Are We Really Starving? Or Not? Final Draft

Bradis McGriff

Soc 80

Social Problems

Chris Cox

April 9, 2006

Are You Really Starving? Or Not?

Across the globe in poor third world countries an projected 50,000 children die of starvation every day (Quine 36). We have all seen the images of these children--bloated bellies, fly covered, bulging eyes--in television pleas by various charitable organizations. While these images sicken us, we casually sit by (often flipping the channel to avoid them), refusing to help these less fortunate kids. The problem is made worse by the ever-increasing population in the world that we live in today. Even the wealthy countries like our own now have a starvation problem (Quine 29). Admittedly, the problem here is less severe, but it still exists. With our current level of technology, the resources at our disposal, and a commitment to help those less fortunate, we can and must end starvation around the world before it gets worse.

The main problem facing efforts to end starvation in third world countries is that people feel no connection to those children. There is no connection because the commercial could be nothing more than a fictional image in a movie. We have all heard someone say, or possibly have said ourselves, "We should worry about our own country first. On the contrary, we may be--at least in the case of starvation of distant children--more obligated to help them. In the United States there are many programs, shelters, charities, and individuals to help our less fortunate. A recent government study has shown that only 60% of the charitable donations of food, clothing, and money are used while the rest is lost, wasted, or in limbo. This same study estimates that the remaining 40% would provide enough resources to feed, clothe, and house every underprivileged and starving child in the country (U.S. Dept. of Welfare 44). With this being the case and with only an estimated 14% of the population making regular donations (Quine 10), the rest of us could easily help those people, especially children, starving in underdeveloped countries. Another objection raised against helping the poor, starving kids in other countries is the financial stability of the American family. Many families live from paycheck to paycheck, barely paying their bills and putting food on the table. Yes, this is a problem; however, it is not an insurmountable one. The Census Bureau reports that the majority of families do struggle with their finances (U.S. Census Bureau 69) and attempting to feed children in far other countries would provide these families with less food for themselves. However, there is an easy solution that can be found in other Census Bureau data.

Two specific statistics are relevant to this issue. First, the U.S. population is increasing by an estimated 2,135,247 people each year (U.S. Census Bureau 32). Second, approximately 54,000 people die in the U.S. each day, with that number expected to increase as the Baby Boomer generations time on earth is almost running out.(U.S. Census Bureau 21). Why are these two statistics important to the issue of third world starvation? Because they provide a further problem and a possible solution.

The problem is overpopulation. The rate at which the U.S. population is growing will quickly consume all available resources. It is estimated the by the year 2024, our country's population will have increased to the point that the country's farmers will be unable to grow enough food (Frege 219). This, of course, will lead to increases in starvation in the U. S. When we look beyond the nation's boundaries, the problem becomes even more prevalent. If left unchecked, world population will triple by 2025 (Frege 220). The current food production rate around the world can barely support everyone as it is. With the alarming rate we are losing farmland, in 25 years we will never have enough food supplies to handle feeding half the population. So, the problem of overpopulation and starvation is a global one. If the population increases, the amount of people who are starving will increase as well. The second significant statistic is the projected increase in death rates. With the rise in population there will be a correlating rise in deaths. Increased deaths also pose a potential problem. If we need all available land for housing and farming, then what are we to do with the bodies of the dead? Cemeteries have become a useless waste of prime, much needed, real estate. Over the next decade attitudes will have to change drastically regarding the disposal of remains. cremation seems a plausible, but We are still left with overpopulation and starvation.

Third, as mentioned above, this would free up valuable land for farming which would, in turn, provide more food to feed the hungry here in our own country. Assuming that two-thirds of the people who die are buried instead of cremated, that means we need to use 2,500 acres of land each day for graves. While most of this land is in areas already designated as cemeteries, over the next decade we will need to create approximately 5,000 more cemeteries, with that number increasing exponentially as the population and the number of dead increase (U.S. Census Bureau 275). That means giving up and wasting valuable farmland that could be used to grow crops or to feed cattle. Those 2,500 acres could be used to grow 6000 bushels of corn (U.S. Census Bureau 462). Instead of wasting our resources to "care" for the "dearly departed" we are obligated to get the most out of this land and use it to provide food for the hungry.

Fourth, it would cut down on funeral expenses for the families of the dead. The average funeral in the United States costs $64,337.29 (U.S. Census Bureau 189). This is an expense that most families, even with insurance, cannot afford. Many people wish to spare their families this expense and choose to be cremated, but this too is expensive. The average cremation costs $12,458.73 (U.S. Census Bureau 189). For a family living paycheck to paycheck, this is no more affordable than the cost of a full funeral. The savings to these families would be twice as meaningful because the loss of a loved one is, in most cases, leaving them shy one breadwinner. The loss of that person's income should not be augmented by the necessity of paying for an unnecessary funeral. Therefore, it would appear that besides supplying food for the world's starving children, using cadavers for food would also solve many social problems. Not only would processing the dead for food eliminate starvation, but we would have the added benefits of freeing up valuable farm land and of not subjecting