Wow. I'm not even going to give my opinion on this one. Good question and am looking forward to reading some, hopefully, well thought out answers.

He's half right, but for the wrong reasons. Sending food is a solution for a small group of people for one day. Problem is, after you feed someone, they get hungry again after a while. Money would be better spent supporting charities like Heifer, that provides the needy with a source of income that will feed them for extended periods, with a "pay it forward" clause attached. It's the "Teach a man to fish" mentality that will make a difference. Simply letting masses starve to death is the antithesis of a humanitarian effort.

the people need to be shipped to the united states...we will help them with free medical and dental. free housing, free food stamps, a free credit card at bank of america.

Your friend is right about the population problem however, there is really not a lot we can do to stop it from happening & the children are the innocent victims so i would help if i could because never should the children have to pay. One day the very children who had to go hungry will decide they will not do that to their children & be more careful about bringing a life into the world because they know firsthand how it feels.

Actually, I think the problem is frequently violence and bad leadership, not overpopulation. Food sent to feed the hungry in Africa frequently ends up feeding the very army that is causing the citizens to starve. One group decides to hate another and drives their people off the land to starve in the desert and when you send food, it feeds the haters that drove them off. You have to be careful who you give the money to, but there are some groups out there who are very good at getting the food to the right people. Another big cause of starvation is the AIDS epidemic, which has left millions of children to starve without parents to care for them.

He is right, if you have to use such terms, IF it was any other animal or animals suffering to this point the animal or animals would have been put down for "Humanitarian Reasons" a long time ago, and NO it does not help the problem it only enables it to continue, t's a form of extortion as there are those that have a "Vested Interest" in keeping it this way and the only way to make a change is to walk away and NOT forget WHO is behind it, because if you want to displace someone you starve them out of what is theirs untill they move somewhere else, they are called refugees and they are used for someone else's purpose and what would their reasons be ... ~Nemo~

I would ultimately have to disagree on that one. While I am sure over population is an issue here, that is a problem every where and we can't have the attitude of " well let's just let them all starve and die, and then the problem will be solved because they won't be there any more to feed." I personally don't send them money because I don't think they ever actually see a dime of it...

He has a point, that you're treating the symptom, not the problem - but often aid relief includes helping villages set up their own sustainable farming methods along with providing actual food.

So what should we do, let them starve until there's no one left? I know some people right now are thinking that would be a good idea. But let us not get into that. Overpopulation is not "the problem". Overpopulation certainly worsen the problem, but it's not the problem in itself and by itself. There are many people with very simplistic answer to many world's complex problems; particularly the one facing Africa. The plight of Africa--past and present--is very much linked to the legacy of hundreds of years of colonialism at the hands of Europeans with the help of many corrupted African leaders. I've been in Africa 3 different times and spoke at great length with some key people. One thing, however, is certain. Money alone will not solve the problem in Africa. Not as long as there are issues such as prolonged violent conflict, very bad governance, excessive EXTERNAL INTERFERENCE, and the lack of an autonomous policy space. Africa development challenges are multifaceted. Again, colonial history still looms large in Africa--I've seen it with my own eyes--so money alone cannot undo that history. Five decades after independence, Africa is still grappling with building the nation-state. On one hand, whole nations were split by the Europeans into artificial boundaries to form separate independent countries, while on the other hand, several nation-states were lumped together within these same artificials borders. And all this done, of course, with one purpose in mind. And dig this. To this already complex picture was added the impact of the Cold War rivalries between the two major powers, which extended to the African theatre. Humanitarian help certainly they need, but within the humanitarian effort, TECHNOLOGY help of all kind, MUST be the most important element included in it. And those so-called missionaries who go overthere using food and other stuff as allurement to "convert" them to Christianity as the solution to their problem, need to get the f**k away from there.

Technically he's correct. And it's not confined to Africa.

I think he's bang on, they are over populated and sending food will not solve the problem, I would of thought after 10 years of the same commercials people would of realized this by now. In my opinion I don't think we should send them anything else, we have enough problems of our own so the government should put there own people first.

No, he's not and I'd imagine that your friend is pro-war. That's a great way to control overpopulation Inhumane, misguided people come up with all sorts of stuff to justify their wrongdoing and this is a classical example of that

The food isn't really what is enabling them to survive better (overpopulate). It's the installation and educating of sanitation and basic health needs.

