No. It's not remotely feasible in reality to reasonably expect such "irrefutable fundamentals".
Sure, it would be nice if no child ever suffered hunger, but, in reality, that is completely impossible to achieve.
I'm not being close-minded about it, just practical.
Human nature makes certain "irrefutable fundamentals" impossible.
Utopia is not a possibility.

@KKGator what if someone has an answer that can guarantee the possibility of such an achievement all children could have equal access to all life's essentials to help them grow equally educated and well adjusted human beings will you still keep your ears shut to that? I'm not saying i have it but I'm trying to see how far is your limits in your religious/irreligious self

@Neenz I wouldn't "keep my ears shut", but I wouldn't accept it without sufficient proof of the claim.
I have no limits, but I also know most people claiming to have the "answers" are usually just trying to sell something.
I admit to being an unapologetic skeptic.
I'm a student of human nature.
I also do not believe it is possible for all children to have equal access to all of life's essentials. That is a complete panacea.
I think you're trying to sell an idea that has no logical basis.

@KKGator I agree with you as I don't try to change minds but I'm a firm believer in one human's ability to make a change in this world ... we collectively can make a change. I usually target the younger generation in my approaches as I know they are more flexible in accepting hope and new ideologies

@KKGator, @Neenz Its not about whether your right KKGator as you are. But the rub is why. Its simple humans decide as a group and as individuals to believe things, make statements of certainty such as "Sure, it would be nice if no child ever suffered hunger, but, in reality, that is completely impossible to achieve." And then that belief becomes reality through action and inaction. People will point towards other forces, so do groups but ultimately if they were honest it is lack of will and in some cases a unspoken wish for it not to happen that makes such things impossible. We have the resources in America to make sure every child eats. But we have a greater unspoken ideology called materialism and the worship of the lone man. By which I mean the idea that the greatest among us on any level get there largely by their own effort as opposed to help from society, family, friends etc. This poisons the least among us as they become mired in the idea that they are the failure even in the face of their best efforts. The homeless vet, the mentally ill man, the woman who fled an abusive relationship, the family who had a series of material setbacks all are largely responsible for their failure. This is the unspoken mantra of our society. We grind them down rather then rising them up. We cut their aid first, we expect Church's and Charity to put band-aids on chest wounds when we as a people have enough to help them.

@Quarm I am not an idealist. I don't pretend to be anything I'm not.
Being a realist, and saying that it's not likely that every child ever born will never know hunger, does not mean that I wouldn't be open to suggestions on how to achieve that goal. It just means that I would want to see the "plan" first, BEFORE I commit myself to believing it could work.
Being open-minded does not mean believing in every theory that comes down the pike. At least not without ample verification and a sufficient, practical plan that is likely to be successful.

@KKGator

Hmmm. Interesting. @Neenz makes a statement of value: that is no child should suffer hunger. You see it as a goal statement: that is, it is achievable that no child suffers from hunger. I guess I get your point: it may be futile to have a value that can never be achieved.

So how about this, as little a number of children as possible should suffer from hunger at any given time. Would that be a value/goal statement that we can ALL agree on? Or is the word "possible" too ambiguous?

I think that as a value statement (rather than as a goal statement), we can agree that we all desire that no children suffer from hunger, and we can argue about what is the best way to achieve the most proximate result.

Oh, and BTW, I think it is EMINENTLY possible that no children suffer from hunger. You tell me that I must produce a plan to achieve that, BEFORE you would accept that as a goal or a value. Not sure that is totally logical. It isn't scientifically or logically impossible. But you also say you are a "student of human nature." That to me means that you have a certain view about "human nature" that is unalterable (both the view and the nature). I too consider myself as a "student of human nature" but I find that the human nature isn't unalterable. One of the most wonderful things, and frustrating things, about us is that we are often products (or victims) of self-fulfilling prophecies.

@KenChang What keeps getting left out of the equation is controlling the actions of others in order to achieve this goal.
At no point have I rejected the notion, my point is that, unless everyone involved is on board with the plan, it has little chance of success
i.e. Delivering food to areas where it's needed. How does the active and armed interference of those who do not want those areas to receive the food factor into this equation?

