10 Great Shows on NBC's Peacock You Shouldn't Miss

Peacock TV is NBC's slept-on streaming service. Peacock shows usually don't get the level of attention of offerings on HBO Max, Netflix, and Hulu, so they're easy to miss. And unlike competing services, many are available for free. 

"Plans start at Free—no credit card required."

Peacock's plans are Free, $4.99 for Premium (limited ads), and $9.99 for Plus (mostly ad-free). The free version offers 40,000+ hours of hit movies and TV shows while the paid versions promise 60,000+ hours of content. Peacock offers access to "live sports and events, including Winter Olympics, Super Bowl LVI, Premier League, and WWE" and "next-day access to current NBC hits." And it has a slate of Peacock Originals. 

How Long Can Cable and Satellite TV Survive In the Age of Streaming?

Before streaming, television networks mainly made money from ad revenue and their share of cable/satellite subscription fees. Then Netflix switched from a DVD delivery service to a DVD delivery service and a streaming service. This delighted the networks, which had yet another revenue source for their content. 

Then people started cutting the cord, canceling expensive cable and satellite subscriptions in favor of streaming options like Hulu, Netflix, Prime Video, Fubo TV, YouTube TV, and Sling. Within a few years, millions of households abandoned linear TV. Many who held onto their subscriptions divided their attention between streaming and live TV, reducing time spent watching the networks. As streaming has become more popular, there is a rising number of cord-nevers. These are young people who grew up with streaming and have never subscribed to a pay-TV service, and likely never will. 

Why Audiences Love Black Adam But Critics Don't

Sometimes critics and audiences largely agree on how they feel about a show or movie, and sometimes there's a vast gulf between them. The movie Black Adam, based on a DC Comics character, is an example of the latter. It has a 39% Rotten score with critics on Rotten Tomatoes but a 90% Fresh score with audiences. The gulf is even larger when filtered for Top Critics only. They give the movie just 29%. So, why do critics dislike this movie?

The MovieFreak.com reviewer thinks Black Adam "is nothing more than a splashy two-hour coming attractions reel for future motion pictures...It's like the team took a Superhero Storytelling 101 course and this is their final project. This is connect-the-dots filmmaking."

Entertainment Weekly says that minor comic book characters getting their own movies "speaks not to unearthed gold but the restless, insatiable appetite of today's superhero industrial complex...Black Adam is what happens when artists say they want to go dark but don't really have the stomach for it."

The NPR reviewer said, "Black Adam seems perfectly content to pick over the wilted remains of the superhero-movie salad bar." According to this reviewer, Dr. Fate is equivalent to Dr. Strange, Atom-Smasher to Ant-Man, and Eternium to Vibranium. He also complains that the movie isn't political. The "homegrown would-be tyrant" is "put there intentionally to assuage, to reassure, to smooth any feathers that might get ruffled by the blandest suggestion of Western culpability in the oppression of even a fictional people."

The Atlantic reviewer suggests that the movie is nothing more than a money grab.

"Black Adam would be busy enough setting up the origin story of one new crime fighter, but it instead introduces half a dozen, each of whom will vie for space on children's lunch boxes and supporting roles in sequels over the next decade."

The San Francisco Chronicle reviewer doesn't think much of the DC lineup. "Can we just say it? When you get past Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman, the DC superheroes are a sorry lot." He also asks, "Is there anything more boring than two superheroes fighting each other, when you're rooting for neither, and yet the movie expects you to like them both? Of course, they can't hurt each other, because — wait for it — they're superheroes, and also because it's middle of the movie."

So, why did audiences love it? Usually, when I go through audience reviews, I find many that are fairly in-depth explanations for why a reviewer liked or disliked a show or movie. But there are few such reviews for Black Adam, even from Verified reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes. Many are nothing more than a line or two.

Travis thinks the movie has, "Great action. Need more of a back story and less characters."

First L says, "Tons of action, funny moments and a few scenes that were tugging at my heart strings."

