But we dont solve big problems by focusing on big solutions.
You might be interested to also know that traditionally the scarcity problem is defined as limited resources. When JMK talked about the scarcity problem, he was talking about limited resources--so when we talk about food, that's looking to be getting very close to sowthing that is not a limited resource. It's almost not even scarce, and it's easily produced with little input*
*speaking of commodity food
Maybe where you are misunderstanding is that commodity food is actually extremely cheap. The world can be fed on a tiny fraction of global GDP.
Or, maybe it's this: Post scarcity does not have to mean 100% free, just that it can be possible to be available to everyone at very low cost--which it is. Getting that last bit of price drop to 0 can be difficult or improbable, and the definition of post scarcity does not require it, nor should it.
It's not even close to being very low cost to make sure everyone have food in this world not even close.
Additionally, I was travelling most of the time in developed countries, and not selecting cheapest options. And certainly was buying small amounts at retail prices.
So say 2$ a day as an aggressive estimate of what can keep an average person alive.
@ 2$ per person you can feed the world for 5 trillion a year. That's not even 7% of global GDP, and it's not even including home production.
So with 7% of global production we can feed every single person--as an upper level estimate. I would bet it's possible to get below 50c per person.
That's not a cheap price?
The amount of money thrown at the problem and the willingness of people to work. to feed themselves is already more than enough resources to solve it. It's a problem of people and our institutions, not that it's costly to solve it (it's extremely cheap, in relative terms, actually).