this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2026
120 points (94.1% liked)
Asklemmy
53482 readers
477 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Also, if everyone would get at most 2 children, humanity will shrink on average. Don't see why somebody should not have kids just because somebody else had "too many".
Richer people in general have less kids. Fixing world hunger would go a long way. But somehow with an abundance of food the elites decided that starving Congo is better for that 0.01% extra profit.
From what I've read fixing world hunger would not be that expensive, in the grand scheme of things. Too bad that the poor just don't have a lobby.
I believe world hunger perfectly encapsulates all problems humanity face.
We have the means to solve it already but we simply don't.