First, Silicon Valley does solve real world problems, and in fact I’d say the people who actually stick around prefer to work on those problems. You’re choosing not to see them over the noise.

Second, it’s about making money by solving problems. So “trivial” solutions that make a lot of money will take priority over problems whose solutions don’t make money.

This is what I was helping build software for at my previous employer:

The first use of it by a customer? COVID-19 treatment research. Probably the biggest real world problem right now. I was working 80-hour weeks for months after the pandemic started making sure the researchers were supported.

The primary buyers now? Pharmaceutical companies. They’re not buying millions-of-dollars boxes for shits and giggles. They’re trying to develop blockbuster drugs and treatments.

I’m now working to help make the next generation of these:

Tens of thousands of people in the U.S. and over one million people in the world die every year in motor crashes. Far more injuries and property damage. Mostly due to human error. Like the idiot who ran a red at high speed and plowed into my car. If I hadn’t hit the brakes, he would have taken out my legs instead of my engine block. I was still on prescription painkillers for weeks.

Take the human out of driving, save lives. Real world problem.

A whole lot of nothing. People would still be just as hungry. The problem isn’t lack of money, it’s lack of people producing food. Tesla stocks have zero nutritional value. So how is $200 billion of Tesla stock going to end hunger when there is no nutritional value in stocks? And $200 billion valuation of his stock holdings is not the same thing as $200 billion. It’s not money. It doesn’t magically convert into $200 billion. It’s not a thing. It’s someone taking the trading price of a share of Tesla stock on the day and multiplying it by the shares Elon holds. That’s not money, that’s someone playing “fun” math games to carry out a multiplication that has no real world actionable or practical meaning. You simply cannot covert all those stocks into $200 billion just because you came up with $200 billion by multiplying the trading price of the day by millions of shares. That stock price is the price of a buyer of ONE share and a seller of ONE share. Just because one buyer pays that price for one share does into mean there will be people willing to pay that price for millions of Elon’s shares. And if you imagine that there would be people with $200 billion with which to buy Elon’s Tesla stock, why not start with those people since they must already have those dollars to buy those shares with. Oh, that’s right, those people and those dollars don’t actually exist. It’s just a mathematical fantasy.

Even if you had that $200 billion, it also has no nutritional value and does not magically transform into food out of thin air. So you would have $200 billion sitting in a bank somewhere and still no more food to feed anyone until people grow and produce that food.

And this is why Elon’s reply was for the to “show their work” on how they imagine it would actually produce and provide that food they imagine. Show an actual action plan that is actually actionable that would actually produce and obtain that food in a way that would actually solve hunger. AND submit to open accounting and accountability as to how that money is used. Not surprisingly those requests have been met with silence.

People seem to have no concept of what it actually means to produce food for 7 BILLION PEOPLE. People seem to imagine that there is some sort of magic corner grocery with $200 billion of food just waiting to be bought if someone would just come along with $200 billion to provide it.

And the thing is also, as the saying goes, give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime. People think the answer is just giving people this food they imagine would be bought with that $200 billion they imagine Elon has. But after that imagined food has been consumed, then what? Then you’re right back to begging for more of Elon’s money.

There was never such a thing.

The World Food Programme made an appeal to the world's billionaires to donate money to them.

The quote by its executive director David Beasley was:

$6 billion would help 42 million people that are literally going to die if we don't reach them.

The idea was to pay for one meal per day for 42 million starving people for one year.

Of course, the media twisted that to “2% of Elon Musk's wealth could help solve world hunger”

Suddenly, there were lots of people urging Musk on Twitter to donate the money, prompting this response from him.

Beasley was quick to point out that he was misquoted.

Afterwards, Musk sold $5.7 billion worth of Tesla stocks without tweeting about it

At the end of the day, $6 billion would not “solve” or “end” world hunger. It's a lot more complicated than that. As Musk pointed out in his third podcast with Lex Fridman, hunger is almost always a result of civil war and political conflicts, not an actual lack of food or money.

Footnotes

Silicon Valley does help solve hunger - more than you imagine. It is just that you don't want to look at it. [For the purpose of this answer, I will take Silicon Valley to mean "US tech industry"].

