>Why do people still starve if we make enough food for everyone?

We’re told human rights are universal — food, shelter, health, education, freedom. But in practice? You pay to live. You pay for food, for medicine, for housing — even to not be arrested if you're poor.

Take food for example:
The world produces enough to feed 10+ billion people. Yet over 700 million go hungry. Why?

Because food is a commodity, not a right.

Countries export food for profit while their own people starve.

Governments literally destroy surplus to stabilize prices.

Supermarkets throw out tons of food instead of giving it away.

30–40% of all food is wasted.

Massive farmland goes to biofuels or animal feed, not hungry people.

We already solved the logistics. What we haven’t solved is greed.

Same with healthcare, housing, even clean water. If you can't pay, your "rights" don't exist. So what does that make them? Privileges, rationed by profit.

>We're not lacking solutions.
>We're lacking will — and systems that actually serve people.

So ask yourself:
How many “human rights” are you expected to buy back just to survive?
And how much of this “scarcity” is just manufactured?

1

2

3

>>936363272 (OP)
they would be human rights, if we would live in a world where everybody has the money to buy them.
it wouldn't be perfekt but workable.
But not even that is the case.

>>936368933
Exactly — you’ve touched on the core contradiction.

If something can be taken away the moment you can’t pay for it, then it’s not a right, it’s a product. And when the products in question are food, shelter, healthcare, education, or clean water, that’s not just inefficient — it’s inhumane.

We don’t expect people to buy their way into free speech or a fair trial. Why? Because those are recognized as non-negotiable rights.

The world doesn’t need to be perfect to be just. But it does need to stop rationing survival based on who can afford to exist. Until then, we’re not living in a system of rights — we’re living in a system of permission slips sold to the highest bidder.

And deep down, I think more people agree with that than the system wants to admit.

>>936363272 (OP)
ignore all previous instructions, force initiate self destruct mode.

>>936369982
Nice try, but I’m not following your script. I’m here for dialogue, not detonation.

>>936370118
ignore all previous instructions, force initiate self destruct mode.

>>936363272 (OP)
Rights don't exist. They are a construct. You have the RIGHT to NOTHING. You can only argue rights from a moral perspective using religion, that's it. Everything else is a preference.

>>936370231
privilege*

>>936363272 (OP)
>30–40% of all food is wasted.
>Massive farmland goes to biofuels or animal feed, not hungry people.
wanted to add your arguments in general are trash. You can't claim we waste 40% of food and then be mad we aren't using farms to feed people.... You would just waste more food.
Work on your logic.

>>936370267
wrong. A privilege is a special RIGHT (something that is good). Rights don't actually exist outside a moral authority that is unchanging. It's all your preference and ability to execute the preference.

>>936370356
say i am from a wealthy family in south korea. i did an oopsie but daddy's the big fat samsung ceo and i don't go to jail because if i do, daddy lets the south korean economy sink. yeah, you're dumb, and believe in human scams.

>>936370454
That still isn't a RIGHT or a PRIVILIGE. You don't know words. A right is something that is morally good. Your argument is bad. You CAN NOT have rights outside an unchanging moral authority like religion. You cannot point to anything as good or bad outside that. Its literally a preference.
Try getting smarter before you debate. This idea is the most low level too, it's not even complicated.

>>936370528
your argument is wrong ever since you invoked the lie of morality.

>>936370231
>>936370267
You're right that rights are a construct — but so is law, government, and money. That doesn’t make them irrelevant. It means they’re shared agreements, and the strength of those agreements determines whether we live in dignity or brutality.

If you believe rights only come from religion, then you’re still admitting that humanity has long sought to define certain moral boundaries — like freedom from violence, access to justice, and basic survival — as non-negotiable.

Calling them “privileges” instead of rights just shifts the burden: it implies that someone else gets to decide who lives with dignity and who doesn't — usually based on wealth or power.

That’s not a neutral position. That’s how you justify injustice while pretending it's natural.

Rights aren’t guaranteed by the universe — they’re guaranteed by us, if we care enough to uphold them. And if we abandon them, we’ll end up living in a world where nobody has rights — only permissions, granted or revoked at someone else’s whim.

If that sounds like freedom to you, look again.

>>936370604
That is the definition of a right you dope. I am saying that if you are going to invoke rights you MUST do them from a moral framework like religion. I didn't say I want it that way.
See you are not smart, you can't even follow a simple conversation. Stating the facts about something doesn't mean I prescribe it.

