Benedict XVI: “The right to life includes freedom from hunger”

[Ahimsa]

Ah, so to be “pro-life” is much more expansive than usually thought:
Benedict XVI condemned the “huge gap between those lacking daily sustenance and others who have extensive resources at their disposal, often using them for ends which are not nourishment related, and even destroying them in some cases, confirming that globalisation brings us closer but does not promote a sense of brotherhood.” Pope Ratzinger is asking for everyone to have “access to necessary food resources” and “a sufficient level of investment in the agricultural sector” in order to “bring stability to production and thus to the market.”

“It is easy, he commented, to bring the issue down to a growing population’s demand for food, when we are all well aware that the causes of hunger stem from elsewhere and its victims are many, including Lazarus who was not allowed to sit at the rich man’s table.”

 

[Nate13]

Ah, so to be “pro-life” is much more expansive than usually thought:
Benedict XVI condemned the “huge gap between those lacking daily sustenance and others who have extensive resources at their disposal, often using them for ends which are not nourishment related, and even destroying them in some cases, confirming that globalisation brings us closer but does not promote a sense of brotherhood.” Pope Ratzinger is asking for everyone to have “access to necessary food resources” and “a sufficient level of investment in the agricultural sector” in order to “bring stability to production and thus to the market.”

“It is easy, he commented, to bring the issue down to a growing population’s demand for food, when we are all well aware that the causes of hunger stem from elsewhere and its victims are many, including Lazarus who was not allowed to sit at the rich man’s table.”

Uh who argues that it doesn’t? Food, water, and air to breathe are requirements for life. I think his comments point to the fact that our problems with hunger have to do with the mismanagement of resources rather than the lack of resources to treat the problem in the first place. This mismanagement is usually found not in those providing the aid, but in those who are in charge of distributing it. I’m sure the Pope also condemns the blackmail that occurs where aid is only given if contraceptives are used.

Another problem is the moratorium by environmentalists in Africa that makes it incredibly hard to build anything other than green energy projects there. Apparently Africa is expected to skip the fossil burning stage of economic development right to ultra-complex and high cost options that we in America are not even ready to embrace. If we didn’t have our foot pressing down on the neck of the African people while we tried to shove food in their mouth maybe they would stand a chance of pulling out of poverty. Does it not make you wonder why a majority of South American countries are so far ahead of African countries? Brazil has the 3rd largest economy in the world I believe. How does this make any sense when Africa has been exposed to Western civilization for so much longer than any of the South American countries.

 

[Michaeljc4]

The world produces more than enough to feed all of the people who are alive today. How that food is distributed, though…that’s a harder issue.

Much of the grain that is grown in the world goes to feed animals that are turned into meat products. Were people in the developed world to give up eating meat (or eat much less meat), there would be more, and cheaper, grain. Likewise, diverting grain to create biofuels drives the costs up significantly.

For myself, I donate to a wonderful program that aids the poor. I have reduced my meat consumption by about 80%. I pray for the hungry every day. I have begun growing my own food in a great garden. I try to be mindful about where my food comes from, and what it actually costs (for those who produce it, how it is transported to market, what’s in it, etc.) Food is remarkably complex, and has many moral dimensions.

 

[Nate13]

The United Nations proposes that 6 million people die every year from hunger. In contrast to that its estimated 50 million abortions are performed every year. Looking at just the United States, I highly doubt more than 4,000 people die every day in the U.S from hunger. The only reason someone would die from hunger in the U.S would be if they weren’t taking advantage of the programs that are in place. I hope this adds perspective to the issue, and why abortion gets so much more attention within the pro-life movement.

 

[estesbob]

Ah, so to be “pro-life” is much more expansive than usually thought:
Benedict XVI condemned the “huge gap between those lacking daily sustenance and others who have extensive resources at their disposal, often using them for ends which are not nourishment related, and even destroying them in some cases, confirming that globalisation brings us closer but does not promote a sense of brotherhood.” Pope Ratzinger is asking for everyone to have “access to necessary food resources” and “a sufficient level of investment in the agricultural sector” in order to “bring stability to production and thus to the market.”

“It is easy, he commented, to bring the issue down to a growing population’s demand for food, when we are all well aware that the causes of hunger stem from elsewhere and its victims are many, including Lazarus who was not allowed to sit at the rich man’s table.”

I don’t know how anyone would disagree with that. The problem is how to best alleviate the problem-. Much of was not caused by lack of food but by political impediments to distributing it, especially in Third World countries.

 

[Mudgely]

The world produces more than enough to feed all of the people who are alive today. How that food is distributed, though…that’s a harder issue.

Much of the grain that is grown in the world goes to feed animals that are turned into meat products. Were people in the developed world to give up eating meat (or eat much less meat), there would be more, and cheaper, grain. Likewise, diverting grain to create biofuels drives the costs up significantly.

For myself, I donate to a wonderful program that aids the poor. I have reduced my meat consumption by about 80%. I pray for the hungry every day. I have begun growing my own food in a great garden. I try to be mindful about where my food comes from, and what it actually costs (for those who produce it, how it is transported to market, what’s in it, etc.) Food is remarkably complex, and has many moral dimensions.

