> Is feeding the world a real problem?

Yes.

> I've yet to see compelling evidence that it really is except as a secondary effect of logistics, energy supply, and war.

I don't know how to respond to this. It's like saying you don't think breathing underwater is difficult, except for the secondary effects of water. War is a problem. Energy supply is a problem. Logistics is a problem. All these problems lead to starvation. People starving is a real problem.

Another reason people starve is economics and market forces. The market decides it wants to use up more water and grain to feed cows. That grain and water is now not available for purchase as human food. That means it is more scarce on the human-feeding market. Scarcity drives up prices. So livestock feed makes grain more expensive, making it harder to purchase, for people to eat.

(I'm using "starve" as a euphemism for "malnutrition that not only severely impacts bodily health, reduces quality of life, and increases mortality, but also decreases economic productivity")

Now, if the point you're trying to make is "we could solve world hunger", then absolutely the answer is yes, humans produce more than enough grain to feed everyone in the world, and we have the money to transport it everywhere, even assist with cooking fuel. But because of all the categories you think don't apply, and markets, and economics, we are not fixing it. We are choosing to let people starve.

▲

some_random 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>Another reason people starve is economics and market forces. The market decides it wants to use up more water and grain to feed cows. That grain and water is now not available for purchase as human food. That means it is more scarce on the human-feeding market. Scarcity drives up prices. So livestock feed makes grain more expensive, making it harder to purchase, for people to eat.

None of these are logistics, energy supply, or war. The paper is specifically talking about increasing efficiency in food production, the originally commenter is saying that efficiency of production is not the main driver for undernourishment and your comment doesn't address that.

	▲	0xbadcafebee 35 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Something doesn't have to be the main driver to still have an impact on the problem. Increasing food production efficiency would have a marked impact on the problem, without requiring you to to figure out how to end war or "fix" energy or logistics.

▲

worik 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Feeding the world is a problem of economics and politics, not the ecological problems of growing food.

There is huge capacity for food production in the world, and no reason anyone should go hungry

Keeping people hungry is deliberate economic policy.

In New Zealand where I live we make enough food for millions more than live here, yet many face food insecurity.

As I say, it is deliberate, calculated, government policy to keep people on the edge of hunger.

It keeps wages low - our idiot business people think every dollar paid in wages is a dollar of profit lost

Idiotic and cruel, and widespread

	▲	0xbadcafebee 38 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Of course it's a political problem. So what are we going to do? Sit around and pray for a miracle that solves all of politics? Meanwhile people are suffering. Increasing efficiency of food production will actually create more food, which makes it cheaper, which makes it easier for people to get. That we can probably actually accomplish, unlike solving politics.