Without Silicon Valley, I and millions of others in India might have been trying for the preciously few government jobs. If you didn't get that rare government job, you were not far from hunger. With the explosion of computing revolution, millions of kids all over the developing world could finally imagine of careers that had little to do with the government. That unlocked a massive sector and millions of Indians climbed out of poverty. Read more: Why don't poor Indians start a revolution?

Microsoft Windows alone probably helped more humans get out of poverty than any charity organization in the world. Only if you have climbed from that brutal levels, you would appreciate what Bill Gates did to humanity. Even while typing from Mac and Ubuntu, I would ignore the fanboys and happily sing praises of Gates as my life changed literally.

Without Silicon Valley, communication was a privileged technology open only to a few rich countries and rich people in poor countries. Two decades ago, a mobile revolution started and now even the poorest of poor in the world are hooked to this global network. It is solving a variety of real problems in the real world.

With Google and education startups, even the poorest in the world could access some of the rich content previous open only to world's top universities. Imagine yourself as a poor kid sitting in an Indian village with no real library. How would you ever compete with someone going to the Ivy leagues? With Google partly leveling competition, that poor girl or boy could now find resources to solve their family's troubles by getting a job.

With the revolution in social media, media has changed substantially. Government could no longer keep a lid on the subjects. Whole of Middle East went through the Arab Spring, toppling despots and tyrants armed with just Twitter and mobile phones. Is that not solving real world problems?

Uber, Airbnb and other startups are also substantially changing the real world. I have stayed in over 50 places in AirBnb and I have seen so many people who were using Airbnb as their strong secondary source of income. It is helping those lower middle class families I stayed with, fight hunger. Uber is revolutionizing how transportation operates and India quickly catapulted to become the second largest market for Uber. As I chat with my various Uber drivers, I can see their lives changing.

With cloud computing, poor companies in the developing world can afford computing resources without much capital expenditures. More business leads to more jobs and less hunger.

We have barely scratched the surface. Revolution in robotics, 3d printing and education tech will impact the poor world more than the rich. More people will climb the ladders out of poverty, like I did and so many millions did.

Of course, there are plenty of silly startups and ideas. But, you never can really know what is silly. Could anyone see that a silly 140-character messaging service change the world of media and journalism?

Did anyone have a clue that this clunky personal computer or this brick-like mobile phone would touch the lives of poor kids in India or Africa? Did anyone know that this would change the lives of millions of poor and get them out of poverty. No. Anyone who claims to know how technology diffusion completely works is a phony.

How these various dots connect and what lead to solving poverty is a complete mystery. But, one thing is for sure. Historically, it is technology that has really solved poverty and hunger. It is technology that catapulted Europe and North America to the top of the world, pulling hundreds of millions out of abject poverty. How many of the Luddites had a clue that the humble steam engine and others would not destroy the jobs, but create so much more and change the world politics, economics and society?

Millions in Japan and Germany came out of poverty riding the technology revolution produced the small and medium scale tech companies not too far from what Silicon Valley is doing. It is thus imperative that entrepreneurs keep pushing the boundaries of technology.

Because, by pushing the boundaries, the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are solving hunger and other world's problems. Your eyes are just too close to see it.

Not Elon Musk nor anyone else will ever eliminate “world hunger" until and unless simultaneous population control methods are enacted.

More food availability inevitably causes population growth in mammals - including humans - that is limited only by resource (mainly food) competition. So any world-hunger reduction program would need to incorporate simultaneous population-control measures in order to have any chance of success.

While such population control could be entirely voluntary in nature, history would argue that's an unlikely proposition.

So while Elon Musk's proposal by itself may nearly eliminate hunger today, that is sure to be only a very temporary solution.

It would be very generous on his part, but we cannot rely on wealthy philanthropists alone to solve problems such as hunger. We must all do what is within our power to improve the situation. To truly address the problem of world hunger, not only do we humans need to control our numbers by having fewer children, but we must also reduce our consumption, especially those of us in the developed world (I learned that the US contains no more than 5% of the world’s human population, yet consumes 30% of the world’s natural resources). We must also refrain from killing off foxes, weasels, owls, snakes, and other natural predators of rats and mice. Brown rats, black rats, and house mice are native to Asia, but because of accidental introductions, they now exist on every continent except Antarctica. Wherever they have been introduced, they consume vast quantities of human food, especially when their natural predators have become too few in number to control them. Whatever they don’t eat, they contaminate.

