Elon Musk is ready to spend $6 billion to end world hunger, asks UN to provide a plan

clem84

clem84

Gold Member
www.businessinsider.in

Elon Musk is ready to spend $6 billion to end world hunger, asks UN to provide a plan | Business Insider India

Elon Musk is ready to donate 6 billion to the United Nations World Food Programme WFP. He has asked WFP to provide proof how 6 billion will help end world hunger.
www.businessinsider.in www.businessinsider.in



After this, Elon posted a tweet asking 'exactly how' the $6 billion will help solve world hunger. He further added that he will immediately sell Tesla stock and fund the $6 billion.

In another tweet, Musk added, "But it must be open source accounting, so the public sees precisely how the money is spent."

However, after being questioned by Dr. Eli David, a researcher, Beasley said that $6 billion will not solve world hunger but "will prevent geopolitical instability, mass migration and save 42 million people on the brink of starvation." He added that it is "An unprecedented crisis and a perfect storm due to Covid/conflict/climate crises."

David had asked Beasley why the WFP was not able to solve the world hunger despite raising $8.4 billion in 2020 if all it required was $6 billion.
Click to expand...

It turns out it won't solve world hunger. No amount would, without fixing the root problems. 6 billions would go a long way, but it won't solve all the world's problems.

I looked it up and the biggest donation ever was Jeff Bezos in 2019. 10 billions to combat climate change.
 
Sounds like it'll solve world hunger for a year, then it's be hoping Musk donates another $6 billion every year.

Only way to solve it is to put in enough money, training and facilities so that poor countries can grow their own food and have the process of shipping and storing it so it networks out like richer countries with logistics spiderwebbing to every corner store. If all it's going to be are crates of United Nations of flour and water, that does nothing except drag it on.
 
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige said:
Sounds like it'll solve world hunger for a year, then it's be hoping Musk donates another $6 billion every year.

Only way to solve it is to put in enough money, training and facilities so that poor countries can grow their own food and have the process of shipping and storing it so it networks out like richer countries with logistics spiderwebbing to every corner store. If all it's going to be are crates of United Nations of flour and water, that does nothing except drag it on.
Click to expand...
And tackle corruption, lack of security, etc. Basically making them functional countries / governments. And then even if food production meets demand, lots of people can't afford it because their countries have failed economies.

I will say though that I still think that guy's tweet, even if misleading - is on the right track. The depth of inequality is reaching levels people have never seen. We're at the point of literally asking individuals to fund efforts for the entire planet. That's a disaster. Even if Musk gave $6 billion annually, I wouldn't think that was unfair if it solved world hunger. I think he has like $312 billion, just himself.
 
Last edited:
You also have to keep reproduction in check. There's enough to feed, but if most families in an area have 6-12 kids to support their retirement, then there will be 6-12x more mouths to feed, and that exponential growth will continue.

Even in the U.S. there are families with the tendency to have large number of offspring, eventually even a small group with a genetic inclination for having large families will outnumber a larger group having below replacement level number of children.

Also there are multiple resources that are peaking in coming decades as well as climate change, that might make food problems arise even in the U.S. In the short term within the U.S. I hear many places are starting to see empty shelves, and we may be having supply issues.
 
Omega Supreme Holopsicon said:
You also have to keep reproduction in check. There's enough to feed, but if most families in an area have 6-12 kids to support their retirement, then there will be 6-12x more mouths to feed, and that exponential growth will continue.

Even in the U.S. there are families with the tendency to have large number of offspring, eventually even a small group with a genetic inclination for having large families will outnumber a larger group having below replacement level number of children.

Also there are multiple resources that are peaking in coming decades as well as climate change, that might make food problems arise even in the U.S. In the short term within the U.S. I hear many places are starting to see empty shelves, and we may be having supply issues.
Click to expand...
True too.

The global trend seems to be the poorer you are, the more kids you have. Whether it's irresponsibility, cant afford or access rubbers, or the people are just plain dumb, it's counter-intuitive to what you'd think.