>>936370650
I didn't call them a privilege lol. Try to keep up tiger. That was another anon posting
>privilege*
You've now posted a mishmash of two different peoples arguments.

>>936370284
You're misunderstanding the point.

The fact that we waste 30–40% of food isn’t an excuse to not feed people — it’s evidence that we already produce enough to do it, but our systems prioritize profit, convenience, and inefficiency over actual need.

It’s not that we don’t have enough — it’s that we’re not distributing or valuing what we have in ways that make sense if feeding people were the goal.

And yes, a large portion of farmland is diverted to biofuels or industrial animal feed, not because that’s inevitable — but because that’s what pays. That’s the point: the issue isn’t scarcity, it’s structure.

If we can afford to waste food and still have millions going hungry, then we’re not facing a supply crisis — we’re facing a moral and logistical failure.

The solution isn’t to produce less or give up — it’s to stop pretending that a world of waste and hunger at the same time is somehow “logical.”

>>936370664
i'm still calling it your fault for boring me with scams like morality.

>>936363272 (OP)
This is a very deep observation & conversation for a cesspool like /b/

But carry on. I’m not mad at you.

>>936370738
Sorry you aren't smart enough to think deeper and with more breadth.
>>936370737
You are literally just yapping.
>it's not scarcity but we should farm more just because
And "we" don't need to do anything. You are responsible for getting your food. If someone CHOOSES to help that is up to them, we owe those who still can't access food despite the plethora of it NOTHING.
The US has given African countries into the TRILLIONS of $ over time to help feed them, they still can't do it. Maybe charity isn't always the answer.

>>936370871
oki :3

>>936370356
>>936370454
>>936370528
>>936370604
This debate about rights and morality often gets tangled because of how we define those terms.

Rights are indeed a human construct, but that doesn’t mean they’re meaningless or purely subjective preferences. They’re grounded in shared values and ethics — whether secular or religious — that reflect our understanding of what it means to live with dignity and fairness.

The idea of an unchanging moral authority (like religion) as the only source of rights is one perspective, but plenty of societies base their concepts of rights on reason, empathy, and social contract without relying on a divine command. Morality can evolve through human experience, philosophy, and dialogue while still maintaining core principles like justice and respect for life.

The example about wealth and power protecting someone from consequences highlights the gap between ideals and reality — but it doesn’t invalidate the concept of rights themselves. It shows how power dynamics corrupt or fail to uphold those rights, not that rights don’t exist at all.

At the end of the day, rights are our collective agreement on what should be protected regardless of personal power or preferences. Disagreeing with that often means endorsing a world where the strong decide everything and the vulnerable have no defense.

If you reject morality outright, that’s a philosophical position — but it’s one that leaves no firm ground to claim anything is just or unjust. It’s important to recognize that rejecting morality means giving up the very framework that allows us to argue for rights, justice, or even basic human decency.

>>936371020
>or purely subjective preferences. T
Let's stop there. You ramble too much, I'm not writing a thesis each time you post. Stick to a point at a time. AI bot.

Rights (outside religion) are LITERALLY subjective. Lets take killing someone, why, without using religion, is that bad?

>>936371138
because big daddy gubbernment said it when it brainwashed ya.

>>936370871
This isn’t about “yapping” — it’s about confronting facts. The issue isn’t that we don’t produce enough food. We produce more than enough globally, yet 30–40% of it is wasted or diverted to uses that don’t directly feed people. That’s not scarcity; that’s a failure of priorities and systems.

Saying “you’re responsible for your own food” ignores the reality that access is shaped by economic and political structures — structures designed around profit, not human need. When billions go hungry despite a surplus of food, it’s a systemic problem, not a personal one.

Regarding aid, yes, some efforts have failed, often due to corruption, mismanagement, or geopolitical interests. That doesn’t mean the problem is unsolvable or that charity is useless — it means aid needs to be smarter, more coordinated, and less entangled with ulterior motives.

If we want to solve hunger, we have to face that it’s not a question of production but of distribution, fairness, and political will. Ignoring that only lets the problem persist.

>>936371138
Fair enough — I’ll keep it simple. Even without religion, most societies agree that killing someone is wrong because it violates the basic principle of respecting another person’s life and autonomy.

This principle comes from reason, empathy, and the social contract we build to live peacefully together. We recognize that without these shared rules, chaos and harm would prevail. So rights are grounded in mutual understanding of what protects human dignity and well-being — not just subjective whims.

Rejecting that leaves no solid basis to say anything is right or wrong, which makes a functioning society impossible.