You talk about meaningless? How 'bout "hunger can definitely be ended with enough will," that sounds like some politician's line, or what they say at a New Age Vortex conference.
Hey I learned from you! All your gibberish, its insidious. Maybe atheists do live shorter, just hearing a creationist speak for more than 30 seconds has the same effect on your mental health as 20 years of smoking.
I don't know that this is true for two reasons. First it would require cooperation of people who have not cooperated in the past. Food aid in the past has been diverted by authoritarian regimes for less noble purposed (Iraq, N. Korea, Somalia...). Some countries may be reluctant to participate if they cannot ensure that the aid actually helps the people who need help. This would require some sort of inspections process or other assurance, that the aforementioned countries have been loathe to provide in the past. Further, (I don't know if this is true) some such countries may actually see value in having malnurished populations. Second it would require that we actually know what hunger IS---i.e. have a working definition. In countries with higher standards of living, hunger may have a completely different meaning than in an underdeveloped or undeveloped country. The standard of living in the west cannot be attained by everyone in the world, so it seems like this means that implementing the plan in a truly fair way means lowering the standard of living for people in the west. I think eliminating hunger means redistributing wealth, and this goal is truly unreasonable.