“What would it take to provide proof to Elon Musk that $6 billion can solve world hunger?”

Elon Musk is a very clever guy, with a proven ability to think outside the box.

If you have a proof that $6 billion can solve world hunger, present it to him in a convincing manner. You shouldn't need to do any more.

However, Musk is more than smart enough to know that world hunger is not caused by a lack of food (which could then be solved by increasing food production, i.e. with money). Rather, food shortages today are largely political problems, which are much harder to solve.

When a local warlord controls access to food contributions from overseas, and sees this as a vital component to his power over the locals, then sending him more food won't change anything. What is needed there is political change, which is decidedly non-trivial, and involves a lot more than just spending money.

Elon Musk is not the first billionaire involved in social causes. If there was a simple way to cure world hunger by throwing money at it, the problem would have been solved long ago.

Relatively speaking, in recent years not many people died of starvation. For the most part, hunger is a problem of the past.

Out of the over 50 million people who die every year in the world, only about half a million die of nutritional deficiencies and protein-energy malnutrition.

Only ~1% of the total number of people who die every year, die of hunger.

It is safe to say that today far more people die of obesity than of starvation.

There is no shortage of food in the world.

The hunger problem is not huge, and the main reasons we still have hunger in the world is not because of lack of food, but because of tribalism, conflicts and corrupt politicians who intentionally deprive people of access to food.

Given that, I’m not entirely sure Elon Musk and his money are equipt to deal with those main causes of hunger.

Moreover, if I had a way to convince Elon Musk to do something with his time and money, I would have asked him to invest in ways to resolve the root cause of cardiovascular diseases, cancer, respiratory diseases, infections and dementia (Alzheimer etc.).

That could potentially save the lives of 27 million people every year instead of 0.5 million.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk crossed $300 billion threshold recently

How Muslims react to UN’s statement

How Musk responded to UN is extremely wonderful

Beasley responded to Musk on Twitter,

Writing 6 billion will not solve world hunger, “but it will prevent geopolitical instability, mass migration and save 42 million people on the brink of starvation. An unprecedented crises and a perfect storm due to covid/conflict and massive storm crises

No. Hunger is not a food problem, it is a population problem. Feeding people allows for population growth requiring more food. Reduce the number of people and the remaining people are less hungry. This relationship was recognized by Malthus in 1798 (but most people already knew this piece of common sense).

Only the UN and other organizations profiting from hunger will promote their programs which keep people hungry as the “solution”. Elon Musk is smart enough to know that spending money on food will never “solve world hunger” so he is safe from ever having to follow through an his offer.

In the long term the best solution seems to be to increase individual wealth. Wealthy individuals tend to have fewer children thus reducing the demand for food and reducing “world hunger”. Increased education also tends to lead to fewer children.

I did this same thing often over the last few years. It’s a technique you use to call someone out in a situation. UPS would tell me I had to pick a package up at 3pm, no earlier but it had to be in Winnipeg no later than 5pm. It’s 2 1/2 hours to Winnipeg so I just said “Hey, 100% not a problem…just let me know how you want it done in an email and I’ll do it right now.” You see they say things like that to put the blame on me pretending it’s easy to do. So you call them on it and knowing it can’t be done they don’t respond, but now you’ve turned it around on them. I have a ton of other similar stories if you want to hear them.

So Musk says “tell me how and I’ll do it” because he’s making them admit that they were just trying to embarrass him or make him look selfish. Even if they do respond, much like in my case, if the can tell you how to do it your happy to do it….or in musks case he’d just say “the UN can’t round up 6 billion to feed the world?” I’m guessing the statement (if it was actually made) was made during a conversation about how he’s wasting his money with boring/space/electric vehicle/solar city when he should be helping people who can’t afford those things. That’s the thing about human beings, we don’t help anyone ourselves but when one of us does make the effort to change things for people or solve an issue for the betterment of mankind we demand they do the things “WE WANT”.

Quora is full of Elon Musk demands. 200 billion net worth, why isn’t he paying for college tuitions!! why isn’t he paying more taxes so poor people can live better lives (Because the country with a gdp of 15 trillion dollars can’t provide free health care but Elon Musk throwing them a cheque for another 20% of his income would get the ball rolling?).