@KKGator we control and are controlled by others in our actions on daily basis. The form and the basis of the control change. And we have somewhat of a control how that changes.

I would agree with you 100% but what if I said, I pick religion for example ... I don't want to hear about I'm totally closed to religion that I don't allow even to respect people's right to be religious and express their freedom .. as extreme as I think I am being left wing but I cannot imagine giving freedom to any religious practice could be one step away from killing a human being or their right to exist... these are fundamentals no one can accept inequality for any reason which everything in the end stempts from

@Neenz I really don't have a problem with people believing in God or an afterlife, or any of those things. It is my disdain for organized religion that will not waiver. They are organizations whose negative effects on society far outway the positive in my opinion. I know and have known believers who don't go to church or even talk of any affiliation with a church or doctrine. They are not a threat or danger to society. They are live and let live folks.

@Sticks48 This is a really good point .. I would totally let pass these people if that's all what there is to it... but think about the opposite side... Let's say the long bearded muslim man with his fully wrapped wife and little baby with head scarf on ...
This is a very very simple example of giving people freedom of choosing and practicing their religious peaceful values in public.
If you use logic here, you tell me the law give rights to all equally, I will ask you how about the woman with him? Are you sure she's willingly accepting the facewrap or rather the facetrap ..how about this little girl who will be brought up in such an environment does she deserve it or should we try to help her, if we choose to help how and if we choose not to take an action how can we morally be content with our life and can humanely be so grateful to our life?
This might sound harsh on the ears but again objectively thinking ... what type of people do we need to be to be to consider ourselves humane beings.

@Neenz That is a good question. I have no answer. I am not a bad person, but I do tend to stay out of other people's business. I found out a long time ago, unless someone asks for help, they generally don't want it. I might think someone is living a life no one would want, because I wouldn't want it. Of course I could be very wrong.. As for the children, one can only hope at some point they will be able to look at their indoctrination as just that and figure out what works for them. This is all gray area, except the overall harm that comes from organized religions. IMHO

I'd say not so open that makes you step away from your natural compassion as a human being. In the end, we all as creatures (humans or not) have consciousness to a certain extent, there is natural compassion we hold inside us which is a nature's way to extent life from evolutionary stand point

@Neenz ,
natural compassion? sadly, examples throughout history prove otherwise.
most ppl could not care less about ppl starving across the world.
the US, with NATO, bombs once thriving countries back to a miserable existance. do you think the average american really cares? if they did they would protest to their representatives & turn them out of office. no, so long as average ppl consider themselves fairly well off, they don't care if it comes at the expense of the less fortunate.
human nature isn't pretty.

So what part of your steel trap did your Atheist/Agnostic/Humanist manifested itself from. After all, we all are born in a religious environments regardless of parents being part of the majority or the minorities and we all agree on the fact any religion had some sort of brutality, nonsense, and/or inequality

I grew up in small town AZ. My family has long-time roots with the Mormon settlers who founded most of the communities in the AZ/UT Strip Country area and with the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. I even have distant relatives in Colorado City and Bundyville for anybody who recognizes those names. Fortunately my family didn't happen to get indoctrinated in the LDS church until after my high school after I moved away.... so I escaped.

When I went to school in Atlanta it was a culture shock. There were people who actually believed things that I'd only read about. I didn't know that race attitudes were much closer to the Civil War than anyone had ever told me.
And gender relations were just as bad. The age of consent in GA at the time was 14. It was interesting watching non-south guys reactions. For us it was very disconcerting to see jr. high girls wandering around frat parties.

My prejudices got locked in. I'll never trust people to treat each other by my expectations again. The Golden Rule is garbage. Treating folks the way you want to be treated is naive and selfish. The Platinum Rule is much better. Treat people the way they want to be treated.
Ever since, I don't trust anyone to behave well on their own. I expect people to be just as selfish as they can get away with.

Ok. Rant over for now. That's my steel trap prejudice -- don't trust people any farther than you can throw a fit. I tell people I'm a bit of a nihilist - I do what good I can but I have very little confidence that it will have any lasting effect.