Andrew is "not sure why the critics are trashing this movie ... its exactly what you hope to see in a superhero movie ... I actually liked that they had a lot more action then some others it seemed and they did not over use the comedy parts like some marvel movies have started to do."

Rena says, "It was sketchy at first but the end was epic"

Ron thinks, "If you like action..this is the one."

Marie78 says, "Surprisingly I enjoyed this movie. Towards the beginning I thought it was just a low budget take on Marvel characters but I ended up enjoying the film. It was action-packed along with comedy."

Jeff S had some issues with the movie, but mostly enjoyed it. 

"Other than a kid that couldnt act and a middling script, this was a blast! I love that DC is willing to give us darker heroes than Marvel (though I love Marvel as well), and Pierce Brosnan was FANTASTIC!!!"

Colleen says, "Fun, action packed anti-hero, hero movie! Everyone on point in this flick!"

Anthony H says, "Great film finally DC got it right!!"

Audience reviewers seem to love the movie because it's filled with action. The professional critics would have preferred something darker and more political with fewer superhero tropes. But between surging gas prices, inflation, the war, and the pandemic, many ordinary people just want an escape. They want something entertaining that allows them to forget their problems for a couple of hours. Black Adam provides that escapism by just being fun.

Why Some The Expanse Fans Hate Season 6

 

The sci-fi show The Expanse enjoyed 90 percent plus audience scores for its first four seasons. Scores dipped into the 80’s for seasons 5 and 6. Of course, that’s still impressive, but the season 6 score experienced between a 10 and 15 percent drop compared to the first four seasons. So, why did season six experience this drop in audience scores? The best way to find out is to check what some negative reviewers had to say. I’ll start with Rotten Tomatoes reviews.

Michael T gave the season one star because he thought the ending sent a bad message. “Was going so well until they let filip go into the sunset. The writers completely forgot he was a terrorist and glorified him. He still had no remorse over killing millions of people and no judgment for their lives.”

Frank S complains that, “It was good until it ended with about four new storylines that go without any explanation. Really felt cheated for that ending.”Bill B wonders, “What the heck happened with the protomolecule?”

The Expanse is based on a series of nine novels. Season six mainly covers book six and the novella Strange Dogs. The series ended two-thirds of the way through the actual story, so, understandably, many people feel like the story is unfinished. Because it is unfinished. Lots of loose threads haven’t been tied up. The authors of the books call the ending a pause. They hope the series will be picked up by another streaming provider, so they can finish it. However, that might not happen, or if it does, it might not happen for several years. This unfinished ending is, unfortunately, all we have for now.

David G thinks season six:

“Felt really abbreviated, and yet left so many aspects unexplored and unexplained. The entire Laconia arc was pointless and irrelevant to the story, and could have been left out - felt like it was meant to have 4 more episodes to flesh it out properly.”

m g thinks, “No idea why fans giving this a pass, can only assume they hope it will get a follow up series with a actual ending”

Season six has laid the foundation for the potential final three seasons. If those final seasons happen, I think season six will be seen much differently. However, if those finals seasons don’t happen, it will make season six less satisfying because there are so many unanswered questions.

Laura W asks some of those questions.

“What is the protomolecule, where did it come from, and what is it's purpose? None of these questions are even remotely answered after being the core suspense of 5 seasons. Meanwhile, the plot line of a boy raised from the dead over the beginning of the first 5 episodes of season 6 is suddenly forgotten in the 6th without so much as a memory.”

Ryan H has multiple complaints. “While I love the show, you could quite literally feel Amazon closing its wallet to The Expanse's budget. Between its rough green screen shots, rushed finale, half of a final battle, and plotlines left wide open, a show as good as this one deserves a lot more.”

The first 5 seasons of the Expanse were 10 to 13 episodes. The shorter six-episode final season didn’t go over well with some reviewers, including Mike C.

“You can see how major events have been compacted into mere minutes.”

Corwyn V says that, “I'd be lying if I said the high volume of first appearance characters this season, especially in place of wonderful ones from precious seasons, didn't seriously effect my viewing experience. A show that has been running for such a long time can't really introduce new characters at the last minute and expect them to have anywhere near the kind of weight that characters who've been present in the series for a long time have.”

