Can Pests, Pets & the U.S. End World Hunger?
Foreword: As a journalist/reporter, it’s my duty to present information in an objective, unbiased and well-balanced manner. As such, I can’t ignore a potential solution to a problem, arbitrarily deciding to not mention it in an article I write. The first goal of an article is to present information—if the subject is a specific problem that needs to be resolved or treated more efficiently, then, after presenting the facts surrounding the problem, I must then present possible solutions, if any.
In some cases (as is the case in this article), I have to mention solutions that may not necessarily make everyone happy. In this article, I present solutions to the problem at hand (ending world hunger) that I personally didn’t like but which, out of fairness to the topic, I had to delve into.
Clearly, complicated problems like world hunger can’t be solved with namby-pamby or half-hearted effort and solutions.
Sometimes in life we have to resort to drastic options—i.e., things we may not like but which, if they turn out to make a significant difference once implemented, actually put a dent in the problem. Once we identify them, how can we just ignore such solutions?
Some people may find offensive one or two of the suggested (by people other than me) solutions I found in my research. As you read this article, keep in mind that I might have objected to these solutions as much as you but, since the solutions we’ve already tried have mostly not worked, how can we now turn our backs on any solution that might be much more effective than what’s been tried in the past?
After all, it shouldn’t be about what we like or don’t like but, rather, what works and what doesn’t. Since global hunger will likely get worse (perhaps much worse) in the foreseeable future, can we afford to continue to ignore and not resort to solutions that, although unpleasant to contemplate, may actually save lives all over the world in significant numbers?
INTRODUCTION
Many Americans seem to be clueless as to the seriousness of global hunger. In their defense, though, this cluelessness springs partly from the misinformation put out by entities that have selfish reasons for downplaying the seriousness of the problem.
The US government, for example, doesn’t want too much attention paid to the way its foreign aid is grossly misused, the fact that its policies condone huge food waste at home, and the fact that much more can be done for those countries around the world where hunger and famines are run-away locomotives.
Then there are the private companies (like Monsanto) that have been charged with coming up with technological solutions (e.g., the use of GMOs) to global hunger, spending millions on PR campaigns that give many people false hopes and, at the end, have very little to show for the billions spent on research and development initiatives.
General cluelessness may also spring, experts say, from a misplaced political and socioeconomic arrogance and presumptuousness on the part of developed countries. A glaring example is the penchant to push the idea that those poor countries around the world where people are starving made their own bed and should, therefore, face the consequences of their administrative, political and financial negligence and incompetence.
To add insult to injury, these same people assume that the millions of dollars given away each year in the form of foreign aid are enough for their being able to say “Well, we did what we could for these unfortunate folks.”
First of all, much of that “foreign aid” goes directly into the pockets of the corrupt government officials the US helped (or allowed their being) put into power. What little money ends up being used to ease the burdens of the poor is, furthermore, often mismanaged.
The sad thing is that the US government knows this and, instead of forcing these foreign governments to use foreign aid to ease hunger and the other woes of the poor, it pretty much just keeps giving money away with very little accountability and transparency.
This goes on, some critics of the system say, probably because the US officials that manage our foreign aid are just as corrupt and uncaring as (if not sheer accomplices to) the foreign nation puppets we naively “donate” the money to.
What Should Be Done about Global Hunger?
While no one knows how many people die each year from global hunger, it’s been estimated that about 15,000,000 children fall prey to the problem. A significant number of adults also die, especially from hunger and nutrition-related maladies.
The saddest part of all is that it doesn’t have to be this way.
We have it within our means as a global society to manage the global hunger problem much better than we are doing right now. Instead of throwing money at crooked politicians, for example, we can clearly designate how foreign aid must be used; any foreign government not complying should not receive additional funds.
Foreign aid can also more responsibly be used, if given to well-respected international nonprofit humanitarian organizations, instead of being handed over to untrustworthy, corrupt politicians.
This isn’t to say, however, that some of these organizations can be trusted any more than corrupt governments but at least it’s easier to check on such entities--assuming that systems of accountability and transparency are put in place to protect against misuse or theft of funds.
The key word here is “oversight” (whether the recipient of funds is a government or a private charitable organization), not “trust.”
Are There Inexpensive Tools for Feeding the Hungry Masses Right Now?
The answer, to be blunt, is YES!!!
We can, for example, start and support raising-rats-as-food farms. These animals eat just about anything, proliferate easily and have been used in many countries around the world as food for years. In fact, they have been regularly consumed in former civilizations and societies, including the Roman Empire.
