On the world food bank and world hunger

I noticed an interesting contradiction while reviewing the text for today's test. In the first few chapters, world overpopulation is listed as one of the reasons for environmental degradation, due primarily to the carrying capacity of an environment. The I noticed the term "dieback" and "biotic potential." Later, in chapter 7, it seems as though the authors contradict themselves in noting that one of our goals is to end world hunger.

This got me thinking about the nature of the science, in that an ecosystem is only able to support a certain number of organisms, and those that exceed the carrying capacity are the ones that the ecosystem then fails to support, resulting in a dieback. It seems like this would be an interesting discussion topic; the idea that if the rest of the environment is expected to adhere to the limitations of its respective ecosystem, why then are human beings somehow exempt from this limitation?

I would posit the idea then, that the attempts to solve world hunger only serves to exacerbate the problem of world hunger. Think about it for a moment. The main reason for hunger in developing nations such as India, China and Russia is due to poverty and lack of economic freedom. This explains why countries with high economic freedom, such as the US, Japan and Australia, do not suffer from a lack of food or water. On the other side are developing countries in Africa, which are torn by civil wars, overpopulation and a lack of natural resources. The UN takes people displaced by war and crowds them into "refugee camps," where they basically become wards of the UN, receiving all their food and water from others rather than having to work for it themselves. This unnaturally extends their lifespans, leading to reproduction and further overpopulation, which in turn leads to more hunger, requiring more aid.

The environment for non-humans follows a very specific idea that an environment will support organisms up to the environment's carrying capacity, and anything that exists above that capacity will either experience a "dieback", or they will be forced to migrate elsewhere. The idea that humans are somehow above this is completely contrary to the belief that humans are just as much a part of the ecosystem as anything else. My philosophy: Death is a part of life. There's nothing wrong with people dying due to overpopulation, it's just a part of the design of Earth. The best solution to world hunger is to let the hungry die.