From a strictly economic perspective, the financial cost of sustaining the millions of hunger filled stomachs being greater than feeding them with indifference is a highly debatable point. Cutting off aid in the current periods might see some immediate benefits, including the ability to upgrade and develop social infrastructure for the donor country. Another implication would be a generally more satisfied populace, pleased with the spanking new public housing and schools, a definite boon for any government. But how would they feel if they realise the floor they walk on, the rooms they sleep in were built with the dying gastric juice of someone in Somalia or Georgia?

In the long term, after a proper industry and other social structures such as schools are established in these Third World areas, the starving millions is transformed into the working billion, representing a massive, if largely unskilled source of low cost labour, for any entrepreneur. However, the catch here is that this workforce will only manifest in the long term, and after the setting up of social institutions. The World Bank estimates that international aid will have to double to facilitate the construction of schools and housing in the sub-Saharan region of Africa alone; can entrepreneurs and industrialists wait this long?

The issue, as seen in a social light, for donor nations, is more cut and dry. It would be more detrimental to society if international aid to other countries was ever totally cut. Citizens of that donor country would obviously feel that only productive members of society are cared for by their government, since it no longer concerns itself with those starving outsiders, who did not bring it any economic benefit. The end result would be a pervading air of uncaring sterile, mechanical efficiency. Who will be the next victims of societal, governmental apathy? The retired elderly? It is interesting to note that in the United States, as the Clinton administration reduces public welfare, for example, benefits for single mothers, we see an increase in the number of retirement spas, formed by the elderly themselves, claiming the need to fend for themselves.

So far, we have weighed the costs of upkeeping the hungry for the developed donor nations providing financial and food aid. With respect to these Third World countries themselves, it is without question that sustaining the starving would cost less and have more benefits compared to adopting a laissez-faire attitude. For any economic growth, in the short or long term, a great number of workers are needed for both local and foreign industries. These countries need economic growth to break out of the vicious circle of poverty and starvation that binds them.

Socially, the same argument for developed donor nations also hold for the Third World countries, except that the effects would be more heightened and prevalent, since government apathy is directed not towards the unproductive thousands of a foreign country, but at its citizens. It is very clear that such countries must adopt prudent economic policies to hoist themselves out of the quagmire, and developed nations might be able to assist them in this area, giving sound financial advice to the Third World, instead of merely giving out money.

It is seen that keeping the starving millions alive is generally more beneficial to the world than detrimental. However, even if this were not so, other factors would hopefully prevent us from a gastric genocide, if you will. Political correctness and religious doctrines will continue to see assistance being provided to those who need it, and prevent the worrying belief in socio-Darwinism from becoming ubiquitous. Darwinism has been the mantra of the Nazis. It has killed six million Jews with varying toxins. If allowed to develop, it will now kill one billion hungry with gastric bile. Moreover, we will always be fraught with the eternal question: who are we, without the sapient wisdom, to play God?