I actually recently gave my notice, after 20 years in business I’ve had enough of this kind of thing that I finally just said “Fine, if you can do better then you guys do it.”

Short answer: No.

While the world can produce enough food for people, it is grown in areas that the people in the most need can’t get to it.

There are 2 solutions, neither of which are politically acceptable. 1) Move people from places of low food production to areas of high food production. If, for instance you simply transplanted the 2.5 million starving Ethiopians to the Ukraine, which currently has an excess of 20 million tons of grain, they would not starve.

Would Ukraine allow 2.5 million migrants? Who would pay to transport and house 2 million people? Would the Ethiopians be willing to leave their country forever in exchange for being fed? Could they even return to their homeland if they wanted?

The second solution is to transport food from where it is produced, to where it is needed. This is also politically unacceptable. Such areas with starvation are kept so for political reasons. Food is used as a hostage to force political change, combined with closed political borders, this keeps those needing food from being able to move to where food is available. This means food is being used as a weapon and a means of control by certain parties. As shown by the WHO proposal of what it would do with $6 billion dollars, it specifically does not list what is actually used on food, merely saying $3.5 billion will be used for food, transport and administration. The remainder is used for food vouchers, “administration” and “security” costs for international infrastructure. All of this to feed just 42 million people for one year. Imagine what it would cost to feed the 700 million people living in extreme poverty?

The simplest solution is to reduce the human population. In 1900, the world population was around 1 billion people. Today it is nearly 8 billion. Just by the numbers, the human race has to consume 8 times more resources as it did just over a century ago, plus the added consumption of a modern standard of living instead of 19th century standards, such as clean water, sanitation, medical care and daily food. Current estimates are for the human population to increase to nearly 11 billion people by 2100, almost 50% more than today. So a reduction in world population is unlikely to occur anytime in the next few decades, and thus is an unlikely solution. Which means for the foreseeable future, poverty and hunger can’t be solved.

The word “if” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

I suspect, if it were proven to his satisfaction that he could actually end world hunger with a relatively tiny portion of his net work, Musk would be all over that. Because why not? It does a great deal of good, secures his legacy, and he’d never miss the money it would cost.

But that’s not going to happen, because the director is never going to prove it to his satisfaction, because it’s not true.

If we could end world hunger for 6 billion, we would have done it long ago. The US, on it’s own, could come up with that and barely miss it in a single year’s budget.

I don’t doubt that a lot of good could be done with 6 billion dollars. But the problem of world hunger is far too big and too complex to be fixed at a single shot, and certainly too big to fixed with what is, in global terms, such a paltry sum. Donating that money would buy a lot of food. Some of that food would make it to it’s destination, and a lot of people would eat tonight. And at this time next year, we’d be right back in the same situation we were before.

EDIT: The question was changed after I answered it (which is fucking annoying). It was originally: Why do silicon valley entrepreneurs are making so much tech-related stuff while the world is dying of hunger and not due to lack of another Facebook?

This is called a "false dilemma". It frequently pops up in the dreamy kind of uneducated folks who think they have that one brilliant idea that'll fix the world.

The world is not "dying of hunger" -- though there are certainly people in the third world that are dying of hunger. They are doing so for lack of infrastructure, education and proper environmental management. Any attempt to "give" that to the third world really doesn't measure up. Handing people money never helps resolve their issues. Their governments are broken and corrupt, there isn't proper infrastructure, education is a mess, only THEY can "fix" their broken government, or are you subscribing to some really popular idea that the rich nations of the world (lead by the US) should invade the third world and force "good government" on them? Yeah. . . we know how this turns out.

If the people in Silicon Valley stopped doing what they do (and any other industrial area), then the US and other nations would become third world. The thing that differentiates the US and Japan from the third world is that these two nations (as examples) invent, have infrastructure, functioning government and educate people well. So, if you are not subscribing that the third world should be invaded and occupied, then what you're essentially asking for is to rob from the rich and hand that wealth to the poor. Or are you really positing the silliness that people with wealth should give it all away to the poor?

If you took the money from Silicon Valley and gave it to the third world, you'd be stealing from people who create trillions of dollars in global economic surfeit. They employ people who pay their mortgages, feed their kids and reinvest in the economy. So your brilliant solution to the problem in the third world is to punish the US for being successful, rob the inventors of their creative energies and earnings and somehow send it to the third world. So, you'd make the US poor, essentially. Brilliant idea.

