There's enough food grown to give every single human alive enough to eat every day. Know how much it would cost to move all that (already existing) food to where it needs to be to feed everyone? $80 billion a year. The world spends more than that on the military EVERY WEEK. The US alone could accomplish it with a 11.7% cut in Defense spending.
I know there's a fallacy here, but I can't quite put my tongue on it. Help me out?
What are you even asking for? If each sentence of that paragraph is factually true, there's nothing "fallacious" about it. Please formulate a better question.
If you fed 'everyone alive', then certain people would realise that they didn't have to work for food, and they'd sit around popping out babies all day, and these babies would pop out babies, and soon you'd have an entire continent (not naming any names) teeming with people who were not producing anything to support themselves (as they'd have no incentive to) and relying soley on the produce of others. Eventually, the population of this continent would grow large enough that there was no longer enough food being produced in the world to support them all (or the other continents would get sick of having so much of their produce taken and given to this continent, that they'd start producing less), and there'd be mass starvation.
Off the top of my head, it looks like the bare-assertion fallacy is being committed multiple times.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
claudius:If each sentence of that paragraph is factually true, there's nothing "fallacious" about it.
"Fallacy" doesn't mean an error of fact. A fallacy is an error of reasoning. The premises of the paragraph might be factually true. That doesn't mean the conclusions are. Assuming arguendo the facts are right, I find it hard to believe that all that needs to happen in order for world hunger to be cured forever is a budget cut for the DoD.
Why are you framing this as "an entire Continent" and make it a point to "not name any names". I think you've got something else in mind there, it doesn't make any sense otherwise...
If you fed 'everyone alive'
A similarly easy way to relate this would be by calling it a subsidy--what do you get when you subsidize something?
There's enough food grown to give every single human alive enough to eat every day.
This is a bare assertion. Where are the facts to support it?
Let's make some conservative calculations to estimate how much food there really is for everyone. Assume that there are exactly seven billion people on Earth, and that all of them are adults. Further assume that each adult needs at least 2,000 calories per day for energy. Of the three macronutrients (protein, carbohydrates, and fat), only carbohydrates and fat are supposed to be used for energy. Protein is used to replenish the body's amino acids. To make it even simpler, we'll leave fat out of the picture and assume that all 2,000 calories are produced from carbohydrates.
On a 2,000-calorie diet, how many carbohydrates does a person need to take in each day? Carbohydrates generate four calories per gram, so the "average" person needs 500 grams (that's half of a kilogram) of carbohydrates each day to meet his caloric needs this way. Multiply that by 365 days per year, and we get 182,500 grams, or 182.5 kilograms. Now multiplpy that by seven billion people on Earth, and you get a total necessary carb yield of 1.2775 * 10^15 grams of carbs needed by the world each year.
Now let's get into grain production. There are three main kinds of grain produced by the world: corn (maize), wheat, and rice. This link provides figures for world production of each of these grains for 2009. One gram of corn (steamed or boiled) contains 0.25 grams of carbs (source), one gram of wheat (flour) contains 0.725 grams of carbs (source), and one gram of rice (steamed or boiled) contains 0.214 grams of carbs (source). Now using the previous link, we can figure out how many carbs the world produces per year for each grain:
Corn: (8.17110509 * 10^17 grams) * 0.214 = 1.74861648926 * 10^17 grams of carbohydrates
Wheat: (6.81915838 * 10^17 grams) * 0.725 = 4.9438898255 * 10^17 grams of carbohydrates
Rice: (6.78688289 * 10^17 grams) * 0.214 = 1.45239293846 * 10^17 grams of carbohydrates
Adding all these up together, we get over 8 * 10^17 grams of carbohydrates produced by the world in 2009. That is indeed more than enough to feed seven billion adult human beings, each on a 2,000-calorie daily diet - by a couple orders of magnitude.
But...
As the saying goes, man can't live on bread alone. Calories - energy - do not replenish the body's amino acids. Protein does. The recommended minimum intake of protein for the "average" person is 60 grams per day. This protein comes from a variety of sources, but one of the major sources by far is meat from livestock. Now livestock themselves need either grazing land or animal feed. In terms of grazing land, this source indicates that about five acres, or about two hectares (a hectare is 2.47 acres), of land can support one or two full-size cattle (a head of cattle is one cow). The average beef cow weighs about 455 kilograms and produces about 286 kilograms of beef (source). An ounce of beef seems to contain about seven grams of protein on average (source), and an ounce is equal to about 28 grams, so that gives us an average of 0.25 grams of protein per gram of beef. So an average beef cow produces 71,500 grams of usable protein. That's more than one person needs in a year (21,900 grams).