IMO, a family with great parents and rolling in the dollars would be the ones having bigger families because they an afford it, not give a shit, and if you're going to spread the seed and family tree, you might as well do it when you got money to float the boat.

While someone who's poor, why the fuck would you have kids when you cant even support yourself and living in a shack? If I was broke, thats the last thing Im doing - having tons of kids.

Maybe, it' not even the food thing as you say. Instead, the long term game might be rich people to donate money so they can get an education, build up the city, get some well thinking people into government and grow the country grassroots style. From their (like every richer nations), when you grow the country, food and starvation is a non-factor. You got tons of it and enough smart people to figure out and give everyone access to it.

However, I have no idea how to get rid of corrupt governments. I'm just talking about poor countries honestly trying to improve (who knows if there's any that even have honest gov).
 
Last edited:
Punished Miku said:
And tackle corruption, lack of security, etc. Basically making them functional countries / governments. And then even if food production meets demand, lots of people can't afford it because their countries have failed economies.

I will say though that I still think that guy's tweet, even if misleading - is on the right track. The depth of inequality is reaching levels people have never seen. We're at the point of literally asking individuals to fund efforts for the entire planet. That's a disaster. Even if Musk gave $6 billion annually, I wouldn't think that was unfair if it solved world hunger. I think he has like $312 billion, just himself.
Click to expand...
Inequality is up, but the standard of living globally is also way, way up in the last 100 years. What we really need to control is envy. Because life on earth is getting better for more people than it ever has for all of human history, yet we have a lot of people bitching because some people have a lot. There might be things we can do to curb some inequality without damaging the system that has raised much of the world out of destitution, but we shouldn't miss the forest for the trees here.
 
He knows this is not possible with that sum.
Only reason he entertains the idea and makes it seem like he's a good willed guy. Fucking cunt should just pay taxes.

edit: The Thread title is also wrong, makes it seem like it is his wish to end world hunger and is asking for help. In reality he is childishly replying to the claim that 6bn (2% of his wealth) could achieve this.
 
Last edited:
I read some time ago, the richest people who do not pay taxes could end poverty in the world 7 times. Nice gesture, but it will take more than that.
 
sankt-Antonio said:
He knows this is not possible with that sum.
Only reason he entertains the idea and makes it seem like he's a good willed guy. Fucking cunt should just pay taxes.
Click to expand...
The UN made the claim themselves, moron.
www.bnnbloomberg.ca

BNN Bloomberg - Canada Business News, TSX Today, Oil and Energy Prices

Get the latest Canadian business news, including TSX updates, changes to oil and energy prices, and Bank of Canada coverage. Explore stock market investing and get expert financial insights on investment portfolio strategies.
www.bnnbloomberg.ca www.bnnbloomberg.ca
 
Last edited:
sankt-Antonio said:
He knows this is not possible with that sum.
Only reason he entertains the idea and makes it seem like he's a good willed guy. Fucking cunt should just pay taxes.
Click to expand...

He does, but I think it was more of a response to the article title throwing shade at him, calling them out on their BS article. He knew they were talking out their ass so he's just hurling the shit back at them.
 
DeepBreath87 said:
The UN made the claim themselves, moron.
www.bnnbloomberg.ca

BNN Bloomberg - Canada Business News, TSX Today, Oil and Energy Prices

Get the latest Canadian business news, including TSX updates, changes to oil and energy prices, and Bank of Canada coverage. Explore stock market investing and get expert financial insights on investment portfolio strategies.
www.bnnbloomberg.ca www.bnnbloomberg.ca
Click to expand...
You got that wrong buddy, see my edit.
He is replying to a article in a childish way.

Knowing it is bogus, knowing there is no plan to achieve this, knowing he will not have to spend these 6bn.

He is trolling an organization trying to end world hunger. He's a cunt.
 
