Much of the produced food is thrown away because it's no longer considered fit to eat, however. And scarcity also takes into account the where. Malnourished people in poor countries might happily eat bread which is past its 'sell by' date in rich countries' supermarkets, or even the slightly burned leftovers from my plate, but there isn't a distribution system to get it there (and the resources needed to transport that food to them whilst the food is still edible genuinely are scarce)
I've written a lengthier response to that in the conversation tree, but the gist of it is that it is a political choice whereas the OP sarcastically alluded to a physical problem (mana from heaven, which we already have thanks to tech)
The problem is that the massive tech surplus is captured and not allocated to make life less hellish.
Let me guess - it's thrown when it's already not in the very edible condition? And it's produced in the first place in the hope that it will be bought at the price asked?
So, I'm not sure that those who produce (or distribute) it will agree at once "let's give right away half of produced for free". But if you pressure them much, they might "agree" to cut the production in half. But you may imagine where that could lead.
Finally, you may expect the government to buy half of it right away to give away for free. Well, good luck with running with that line for president, probably won't work even in Sub-Saharan Africa. And likely the food will still be trash when reaching the target audience, due to government efficiency.
The original poster made reference a reference to medieval beliefs in earthly paradise with the idea of food falling from the heavens. In reality, we already sorta live in the land of Cockaigne given the dizzying variety and quantity of food we are able to produce, as well as the amount of energy. We have the technology, and we have the ability. Granted, it would be nice to have much cheaper energy sources but these no longer seem to be a distant dream.
So all I am saying is that the idea that we don't have to work as much is not that unrealistic. Already much of work is relatively meaningless, or merely redistributive. The portion of the economy that actually produces things is small. Most people shift wealth around in the tertiary sector.
So yes, there indeed are enormous challenges when it comes to distribution. But these are mostly the result of political choices and not physical barriers to which the original poster was hinting at sarcastically. If you take electric vehicles, no progress is made for decades then suddenly when people focus their efforts on it the landscape changes completely. Coca Cola can manage an extremely proficient distribution system, so who is to say governments can't? With increasing automation they will have to start redistribution anyway or indeed lose elections.
This reminds me a bit of members of the House of Commons wondering if the poor would become too lazy if we decrease the working day from 16 hours to a mere eight.
>Finally, you may expect the government to buy half of it right away to give away for free
Governments all over the world already prop up agriculture with price controls. India is currently wracked by the largest protests in history because that system was put on pause. So it's not like people aren't receptive to governmental intervention in critical sectors. The notion of government efficiency is amusing in the first place when we consider the half of food that is wasted by market action
> of food we are able to produce, as well as the amount of energy. We have the technology, and we have the ability.
And you miss my point too. I keep reading "we", "we", "we" in replies here, but who's that "we"? I for one this year was able to produce following food: a few stems of mint, and 5 centimeter diameter watermelon on my balcony.
So let me tell you - "they" are able to produce food. "They" have technology and ability. And that's exactly what people keep saying here: They should collect our garbage. They should turn cities into more suitable for automated vehicles. They should automate agriculture. For I don't see a great desire among participants here to grow their own potato crop (automated or not).
But what if they decided that we want too much from them? What if they decided it would be "easier" or maybe even "better" to just kill us?
> This reminds me a bit of members of the House of Commons wondering if the poor would become too lazy if we decrease the working day from 16 hours to a mere eight.
And they did become too lazy, ain't it? At least they don't die like flies (smells bad) and don't run revolts that often.
