comment: >
  
  Wrong, if the profit incentive is taken out of food production then we can actually begin to take steps towards fixing world hunger. There’s no curing it when people are growing or making a food and their number one concern how much will I profit, instead of oh shit I’m a farmer I need to grow as healthy and numbersome crops to feed as many as possible
context: This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
  Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
  (For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
  Rule-breaking posts may result in bans. >
  
  The third way is cannibalism....plus it even solves the problem of overpopulation in bonus >
  
  At first I thought that just has to be satire, but aside from all the stock videos & what I swear is Always Sunny jingle, it seemed kind of...serious? But then according to the T&Cs it's a "conceptual art project to give an understanding of the importance of accepting any services’ policy and agreements." and I just don't see the connection.  
  So I'm convinced it's just satire, though aside from the bizarre side of it the humour is kind of lost on me. >
  
  Well if I were to be serious about starting a "human meat project", I'd also call it art in order to not get lynched by an angry mob.
  there's also this.
  and this. >
  
  The first point isnt accurate so effectively;
  '2 ways to end world hunger are through giving everyone food or starving everyone' >
  
  There are two ways to end poverty either by equal distribution of resources or taking away all the resources. >
  
  taking away all of the resources increases poverty. >
  
  Only in the very short term. >
  
  because then everyone dies? >
  
  That would be the consequences of starvation. >
  
  indeed. >
  
  There were roughly 5 million people on Earth 10,000 years ago. Many of them were hungry. 
  We invented farming. Mankind got a lot more to eat. But despite this, 10,000 years later there are now hundreds of millions starving people on Earth. 
  You can help a hungry person by donating food but world hunger can only be solved by access to contraceptives and education. >
  
  First way won't work, long range.  Donations will make the donor feel good, as long as she doesn't check on things later. >
  
  It took me a second because I was like, if people don't eat, they.... oh. 
  Turns out sending food to countries seems to do more harm than good >
  
  Also, programs supporting agriculture don't get donations. They keep those images of starving children and a message that "your donation can feed a child for [X] days." That's what gets donations, farming programs and investment in infrastructure can't raise cash. >
  
  What if told you donating food isn’t the solution to ending world hunger? But instead the profit motive behind creating and growing foods? >
  
  If you think their is starvation when growing food is profitable.
  Wait till you see how many starve when growing food ISNT profitable.
  In any event,  starvation is a food distribution problem.  It's not a production problem.