I agree that the problem is distribution — this was made very clear in the article. I have little faith, however, that a purely — or nearly pure — political solution is possible in a geopolitical and economic climate where power and technological access are so concentrated and unequally distributed. And this still says nothing of the environmental consequences of these solutions in the first place.
As for this comment…
If you think that the solution lies in the past, think again. 200 years ago, average life expectancy was 35 years. We dont want to go back.
… this is a typical problem with debating the value of non-European ancestral knowledge; Eurocentrism causes people to want to go back 200 or 300 years, smack in the middle of colonial trauma, and convince themselves that European invaders went around saving people from death. The exact opposite is true.
People in India (and everywhere else) were starving 200 years ago because their colonial overlords were decimating the populations there with disease, war, forced assimilation, and cultural genocide. These populations continue to suffer precisely because of the disruption caused centuries ago. Folks seldom want to talk about what was going on in Asia, Africa, and the western hemisphere, say, 700–800 years ago and earlier, before the Age of Invasion, when most cultures around the world were feeding themselves just fine (or better) while Europe starved.