The US being wealthy doesn't make the third world poor. Making the US poor will not make the third world wealthy.

No.

Money is use value, food is real value. They are different categories of things, and therefore don’t have comparability and not exchangeable --- not mutual substitutable.

Real value is nature given and intrinsically limited in any local space and time. Human cannot create it but only can consume it.

Economy is the human activity that converts real value into use value and irreversibly consumes it. Economic activity cannot create wealth but concentrate it.

Money given to all population will only push up the price of necessities but everyone still only can get the same amount of necessities with the increased money.

Part of the population get more money do benefit from this increase of income but only make the rest of the population worse off. They take the hit of the inflation of necessities by this money giving and only result in their necessities buying ability weakened.

Due to real value is limited and human cannot create it, and the earth real value had been exploited to the limit, the necessities start to lose its supply elasticity, that is the reason its supply wouldn’t follow the supply-demand curve any more, not in macroeconomic situation.

The other answer gave a very concise and direct explanation: “you cannot eat money”.

Tell you a story:

In Chinese civil war, the CCP occupied the countryside, the CNP occupied the cities, the CCP blockaded the cities and the food cannot go in. The CNP cannot buy food. The result is people starve and necessities price rocketing. So, in the city people protest and solders desert and no heart for fighting. Then the CCP won.

But why in post revolution Russia, the red army occupied major cities and the white army occupied most rural areas but red win white fail?

That is because the Russian cities at that time already industrialized to the degree that they can produce the modern weapons of that time therefore have strong power in them. and the Red well organized the workers in the cities but the White are not well organized and they did not organize the farmers neither. So the red army and the organized workers can forcedly take the food from rural area to support their city population.

Got the lecture? --- Real value is the foundation for everything, it is more important than money.

No.

Hunger is not because people don't have food. Hunger is because people lack the ability to plan or make the right judgements.

Even if Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos pledged their entire life’s earning and potential towards eradication of world hunger.. People people will continue ask for help. People are lazy, greedy and stubborn.. they always have been.

Long term lack of food is a direct result of people unwilling to learn from history and doing whatever they want to.. Which is usually not learning.

I know.. Some dilutional messiah will beg to disagree. They have to right to do so.. But.. Poverty, hunger and lack of skills is not a disease.. It is a consequence of generations of stupidity..

You could just as meaningfully ask, “How come so many companies manage to not make a profit for years and not only stay afloat, but be valued at millions?”

Let's say we have a company; a simple company, it only makes $100 a year and you and I are the only employees.

We each get paid $50.

What do we have?

We have a company that can continue in perpetuity with each of us being happy despite the company having no profit.

“Profit” is a terrible misconception about business, perpetuated by some awful startup advisors or our perception of public companies or some such.

Profit merely means revenues exceed costs, and while there can be good reason for a company opting to have profits, profit also means bad things, such as that money bring taxed by government, instead of invested in the company or paying people.

Let's take our company and add an investor.

The company now has three owners, 2 of us getting paid, but today still only $100 in revenue. We took on capital because of that investor and so what might we do? A few things, notably:

• We hire someone else… now we're operating at a loss.

And yet, we’re growing. We're creating more value, gaining market share, maybe becoming more efficient…

In time, we make $200. And perhaps more.

Now, 3 employees, $150 in costs, and $200 in revenue.

Yay! Profit!!

Wait… yay???

Why have that??

Why not take that extra money and hire someone else?? Or invest in something? Or buy a competitor?

—

Why do so many companies operate at break even, or even a loss, and yet are worth millions?

Because profit doesn't mean squat when it comes to value.

In fact, as companies are “cleaned up” to go public or get acquired, often a company will cut costs or take actions to make it **look** like it has profit, for no genuine reason other than people being easily misled that that profit means it must be worth more.

A company that can't compete, or can't survive, is essentially worthless, despite any amount of profit it has.

Investors don't invest in profit. Heck, they don't even invest in revenue. Investors invest in a Return On Investment; getting back more than they put in. How? The company exits. And there are countless reasons companies create value worth something in an exit… a few that come to mind that have nothing to do with profit?

• Market share
• Brand value
• Employees
• IP / parents

It is not true.

