This is true, but it's also true that the world produces enough food such that no ones needs to starve, and yet people still starve. A quarter of food produced ends up in landfills (Europe estimates 20% food waste, as high as 30-40% in US).
From a sibling comment by imtrigued:
> Almost a billion are still going hungry.
"The world is awful"
And then from your parent comment:
> Are we? Starvation and malnutrition used to be common and is now rare
"The world is better"
And finally your comment:
> it's also true that the world produces enough food such that no ones needs to starve
"The world can be much better"
These three are all true, and I suspect each person already knew all three. It's just that each person chose to focus on a separate aspect.
"The world is awful" highlights a problem that needs solving, a concrete goal
"The world is better" tells you that something is working, which you can build on top of or improve
"The world can be better" gives a proposal for a course of action
While the 3rd might seem like the most useful, the 1st is extremely important too, because if the proposal fails then you need to fall back to thinking about the problem. The 2nd is important for both motivation, and also for promoting incremental progress
The situation in 2022 is not good, it will take time to see exactly how bad.
Famine correlates very closely with war -- if our recent period of relative global peace comes to an end it will probably return with a vengeance.
A good example of this caution is eggs and refrigeration, for which American's and European's have opposite ways of handling things.