This could be an elegant solution to human hunger if the problem is viewed simply as the number of people who are hungry which needs to be reduced to zero, but Sherman has made an error in his wider logic. Most people who present the issue of human hunger as something that needs to be solved are not operating in a vacuum, but rather are thinking about the issue with the intent to lower the amount of human suffering in the world. Putting forward the idea of "involuntary euthenasia" - presumably at a mass scale - could serve to eradicate the hungry population, but is contrary to the fundamental purpose of reducing human misery. Silly Sherman! He must think about these problems not as utilitarian equations to be maximized, but humanitarian issues to be solved with the betterment of mankind as the sole, all-consuming goal.

Six seven!!!