------------------------

Well, you could make an argument that it would be a boost to the consumer-driven economies of the west.

Looking at it from the others side, if the west were to cut their food intake by, say, 2%, all it would do is harm food retailers, restaurants, tax revenue and the economy in general. It would not magically create a distribution network for that food to make its way to starving countries, nor solve the political problems that tend to create or exacerbate humanitarian crises in developing nations (corruption, war, dictatorial regimes, etc).

------------------------ 

Well, you could make an argument that it would be a boost to the consumer-driven economies of the west.

——

An estimated 30-40% of the food in the US food supply is wasted. 50% of produce is thrown away. A little more gluttony here would probably mean less food going to landfills.

Marc

If some are orange it means nothing. It's not a sign. No superstition should result in injustice, none should result in crime. Let's each baby have a chance, rise them well and there will be no problem.

Give them love, and correct them when they do something wrong, be always fair and mesured, not in a foxy way, and the news will possibly be better for the new generation.

Let's there be hope.

Overpopulation is of course a problem, but maybe the problem is more with the couples that have 10 children than with the ones that can't have even one?

Adoption is of course also a solution, and a good one. 

Love and hope.

Living in good conditions is of course a necessity.

But love for the children and hope for the future is nonetheless better than despair or even basic pessimism.

To make the world better, it is of course important to not be blind to the bad, but if you can't believe in the possibility to make it better, it probably won't be possible. With hope, at least there's a chance.