How many beef cows would be needed to support the minimum protein requirements of seven billion "average" people? A little over two billion. Interestingly enough, the number of cows in the world currently seems to be at least 1.5 billion, which is pretty close. Then again, there are many other animals which people can and do eat. But just out of curiosity, if there were two billion cows on Earth, and all of them were grass-fed, how much grazing land would be needed? Given the above, the answer is about 4.34 billion hectares. How much total land is there on Earth? According to this, there's about 14.8 billion hectares. So nearly thirty percent of Earth's land surface would be needed for cattle grazing to support seven billion "average" adults' protein needs - and that's just their needs, not their wants.
Know how much it would cost to move all that (already existing) food to where it needs to be to feed everyone? $80 billion a year.
This is even more of a bare assertion, as I can't even begin to figure out how the $80-billion-a-year figure was arrived at.
[Duplicate post, please delete.]
Conditional reasoning from shaky premises to BOOM the $80 billion number pulled out of someone's arse. I'm not sure there is a name for this specificaly but I'm certain whoever wrote this, if pressured, would fail to explain $80 billion.
I've see such figures at $80 billion or $120 billion thrown around as what is needed to "feed everyone on the globe". This includes infrastructure, the food itself, staffing, etc. Someone did sit down and come up with the numbers in some kind of semi-rational way.
There's ONE major problem though: Sure you can buy trucks and build a road to get to starving people in the impoverished areas of the globe. However, that doesn't change the fact that many of these areas are EXTREMELY politically unstable. The problem isn't a lack of food, it's a lack of peace and secure property/human rights. There's a reason many areas have famines and poverty, and it almost always links back to violence, tyranical state, and lack of property rights. This all drives away investment, both for commerce and charity.
To LogisticEarth: Well when people say "feeding the world's poor", they're generally referring to Africa, the least developed continent and the one with the poorest people. Considering how harmful the current Western policy of food handouts and subsidies has been to Africa's development, if we actually gave them enough to feed their entire population (and any growth that occurred therein), things could only get worse.
While I don't disagree that the current way that food aid is distrubuted to sub-saharan Africa and other poor regions of the globe is very disruptive, framing your argument in terms of "continents" isn't really helpful. Africa has a huge number of problems, and it's not all about them "sitting around and popping out babies". The food aid exacerbates and helps perpetuate the problem, but it isn't the source. See my above post. This instability is in many ways due to statist colonialism and the creation of artificial nation-states that lead to ongoing instability and warfare.
Autolykos, let me play the vegan advocate.
This protein comes from a variety of sources, but one of the major sources by far is meat from livestock. Now livestock themselves need either grazing land or animal feed. In terms of grazing land, this source indicates that about five acres, or about two hectares (a hectare is 2.47 acres), of land can support one or two full-size cattle (a head of cattle is one cow). The average beef cow weighs about 455 kilograms and produces about 286 kilograms of beef (source). An ounce of beef seems to contain about seven grams of protein on average (source), and an ounce is equal to about 28 grams, so that gives us an average of 0.25 grams of protein per gram of beef. So an average beef cow produces 71,500 grams of usable protein. That's more than one person needs in a year (21,900 grams). How many beef cows would be needed to support the minimum protein requirements of seven billion "average" people? A little over two billion. Interestingly enough, the number of cows in the world currently seems to be at least 1.5 billion, which is pretty close. Then again, there are many other animals which people can and do eat. But just out of curiosity, if there were two billion cows on Earth, and all of them were grass-fed, how much grazing land would be needed? Given the above, the answer is about 4.34 billion hectares. How much total land is there on Earth? According to this, there's about 14.8 billion hectares. So nearly thirty percent of Earth's land surface would be needed for cattle grazing to support seven billion "average" adults' protein needs - and that's just their needs, not their wants.
This protein comes from a variety of sources, but one of the major sources by far is meat from livestock. Now livestock themselves need either grazing land or animal feed. In terms of grazing land, this source indicates that about five acres, or about two hectares (a hectare is 2.47 acres), of land can support one or two full-size cattle (a head of cattle is one cow). The average beef cow weighs about 455 kilograms and produces about 286 kilograms of beef (source). An ounce of beef seems to contain about seven grams of protein on average (source), and an ounce is equal to about 28 grams, so that gives us an average of 0.25 grams of protein per gram of beef. So an average beef cow produces 71,500 grams of usable protein. That's more than one person needs in a year (21,900 grams).
Meat is not a neccassary source of protein as you can get protein from many sources, and a lot of people (especially in this country) intake more protein than they need daily because they eat meat.
In terms of production, the grain fed to cattle could be fed to people and could help more starving people than it would take if you bred cattle for food. The overall energy used to produce a pound of beef is higher than that of grain.
Here, here, and here.
