Even if it did, the average height increase the world over shows that capitalism has been an enormous win in food production and elimination of starvation.
If we think that food is generally abundant, I think it would be fair to say that famines are caused because people are deprived of food that is available, but either too expensive, and/or too valuable to other parties.
Given that, any example of famine or malnutrition, should be considered.
> Even if it did, the average height increase the world over shows that capitalism has been an enormous win in food production and elimination of starvation.
Source(s), please?
TLDR; famines require political will to be prevented, first and foremost[0].
When you eliminate starvation, as it has happened also in non-capitalist socities, e.g. the USSR & China during the cold war, and despite horrible famines during the 20th century, everywhere, including in those two countries, height is driven by diet [1].
Specifically protein quality in developed- and protein quantity in developing countries. "Developing" says something about the standard of living, health care, access to food & water, or lack thereof.
It says nothing about the underlying economic system.
And any you make is at best correlation. Prooving causality would be extremely difficult and easily countered (see above, USSR & China, but there are many more examples). But as you made it, again, sources please.
But what is easy to make is actually the opposite point. That late stage capitalism drives inequalities in access to food in general and healthy food specifically[2,3].
And that it developed instruments that create what amounts to devastating effects to particularly people in developing societies. Often those that are capitalist economically or authoritarian politically or, worst, both. With your meaningless counterexamples in the middle eastern countries who have immense wealth from natural resources coupled with low population density.
That said: whenever I study food labels in a supermarket in the US and look at prices of food that is not highly processed and doesn't contain ingredients I would never put into my body, it is obvious that the same is true for a country that would certainly describe itself as both "capitalist" and "democratic". ;)
But to go back to your point: you are linking a cause (capitalism) with an effect (less starvation -> increase in avg. height) wrongly. What do you think Victorian England was[5]?
What do you think the middle ages in Europe[6] looked like, economically? Those are all examples of capitalist socities.
The main force that brought down starvation would probably be a combo of humanistic thinking (and eventually the acknowledgement of human rights) and modern logistics.
And the main counterforces in the 20th century be blatant ignorance of humanistic principles and wars of political systems (those two are often tightly coupled, obviously).
The Soviet Union collectivized the farms, and famine ensued. Then they allowed farmers to be capitalists again, and famine ended. Then they collectivized again, starvation followed.
Finally, the Soviets allowed farmers to farm small plots of land, and sell the result. This became the backbone of food production, not the collective farms.
In the 1980s Kansas became the "breadbasket of the Soviet Union" as Reagan sent huge quantities of Kansas wheat to the USSR.
As for the US, the never-ending specter of famine ended around 1805 or so. Since then the height of Americans shot up. It was not do to any humanist thinking or modern logistics or government programs. It was due to the free market.
I suggest just [0] to scratch the surface of understanding that cause and effect of famines anywhere, but not less so in the USSR, is debated about people who donate their life to the study of this.
While you seem certain simply that they're caused by the absence of a free market (the latter is, in itself, a challengeable claim).
For which you provide zero sources again as well as not providing any sources for the even more outlandish claim that capitalism increased average height. Which was the actual reason I replied to you.
