Shu Chengdu wrote:Kowani wrote:Thought experiment time, then. I’m not gonna address the question of whether we can feed the whole world or not, because that’s…really not interesting to me.
So first, let’s look at the number of orphans in the world. And that’s easy enough-140 million, or slightly under half the US population. But that’s a bit misleading, because, as UNICEF notes, not all of those kids have no parents (or alternative support networks). The number of children living with no parents is much smaller-its 15 million.
So then we look at housing. There are, as of this moment, about 17 million vacant housing units in America. Now obviously, not all of those are fit for children (or people in general), but that’s alright. This is the US. We can do literally anything on the domestic market as long as the real resources exist (which will cause a problem in a bit)
We wouldn’t have to start building a bunch of new housing units in North Dakota or wherever, it’s easier to start by fixing the ones we already have. And because most of those are in already existing cities and towns, you don’t have to build a whole new set of infrastructure for them-its just a matter of upgrading the already existing stuff before you move on.
The first significant roadblock, however, is people. Not on the orphans’ side, but on our own.
There are only 700,000 social workers in the US, and they are already occupied.. But we have a way of overcoming this-there is a massive jobless class right now, due to the ongoing pandemic (and many of those job losses are economically permanent). Hence, in the time it takes to start laying out the logistics of the program (rebuilding dilapidated houses, infrastructure projects, transportation networks, etc), you could repurpose the 10 million unemployed people (much less the even larger numbers of people who aren’t in the labour force at all) and push a lot of them into becoming a social worker for the incoming mass.
Food is the next area, and that’s interesting too. About 40% of all edible produce will never see a grocery store shelf, and 40% of all food will be wasted due to the inefficiencies of the profit motive. But with a massive government program to buy up that food, that ceases to be a problem (and it helps small farmers in the process, who aren’t exactly doing great right now). And if we really wanted to, we could orient the food production chain away from wasteful animal agriculture towards humanity, allowing for more nutritious diets and better food production in general. Like, we could feed 800 million people with all the grain we’re sending on livestock.
The political aspect is the largest obstacle-this would be a gargantuan project, spanning multiple administrations, and would require practically the entire attention of the US government at every level, and all of those would need levels of collaboration we haven’t seen since WWII.
You’d also have to get the private sector involved for therapy programs, construction, etc.
And to be clear, it’d never happen.
But it’s not mechanically impossible-just obscenely difficult.
I read the whole thing, but I’ll be honest I’m a little too slothy today to give an in-depth response. Here’s my best inputs;
•Well you did lay that out in a practical way thankfully. I was half-expecting (from personal classroom experience) you to simply say “Why not? Round ‘em all up and over a period of months brings them all here and stick them in houses.” (I’ve heard this concept before.)
I overthink things a lot. I like developing full plans that’ll never happen. I’m a nerd.
[/quote]
•I agree that you would never get the private sector to embark on such a huge undertaking simply based on philanthropy with no signal of profit to be had.[/quote] I mean, you could. Even if we don’t go the War Production Board route, we could always just use federal contracting.
Oh yeah no the largest obstacle is by far the politics.•And, unless you mentioned this and I just read over it, you’d never get the overruling majority to go for it even with the money to be had. The GOP would roadblock it at every eight feet even if it could be practically accomplished. Many liberals even might flake on it. Even if it were a decades long project. I mean look at the way dreamers are treated.
We’re a monetary sovereign, we don’t face “budget constraints”• As for resources, IDK... I’m under the impression the US is already strained in many ways. Even with a long time period of investment into this it would be VERY taxing. From money
I feel like I addressed that already.to food.
You wouldn’t be able to have any state/federal funding in it I can guarantee. Circle back to my thing about the GOP roadblocking it constantly.
It’d be a noble based pursuit yes... but... IDK.
I was focused on the mechanics, not the political realities. The GOP is an obstacle to pretty much every large program that might be helpful anyway-
