I was referring to the hypothetical utopia of “making sure people don't go hungry”, which is something that has never happened before in human history. But thanks for assuming negative intent.

The world produces enough food to feed everyone. Doubly true if you scope things to the developed world. Triply true if you scope it to the USA only. "No one starves" is just as reasonable a minimum standard to strive for as "no one gets raped".

Yes, there are serious implementation details, but there's a big societal will factor at play too.

You’re making a strawman argument. The difference is between “being a local singer vs being a superstar”, not “being hungry vs fed”.

This thread stems from a comment that stated:

> The fact that you wouldn’t even consider it shows that you haven’t gone hungry for a while.

I took that as a figurative statement. Hungry for success, or for a way out of a perceived poor future outlook, perhaps not literally hungry (for food).