My idea; feed them now and change the system so they are fed in the future.
Your idea; change the system so they are fed in the future.
You say that your idea creates fewer dead people (or, we should say since every person alive will die, fewer people dying of starvation) than my idea. I disagree.
"I don't think that your desire to feel good about yourself"
Please, please, do not project your moralising onto me. I don't give a fuck how I feel.
For what it's worth, I find myself suspecting that you have the particularly Western faith (and it is a faith) in the mythical free-market as a solution to all problems of supply. I say this because I don't know if it's true or not, and given that I suspect it is, it's only fair to voice it so you can correct me (or not).
Late edit: You choose not to address our differing strategies, or correct any misapprehension I might have about yours (which, as above, seems to be the same as mine, except that I also feed people now) and instead spout more airy, unspecified junk about how my strategy (which is the same as yours, with the addition of food now as well) is harmful without explaining how. Fine. I didn't really expect an addressing of the facts. It's HN all over. Every problem simply must have a clever "hacky" solution that would read well in the Freakonomics blog and magically make everything better.
Not at all. I've described what happens when the different strategies are implemented. Why should we expect anything different this time? If things are going to work out the same....
> "I don't think that your desire to feel good about yourself" Please, please, do not project your moralising onto me. I don't give a fuck how I feel.
You're right. I don't know why you're advocating policies that have such harmful effects. It was wrong for me to attribute to you a positive motive.
I didn't mention the free market and nothing that I wrote depends on a free market.
However, now that you mention it, I'll point out that poor people in the west are fat, not starving.
My idea; feed them now and change the system so they are fed in the future.
Your idea; change the system so they are fed in the future.
You say that your idea creates fewer dead people (or, we should say since every person alive will die, fewer people dying of starvation) than my idea. I disagree.
"I don't think that your desire to feel good about yourself" Please, please, do not project your moralising onto me. I don't give a fuck how I feel.
For what it's worth, I find myself suspecting that you have the particularly Western faith (and it is a faith) in the mythical free-market as a solution to all problems of supply. I say this because I don't know if it's true or not, and given that I suspect it is, it's only fair to voice it so you can correct me (or not).
Late edit: You choose not to address our differing strategies, or correct any misapprehension I might have about yours (which, as above, seems to be the same as mine, except that I also feed people now) and instead spout more airy, unspecified junk about how my strategy (which is the same as yours, with the addition of food now as well) is harmful without explaining how. Fine. I didn't really expect an addressing of the facts. It's HN all over. Every problem simply must have a clever "hacky" solution that would read well in the Freakonomics blog and magically make everything better.