above questioning, IMHO. Although you're right, that should probably be a new thread. ;-)

(Also off topic) Have you heard anything about the property equivalent of that? Apparently it's been happening in Canada and elsewhere - what a group will do is squat and renovate an abandoned property, and get the local officials to turn it over to them. Also very cool, IMO.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by delicti

Since was any of that food cheap? For about the price of a McDonald's meal, I can make myself a huge pot of whole grain pasta that will last me at least a week. For the price of a meal at an "upscale" chain, I can make myself 3-4 meals like you'd pay $20 a plate for at an upscale restaurant.

We all know most Americans eat whole grain pasta as a staple of their diet. Thats why there is a lack of fast food chains there and there are hardly any overweight people.

Thats right, it's sarcasm

No wonder you think food is expensive, you can't cook.

Actually, I cook daily. It's routine here in Ireland. I walk to the farmers market daily and get fresh vegetables and go to the local butcher for fresh meat, all of which we can trace to farms within a few kilometers from the shop.

People here have very small refrigerators, we shop more often and don't have 'superstores'. Here, you still go to the baker, butcher, etc. if looking for various items.

We believe in paying for people to better themselves through trades and colleges, and give people grants to do so.

So when exactly did America start offering free college? Last I checked, you have to pay (very large) amounts to attend there. I mean, I thought paying to go to Harvard was expensive. I didn't know the government paid the tuition for all students who wanted to go there. Also, when did they start paying the living costs of those college students?

I must have missed that news flash.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

We all know most Americans eat whole grain pasta as a staple of their diet. Thats why there is a lack of fast food chains there and there are hardly any overweight people.

And that's their choice. If they want to be fat and undernourished then hey; I'm not going to stop them.

I walk to the farmers market daily and get fresh vegetables and go to the local butcher for fresh meat, all of which we can trace to farms within a few kilometers from the shop.

People here have very small refrigerators, we shop more often and don't have 'superstores'. Here, you still go to the baker, butcher, etc. if looking for various items.

What a major pain the ass. I'm glad you like it, but I don't want to think that hard when it comes to making meals.

So when exactly did America start offering free college? Last I checked, you have to pay (very large) amounts to attend there.

I suppose the concept of Federal grants and loans is lost on you. Obviously last you checked, you weren't applying to college. Although I could have guessed that on my own. There's also funding through unemployment and different social services.

I didn't know the government paid the tuition for all students who wanted to go there. Also, when did they start paying the living costs of those college students?

It's based on need. Since not everyone needs to go to college, and since we don't force those in good trades to have all the tax burden like you apparently do over there, there's plenty of your own money you can spend to pay the loans back, and still live well.

I must have missed that news flash.

And the topic. You know, the thing you're supposed to stay on but apparently can't. Good to see that the great free education over there really pays off.

[Splintered]

Actually Sternn, you'd be extremely surprised how much opportunity there is for kids who really want to go to college. I got a scholarship opportunity for the State of Washington to pay for two years of my college education (Meaning any classes, any majour, so long as I maintain a B average), just by passing two out of three portions of a test.

(I'm going scholarship hunting currently, so I've done a bit of homework on this issue.) If you've got the drive, there is a way.

Anyway, I am now extremely interested.
You say the cost is a lot. Now, a population 50,000 seems like a lot, but my town, which is relatively small by my state's standards, with a population 50,000 would take up all of that.

Hell, even Toronto would take about 50 (2,500,000) of these things to nourish the entire population. The largest city in the world, Mumbai would take 260 (13,000,000 / 50,000) to feed the city. Mexico City would take 160 (8,000,000 / 50,000).

The People's Republic of China would take 24,600 (1,320,000,000 / 50,000).

Just assign a very conservative (By my estimation) of $100,000 per plant. You and I can both see the math adds up very fast for places like even my small town which would only need one to feed the entire city, despite the fact that it is $2 per person. This is completely disregarding maintenence costs, and the cost of building new plants to support growing populations.

So, I just can't see this being practical at all. This goes into my mental category of, 'would like to see it, but don't think it will happen.' I do hope I am wrong....

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by delicti

And the topic. You know, the thing you're supposed to stay on but apparently can't. Good to see that the great free education over there really pays off.

If you want me to stay on the topic of 'The Right To Food And Shelter', then don't create a thread called 'The Right To Food And Shelter' and then try to discuss some new sky farming technique.

I fail to see how discussing some new high-tech farming technique which only exists in theory as falling into any category about basic human rights.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I fail to see how discussing some new high-tech farming technique which only exists in theory as falling into any category about basic human rights.

I think it is acutely on point. The largest complaint with public health programs in America is overall inefficiency and much higher costs than private sector and privatized programs. It is not, like you routinely assume, apathy towards our fellow citizens. In fact, it is more the inverse - if wholly socialized programs are doing very little to help the poor, while making things worse for the average American, then why would anyone endorse them? That is the perception at least; although the reality is not far from it either.