If rats offer us an inexhaustible, easily reproduced source of nutrition and protein, why aren’t we capitalizing on them, especially in third world countries?
We can also, instead of spaying and neutering cat and dogs—and then foolishly slaughtering those that don’t get adopted while caged in city pounds across America--export them to countries for food production purposes.
Most Americans shun the idea of eating cats and dogs but, if these animals could save millions of children’s lives, why not tap into this potential solution—as macabre and gross as it may sound to some folks?
The fact is that cats and dogs have been a stable food source in some countries for centuries. Eliminating them as a legitimate solution to global hunger is, at best, irresponsible and myopic—or so some experts opine.
Some food experts assert that, scientifically speaking, there is no difference between eating cows, pigs & chickens versus eating cats and dogs!
The objections some people have against eating these animals mostly seen as either pests or pets is mostly embedded in aesthetics and cultural traditions—not necessarily because there is something structurally or nutritionally wrong with the practice, though perhaps more research may need to be done on this topic.
People in the West criticize the many people in India who refuse to eat cow meat, yet aren’t these Westerners being equally “silly” for refusing to eat cats and dogs?
But Americans Love Tabby and Fido—Won’t These People Be Offended?
Americans who have a problem with the consumption of cats and dogs (or other animals not traditionally used as food), some third world food production experts would say, need to “get a life”—better yet, they need to allow other hungry people around the world the privilege of hanging on to theirs.
Some global hunger experts are asking: “What should take precedence, offending clueless, uncaring-for-the-welfare-of-their-fellow-needy-human-beings individuals or continuing to let millions of people die every decade simply because we’re not maximizing our food production capacity?”
Will Traditional Food Sources Feed the Hungry in the Near Future?
So-called traditional food sources (wheat/corn farming, raising cattle/pigs, fishing, etc.) are not feeding the hungry right now—how can we expect them to feed our global population once it doubles a few years from now?
Add to that the fact that the production of these resources is being altered/compromised through pollution, acid rain, nutritional depletion of the soil, destruction of the ozone layer, bees dying off (thus no longer being around to cross-pollinate crops), the over-use of insecticides and pesticides, GMOs supposedly destroying the biogenetic integrity of natural seeds (thus making them unable to sprout properly in the future), etc.
In other words, these traditional methods will yield, if anything, much less food in the future. Do the math: compromised traditional food production sources PLUS a much bigger global population EQUALS what? Does the phrase "international disaster" come to mind?
The news is even worse if the next world war includes the use of nuclear weapons (which will likely be the case). What about natural conflagrations capable of disrupting global law and order? As governments collapse and anarchy takes over, societies will be even more hard-pressed to keep up with food production needs.
At that point, people will eat whatever they can find—including pets, the few wild animals still left (pigeons, squirrels, etc.), and creatures they can still trap (rats, snakes, etc.) from environments now unfriendly even for these once-limitless creatures.
We Need to Be Proactive Now, Not after Infrastructures Collapse!
Fortunately, the US and most developed countries can still feed most of its citizens, although hunger is a big problem even among such countries. Why not see to it that the poor in undeveloped countries also have enough to eat, even if we have to resort to the use of non-traditional food sources?
If over 20,000,000 people are dying now from hunger in relatively peaceful times and without any major global conflagration having occurred, how many will die once WWIII breaks out (which is only a matter of time) or major natural/man-made catastrophes (a global epidemic, major earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanos, erratic weather patterns, etc.) occur?
How will we feed our global community then?
CONCLUSION
There is clearly much more that can be done to help feed the hungry across the world. We can start by using foreign aid more intelligently/responsibly, develop alternative food sources, and make feeding the masses more of a priority.
By all means, the US should be leading the way in the development of new food technologies, including the use of cats, dogs, rats, and any other fauna/flora that can provide more food, more cheaply and more quickly for an exploding global population.
Copyright, 2018. Fred Fletcher. All rights reserved.
REFERENCES & RESOURCES
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151207-the-countries-where-rats-are-on-the-menu
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5341521/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/15/ending-world-hunger
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/7-reasons-why-ending-world-hunger-still-needs-to-h/
http://www.globalissues.org/article/8/solving-world-hunger-means-solving-world-poverty
https://borgenproject.org/category/food/famine/
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/jun/08/eight-ways-solve-world-hunger
Only a very cruel uncaring person would allow such a thing.
Related Keywords
