UN responds to Elon Musk challenge with US$6.6B plan to fight world hunger


The United Nations’ World Food Programme has responded to Tesla founder Elon Musk’s ask for a plan to tackle world hunger with a US$6.6-billion pitch.

On Monday, the executive director of the UN agency unveiled a plan on Twitter after Musk, one of the world’s richest men, challenged him on the social media platform late last month.

“This hunger crisis is urgent, unprecedented, AND avoidable,” tweeted David Beasley. “@elonmusk, you asked for a clear plan & open books. Here it is! We’re ready to talk with you – and anyone else – who is serious about saving lives.”

The plan involves an ask for the world’s wealthiest people to fund a US$6.6-billion initiative to help “save 42 million people from famine” next year, the World Food Programme said on its website.

In its pitch, the UN agency said US$3.5 billion would be used to purchase and deliver food, US$2 billion would go towards cash and food vouchers, US$700 million would be earmarked for countries to design and implement food programs, and US$400 million would ensure proper management of global and regional operations, administration and accountability.

“The world is on fire. I’ve been warning about the perfect storm brewing due to Covid, conflict, climate shocks & now, rising supply chain costs,” Beasley tweeted. “IT IS HERE. 45M lives are at stake—and increasing daily. If you don’t feed people, you feed conflict, destabilization & mass migration.”

Musk has yet to respond on Twitter, but on Oct. 31 said in a tweet that if the World Food Programme could describe how US$6 billion would help solve world hunger, he’d “sell Tesla stock right now and do it.”

Musk’s challenge was in response to a CNN story in which Beasley said the world’s richest people could help solve world hunger, and called out Musk and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: 69ing Ur Mom
so are you going to share the reasons behind these numbers or just throwing things at the screen?

>US$3.5 billion would be used to purchase and deliver food

no plans then?

>US$2 billion would go towards cash and food vouchers

money laundering

>US$700 million would be earmarked for countries to design and implement food programs

money laundering + rights to abuse kids

>US$400 million would ensure proper management of global and regional operations, administration and accountability.

just pay us for the service lmao. almost 10% goes to the house
 
If I was Musk, I'd call the bluff. "Okay, great plan! Here's your six gorillion dollars. HOWEVER, if world hunger hasn't been fixed within a year, you owe me double. Which shouldn't be a problem because you have a bulletproof plan, right? You figured it all out, so there's no risk to you, right?"

Their only possible response would be to backpedal and start making excuses, exposing them even further as the lying frauds they are.
 
They said END world hunger not fight...
I actually expect Musk to call them out on this and demand specifics. These sheltered dilettantes have never once been required to draw up tangible plans and strategies, something Musk wouldn't miss berating given his business acumen and shitposting nature.
 
We already produce more than enough food to feed everyone in the world. Hell, just reducing everyone in the Deathfats forum to an 1800 calorie a day diet would be enough to feed all of Zimbambwe, Tanzania and Algeria.

It’s not supply it’s logistics, sustainability of growth in desertified areas and distribution. But these people always act like “well, just gotta grow more food“.
 
It’s not supply it’s logistics, sustainability of growth in desertified areas and distribution. But these people always act like “well, just gotta grow more food“.
You can always tell people haven't studied shit about civilization growth and problems when they go "Just grow more food!"

It's ALL logistics and has been that way since the end of the World War Two when the Green Revolution (The real one, not the hippy eco bullshit one) started actually looking at a way to stop war.

In Africa it's roads, electricity, refrigeration units, and... sadly... the fact that they're fucking stupid as fuck. I mean, you have no idea how gotten retarded they are unless you've ever dealt with them.

Corruption and infrastructure is the majority of the problem. A lot of those famines and 'loss of arable farmland' isn't due to global warming, it's due to fucking retardation.
 
Does that mean us peasants can stop donating to such causes?
I bet their plans - which I haven't read - are full of soy. If there's any people you actually care about on a personal level you continue to donate so those communities don't all pop out soyboys.

If I was Musk, I'd call the bluff. "Okay, great plan! Here's your six gorillion dollars. HOWEVER, if world hunger hasn't been fixed within a year, you owe me double. Which shouldn't be a problem because you have a bulletproof plan, right? You figured it all out, so there's no risk to you, right?"
I like it but you have to figure out how to hold someone important personally accountable for it so they can't just load up the nonprofit with an uncollectable debt and jump ship.
 
This will never work because while the UN was kind enough to try to present the budget as intelligently divided, throwing money at Africa often does not solve problems and may in fact make things worse. The Gates Foundation thought to throw money at Africa by sending in food aid and giving them chemical-laced mosquito nets to stave off mosquito-borne illnesses. The natives then proceeded to instead use the mosquito nets as fishing nets, thereby poisoning their water supply. Food aid, while charitable, has led to stagnation instead of growth; without the pressures to survive and do well, the natives don't have to care about learning how to efficiently grow and manage food for themselves when some random first world bleeding heart country will ship it to them instead. Additionally, food aid has been used by warlords as a cudgel to cow their population.

Education is the answer, but the natives there don't want to learn.

Isn't the majority of the problem with African (and to an extent, South American in areas near the Amazon) farming the "slash and burn" technique? The freshly cleared land is arable for a few years at best, and then quickly turns barren because the farmers there haven't figured out simple crop rotation techniques, as well as not planting anything in certain areas (fallow plots/fields) in order for the land to recover nutrients that would otherwise be completely sapped by farming.

Then, the cycle repeats itself; more land is cleared, and trees which have taken dozens of years to grow are quickly eliminated in a heartbeat, contributing to air pollution issues.
 
Back