I rarely eat meat for the same reason. In the US, we feed our cows enough corn to feed the entire world. Besides, there are big health benefits to reducing meat consumption. It is also a cheaper diet than eating meat.

 

[estesbob]

I rarely eat meat for the same reason. In the US, we feed our cows enough corn to feed the entire world. Besides, there are big health benefits to reducing meat consumption. It is also a cheaper diet than eating meat.

I only eat meat on days ending in Y.

 

[Mudgely]

I only eat meat on days ending in Y.

Heheh… but this does bring up the question of charity. What obligation is there to live a simple life, so that others may live? I know that the meat that I don’t consume will not make any difference in Africa. Our food distribution system is entrenched in our legislative bodies, and even a department of the Federal government. It seems hopeless to attempt reform. At the same time, it is true, that the US could feed much of the world just by changing our diet, and sending our surplus to those who need it.

 

[estesbob]

Heheh… but this does bring up the question of charity. What obligation is there to live a simple life, so that others may live? I know that the meat that I don’t consume will not make any difference in Africa. Our food distribution system is entrenched in our legislative bodies, and even a department of the Federal government. It seems hopeless to attempt reform. At the same time, it is true, that the US could feed much of the world just by changing our diet, and sending our surplus to those who need it.

again, the problem is not the volume of food-there is more than enough food available to feed everybody- it is a distribution problem. . The , distribution problem is not caused by the United States-. It is caused by corrupt governments throughout the world.

. My wife is a vegetarian , but does not any expouse any moral reasons for it- she just doesn’t want to eat meat. . The church has absolutely no prohibition against eating meat nor have I ever run across teaching by the church that would indicate that they endorse vegetarianism in any way, shape or form.

 

[dmelosi]

Ah, so to be “pro-life” is much more expansive than usually thought:
Benedict XVI condemned the “huge gap between those lacking daily sustenance and others who have extensive resources at their disposal, often using them for ends which are not nourishment related, and even destroying them in some cases, confirming that globalisation brings us closer but does not promote a sense of brotherhood.” Pope Ratzinger is asking for everyone to have “access to necessary food resources” and “a sufficient level of investment in the agricultural sector” in order to “bring stability to production and thus to the market.”

“It is easy, he commented, to bring the issue down to a growing population’s demand for food, when we are all well aware that the causes of hunger stem from elsewhere and its victims are many, including Lazarus who was not allowed to sit at the rich man’s table.”

I don’t know of one person on here who disagrees with the Pope on this. But I didn’t see where he mentioned the term pro-life in the article?

 

[Mudgely]

again, the problem is not the volume of food-there is more than enough food available to feed everybody- it is a distribution problem. . The , distribution problem is not caused by the United States-. It is caused by corrupt governments throughout the world.

. My wife is a vegetarian , but does not any expouse any moral reasons for it- she just doesn’t want to eat meat. . The church has absolutely no prohibition against eating meat nor have I ever run across teaching by the church that would indicate that they endorse vegetarianism in any way, shape or form.

At what point is social activism required? Not only that, we are dying of our gluttony.

 

[estesbob]

At what point is social activism required? Not only that, we are dying of our gluttony.

Im not. And i dont see how being a vegetarian has anything to do with social activism.

 

[Mudgely]

Im not. And i dont see how being a vegetarian has anything to do with social activism.

It has to do with the prudent husbandry of the planet, and taking care of our fellow man. Today, right now, we produce enough food to feed the world. If you can’t see that, after it is explained repeatedly, then there is not much to say.

 

[estesbob]

It has to do with the prudent husbandry of the planet, and taking care of our fellow man. Today, right now, we produce enough food to feed the world. If you can’t see that, after it is explained repeatedly, then there is not much to say.

Being a vegetarian has nothing to with prudent husbandry of the planet, and taking care of our fellow man.

 

[Michaeljc4]

Being a vegetarian has nothing to with prudent husbandry of the planet, and taking care of our fellow man.

Partially correct. Being a vegetarian in and of itself is not important. Knowing how the food you enjoy gets to your plate, and recognizing that our food production system can be very, very sinful, is quite important.

God gave us both reason and free will. Use them both, and recognize that everything we do has a cost associated with it. How we eat, and what we eat, have costs far beyond the price you pay at a grocery store.

You may like eating meat. I know I do. My favorite food is a cheeseburger, and I am convinced that sausage is nature’s perfect food. With that said, knowing how it is produced, and who is affected by its production, makes my likes or dislikes far less important than God’s command that I be a steward of the earth and care for ‘the least of these.’

 

[Ridgerunner]

The world produces more than enough to feed all of the people who are alive today. How that food is distributed, though…that’s a harder issue.

Much of the grain that is grown in the world goes to feed animals that are turned into meat products. Were people in the developed world to give up eating meat (or eat much less meat), there would be more, and cheaper, grain. Likewise, diverting grain to create biofuels drives the costs up significantly.

For myself, I donate to a wonderful program that aids the poor. I have reduced my meat consumption by about 80%. I pray for the hungry every day. I have begun growing my own food in a great garden. I try to be mindful about where my food comes from, and what it actually costs (for those who produce it, how it is transported to market, what’s in it, etc.) Food is remarkably complex, and has many moral dimensions.

It does appear to me that the main problems are political. Remember when we tried to get food to the starving in Somalia, and what happened?

It’s fine to grow one’s own food. One might look more closely at the consumption of meat, however, before concluding that it’s a problem for the world. I recently read that for the first time, more corn is going into corn ethanol than into animal feed.

Now, the major uses of corn in animal feeding is for poultry and hogs, who eat it every day of their lives (except for a short while with baby pigs). Most cattle never eat grain, and those who do, eat it for only a short time, and even then it’s mostly corn ethanol byproducts nowadays (brewer’s grain) and other grain byproducts like rice hulls and wheat fines. Same with sheep and goats. In Australia, they don’t feed grain to cattle, sheep and goats at all…ever. It’s not a matter of necessity, it’s a matter of taste. Aussies like fully grass-fed beef. Americans prefer “marbled” beef.

Fully 1/3 of the world’s useable land is suitable only for grassland. That ratio is about the same in the U.S. Grass is indigestible to humans. The only way you can use grass for food is to first put it through a cow, sheep or a goat.

But (and I’m not a grain farmer) I am told that most of the grain that goes to feed poultry and hogs (and, for a short while, prime cattle) is not the kind of grain people eat anyway.

So, in not eating meat, I’m not at all sure the world food supply is favorably affected, except, I guess, the meat supply.

One really irritating story, and then I’ll quit. A friend of mine deals in secondary meat products; mostly for pet food. Americans won’t buy certain poultry products; wingtips, backs, necks, but they come off the processor lines just as good as the chicken we buy at KY Fried. So, he came up with a process to turn those products into an unbelievably nutritious (and tasty) powder that was dirt cheap, stored well, and could be mixed with almost any kind of rough third-world food. He wanted to give it away free to poor countries. But the government wouldn’t let him because there were objections from many countries, including really poor ones. It would compete with locally-produced or world-traded commodities. So he just puts it in pet food which gets shipped to the EU, where all pet food has to be “human consumable” or it can’t be sold there.

Strange how the world works.

 

[ringil]

Much of the grain that is grown in the world goes to feed animals that are turned into meat products. Were people in the developed world to give up eating meat (or eat much less meat), there would be more, and cheaper, grain. Likewise, diverting grain to create biofuels drives the costs up significantly.

Or even eat just a bit less meat for those not ready to go the extra mile. Maybe have two meatless days a week. Producing meat does require a ton of natural resources.

The Pope has spoken about the advantage in teaching families in the developing world to farm some of their own food. If successful, this could cut down on the middle man" where a lot of the problems seem to be happening.

 

[Michaeljc4]

That governments–in the US and abroad–have distorted the market for food is undeniable. My only point is that the majority of factory-farmed meat in America is not especially healthy, costs a lot to produce (which is why its so heavily subsidized), is produced by people in very unpleasant working conditions, and adds pollution to the environment.

God does speak to those conditions. It’s not meat. It’s how it’s made. Be mindful. That’s all.

 

[ringil]

I only eat meat on days ending in Y.

Would you be open to reducing that by one day in order to alleviate a bit of the problem of world hunger?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Partially correct. Being a vegetarian in and of itself is not important. Knowing how the food you enjoy gets to your plate, and recognizing that our food production system can be very, very sinful, is quite important.

God gave us both reason and free will. Use them both, and recognize that everything we do has a cost associated with it. How we eat, and what we eat, have costs far beyond the price you pay at a grocery store.

You may like eating meat. I know I do. My favorite food is a cheeseburger, and I am convinced that sausage is nature’s perfect food. With that said, knowing how it is produced, and who is affected by its production, makes my likes or dislikes far less important than God’s command that I be a steward of the earth and care for ‘the least of these.’

I am puzzled by your second paragraph. Some food products are subsidized and some aren’t. Most meat products are not. What extra costs are you talking about?

In thinking about grass-eating, food-producing animals, it’s interesting to reflect that there are approximately the same number of cattle on America’s ranges as there were buffalo before the white man came to the west. The reason why there were so many buffalo (and antelope, deer, elk, etc) was that without them, there’s nothing to eat but grass on most range land, and nothing you can grow there but grass, either, except in little spots here and there. And, the Indians out on the plains were so few before the introduction of horses, that they didn’t put a dent in the numbers with the few ways they had of killing them.

So, I guess we could argue who were the better stewards of the land: Indians who, before horses, were hard put to survive on the plains at all because, by and large, they couldn’t catch or kill those big, fast-moving, and extremely dangerous animals, or present-day ranchers who make nutritious food available for millions. Personally, I say it’s the latter.

So, I’m not sure anyone should feel guilty about eating a hamburger.