Money is worthless paper, the only thing that actually works is work, strong values and productivity.
Good luck with that.
 
NoLootBoxDev said:
I read some time ago, the richest people who do not pay taxes could end poverty in the world 7 times. Nice gesture, but it will take more than that.
Click to expand...
Problem is after year 7 when the wallets are drained, then what? Nobody has ever come up with a game plan beyond "donate money to feed starving people"
 
Last edited:
sankt-Antonio said:
You got that wrong buddy, see my edit.
He is replying to a article in a childish way.

Knowing it is bogus, knowing there is no plan to achieve this, knowing he will not have to spend these 6bn.

He is trolling an organization trying to end world hunger. He's a cunt.
Click to expand...
He's calling out an organization that is completely full of shit and completely inefficient, yet makes grandiose claims in an attempt to get donations. The UN is a fraud organization.
 
Last edited:
sankt-Antonio said:
You got that wrong buddy, see my edit.
He is replying to a article in a childish way.

Knowing it is bogus, knowing there is no plan to achieve this, knowing he will not have to spend these 6bn.

He is trolling an organization trying to end world hunger. He's a cunt.
Click to expand...

He's responding in kind to the people who made the claim. He's calling them out for their BS claims and asking for full transparency so everyone can see it. UN Buddy made the claim that 6B will end world hunger and feed 42MM people. Prove that in the twitter thread and call out Elon for being a hypocrite if he doesn't give the 6B.

That won't happen though. UN is not trying to end world hunger at all. They are trying to fatten their pockets and doing a damn good job at that.

Why didn't world hunger end last year if 6B is what it takes?

FDGcNuhWQAULdbP


Because.....


FDDSRd1XoAA7egl
 
Last edited:
Denton said:
Money is worthless paper, the only thing that actually works is work, strong values and productivity.
Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
That's right.

Those UN people in charge are socialist hacks.
The fucking idiot that asked that bs to Elon, wont address all the factor that brings this issue to existence. Actually world hunger is not a money issue.
 
It's funny the basis of the article is about UN funding and people don't actually give a shit about world hunger since it's a futile endeavor. So CNN does what any lazy clickbait journalist do and just insert Elon Musk when he has nothing to do with it.

For some reason by him responding to it makes him a cunt. Blame the article writer and thier editors for not having better standards for approving garbage articles.
 
This entire argument is the result of a shitty headline by CNN that they have since corrected.

It now rightly says "help solve" rather than just "solve".

Even the quotes used show it was to help 42 million people facing food shortages, which is a big difference from ending world hunger.
 
Donating money to the UN might possibly be even dumber than donating money to a university which was already dumber than just lighting your money on fire.
 
Difficult to talk about without delving into political territory, but let's just say that 6B isn't going to end world hunger.
 
DeepBreath87 said:
Inequality is up, but the standard of living globally is also way, way up in the last 100 years. What we really need to control is envy. Because life on earth is getting better for more people than it ever has for all of human history, yet we have a lot of people bitching because some people have a lot. There might be things we can do to curb some inequality without damaging the system that has raised much of the world out of destitution, but we shouldn't miss the forest for the trees here.
Click to expand...
the studies which monitor standards of living across the world are highly biased and many of them only cover extreme poverty which is laughable- the idea that because people are now subsisting on ~$12 a day instead of ~$3 should not be a metric which we use to make broad generalizations about the quality of people's lives. what we need globally are robust systems of social welfare and opportunities for many developing countries to retain the money they make on resources and production- instead of allowing multinational corporations to extract labor and wealth while paying off controlling governmental and authoritative factions.

many studies have shown that solving world hunger would cost at most a few hundred billion dollars annually. additionally, millions of tons of perfectly viable food is thrown out each year so redirecting distribution there could be a monumental first step. the solutions for these issues are simple, but we need to collectively commit to them in order to be successful.
 
Why should we keep throwing resources at people who reproduce when they can't even provide for their own needs?

