see also:

a summary:

the numbers:
in 2013, the world's gdp (gross domestic product) was at least $ 70,000,000,000,000.
established sources say that the world has approximately 800,000,000 people who are starving. let's round it off to 1,000,000,000.
if in 2013 we would have given one percent of the world's gdp to 1,000,000,000 starving people, each one of them would have gotten about $700 in 2013. round it off to more than $50/month. keep in mind 50 CENTS buys a large bag of rice. that's just an example.
those are the numbers.
so the real issues, or at least the top issues are:
- do we WANT to live in a world where everyone can have enough to eat?
if the answer is "yes," then:
- how much are we willing to spend?
all it takes is 1% of the world's money.
- how do we figure out who exactly is "starving"?
we use at least 2 methods:
1) those that are starving have already been identified by local and international agencies, those same agencies that say there are 800,000,000 starving people;
2) bellatop's "top choice system": it enables anyone and everyone to spot the neediest, in the fastest and most efficient way on the planet.
- let's say i (or my company) would be thrilled to give 50 cents (or 50 million), with a click, to those who are starving: how do i know the money actually reaches those who are starving?
you, everyone, anyone, can monitor and follow EVERY SINGLE INTERACTION, EVERY SINGLE CLICK, EVERY SINGLE CENT. 100% t-r-a-n-s-p-a-r-e-n-t.
- let's say we can feed the hungry. the problem, is, then they're going to make kids, and their kids will be born poor, and in a few years instead of having 800 million people that are hungry we'll have 2, 3, 4 billion hungry people on earth!
this may seem like a somewhat "cold-hearted" objection, but it is a possibly very valid one.
there are many, many solutions. on this quick info page, we'll just mention two: an extremely radical and controversial solution, and an extremely basic and simple solution.
(example) extremely radical/controversial solution: the hungry in question may have only food with a contraceptive (male or female "pill") chemically embedded in it. once they become self-sufficient, they can swithc from "the food with the pill" to "regular food."
(example) extremely basic and simple solution: the project starts as an experiment:
as we (all) monitor it, we'll see if giving 1% of our money INCREASES poverty or if it DECREASES/ENDS poverty. if giving 1% of our money turns out to increase poverty, the experiment fails (or at any rate the first approach fails), and we all can stop doing this. some people might say we should give even 100% of the world's money so everyone can have food; some people might say that poverty in the world is a deliberate plan of a secret conspiracy of the rich and powerful; some people might say that every individual person is responsible for her/his own life. but in any case, the cost of this experiment is only 1% of our (the world's) money. and if it does turn out that with as little as 1% of our money, NO ONE in the world is hungry, the price for enjoying our lives with a clean conscience is pretty small, a penny on the dollar. furthermore, in the best scenario, those who are hungry now, will have been able to become self-sufficient once they have the most basic need met: food. it's entirely feasible that after 2 or 3 years that the world gives 1%, there will be no need to give money for food any more, because those that were starving in 2014 have become self-sufficient in 2016. sometimes all it takes is food in your stomach to turn a human being from incapable to capable. it's worth repeating that this is a voluntary experiment. each one of us, whether person or company, can make their choice. as for the numbers, there's no getting around them: at least $70,000,000,000,000 = the wealth that the world has produced in 2013 = more than $50/month that EACH starving person could have had in 2013, had we given them 1% of the world's wealth. (also, in a way, it's not "they" who are hungry. if we look at the human species as one organism, it is humanity itself that is hungry.)
- what about costs of logistics?
zip. money moves with a click. it's just a matter of using paypal and all the small and big ngo's, charities, etc that already exist out there, together with the "top choice system," and with 100% TRANSPARENCY, and EVERY CENT that moves electronically with a click reaches: hungry people themselves and/or existant (or new) food distribution points and/or even grocery stores (local corner store ... supermarket, furthermore in addition to easy digital tracking, fact is, even store video cameras are already extremely commonplace --for that matter the project has potential for reality tv series.)
some of the older audios at may address more matters, albeit in a very informal way. but the point is that the project has less potential for failure than it has potential for success. success not only in the sense of ending world hunger, but also success in terms of world awareness and participation across mass media and the blossoming of healthy and intelligent world economics. furthermore it is also entirely feasible that companies and industries invest in the connectivity of a new market and new economics, also benefitting from the "top choice system": the infinite possibilities it gives, for human society as well as for business. (for instance, even a "kid" with a slow connection at an internet center anywhere in the developing world can earn a dignified wage, on their own time, SIMPLY CLICKIN' AWAY at their fave internet ads, AND the entire process is entirely transparent.)
these words are not here on this page for the purpose of plugging "" or its "top choice system."
these words are here on this page because the people that make up the " group" CAN'T FRIGGIN STAND the fact that there's people hungry in the world.
there are solutions to world hunger. lots of solutions.
dear humans, what are we gonna do about it?
we've said it before and we'll say it again: one of the " group" slogans is [let's] "party with a clean conscience." let's ENJOY life, with our hearts at ease.
final comment:
some may find it strange, even sketchy, that "" mixes business (movies internet advertising etc etc etc) with something as FUNDAMENTAL as world hunger. (indeed, it's arguably the most fundamental matter, since, as far as we know, if you don't eat, you die. according to statistics, a human being dies from poverty every few minutes or so...)
so, someone might say, what on earth do batman, movies, video games, and the other "" business projects have to do with ending world hunger?
the " group" is CONSUMED and DRIVEN with the project for a world in which everyone can have enough to eat --consumed and driven with wanting to help others, everyone really. but where does it say that we can't also be consumed and driven with music, games, movies, etc?
and the conclusion of this page might be food for thought. ALAS, movies about world hunger don't exactly get long lines at the box office. but a batman flick? iron-man? star wars? hundreds of millions of people flock to these flicks. awesome flicks, too. in our crossover project, super heroes, jedi princesses, harry potter, you name it -- they all fight together to defend a world of the future from the attacks of aliens, terminators, predators, etc... downright blockbuster material.
lo and behold, however, in the "bellatop group" "crossover" project, it sorta kinda "happens" that in the background, the world where these super heroes live their blockbuster adventures, is a world where EVERYONE has enough to eat. with a click.
whaddaya say? get in touch

with 1% of our world's wealth everyone can have enough to eat

<a href="" title="WOULD YOU GIVE 1% (one percent) OF YOUR MONEY TO LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE EVERYONE CAN HAVE ENOUGH TO EAT? feel free to also ck link(s) below">WOULD YOU GIVE 1% (one percent) OF YOUR MONEY TO LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE EVERYONE CAN HAVE ENOUGH TO EAT? feel free to also ck link(s) below</a>

click on the question to take take the survey and/or you can also join the conversation at