…because when we need to solve world hunger, we go to YouTube.
We have enough food, buty ou’d basically have to achieve world peace and make tons of countries get rid of their massive inequality. Hardly “easy”…
Also, there’s enough food for everyone to eat healthy, but not for everyone to eat like the average American. Even if nobody was starving, I still think people wouldn’t be that thrilled that some get to eat like kings while others must live off rice and beans.
That’s basically where we’re at with money. You get $30,000 a year, and I get $100,000,000. Why are you angry? Neither of us are starving!
I would definitely call it “easy” in those exact words, it is more effort to combat easy than it is to just be easy.
I feel like you two have different definitions of easy. Yes, the theory is easy. But in practice you have to deal with people (ugh) and those are definitely the difficult part in this equation.
Its easy in the same sense that immortality is easy, “just dont die”.
TLDW?
Essentially its just that anything that is currently doable at any scale is something which could be optimized for without dropping the ball on other important things and the main thing in the way is just people agreeing to do it, like the video mentions something like 13% of total money the government has annually is all it would really take to completely solve it and the video goes into a lot of different approaches to how this could be done practically not just theoretically.
