Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihnet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
From: eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: The Reason For Hunger
Message-ID: <363@ihnet.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Feb-86 10:29:51 EST
Article-I.D.: ihnet.363
Posted: Wed Feb 12 10:29:51 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Feb-86 00:49:05 EST
References: <358@ihnet.UUCP> <28200625@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 63

> OK, now I saw it. There was no hunger, no trace  of  hunger,  and
> nothing  remotely resembling hunger. It examined children growing
> up in poverty. They were plump,  chubby,  active  children.   The
> "family  with woefully inadequate food" Karl mentioned had *meat*
> in their freezer. 

Quite so.  Hunger was not an issue in this show.
Undoubtedly, hunger is not as widespread as some would have us
believe, and it is not the "major" poverty problem.

> Poor people in this country have many  acute  problems  (some  of
> them  studied  in  this program). Hunger is not one of them.  How
> could it be? No mechanism. Hunger *cannot* exist in the midst  of
> plenty, like the proverbial snowflake in hell.

Although hunger may be rare, it is statistically absurd to say that it
"cannot exist".  Out of 220,000,000 people, *some* *must* be hungry.
Indeed, Karms (and others) presented documented instances of mal nutrition.
If we accept the fact that hunger is rare, many mechanisms become plausible.
For instance, my grandfather's neighbor died of starvation,
because he was unwilling to steal, and too proud
to accept charity.  Other mechanisms include
physical, psychological, or emotional handicaps.
Without an income, I probably couldn't find enough food.

Perhaps, as often happens, differences of opinion are not really that great.
Some say our country has accomplished the unpresidented,
since less than one in 10,000 goes hungry.
Others say it is appalling to have thousands hungry in America.
Yet the difference is only a subjective reaction to an established fact.
Both sides could easily be right.

Can or should the government do anything about the few who are hungry?
If I recall the reports correctly, most mal nourished are children.
(yet another mechanism for hunger)
If their parents continually spend the welfare check on alcohol, ignoring
the needs of the children, the government should definitely take action.
I just don't know enough about the circumstances surrounding hunger.

Homelessness is a similar problem.
Why would anyone spend a night in a Chicago winter when there
are plenty of public buildings around?  Why should the mayor provide
specialized "shelters" for said individuals that open
when the temperature drops below eleven degrees?
Again, homelessness is rare, so "abnormal" mechanisms become plausible.
Some studies estimate 50% of the homeless have diagnosable psychological
disorders, explaining their inability to find shelter.
This was discussed in Scientific American about a year ago.

These "hunger" discussions illustrate the importance of
clear concise communication.
I believe the number of hungry in America lies between 1,000 and 100,000.
Similarly, I believe the number of homeless lies between 5,000 and 500,000.
Does anyone disagree with these estimates?
Instead of shouting "nonexistent" or "widespread",
we should have established a quantitative range early on
(about how many are hungry),
searched for mechanisms (why are they hungry),
and then addressed the question of possible government intervention.
This approach would be much more interesting and enlightening.
-- 
	Why don't we do it in the road?
			Karl Dahlke    ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad