If i cut down my consumption would it mean we will have more resourses for poor people?

Question

How?I want to know that

Answer 1

No because the poor people still can't afford to buy.

Answer 2

It will depend which parts of your consumption you cut down.  If you cut down on tea, coffee, sugar, tobacco, bananas, peaches, pineapples, guava, passionfruit, coconuts etc, then you may cause a reduction in the standard of living of poor people who work on tropical farms, and for whom this is their main or only source of income.

Consuming less oil, natural gas or coal will have no effect on the poor communities of the world.

If you cut down on beef, lamb, chicken and pork then the vegetable feed they consume would be available for human consumption - IF there was a way to get it cheaply or even freely to the starving parts of the world.

The problem of scarce resources isn't only a matter of choice for rich consumers.  There is a fundamental mismatch betweeen demographic distribution (where people live) and the calorific distribution (where food is produced).  In those countries or empires where the two do match, there is no willingness to solve the problem for anyone else, because they are alright Jack !  I'm thinking of USA, Russia, Australia, European Union and maybe China - but who knows what's happening there?

In the long run, the human population of the planet must achieve one of more of the following:

1.  migrate in massive numbers to where food is available;

2.  be reduced in numbers so that food scarcity is no longer a problem, no matter where you live;

3.  introduce a world wide rationing scheme, so that the rich eat less and the poor can eat more;

4.  develop GM crops and new types of crops to grow more food in inhospitable parts of the world;

5.  develop an entirely new approach to nutrition, whereby human intake is based on chemicals derived from hydrogen, carbon and other elements in the atmosphere, without the intermediary activity of plants.

Each of these has problems attached to it.  For a start, how many million starving people do you think the USA would agree to have migrate to their territory?  Or, how many people would be prepared to give up a meat and vegetable diet and transfer their eating habits to "artificial" food produced by Glaxo, ICI, Zeneca, Ranbaxy, Pfizer and the rest?  You can see the difficulties.  I suppose options 2 and 4 above are the most realistic.

What do you think?