comment: >
  
  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.
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?