The fallacy in this is that humans need to eat meat to be healthy, the meat itself is the want, not the need. Outside of the OP, if people did not eat meat you could feed the world with the grain and water that would have been fed to cattle for meat.
population is a function of food supply. Of course there is enough food to feed everyone on the planet. But people are growing. If you feed them so they are satiated, they will want to have sex. This is what happens to people who are productive enough to have a caloric surplus and attract a mate.
spending $80 billion or whatever on food and transpo would make food and transpo harder for everyone else to afford. Plus they subsidize their competition.
I don't think you understand the structure of arguments. If cutting the budget of the dod by 11 percent saves 80 billion dollars, that's an empirical fact.
Read the paragraph again. There is no argument being made.
I find it hard to believe that all that needs to happen in order for world hunger to be cured forever is a budget cut for the DoD.
It didn't say forever.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
BS, you're sounding like Malthus there. Perhaps in ancient agrarian societies or animal populations, but in our contemporary world, the richer the poplation gets, the LESS they reproduce. Why? Because people are acting agents with goals. In developed societies, children are expensive; they require food, housing, education, etc. With cheap and effective birth control available, it makes economic sense to have fewer children. This is why you see developed nations fall down to replacement birth rate or less. The only area that's really lagging behind in this is Africa, because it's had next to no capital accumulation, although it's slowly getting there. Check out this TED talk by Hans Rosling concerning economic development and population growth rates: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html (I think that's the right link, I can't confirm it right now)
I'm sure that you could feed that many people with, perhaps not that little money, but at least something fairly close to it. It would be negligible compared to world GDP. At the same time this would keep these people in poverty and continually increase the weight of the utlra poor on the world as their numbers would rise exponentially as events would unfold which would be like malthusianism without the essential food check.
This is all assuming that there's no resistance from local governments, which there could well be in the hungriest of nations in Africa where they can use food as power against other areas.
tunk:There's enough food grown to give every single human alive enough to eat every day. Know how much it would cost to move all that (already existing) food to where it needs to be to feed everyone? $80 billion a year. The world spends more than that on the military EVERY WEEK. The US alone could accomplish it with a 11.7% cut in Defense spending. I know there's a fallacy here, but I can't quite put my tongue on it. Help me out?
I'm not sure which specific fallacy it is called, but there seems to be a presumption that the United States government ought to be spending $80 billion on providing food transportation. This of course ignores the question of whether anything in the quote is true, other than 80 billion being equal to 11.7% of "Defense" spending.
Bert:Meat is not a neccassary source of protein as you can get protein from many sources, and a lot of people (especially in this country) intake more protein than they need daily because they eat meat.
I did say that, in the real world, protein comes from a variety of sources, didn't I? That is, it doesn't have to come from meat at all.
Do you happen to know what happens to excess protein that's taken in? I ask because I'm not sure myself.
Bert:In terms of production, the grain fed to cattle could be fed to people and could help more starving people than it would take if you bred cattle for food. The overall energy used to produce a pound of beef is higher than that of grain. Here, here, and here.
Cattle are hardly the only food animals around. There are also pigs, sheep, chicken, turkey, many different species of fish and crustaceans, etc. - and that's hardly exhaustive.
Bert:The fallacy in this is that humans need to eat meat to be healthy, the meat itself is the want, not the need. Outside of the OP, if people did not eat meat you could feed the world with the grain and water that would have been fed to cattle for meat.
Strictly speaking, you're right - humans don't need meat per se to be healthy. What humans need to be healthy are certain amounts of certain macro- and micronutrients. Many of those happen to exist in many different kinds of meat.
Here's some additional information on how much grains cattle typically consume. According to this, it's recommended to feed a cow no more than 1-3% of its body weight in grains per day. Making a conservative assumption that all cows on Earth are fully grown (roughly 455 kilograms), then no more than 14 kilograms of grains should be fed to it per day. Multiplying that times 365 days per year and by the total number of cows in my thought experiment (two billion), we arrive at a figure of 1.022 *10^16 grams of grain each year being fed to all cattle. This is well under the total amount of corn and wheat produced by the world in 2009 - according to the Oklahoma State University link I provided earlier, that figure is about 1.5 * 10^18 grams. There's a roughly two-order-of-magnitude (or 100-to-1) difference between this figure and what two billion fully-grown cows would need for a year. In other words, the grain needed to feed those cows would constitute only 1% of the total corn and wheat grown by the entire world. So it seems like the issue of grazing land would be more important here.
The US government should cut spending on defence. Yet it should not increase foreign aid.
Give private charity a chance.
Do you have any idea what global annual spend by private charity is even under present conditions?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
@LogisticEarth We're not talking about everyone becoming vastly wealthier overall (which is what happened in the West), but merely having enough to survive.
claudius:If cutting the budget of the dod by 11 percent saves 80 billion dollars, that's an empirical fact.
Except that wasn't the only claim being made. According to the paragraph, "the US alone could accomplish" the feat of moving all the food to the people who need it every year simply by cutting the defense budget. Solving world hunger is as simple as that!