All the capital Musk has would have paid for about 1 year’s worth of food for those of the 6% of the world’s population in extreme poverty. Musk said he would give $6 Billion *IF* the UN could show him a plan in which that $6 Billion would end world hunger. They have shown him no such plan. They have not, because it is freedom the poor lack, far more than money. They have not been allowed by their governments to participate in the continuing industrial revolution:

“When a society moves from allocating resources by custom and tradition (moderns read here, by politics) to allocating resources by markets, they may be said to have undergone an industrial revolution” Arnold Toynbee-1884

The Twitter exchange between Elon Musk and the the UN World Food Program was about their claim that a few percent of his net worth equaling $6 billion could solve world hunger. He called them out on it. He said that if they could show him in detail how that could be done with transparency to avoid fraud he’d sell that much TSLA stock and give them the money.

They have yet to respond.

If that happened, presumably it would save many people from starving, since the UN WFP would have proven to Musk’s satisfaction that they had a valid plan to do exactly that.

$6 billion dollars of TSLA stock sold for this purpose wouldn’t have any important effect on Elon Musk’s wealth or the price of TSLA stock.

Musk’s net worth from his TSLA stock rose by $6 billion dollars or more on several different days last week after the UN WFP made this claim. His net worth is now over $300B.

It’s not obvious that the UN WFP can or will respond with a detailed plan to show how they can employ $6B can serve an important role in ending hunger or preventing near term starvation. Musk is challenging them to put up or shut up.

This exchange seems potentially serious. It’s a test of how serious the UN WFP is about it’s comments. If it follows up with a serious plan, Elon Musk is quite capable of giving them the money they asked for. If so this would not be the first example of a major deal made with Musk by Twitter exchange. The first major utility scale battery in Australia came about this way. It later proved remarkably successful and is a model for other giant utility battery projects.

The top 5 of richest person wealth range from 50 to 120Billion USD, which include asset, cash and stocks.

Quite a lot of money and wealth there, their revenue or annual income might be 50 to 300% of their net worth, so around 150–360billion (it's not accurate but just so we can have a number to be compared with)

Compare that with any of the top 5 biggest countries annual tax income of 1 to 5 trillion USD and the government that manage and spend that fund, side note they have to spend all the money into asset or expenses.

So the question should be which party that have more financial power to change the societies? Like hunger or others of the same scale issues?

Real world problems cannot be solved with a website. Let’s say you have a cure for cancer: you can’t just sell it on your website. You have to go through the regulatory agencies to certify that your product won’t harm people, and is actually effective. This is a good thing! You shouldn’t be able to repackage water and sell it as a cure for cancer!

But if all you want to do is create a social network, you can just put up a website and an app and sell your app (or give it away and sell your users). Until you become such a big shot that the privacy of your users become a big deal, nobody can (or will) stop you. That’s why Silicon Valley can’t solve real world problems.

Though I’d argue that Tesla/SpaceX does solve real world problems! And the new generation of Fintech startups (that are subject to similar regulations) do solve them.

Thanks for the A2A.

NO,

World hunger can never be solved by throwing money at it.

Poverty exists in the world since politicians need it, if you eliminate poverty, it will make politicians redundant which happens to be the most lucrative job in the 3rd world.

Poor can be manipulated, very easily into strong votebank which is primary dream of every politician out there.

Poor can be manipulated into doing some real dirty work (like terrorism etc.) that rich people would never want to do themselves.

Poor can be manipulated into fighting terrorism as well, and that happens to be a much larger industry throughout the world, most of the arms industry runs because of terrorism, why would you want to kill such huge lucrative business and millions of jobs that this industry provides.

There are thousands of aid organizations that solely exist to help the poor, they will all lose jobs and their primary source of income, if poverty is eliminated.

So in essence, world needs poverty, world needs hungry people, and since such a huge demand for poor and hungry exists in the world, there will always be a constant supply of poor and hungry people. And that's simple economics.

If someone really wants to eliminate hunger, he / she has to first eliminate the need and demand for hungry and poor people.

Thanks for your question, I hope my answer helps. If so, an upvote would be truly appreciated, and your comments perhaps would help me improve on my answer.

If you wish to read more curated content with deep thinking, please follow “Think Aloud”.

Q: Can the world hunger be solved if Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos try?