If the need of the hour is to send food then it has to be done but it is important to solve the issue with the local government and agencies which work in those countries.The aid normally does not go to the needy but to hungry politicians and vultures who squeeze the poor!If you need to help then start at home first!Help in your own backyard first!Except in emergencies!

has some common sense reasoning...but not humane...

I too am opposed to such giving because so little of it ever gets to those whom actually need the help. Sending food is not good either because most of it is sold on the black market. The people of that country need to free themselves from their ilegal governments and dictators. I have quit giving because of the graft of the governments involved as well as many of those organizations whom collect for such things. This may not sit well with some, but I have watched and read about the graft in these programs and refuse to give my hard earned money into them.

It's his opinion, with which you may agree or disagree, but that doesn't mean he's right or wrong either way. I believe that the number one problem facing human beings is over-population, and things like starvation are symptoms of the real problem.

Yes and no. Letting people starve to death is never a good solution. However, it's not your friend's fault because he refuses to send money. Spending the money wisely is the most difficult task at hand. Most governments of countries with people starving do not spend it wisely, to say the least. The main problem is, one way or the other, innocent people die.

That is part of the problem, another is a corrupt government. Africa is not a friendly continent. Constant wars, famine, corrupt governments. The only way that's going to change is if someone takes the country by force, and rules it by an iron hand, but with the beneefit of the people. So if you REALLY want to help, Get 2 Trillion dollars, set up your army of death, send them to Africa, quell all uprisings (That means killing everyone who resists), then, using the population as slaves set up a massive agrarian infrastructure. Then when the people have farms to feed them, and clothe them, you'll still have to quell more uprisings as people want to do silly things like "Vote" and "Think for themselves". Really, it's more trouble than it's worth. If the people of Africa are going to survive they have to stand on thier own two feet and make it happen.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

I think that he is right in thinking that overpopulation is an issue, however, starving the people to death is not the way to go about it. I think that providing contraception and education is the way to control overpopulation. At the present, the US wont fund any health clinic that provides information about abortion and conducts abortions, and the pope and the rest of his mob are running around telling the africans that condoms make AIDS worse, and will send them to hell. We need to sort this out in order to sort the overpopulation issue out.

Nope! He clearly has absolutely no idea what he's talking about & I'd recommend ignoring him until he's read...... well, anything at all to do with the subject would help.

Nobody's sending food to Tokoyo or Hong Kong. So, over population is clearly not the problem. In fact, after Australia, Africa is the most sparsley populated continent. The problem is poverty. However, people need to eat everyday while the poverty issue is dealt with. Poverty is a result of poor governance, western and now Chinese advantage-taking, historic enmity between tribes, corruption, civil strife and war, and lack of development. All of these issues are related. Some countries are improving, and have relative stability. South Africa, obviously. Ghana, and now countries such as Liberia are making a comeback as the government has stabilized. It will still take 20-30 years to get the continent on its feet and to be considered developed, but some progress is being seen today in many countries.

it's not over population...it's the fact that the goverment controls who gets that food that is brought into the country...they even control who get the food donated specifically for the hungry...chances are the neediest do not get it. not to mention, we have so much need here that we are either unable or unwilling to meet...also, their bodies can't digest the foods that we eat here so i'm not sure what we are sending anyway...

30 years ago, I remember a commedian saying, 'Don't send them any more money. Send luggage'. Everyone laughed & said he was probably more right than not. That ws 30 years ago. Just think of all the money that has been sent and they are still in poverty and dying.

He has an incredibly simplistic view. But he is partially correct in the sense that feeding the people of Africa does not solve the fundamental problems of Africa, or find a solution. Regardless, he is wrong. He has a very narrow-minded and uneducated opinion - in my own opinion, of course. What we need is a cure to the problem of starvation and over-population is a problem. It is not THE problem though, by a long-shot. We can't solve the problem simply by having fewer children being born in Africa. To not give money to feed the starving won't help matters. Money is needed to feed people while we help to prevent the wars, ethnic conflict, corruption, famine, disease, lack of access to education etc. If at all possible. Indeed - starving people actually creates and exacerbates war, corrupton and violence. It is part of the problem itself. That is my view. Anyway, try telling a starving family that having more children will be a bad move when a lot of the children are likely to die young due to disease and war; and more children are needed in order to have a larger working base later in life to try to bring in food for the family.

If he's right, that's pretty sad.

What have the children done to deserve to starve to death? Absolutely nothing.