> The article actually says we produce enough to feed the whole world.

The issue is not whether we could feed the whole world, the issue is whether we do. If we don't, then the hypothesis that we could is small comfort to those who are starving.

> Massive death tolls from famines always come down to political stupidity.

Political stupidity is much harder to sustain with small populations, people who can vote with their feet.

Your basic view is that there can't be progress until noone on the whole world is hungry? And no amount of declining starvations over the past decades and centuries is worth anything at all?