We just end up with more hungry people and the last thing we need is more people right now.
 
Hari Seldon said:
Donating money to the UN might possibly be even dumber than donating money to a university which was already dumber than just lighting your money on fire.
Click to expand...
Rat Rage said:
Treating the symptoms is ok, but it's always better to treat the cause.
Click to expand...
I dont follow all these United Nations donations and global assistance stuff, but for anyone on GAF who does, when the UN gets all this money do they just donate money and buy food and water and ship it to poor countries (that stereotypical video of crates of food landing by a giant plane and tons of people are grabbing bags of food).

Or does the UN use money and try to help govs build infrastructure and train people to run it so they can make their own food, blankets, create some industry and get people working (even if shitty jobs) etc...
 
Skyfox said:
Why should we keep throwing resources at people who reproduce when they can't even provide for their own needs?

We just end up with more hungry people and the last thing we need is more people right now.
Click to expand...
Every society is the same. Rich and poor.

Everyone can have kids even if they are a broke family of 6... 7... or 8.

A person cant get a car loan if their finances are crap even if they are doing their best to get to work. Yet, someone so poor, broke and jobless who lives on a dirt mound and cant even feed themselves (never mind their starving 6 kids behind them) without begging can somehow be continuously bailed out by everyone else.
 
Last edited:
It must be be wild having 6 billion dollars to waste on a Twitter shitpost.
 
Last edited:
DeepBreath87 said:
Inequality is up, but the standard of living globally is also way, way up in the last 100 years. What we really need to control is envy. Because life on earth is getting better for more people than it ever has for all of human history, yet we have a lot of people bitching because some people have a lot. There might be things we can do to curb some inequality without damaging the system that has raised much of the world out of destitution, but we shouldn't miss the forest for the trees here.
Click to expand...

I wonder what's more controllable/fixable 🤔
Human envy or the capitalist system?
 
saiws said:
the studies which monitor standards of living across the world are highly biased and many of them only cover extreme poverty which is laughable- the idea that because people are now subsisting on ~$12 a day instead of ~$3 should not be a metric which we use to make broad generalizations about the quality of people's lives. what we need globally are robust systems of social welfare and opportunities for many developing countries to retain the money they make on resources and production- instead of allowing multinational corporations to extract labor and wealth while paying off controlling governmental and authoritative factions.

many studies have shown that solving world hunger would cost at most a few hundred billion dollars annually. additionally, millions of tons of perfectly viable food is thrown out each year so redirecting distribution there could be a monumental first step. the solutions for these issues are simple, but we need to collectively commit to them in order to be successful.
Click to expand...
Simple? You think intentional logistics are simple? Have you been paying attention to the supply chain issues first world countries are having? You are so naive it's almost funny. You think feeding billions is simple?

You seem to think people are poor because other people are prosperous? Or could it be that other countries have horrific corruption, complete lack of education, infrastructure, social cohesion, etc? And you can't just pull all those things out of your ass and give them to countries where they do not exist.

Spare me your studies by idealist theorists. It's not a matter of money. Money doesn't create reality. And the reality is these places are shit because they have structural and cultural problems that make them shit. Money isn't the answer to those problems
 
QSD said:
I wonder what's more controllable/fixable 🤔
Human envy or the capitalist system?
Click to expand...
You may want to be careful controlling the capitalist system too much considering it is primarily responsible for the prosperity that allows us to worry about the well being of people on the other side of the world. That's my point. It's not easy to "control capitalism" without killing the golden goose.
 
Last edited:
DeepBreath87 said:
You may want to be careful controlling the capitalist system too much considering it is primarily responsible for the prosperity that allows us to worry about the well being of people on the other side of the world. That's my point. It's not easy to "control capitalism" without killing the golden goose.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that you can change things about capitalism (perhaps for worse, not for better) but barring some kind of massive neuralink style advance there is little you can change about human nature.

