**This article was written with a satirical and humorous tone to share personal opinions. It is not intended to offend, shame or provoke individuals or groups of people.**
It's no secret that there's an awful lot of suffering in the world. Every day, lives are lost, families are displaced, and children are forced to go without meals.
The United States is the wealthiest country on earth. We can do something about this. We must do something about this.
Just think about the last item I mentioned. Approximately 3.1 million children die from hunger each year. These young humans, who have done nothing to deserve the treatment they receive in the impoverished or autocratic nations where they find themselves, live lives that are short, painful, and completely bereft of hope.
We can help by bombing them.
If you're a hopelessly old-fashioned moral guardian, you might look at my moderate proposition and think "That's absurd! Murdering children is an abominable practice!"
But what you puritanical prudes aren't willing to accept is that these children are going to die anyway. We know they're going to die anyway because they're dying right now. Also, everyone dies sooner or later.
But these children are dying slowly, in pain, with no hope of a better life.
Which is more cruel: allowing a walking, talking child of the earth to starve to death, or inducing an explosion that incinerates him or her quickly and painlessly?
Unless you're taking active steps to alleviate child hunger, you don't even have a right to disagree with me. Yeah, I said it: if you don't actively donate money to organizations that help support children in poverty, then you are a hypocrite for saying that bombing them out of their suffering (and existence) is wrong.
The mere fact that you object to the painless murder of children who have suffered, are suffering or will suffer simply demonstrates your appalling lack of compassion.
You might be wondering, "Hayden, why don't we just send those starving children food?"
Well, there are several reasons why that would be an inadvisable course of action.
For one thing, starving children often starve because they are in resource-poor regions run by warlords or despots with no regard for their survival. If we send the children in those countries food, that food will probably just be captured by the aforementioned warlord-despots, and later used to feed the malevolent soldiers fighting their wars and oppressing their populace (yes, sometimes these soldiers are themselves children, but we shouldn't let our privilege blind us to the fact that there is a difference between a child soldier and a soldier who happens to be a child).
Additionally, many foods have expiration dates. We wouldn't want to ship a container of nutritional mass to the other side of the world only to have it become useless before its arrival! That would just be a waste of resources, which wouldn't help anyone (least of all the starving children who need them).
Finally, human beings in the latter stages of starvation have extremely shrunken stomachs, and the stomachs of children are small to begin with. I doubt that any food we did manage to transport safely to an actual starving child without compromising its integrity as a resource or accidentally aiding a warlord's warlording would even be able to fit in said child's stomach, let alone successfully exit the gauntlet that is the digestive system in a beneficial way.
If these children aren't going to get anything good out of this world, then we can at least give them the pleasure of being forcibly ejected from it.
There are many additional benefits to this system of hunger reduction. Most importantly, the parents of these children will have fewer mouths to feed, and will be able to birth additional children when they are better able to care for them (provided they survive the bombing, of course).
Secondly, the United States spends too much money on war and not enough on foreign aid. With this philosophy guiding our collective moral compass, we can cheat the system by using our military budget (and planes, and technology that kills people) as foreign aid. Everyone wins!
Lastly, our use of more bombs than we have deployed in the past will help prevent us from letting our expensive explosives expire, thus preventing the needless waste of the taxpayer dollars that went toward buying those bombs.
If you're still against the compassionate bombing of children, wake the hell up. It's 2018, for crying out loud.
Obviously, bombing is not the answer. But you can make a difference. There are many ways to help the 3.1 million children starving in the world. Learn more here.