This is a major downside of killing off major characters too soon. Two major characters were killed off in season 4 and then two more in season 5. And two major characters were killed off-screen.

Over on IMDB, the episode ratings were between 7.7 and 9.0. While the final episode, Babylon's Ashes, has a rating of 9.0, not all reviewers were happy.

Ssarigollu says the show does “the same family drama conversation for 2 seasons”

Dprater200 has a similar complaint. “Space soap opera and barely even discuss what happens with the ring world's just family drama.”

These reviews refer to the Naomi, Marco, and Filip storyline that consumed lots of screen time over seasons 5 and 6.

Pratermb thinks focusing on the family drama distracted from the ring worlds. 

“The story was totally derailed and turned into a solar system soap opera. The Marco show. Some bad guy vs good guy story that has been told countless times, when they had the opportunity to write something completely original. The opportunity to: Expand on the science. Expand on the protomolecule, how it works, what it can be used for, its story, whatever. That was such a cool concept. Expand on the rings and new universes to be discovered. New types of beings, dimensions, realities”

Many fans expected that seasons 4 onward would be something along the lines of Stargate SG-1, with the crew visiting lots of new worlds. That could have been very interesting, but that isn’t where the authors decided to take the books. They seemed more interested in exploring how the opening of the ring gates impacted the humans in the story rather than what other worlds may look like.

Sandiegoharry thinks the season was too short to properly cover all the material in book 6. “Taking a very dense last book and THEN adding a novella (strange dogs) - but shrinking it to six episodes? Not only are key things left out, but some things are flat-out left unfinished. Why start the "Strange Dogs" story only to leave it unfinished?”

Jamielesouef says. “What a waste of a good series... such a let down. A whole side plot with the dogs that amounts to absolutely nothing (considering there is no season 7) and such a cheep kill of a complex villain.”

In summary, many negative reviewers didn’t like that the show largely abandoned the protomolecule and ring gate to focus on Marco Inaros. The shortened season and the unfinished story were two other major complaints. This is an obvious downside of adapting a nine-novel book series to television. It’s rare for any show to get that number of seasons. That’s it for the Expanse. If you are interested in the Expanse novels, I have a link to the first book Leviathan Wakes in the series in the description.

Why Critics Hate The Terminal List Starring Chris Pratt

There is a wide divergence between the critics and audience scores for The Terminal List, starring Chris Pratt. Audiences love the show giving it a 94% fresh score, while critics give it a 39% rotten score. Why do critics hate this hugely popular show that regular people love?

The reviewer for Empire Online thinks the show has too much filler.

“It could be entertaining, if highly implausible, if the show took a less self-serious approach and picked up the pace. The plot of a 400-page novel is stretched over eight episodes, which it really struggles to fill.”

I agree with this criticism. I loved The Terminal List, but I think it would have worked better as a six-episode series. The Empire Online viewer also thought the characters were a bit too simplistic.

“There’s a dull moral binary to all the characters. They’re either good (military, wives) or bad (government, non-American), and Reece, being good, has to triumph in every interchangeable fight.”

Consequence.net had mainly good things to say. The reviewer thinks the show has an impressive cast. She finishes her review with reasons why you might not want to actually watch this impressive cast.

“…it’s still a hard sell, if only due to the murky filming of the action, or the just relentlessly grim narrative. The Terminal List takes place in a dark, sad, and corrupt world. It may not be one you want to visit.”

The show is dark, not just metaphorically, but literally as well. Often, it’s hard to see what’s going on.

The JoBlo.com reviewer says that once the conspiracy portion of the series kicks in, “The Terminal List begins to lose momentum. Watching the trailer for the series, one would think that The Terminal List is an action-packed thrill ride of a series. While the action seen in that glimpse all does happen, it is spread out across the season in sporadic bursts. The Terminal List likely would have worked far better as a feature film or maybe a limited series of no more than four to six episodes. As it stands, this story is overlong and ploddingly told and somehow makes revenge feel bland and boring.”

