Extremely not-fun fact: collectively, humanity currently produces more than enough food for every person. But a huge part of it is either wasted or inaccessible by people that need them, which usually results in them not going to anyone and being wasted, which is why we still have food scarcity.

          • mycorrhiza they/them@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            First of all, that means food is poorly distributed. You are just disputing the cause.

            And yes, conflict if a major cause of hunger. But what is a major cause of conflict? Fucking poverty. Al Qaeda doesn’t recruit from fucking Beverly Hills. Another major cause: US intervention, for the sake of profit and geopolitical dominance, with the dominance ultimately also being for the sake of profit. The world economic system functions as a huge siphon that extracts wealth from the global south and funnels it to wealthy countries where the major institutions of finance are located. Western financial instruments like the IMF and World Bank, alongside direct political and economic pressure, enforce austerity in poor nations, dismantle social safety nets, depress wages, and privatize resources, and this very predictably results in underdevelopment and poverty, which fucking benefits the west because lower wages mean larger profit margins, lower prices and greater market share for the western companies that source their labor there. It’s a fucking global sweatshop economy. And there are consequences to this, when everyone is fucking poor and uneducated and young men see no future for themselves except to become soldiers. It means conflict, which means starvation.

      • foggy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nothing efficient about throwing away food. Not even from a profit perspective.

        • blackbirdbiryani@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That depends. If discarding food costs $X and distributing it to another market costs $2X guess which option is economically favourable?

          • foggy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The only reason that would occur would be inefficiency in distribution of product.

              • foggy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                That is literally the first comment in this thread, gtfo. Not going in circles with you.

                • TheMauveAvenger@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Then what would you suggest? If getting rid of food costs say $5 and sending to a different area costs say $10 then between both selections which one is better for the economy?

                  • foggy@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    6
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I stated a fact, I didn’t suggest anything. wtf are you still talking for?

                    If you’re paying to get rid of something you paid for, you fucked up.