No over dramatization - sorry if I struck a nerve with such an innocuous comment. > What I am implying is that starvation is dramatically lower in percentage t

No over dramatization - sorry if I struck a nerve with such an innocuous comment. > What I am implying is that starvation is dramatically lower in percentage then it was in the past. You aren't implying it. You're directly stating it. This isn't in debate, what's in debate is if, even if the percentage is better, more total suffer. Is that actually a moral good? It's like saying "we've killed 90% of your cancer cells, but weren't able to kill all of them. The cancer will still kill you, but we killed a greater percentage of it! yay us!" It doesn't make sense in certain scenarios and is only helpful as a delta - plus, to even suggest that we have less poverty than ever in history is unsubstantiated with fact.