I recommended checking Rosling's TED talk. Here is the link:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/hans_rosling_reveals_new_i...

He discusses the trends. The first few minutes are about child mortality, income and changes over the last few centuries. [Edit: Also see from 14 minutes. Hell, see all of it. If you care about the developing world, it is really informative.]

>That's due to technological progress

Afaik, the industrial revolution needed capitalism. Any references otherwise?

But sure, the technology and the scientific method has been invented. Inefficient systems can grind along for a bit, until we in the open world outcompete them.

For countries to be rich enough not to have starving, they need capitalism and good governance.

>around 1 billion people starve today, that's not a small percentage IMHO:

This have the usual idealist problem -- you have to kill people to help them...

Let us split that value up, a bit. About a billion is hungry, according to Wikipedia (not the same as starving -- did you fake there?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage...

Let us get some absolute numbers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition#Malnutrition_demog...

Top three: India, 217.05. China, 154.0. Bangladesh, 43.45. That is, 400 millions of that billion.

Now, China is a communist country, so the real value is probably higher -- but they are implementing capitalism so the hunger will go away in less than two-three decades (unless the governance is too bad).

India will probably solve their own hunger problems if they can get good governance to work.

We can ignore India/China, because they (a) can solve their own problems and (b) both have nuclear weapons and would not take kindly to external forced solutions.

Bangladesh -- will never solve their hunger problems by themselves. It is generally held to be the most corrupt country on the planet and the politicians steal aid money. You can't solve the problems of Bangladesh without military intervention -- see Iraq, how that goes.

Note that with that population density, a Bangladeshi invasion would kill more people than starvation in decades...

You have no clue how to organize an intervention to China, India and Bangladesh. And how to sell it, without military intervention. And NO ONE ELSE HAS A CLUE, EITHER.

The next two in the "top" list: Congo/Pakistan (with 37.0/35 millions hungry) have civil wars/insurrections. Good luck solving that, without killing more than hunger will, in decades.

The rest of the big hunger case is Africa south of the Sahari desert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hunger_Index#Conflicts_e...

"War and violence have been the major causes of widespread poverty and food insecurity in most of the countries with high GHI scores."

Well, as I said, you have an Iraq situation if you try to solve those cases...

(Tanzania might be a case. It is peaceful and has 16 million hungry, but it has gotten foreign aid by billions and billions since decades. It seems to be either too corrupt or too damaged by the early attempt at socialism... Might be a case where aid might be better used. I don't know enough about Ethiopia, but they have 30+ million hungry... might be fixable. But that and Tanzania is 3% [edit: 5%, didn't add] of your billion.)

So, most of the hungry will either be solved by themselves (India, China, Vietnam) with capitalism -- or will need a military intervention to change the governments (and/or stop conflicts which generate the starvation).

Especially good luck with Zimbabwe, South Africa would probably start a war with the military intervention needed to get rid of the b-stards in government, that starves their population.

And about changing the world system:

Consider East Germany. West Germany tried to integrate it and really, really failed. You want to do the same for the whole world? Abolish winter too, please... [Edit: Note that East Germany volunteered, the governments you want to reach are those that won't...]

I consider your thesis that hunger could [Edit: fixed word] be solved crushed and killed. I winz.

I think you are either a troll or ridiculously naive.

Edit: As an additional note:

>> You don't have to wait generations to curb starvation. In Cuba they managed in a decade. That's the issue here: Either we do it on our own accord or one day people will take their fair share by force and that leads to dictatorships.

First, Cuba is already a dictatorship which locks in its population, so they don't go to better places. Second, people in democracies with good governance don't generally starve (as I noted above). Third, that was according to Cuban statistics (see Soviet statistics from the 1930s...)

(To anser the next comment -- Cuba had to lock in their population before 1989 too, when they had both trade partners and lots of aid.)

Edit 2: Some parenthese. And as a last note, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation#Hunger_statistics

In 1970, 37% of the population in the developing world was "hungry", in 2007 it was 17%. (And as I noted above, the large majority of the remaining are in countries which will solve it themselves -- or the results of military conflicts/dictators. Hard to go in and "fix", both of those cases.)

Sigh, i guess I have been trolled but good to answer this whining. Enough.