Ending hunger by 2030 would cost just $93 billion a year — less than one per cent of the $21.9 trillion spent on military budgets over the past decade, according to the UN World Food Programme (WFP).
Ending hunger by 2030 would cost just $93 billion a year — less than one per cent of the $21.9 trillion spent on military budgets over the past decade, according to the UN World Food Programme (WFP).
If he wanted to, Elon Musk could personally fund this five times over and still have a few billion left.
Didn’t he brag a while ago he’d do it if someone came up with a plan and then WHO (or UN or whoever) did and Elmo suprisingly didn’t do anything?
You’re misremembering, or lying.
Musk replied to a claim by the UN that 2% of his wealth ($6 billion, at the time) could “solve world hunger”, calling their bluff by saying that if they showed him how that was possible with a detailed, transparent plan, he’d give them the money immediately.
The response Musk got was a massive backpedal, a plan that described helping world hunger, not ending/“solving” it, and only for one year.
Bluff was successfully called.
As in “if you can provide a perfect solution to a very complex global problem in 140 characters or less then I’ll see what’ I can find in my couch”. I can make that promise too, difference being that no one will try to defend me for being pedantic and just think that I’m an idiot.
Thinking about this tho…he’d probably do it. He’s a narcissist, it would boost his ego immensely and give him even more of a platform to stand on and pretend he’s good and funny internet guy
There’s a line of people who would do that if someone could craft a fool-proof plan to end world hunger. That’s big enough ego boost for many, problem is just that there is no such solution which would need just a boatload of money to complete. World Food Program gave him a reasonable proposal which would’ve made an absolutely life changing difference for millions of people but that wasn’t good enough for him.
A URL linking to a fully fleshed-out plan can be linked in much less than 140 characters, you’re being deliberately obtuse, and also evading the main issue I pointed out, that their response was a colossal backpedal from their initial sensational claim.
CNN.
He word-for-word demanded detailed explanation on a twitter thread, not linked document. Also, even if the proposal give might not have solved the world hunger crisis that amount of work would have made him the biggest benefactor on the planet by a pretty decent margin and there would be statues of him around and schools would teach about that single event. But no, the plan wasn’t immediately perfect so he just ditched it and left 42 million (and who knows how many more due to multiplier effects) people on their own fate.
But I guess ‘bluff’ was called and everyone clapped their hands.
You are definitely not beating the “deliberately obtuse” allegations.
In no way did Musk insist that the entire plan be tweeted in plain text as tweets, and no reasonable person would consider putting a link to X (pardon the pun) in a Twitter thread as not counting as ‘putting X in a Twitter thread’.
“not linked document” is literally a lie, why would you think it wouldn’t be identified as such, when his exact words are so readily available?
YUP.
NOT EXACTLY.
Did you miss the words “a year”?
Did you miss “by 2030”?
No, I just know it’s ridiculous to think food is something that magically stops costing money after a time, especially a time as short as 4 years.
That’s really not how most organisations go about solving the problem. They aid by creating and developing agricultural infrastructure, not just buying people food.
I include all of that when I say “food” above. Those things also don’t have a cost that goes away after a handful of years.
The headline talks about “ending hunger by 2030”, not ending hunger until 2030. The notion that any fixed dollar amount of X spent now will/could “end” hunger in 4 years time is ridiculous, full stop.
I don’t think you’re quite grasping the concept of sustainable food production.
Do you think this is some new idea that hasn’t been tried yet, or something?
The people still starving are starving due to abuse, neglect, political instability, and war. None of those things can be fixed with money, or improved production. What good is improved production going to do the masses when the local warlord takes control of it (and therefore the food supply)? Arguably, creating those tools in areas where that unrest/instability still exists is likely to make things worse, not better, because it literally makes the oppressors more efficient.
The bottom line is that you can’t end world hunger until/unless there is world peace.
Then maybe you should read the article because it does not make your straan claim at all.