Every day, thousands of children die from preventable causes in which hunger and malnutrition play a decisive role. UNICEF estimates that undernutrition contributes to nearly half of all deaths of children under five.

Suppose that giving these children a realistic chance at a future, not just emergency food, but the nutrition and support needed to survive and develop, this would cost roughly 15 billion dollars per year. This is in the range of estimates made by international organizations.

Now imagine that this cost were shared only by households in the world’s high-income countries.

There are roughly 540 million households in these countries.

That means each household would contribute approximately:

• $28 per year
• $2.30 per month

Expressed as a share of income, this is about 0.02% of the average household’s annual income.

To put that into perspective:

• less than the price of a cup of coffee each month,
• less than half the price of a beer in many countries,
• about one-fifth of a typical monthly streaming subscription,
• less than the cost of a pair of shoelaces over an entire year.

Of course, the world is more complicated than this calculation suggests. Money alone does not solve hunger. Distribution, conflict, corruption, healthcare, sanitation, education and local governance all matter.

But even if the real cost turned out to be twice as high, or three times as high, the contribution required from households in wealthy countries would still be remarkably small.

Another perspective is to compare the 15 billion dollars needed to help these thousands of starving children with what these high-income countries (OECD) spend on other things.

 

• OECD countries’ military spending                            $1.4–1.5 trillion
• Global fossil fuel support                                           $916 billion
• Global advertising                                                      $1 trillion
• Global luxury goods market                                       $400–500 billion

 

Seeing these numbers makes me wonder what is going on. Thirty years ago, I saw with my own eyes how people lived in a third-world country, and they were relatively well off, but the comparison with how I lived at home, how almost everybody lived in the country where I was born, is stark.

The easy conclusion is that people are, on average, just cruel and would rather spend their money on a beer than on helping another human being.

The average rich country reserves 0.34% of its national income for aid, while the UN target is 0.7%. Only Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Luxembourg do this. If the other rich countries went to 0.7%, the problem would not be solved, but it would help a lot.

I don’t know why people are so greedy, if you can call them that. I studied history and journalism and read thousands of books in search of answers. I found many, but also none. I write about it, as I do now, but it has no impact. The practical step I started taking is looking for good charities and changing my lifestyle so I can start giving away at least 10% of my income in the future.

I give to several programs that help children directly, as well as to GiveDirectly, which gives money to individuals or households directly with no strings attached. Some of these households live on a few dollars a day, and an injection of 700 dollars, for instance, can change their lives forever.

I grew up seeing people die of hunger on the news. It is old news, yet we still cannot come together to do something about it. I do what I can as an individual, but the governments that can make a difference are representing the people, and for some reason, the majority of these voters choose not to give.