The proposition of implementing a worldwide food bank is an enigma puzzled with questions of reasoning and morality. Some would say the possibility of establishing such an entity could lead to war, famine, and poverty on a worldwide scale. Others would suggest it could uplift a burden that plagues man constantly and bring peace and prosperity to nations abroad. I, for one, find it hard to imagine that such an establishment could possibly bring forth any long term positive effects; although I am subject to say I agree upon the theory as a wonderful proposal. At first, it would be a likely cause to the problems of our world, a wonderful thought indeed, but human nature will abort any likeliness of conceiving this creation. This would occur through the manifestation of greed, the downward spiral of the poor, and the abolishment of natural selection.
             The conception of a worldwide food bank would inevitably lead to a viscous constant; known to us humans as greed, that would undoubtedly ruin the system from the inside out. For instance, if someone obtains something that is given to them, knowing that it is there whenever needed, instead of working for it, there is a higher chance that the person will take advantage of it and selfishly abuse it. Humanity as a whole, in dire need, would possibly work on the same concept. On the contrary, something that is earned, worked for, will be used properly and not abused, and will be valued at a higher standard. "A farmer, for instance, will allow no more cattle in a pasture than its carrying capacity justifies [. . .] If a pasture becomes a commons open to all, the right of each to use it may not be matched by a corresponding responsibility to protect it" (Hardin).Thus, selfishness occurs, infesting this dream like a vivid nightmare. As for the select countries fueling the world food bank, they become the helpless victims to their own tragedy.
             Furthermore, if this concept were to be established,...