Societies become more unstable and violent the more unequal they are, that is one of the most replicated findings in social psychology, that is not something that can be changed, it's just something to be reckoned with.
 
QSD said:
All I'm saying is that you can change things about capitalism (perhaps for worse, not for better) but barring some kind of massive neuralink style advance there is little you can change about human nature.

Societies become more unstable and violent the more unequal they are, that is one of the most replicated findings in social psychology, that is not something that can be changed, it's just something to be reckoned with.
Click to expand...
That's weird because society is less violent than it has ever been (outside of a very recent uptick in violent crime), but all I keep hearing about is inequality being at an all time high.
 
DeepBreath87 said:
That's weird because society is less violent than it has ever been (outside of a very recent uptick in violent crime), but all I keep hearing about is inequality being at an all time high.
Click to expand...
That is true.

Crime rates were a lot bigger in the 70s and 80s. It seemed big cities buttoned down a lot on crime in the 90s and onward. Yet the divide seems to be higher than ever.

Its just one of those thing. I'm sure in super high tax and social assistance places like Sweden there's a divide too. I'm sure a doctor makes more than a Burger King worker (if BK is even there!).

But what seems to work in Scandanavian countries is a legacy of a more flat class structure, high taxes to pay for assistance and needy people, and it sure doesn't seem like the average Swede or Norwegian is amped up trying to be bling bling on TV or social media showing off big bucks, mansions and Maseratis like the typical Yank does who has a lot of money.

So it's not just a money thing. No doubt culture and envy are part of it.

There's many second and third world countries where people make a fraction of the wages of richer people. But not all of them have giant violence, inequity, starving people etc.... Probably because the gov helps out and the people just dont have a learned mindset to go mental when things arent as slick as a rich country.
 
To piggyback off a point StreetsofBeige StreetsofBeige made about teaching basic farming/gardening in smaller/poorer countries, the soil has to actually be fertile. While most countries can grow their own food, many areas within those countries don't have fertile soil. Fix that problem and hunger becomes less of an issue (along with education and training) in 50 years (wild guess).

Also, poorer people have many children not because they're irresponsible but because the more children you have, the more helping hands you have to cover the whole family. That's how it was done (along with the sad fact of high infant/child mortality) in ancient times.
 
Also... Inequality is a huge thing... When the top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 50% (I think that's the math of it) COMBINED... when wages haven't adjusted to inflation in over a decade (not talking about white collar jobs)... You're bound to have levels of inequality. Many levels!
 
DeepBreath87 said:
That's weird because society is less violent than it has ever been (outside of a very recent uptick in violent crime), but all I keep hearing about is inequality being at an all time high.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, there are numerous other factors that influence violence which will cause fluctuations in the pattern. Then there's also how you define violence. I know it's a contentious thing to define some of the stuff that goes on on twitter as 'violence', but regardless of semantics, you will have to agree that there's a lot of anger and aggression being expressed there. I mean the concept of 'internet bloodsports' got its name somewhere...

anyway the list of literature on this is endless, here's some links a quick google search dove up:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...t-violent-nations-in-the-world-have-in-common

https://www.researchgate.net/public...lence_More_Common_Where_Inequality_is_Greater

https://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01241/WEB/IMAGES/INEQUALI.PDF

StreetsofBeige said:
That is true.

Crime rates were a lot bigger in the 70s and 80s. It seemed big cities buttoned down a lot on crime in the 90s and onward. Yet the divide seems to be higher than ever.

Its just one of those thing. I'm sure in super high tax and social assistance places like Sweden there's a divide too. I'm sure a doctor makes more than a Burger King worker (if BK is even there!).
Click to expand...
Sweden and most countries in Western Europe aren't that different from the US, they just have some more social services and socially available healthcare. They are still capitalist societies, and obviously there is still inequality. IMHO most people can accept a significant level of inequality as they intuitively understand people have different abilities and levels of ambition etc etc.
StreetsofBeige said:
But what seems to work in Scandanavian countries is a legacy of a more flat class structure, high taxes to pay for assistance and needy people, and it sure doesn't seem like the average Swede or Norwegian is amped up trying to be bling bling on TV or social media showing off big bucks, mansions and Maseratis like the typical Yank does who has a lot of money.
Click to expand...
This is right on, one of the articles I linked above names pride (as a cultural phenomenon) as one of the steady predictors of violence.
StreetsofBeige said:
So it's not just a money thing. No doubt culture and envy are part of it.

