The Nature of Hunger - Part 2 of 2
Most Americans feel far removed from the experience of hunger. We are generous with our bounty in times of need and sympathetic toward the idea of ending hunger worldwide. But how far removed are we from the experience of hunger? Can we in any way relate to the hunger we witness on our television screens? I believe we can bring ourselves closer to the truth regarding hunger with a simple suggestion: we begin thinking in terms of satisfying world hunger rather than ending it.
Consider the nature of hunger. The reason we eat is to sustain life, and, so, the sensation of hunger is simply the life-sustaining desire to eat, which makes hunger a positive force in our lives. This is to say that the sensation of hunger is not some cosmic mistake in the grand scheme of things. At birth, we are endowed with two senses of hunger: one for food, which ensures our survival as individuals, and a hunger (or "thirst") for knowledge, which ensures our survival and growth as a species. Both are forms of sustenance in a very real sense.
Our self-declared "war against hunger" creates in our personal lives ambivalence toward it. While on the one hand we hold a heartfelt desire to end hunger for others, we associate our own experience of hunger with anticipation and delight. For us, hunger enhances the taste of food, and satisfying our hunger is an event around which families and friends gather.
As a social effort, it can be difficult to galvanize support around ending hunger – or ending anything for that matter – because wanting to simply end something envisions just that: nothing! How do we work toward creating something we do not want? The absence of something is hard to create. Instead, it would be more productive to think and speak about satisfying people's hunger, just as we satisfy our own.
How does one end hunger? Nothing short of death does that. During the course of our lives, we merely keep hunger at bay every few hours. How does one satisfy hunger? Begin in the home. We can learn to choose foods more appropriate for our well-being, and not eating to the point of dullness. Illnesses attributed to people of the poorer nations are due chiefly from want. Those of us living within developed countries suffer chiefly from excess in one form or another.
On a community level, local food pantries and soup kitchens nourish our very neighbors, people who work alongside us, share in passing conversations and attend school with our children. Gardeners can translate their avocation into community gardens and edible landscaping. Green markets encourage and support local farms. Local supermarkets can be petitioned for food pantry contributions on a sustaining basis.
On a national level, we can encourage our representatives to sponsor or support legislation, such as the foreign aid appropriations bill, which allow the United States to forgive billions of dollars of debt for 16 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. (One UNICEF report noted that 500,000 children died in 1988 as a direct result of debt and recession alone.)
On an international level, we can support relief organizations such as Oxfam America and Church World Service. Oxfam not only provides emergency food relief but emphasizes self-sustaining agriculture throughout the world in order to lessens people's dependence upon shifting political winds and handouts.
As countries throughout the world democratize, and the free enterprise system slowly weaves a pattern among people's lives, we can lend our support and rich heritage of experience in matters financial, agricultural and marketing. Part of the beauty of satisfying world hunger is that there is no one solution. There are thousands.
For those who believe that there is simply not enough food to go around, consider that planting one single grain of rice will yield, after only 10 harvests, 26 sextillion, 321 quintillion, 583 quadrillion, 711 trillion, 527 billion, 1 million, 953 thousand and 125 grains of rice (give or take a handful).
Those who fear that ensuring survival for so many people only ensures the growth of a world population already difficult to feed should consider this: Demographers are discovering that the best way to slow, and even halt, population growth is not through starvation but through an adequate food supply. Reproduction levels taper off the better fed the nation. Ironically, bread becomes an effective means of stabilizing our world family.
Is this idea of satisfying – as opposed to ending – hunger a mere play on words? I think not. In the words of George Bernard Shaw, "Playing with mere words is like playing with mere dynamite." Words reveal our perceptions. Perceptions guide our actions. We are fortunate in having the food security in this country to the extent that we do. Without it, we could not enjoy the privilege of pursuing our higher personal, social and cultural aspirations. It would be ideal to incorporate those aspirations with the most fundamental and immediate need we all share: sustenance. Among all the challenges set squarely before us today, there is none quite so fundamental and beneficent as ensuring survival. It is one of the most life-affirming statements we can make.
Consider the nature of hunger. The reason we eat is to sustain life, and, so, the sensation of hunger is simply the life-sustaining desire to eat, which makes hunger a positive force in our lives. This is to say that the sensation of hunger is not some cosmic mistake in the grand scheme of things. At birth, we are endowed with two senses of hunger: one for food, which ensures our survival as individuals, and a hunger (or "thirst") for knowledge, which ensures our survival and growth as a species. Both are forms of sustenance in a very real sense.
Our self-declared "war against hunger" creates in our personal lives ambivalence toward it. While on the one hand we hold a heartfelt desire to end hunger for others, we associate our own experience of hunger with anticipation and delight. For us, hunger enhances the taste of food, and satisfying our hunger is an event around which families and friends gather.
As a social effort, it can be difficult to galvanize support around ending hunger – or ending anything for that matter – because wanting to simply end something envisions just that: nothing! How do we work toward creating something we do not want? The absence of something is hard to create. Instead, it would be more productive to think and speak about satisfying people's hunger, just as we satisfy our own.
How does one end hunger? Nothing short of death does that. During the course of our lives, we merely keep hunger at bay every few hours. How does one satisfy hunger? Begin in the home. We can learn to choose foods more appropriate for our well-being, and not eating to the point of dullness. Illnesses attributed to people of the poorer nations are due chiefly from want. Those of us living within developed countries suffer chiefly from excess in one form or another.
On a community level, local food pantries and soup kitchens nourish our very neighbors, people who work alongside us, share in passing conversations and attend school with our children. Gardeners can translate their avocation into community gardens and edible landscaping. Green markets encourage and support local farms. Local supermarkets can be petitioned for food pantry contributions on a sustaining basis.
On a national level, we can encourage our representatives to sponsor or support legislation, such as the foreign aid appropriations bill, which allow the United States to forgive billions of dollars of debt for 16 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. (One UNICEF report noted that 500,000 children died in 1988 as a direct result of debt and recession alone.)
On an international level, we can support relief organizations such as Oxfam America and Church World Service. Oxfam not only provides emergency food relief but emphasizes self-sustaining agriculture throughout the world in order to lessens people's dependence upon shifting political winds and handouts.
As countries throughout the world democratize, and the free enterprise system slowly weaves a pattern among people's lives, we can lend our support and rich heritage of experience in matters financial, agricultural and marketing. Part of the beauty of satisfying world hunger is that there is no one solution. There are thousands.
For those who believe that there is simply not enough food to go around, consider that planting one single grain of rice will yield, after only 10 harvests, 26 sextillion, 321 quintillion, 583 quadrillion, 711 trillion, 527 billion, 1 million, 953 thousand and 125 grains of rice (give or take a handful).
Those who fear that ensuring survival for so many people only ensures the growth of a world population already difficult to feed should consider this: Demographers are discovering that the best way to slow, and even halt, population growth is not through starvation but through an adequate food supply. Reproduction levels taper off the better fed the nation. Ironically, bread becomes an effective means of stabilizing our world family.
Is this idea of satisfying – as opposed to ending – hunger a mere play on words? I think not. In the words of George Bernard Shaw, "Playing with mere words is like playing with mere dynamite." Words reveal our perceptions. Perceptions guide our actions. We are fortunate in having the food security in this country to the extent that we do. Without it, we could not enjoy the privilege of pursuing our higher personal, social and cultural aspirations. It would be ideal to incorporate those aspirations with the most fundamental and immediate need we all share: sustenance. Among all the challenges set squarely before us today, there is none quite so fundamental and beneficent as ensuring survival. It is one of the most life-affirming statements we can make.
posted by Jeffrey Reel at
4:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home