Hacker News Reader

Comment by andylei | Hacker News Reader

> Why is it that food production has gone up, yet the number of starving and hungry individuals throughout the world hasn't changed significantly?

Care to back that up with evidence?

The Global hunger index (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hunger_Index), indicates that hunger has decreased over the past 20 years. Out of the 30 countries with the most hunger, only 3 have more hunger now than 20 years ago. Every country on that list has had hunger decrease of stay still, with the majority of them seeing less hunger.

View on HN

That may be true but I also do not believe that the improvements in the last 20 years have had anything to do with food production. As Sen argued way back in 1981 the cause of hunger and famine is political, not due to a lack of ability to grow food. Somalia this year is case and point.

The green revolution (as led by Norman Borlaug not Monsanto) may be able to take credit for some of the advances during the 60s and 70s but any advances due to Monsanto in recent years cannot be made up for by their completely unjust business practices as others have mentioned.

I am also disappointed in hearing that a YC company is going this direction.

> advances due to Monsanto in recent years cannot be made up for by their completely unjust business practices as others have mentioned.

people deal with monsanto voluntarily. nobody is making you buy their seeds. the fact that so many do suggest that their advances in gmos are indeed worth the cost.

Actually, Monsanto also sells most "conventional"(non-GMO) seeds. It's very difficult not to deal with them, as they have a near-monopoly. If you're going to look for evil, look there.

no one is making you buy seeds at all. non-GMO seeds don't come with "no save" agreements. if you are a farmer, just do what farmers have done for thousands of years: get your seeds from this year's harvest.

I'd be curious to see this laid against population.. The numbers might be affected quite literally by survivorship bias.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com