this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
1278 points (96.6% liked)
Technology
59672 readers
3246 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Almost. He said that if anyone could present a plan on how to end world hunger for $6B, he'd sell Tesla stock to pay for it.
The U.N. publicly presented a plan on how they'd use that $6B, but it fell way short of that goal. Which isn't surprising, since they never claimed they could solve world hunger permanently for $6B. Musk's challenge was rhetorical because the bar was impossibly high. He was really just trying to make the point that he does not have the money to truly end world hunger.
The U.N.'s plan for that $6B would "feed 42 million people for one year, and avert the risk of famine". That's nothing to sneeze at, obviously, but it's not a permanent solution.
Friendly reminder, for context, that the U.S. military budget is $842B. For one year.
As much as I dislike Musk, I think your argument is a bit of a straw man. He responded to something or someone saying it was possible for $6bn. They stopped responding after Musk said "open books for accounting" or something. The UN shouldn't have responded at all since it wasn't feasible
I still think it's interesting information, and feeding 42 million people for a year is a better deal than funneling that money to people like musk or the DoD.