And as the population peaked with food supply people would have starved to death.
Not necessarily, not as long as a sudden large supply were not delivered.
I'm talking about basic population biology.
I used to work with a woman who considered herself quite a do-gooder. Next to our office building was a dumpster that received garbage from a cafeteria. There were a couplf of cats that would hang around and take advantage of the easy food supply.
Well coworker, let's just call her "Crazy Betty", projects her own value system onto the cats and feels sorry for them having to eat garbage so she decides she'll be 'humane' and put a bowl of catfood out for them.
Well, the next thing you know, there are three bowls of catfood and over ten cats that she's supporting.
Then Crazy Betty decides to quit and take a job up in the Pacific Northwest and she asks me if I'll take care of the cats for her. "Sure" I reply. She gives me the 10 lb bag of food and I ask her what that's for. "To feed the cats!" she says.
Well, needless to say, I am not going to be buying food for a bunch of stray cats, so I stopped supplementing their food supply. The next thing you know, we're back down to two cats.
Did the others starve? Maybe some of them. But the point is that we never would have bneen in that ethical dilemma if she hadn't started supplementing their food supply in the first place. Yes, it's sad that some cats starved, but it's sadder still that Crazy Betty didn't realize that she was the one at fault for artificially expanding that cat population in the first place. The original two cats were as happy as they could be eating garbage, they didn't know any better.
A population should not exceed the carrying capacity of their environment. It's one thing to provide food relief for areas tempoarily hit with famine through drought or other natural setbacks. BUT, trying to maintain populations in changing environments such as the Sahel, where desertification is reducing the carrying capacity of the environment is a recipe for disaster.
Why do you assume we won't be able to invent the means to overcome?
It's one thing to invent technology for what a society sees as its own problems, but to introduce technology to other societies in order to correct wrongs perceived trough one's own cultural bias is a mistake and make you responsible for the consequences.
Mansanto isn't moving food to Africa
Monsanto is SELLING sterile grain to African farmers. This grain will not produce seed for next years crop. This grain is also engineered for specific pesticides and nutrients that aren't naturally avaiolable in Africa, so the African farmers have become dependent on Monsanto to provide them seed, pesticides and nutrients.
Another side effect of the Monsanto products is that they are EXTREMELY petroleum dependent. So not only are African farmers dependent on American agribusiness, but American agribusiness is becoming increasingly dependent on foreign petroleum supplies.
So now we have a system whereby a political misstep by the US administration can cause a disruption in the supply of petroleum and thereby production of grain, pesticides and nutrients, which in turn may cause a shortage of food in developing countries which in turn can lead to famine.
The food distribution system in place today does not have enough redundancy to be robust. But it does serve the shareholders of agribusiness, so it continues.
These are political problems, not agribusiness, food chain, industrial food problems
That's a pretty naive statement. The structure of the current food distribution network lends itself to being manipulated by politics/"political problems". In some cases may cbe considered a cause of political problems.