Skyfarms are a great foil to this, as they provide proof that programs like this can exist without a high cost. Since they produce surplus food, they can even be privatized an non-profits and be run at zero cost, while acting in some capacity as an industry.

Furthermore, while the US has signed the UN Bill of Rights, it has yet to incorporate any elements of it into its own constitution. That puts it in the realm of "ideas we like" as opposed to "ideas we're implementing." So while philosophically this is a human rights issue, in the US the reality is that it is not.

Hence, Skyfarms create a new playing field, and an opportunity to reconsider whether we should adopt this right into our constitution. Rather than Skyfarms being off-topic, they are in fact the cause of the topic in the first place.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by delicti

I think it is acutely on point. The largest complaint with public health programs in America is overall inefficiency and much higher costs than private sector and privatized programs. It is not, like you routinely assume, apathy towards our fellow citizens. In fact, it is more the inverse - if wholly socialized programs are doing very little to help the poor, while making things worse for the average American, then why would anyone endorse them? That is the perception at least; although the reality is not far from it either.

I do agree in a round-about way that they do play some role in the topic, these are not solutions to the people starving today, nor do they help the discussion on rights and the right to food and shelter.

If you were to give a speech on the right to food and shelter in say a large US city and come out with 'sky farms', you can bet there will be people there, people who are in some instances starving, who are going to be pretty irate at the fact the solution your trying to sell them is some far-off tech that may one day help another generation.

Also, I do have to disagree with your comment that socialised programmes do little to help the poor and cost the average America a lot. Programmes like Second Harvest cost nothing to the government and have a larger impact on communities than any government regulated programmes.

More importantly, as I stated in another thread, Americans pay more in taxes than most people living in nations in Europe. How is it nations who tax their citizens less, give their citizens more? The answer is simple - America spends all it's money on bombs and guns.

If America took even a fraction of that 30 billion a month it's spending in Iraq and put it towards feeding and sheltering the homeless, there would be no more homeless.

This wouldn't effect any Americans. They aren't going to pay anymore than they already do.

In fact, I'm wondering *after* the war, the next time people bring up socialised health care, helping the homeless, and fixing the school system, what excuse will the administration (whichever administration that is) will use to avoid the issue. I mean, if the government can 'find' 30 billion a month to put into a foreign war, why exactly can't they take 10 billion, over the course of the year, to fix these other problems?

Furthermore, while the US has signed the UN Bill of Rights, it has yet to incorporate any elements of it into its own constitution. That puts it in the realm of "ideas we like" as opposed to "ideas we're implementing." So while philosophically this is a human rights issue, in the US the reality is that it is not.

What did you expect from a country that so far has ignored the Geneva Conventions, and allowed it's current leader to pull out of Kyoto, which was a treaty. The Constitution says treaties are on the same level as Constitutional amendments - by allowing bush to pull out of a treaty signed by the previous President, it allowed him to not only go against the Constitution, but break Americas word that was given to the UN. With the current administration not paying attention to the laws that govern itself locally, how can anyone expect them to care about the laws that internationally they are supposed to abide by?

And people wonder why the world has such a low opinion of America right now.

[delicti]

First Sternn, thank you for finally calming down.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

If you were to give a speech on the right to food and shelter in say a large US city and come out with 'sky farms' ... who are going to be pretty irate at the fact the solution your trying to sell them is some far-off tech....

Hey, that's fair, although my motives for embracing the right to food and water actually have little to do with time line. For me it's an intellectual exercise, and an opportunity to see/gauge reactions and further refine those ideas based on those reactions.

To me, fixing these problems now is obviously outside of my ability - I lack the connections, at least. So why not spend time debating a better future for us all?

Programmes like Second Harvest cost nothing to the government and have a larger impact on communities than any government regulated programmes.

Ah, but that's a private sector program. I completely agree with you in this case; they're a stellar example of why government programs are dysfunctional in America and the private sector is usually not.

How is it nations who tax their citizens less, give their citizens more? The answer is simple - America spends all it's money on bombs and guns.

Well, that's not quite true. We do have an exceptionally large military budget, but our military has a strong track record of developing technologies that have strong civilian applications. Microwaves? Computers? Cell Phones? The Internet? These all started as US military projects. Hence while we do spend more on the military, almost 30% of that budget is research & development:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/fea...efense.cfm#CHT
(Yes, I know the site is right-wing, but the data is valid - bottom of page)

We're more tolerant of it because we're aware that by keeping the R&D high, the ultimate pay-off can be stellar.

If America took even a fraction of that 30 billion a month it's spending in Iraq and put it towards feeding and sheltering the homeless, there would be no more homeless.

Having worked with the homeless, I can't agree with that statement. Many of the homeless have mental issues, are run-aways, have addictions they aren't willing to confront, and have other such circumstances. We could eliminate more homelessness, but I don't think we could eliminate it entirely.

