It's not literally a war over food where the winner gets to eat. It's riots because food in North Africa triples in price because it has to be transported from Russia or Europe instead of grown locally and people are angry but the local government has no capacity to fix it.
The thing about food riots is, they are over quickly because, starvation. So a very temporary condition.
And in this modern age of transportation there's really no need for anybody to go hungry. We can feed everybody. If somebody in North Africa is hungry, its their politics at fault.
> The thing about food riots is, they are over quickly because, starvation.
Food riots usually happen well before mass starvation, and usually are over quickly because one of four things happens:
(a) The government accedes to the demands of the rioters, or
(b) The government distracts the rioters, often with a manufactured external crisis, or
(c) The government convinces the rioters that continuing the riot will lead to more pain than whatever provoked the riot and no positive results (often, by fairly direct demonstration of this),
(d) The riots escalate to outright rebellion, and the government is toppled and replaced (often resulting in [a], but sometimes this becomes a distraction along the lines of [b]; this often follows an attempt by the government at [c].)
> And in this modern age of transportation there's really no need for anybody to go hungry. We can feed everybody. If somebody in North Africa is hungry, its their politics at fault.
Even granting that, manifestly people do go hungry, particularly in nations that don't generate enough domestically to feed their people and would have to rely on imports to do so (though, even in the most developed countries that are also net food exporters, some still go hungry.)
Climate change, even before considering increased variability, changes which countries political deficiencies produce major food distribution problems and the accompanying pressures, which, historically, have led to mass violence, both internal and interstate. That its a political and not technical problem might be emotionally satisfying, especially when the problem is mostly in distant countries, but it doesn't actually magically make the problem go away.
> The thing about food riots is, they are over quickly because, starvation. So a very temporary condition.
Your answer to food riots is don't worry, they'll starve to death soon enough?
> And in this modern age of transportation there's really no need for anybody to go hungry. We can feed everybody. If somebody in North Africa is hungry, its their politics at fault.
We can grow enough food for everybody. We can put the food on trucks. We can put the trucks on roads.
Somebody still has to pay for the food and the trucks and the roads. And that's going to be significantly more expensive than locally grown food. For people who have no money to begin with.
> And that's going to be significantly more expensive than locally grown food
Depends on the food and the transportation method. Is growing tomatoes in a green house during winter months in a northern country more or less efficient than shipping them from the southern hemisphere?
> We can also put the people on trucks or planes or boats and move them to where the food is.
We could, but the people where the food (and associated economic security) is may object to that.
Refugees often aren't all that well received, and economic refugees (as opposed to political refugees who are politically aligned with the receiving state, which is opposed to the regime from which they are fleeing) -- external and, often, internal -- often are the worst received.