There's many second and third world countries where people make a fraction of the wages of richer people. But not all of them have giant violence, inequity, starving people etc.... Probably because the gov helps out and the people just dont have a learned mindset to go mental when things arent as slick as a rich country.
Click to expand...
One thing to consider re: this last point is that it's the perception of inequality that matters, not necessarily its actuality (although perception and actuality are obviously highly correlated). If you live in poverty in some remote village in africa, everyone in your immediate social surroundings is equal. It's only if you move to the city and see the wealth that some have that you will start to perceive inequality.
 
DeafTourette said:
Also... Inequality is a huge thing... When the top 1% have more wealth than the bottom 50% (I think that's the math of it) COMBINED... when wages haven't adjusted to inflation in over a decade (not talking about white collar jobs)... You're bound to have levels of inequality. Many levels!
Click to expand...
The Panama Papers and Pandora Papers told us all we needed to know. But, nobody's taking action.
 
Last edited:
You cant even start an successful electric Car company for $6b Let alone "solve" world hunger

You need Schools and Roads and infustructure in all the backwards places that dont have it. - You then need rule of law. - This is a GREAT START but wont even fund half a year of work.
 
Omega Supreme Holopsicon said:
You also have to keep reproduction in check. There's enough to feed, but if most families in an area have 6-12 kids to support their retirement, then there will be 6-12x more mouths to feed, and that exponential growth will continue.

Even in the U.S. there are families with the tendency to have large number of offspring, eventually even a small group with a genetic inclination for having large families will outnumber a larger group having below replacement level number of children.

Also there are multiple resources that are peaking in coming decades as well as climate change, that might make food problems arise even in the U.S. In the short term within the U.S. I hear many places are starting to see empty shelves, and we may be having supply issues.
Click to expand...
cdda1997d0e63d2d6d6affde58667e9a.jpg
 
I love that he called their bluff. The dude is undeniably a douche canoe, but behind the ego and the charisma the guy is a solid human being. Not perfect by any means, but if the rest of the billionaires in the world were more like him the world would literally be a better place. The money would be going towards worthy causes and scientific study rather than some jackhole's 3rd yacht. We need more Elon Musks in the business world spending their money on research and the betterment of humanity as a whole and less rich douchebags that spend their money on pointless shit to show how rich they are. Because finding stuff out like how to make electric cars more sustainable and efficient is more important that having a fleet of Lambos or a golden toilet.


It's rich people like Musk that get remembered not because of their wealth, but what they chose to do with it. There is a reason why we remember people like Rockefeller or Carnegie here in the US and not the random millionaires and billionaires that have come and gone since then. Musk gets that. More of the elites in the world need to as well because if Musk continues to push forward progress in the various sectors that he has chosen he will be remembered far longer than that one douche billionaire who had 3 golden toilets and a 72 car garage and certainly longer than any of the shitbag celebs who are "big" right now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Elon Musk is a Nazi.
4
1K
EviLore replied
Elon Musk becomes the first person to reach a net worth of $400 billion
2 3
135
7K
SF Kosmo replied
WSJ: Elon Musk-Led Group Makes $97.4 Billion Bid for Control of OpenAI
43
3K
EverydayBeast replied
  • Locked
Top Tesla investor calls for Elon Musk to step down as boss
News Business 
42
2K
EviLore replied
  • Locked
BREAKING: Elon Musk buys social media platform X
2 3
110
6K
Rentahamster replied
Top Bottom