It's more that the people who cant get enough food dont have anything that the people who have an excess of it really want.
Global wealth distribution is more the issue than logistics and that wealth includes legal monopolies on all the worlds most arable lands intrinsically backed by the threat of violence.
Sure they do. It's just that forefingers own everything of value in their countries and every time they elect someone to do something about it, the US violently overthrows them, covertly or overtly.[1]
1. https://github.com/binka/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md
What are these legal monopolies on arable land? Do you mean the countries that contain the land or something else?
This is silly. You say that as if the western countries aren't the same and didn't put those people in power...
Also, it's funny how you blame socialists for society not being able to fix the problems of capitalism.
Suppose I were to suggest that we think of Feudalism as a tool in the box, or Slavery/Forced labor. Some economies used to be run like that. And nobody said you have to use that "tool". The thing is - it's not really a tool, which "we" can collectively apply towards reaching accepted social ends. And neither is Capitalism.
I hate how people push centralized government and economies without a single shred of evidence that they have ever produced anything other than misery.
What kind of nonsense is that? We already have the tools, land value taxes and negative interest rates aka demurrage money.
The solutions are trivial, and that is exactly why curing the symptoms can be nothing but complex.
Demurrage money results in the neutrality of money and thereby activates a lot of economic theories that free market advocates take for granted when there is endless evidence that they don't work in a permanent money aka non neutral money system.
Full employment is the default in a market economy, there is no such thing as a business cycle. It is only once you add non neutral money with the artificial zero lower bound that you get monetary cycles.
If money is neutral, then debts won't have to grow eternally and there is no need to erode them with inflation.
You must be one of those anarcho-communists.
This is because having a reliable food supply everywhere is not the same thing as growing enough food, on the aggregate, to be able to feed everyone. That's not even half of it. Distribution and logistics are key, particularly making it robust to all sorts of shocks (droughts, conflict, etc). A lot of areas experiencing famine/hunger are places with very bad governance and infrastructure. Fixing that is Hard and Expensive, and once you do they'll never go hungry again because existing food available for sale elsewhere in the world will make its way there, either always or when needed.
>I don’t have the answer. But I know there’s more to it than technology and innovation.
The answer is in social innovation, and half the issue is letting go of ideological baggage. Socialists need to stop having pavlovian responses to the word 'capitalism' and 'markets', and economic liberals need to stop treating markets as a sacred cow and instead think of them as one tool in a toolbox. Most importantly, we need way more experimentation.