The money for the war is being wasted, anyways. I'm going to start another thread next week about another right we could have, that is going to partially address this.

In fact, I'm wondering *after* the war, the next time people bring up socialised health care, helping the homeless, and fixing the school system,
...
why exactly can't they take 10 billion, over the course of the year, to fix these other problems?

Well, largely because Federal government is ill-suited to do this. If they were to fund things at the State level, it'd have a better chance. Ultimately though, the private sector is the most efficient system in America, and we should probably try to work with a heavily-regulated private sector solution.

Now, as far as spending in the US is concerned:

Actually, although spending on the US military has sharply spiked under Bush, there is no reason to believe that this is nothing more than a temporary trend. In fact, when you look at the data on US budgets from 1962-2004, you'll see that the long-term trend is that military spending has stayed more or less the same over time:

http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com/m...Va6O_kEoi71E2-

However, what you will see on that chart is that social services in the United States are exploding. In fact, it's practically exponential:

http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com/m...ha6n_-q0u1IE2-

Of that social services spending, Medicare spending is up, health care spending is up, and the rest of our social services are staying more or less the same.

http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com/m...Va6S-kIn-x1E2-

Since we are actually decreasing in ranking on social services, I think that it could be safe to say that the increase in money is having little effect. Therefor, we should seek a different model entirely, unless we just want to keep spending more money for the same level of service. The current system is completely unacceptable.

Anyways, enough of that. So can we agree then, that at least in theory, that Skyfarms might be a solution for hunger that both conservatives and liberals might be willing to consider?

[CptSternn]

In a few decades it might be something that could be addressed. The only problem is right now, Americans are starving. Americans are needlessly dying from treatable illnesses due to lack of access to proper health care. Americans are homeless, living on the streets.

You can look to the future all you want, but when you do that your actively ignoring the issues that right now affect millions of Americans every day, and any discussion which does that is not in the best interests of Americans, or any other nation that chooses to ignore the serious plight of millions of it's own citizens within it's own borders.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

You can look to the future all you want, but when you do that your actively ignoring the issues that right now affect millions of Americans every day, and any discussion which does that is not in the best interests of Americans, or any other nation that chooses to ignore the serious plight of millions of it's own citizens within it's own borders.

The fact is Sternn, that whatever we do now will effect the future anyways by default. Why not think big? Thinking small will only give us the same result. Unless you or I suddenly become a Senator or President, this is all just intellectual exercise anyways.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by delicti

The fact is Sternn, that whatever we do now will effect the future anyways by default. Why not think big? Thinking small will only give us the same result. Unless you or I suddenly become a Senator or President, this is all just intellectual exercise anyways.

Even if this an intellectual exercise, your solutions to problems are no good in the real world - right now, where as the solutions I propose help people today, or could at least.

Your solutions given help no one today, and offer no real help in the immediate future. Although intriguing, and something that one day may play a part in such matters, they do nothing towards the discussion now about the right to food and shelter for the millions of Americans who currently are without.

Proposing that a future generation 'invent' a new technology to fix this is a great idea, but that does nothing to alleviate the issue now. This is a problem that is fixable today, with technology available today, and is more an economical/social problem that something that needs a next generation science break through to achieve.

Why one would argue that feeding people in America would be something only achievable in future generations after technological breakthroughs seems to be missing the point of the discussion.

All discussions here can be written off in that manner. I'm sure every problem we have today will be fixed by future generations with new technology.

That still doesn't help people today, and talking of it amounts to nothing more than avoiding the real issues. This is not a problem that needs sci-tech to fix it. This isn't global warming, this isn't the depletion of fossil fuels. We are talking about giving food to people who don't have any. Ignoring current government policy and trying to substitution an argument about some new technology in leui of a real discussion about current policy seems to be a cop out.

Not saying your doing it on purpose, but the bush administration seems to do this often. When cornered about bad policy involving global warming, renewable energy, etc. they always try and say they are working on some new technology to fix this, but it won't be ready anytime soon. It's a tactic they use to avoid any real discussion on these topics, and it's serves no purpose other than to derail any legitimate discussion of issues that face millions of Americans daily.

[delicti]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Even if this an intellectual exercise, your solutions to problems are no good in the real world - right now, where as the solutions I propose help people today, or could at least.

Your solutions given help no one today, and offer no real help in the immediate future. Although intriguing, and something that one day may play a part in such matters, they do nothing towards the discussion now about the right to food and shelter for the millions of Americans who currently are without.

I'm sorry, but I do not share your sense of urgency, nor do I believe that any of these discussions will result in any actual policy change.

I will continue to advocate for abstract and far-forward reaching ideals. Changing the present is tedious, slow, and inefficient. New systems to change the future, when well planned and executed, can have a far greater effect when implemented. Incidentally, I also find them more exciting, so I'm biased.