According to The Daily Beast, “Chris Pratt’s ‘The Terminal List’ Is an Unhinged Right-Wing Revenge Fantasy” that “comes off as a wet dream for militia-minded anti-establishment kooks, replete with a Pratt performance as a Navy SEAL who responds to injustice by murdering the guilty with extreme prejudice. Given its suggestion that slaughtering your powers-that-be enemies for a righteous revenge cause is totally OK and very cool.”

The reviewer also claims the show is “affording a window onto a conservative-America mindset that views the government as inherently corrupt (and anti-soldier), and lone-wolf military men as the only figures capable of making the world a more honorable place…There’s no arguing that such a tack has been taken countless times before, but in our current domestic sociopolitical climate, one’s tolerance for such rebellious fantasies may vary.”

The book The Terminal List is based on is apparently very political in nature. However, the show is largely apolitical. This reviewer seems to be judging the book rather than the show. This is true for Slate’s reviewer as well. Her views of the show appear to be colored by the book and its author.

The reviewer for Roger’s News Nation didn’t like Chris Pratt’s acting.

“Pairing him up with Kitsch and Wu just throws his limited range into sharp relief.”

The Chicago Sun-Times reviewer agrees, saying that,

“Gifted comic actor is miscast as a hardcore killing machine in predictable Prime Video series…Hollywood has tried repeatedly to turn Pratt into a legitimate action star.”

He also thinks the series is “ultimately predictable, formulaic and cliché-riddled series.”

The CNN reviewer thinks the show is “cliched in the extreme, from Reece’s flashbacks and cloudy visions to its cynicism surrounding those in power.”The RogerEbert reviewer thinks the show lacks depth.

“The series practically forgets his initial placement as an unreliable protagonist, as unstable and tragic in a system that is not helping him, that has done psychological damage by sending him to war over and over.”

The major criticisms of the show are that it is too long and too predictable. Some reviewers also seemed to be uncomfortable with what they felt were the show’s political leanings.

So, what are the critics missing? A lot of mere mortals enjoyed the show because it’s an entertaining, suspenseful action thriller that doesn’t ask too much of them. It’s pure escapist entertainment.

This article contains Amazon affiliate links. Clicking on these links doesn't cost you anything extra, but it helps to support this blog.

Why Did Many Critics Hate Season One of The Orville?

The science fiction series The Orville has an overall 77% fresh score from critics and 88% from audience ratings (at the time of writing). However, that gap was significantly larger for season one. The audience score for the first season is a whopping 94% while the critic’s score is a measly and rotten 31%. Season 2 and season 3 (called New Horizons) have 100% critical scores. So, why did critics feel so differently in season one?

 

Buy Now - The Orville: Sympathy for the Devil novella

Decider’s Stream It or Skip It recommends that viewers skip The Orville. However, that suggestion is based solely on the pilot, rather than the full first season.

The Daily Beast devotes just one paragraph to The Orville. The reviewer expected a: 

“Galaxy Quest-like irreverent spoof. Instead, MacFarlane made a straightfaced, Star Trek-like sci-fi series.”

The Salt Lake Tribune thinks The Orville isn’t awful but: 

“This is a “Star Trek” rip-off. It’s not a parody. It’s not even a comedy, although there are some attempts at humor. It’s a Seth MacFarlane vanity project.”

The E Online reviewer also expected something more along the lines of Galaxy Quest and was disappointed when that isn’t what he got.

Roger Catlin complains that the show is: 

“promoted as a comedy, it is instead a straight, almost poker-faced recreation of the vintage space fantasy.”

The Washington Post reviewer said that: 

“If The Orville is meant mainly as homage to the idealized future of Gene Roddenberry, then someone forgot to tell the audience.” 

Actually, someone must have remembered to tell the audience, since the audience score is an impressive 94%. The reviewer's main complaint is that the show: 

“sticks to such a gentle and polite tone.” 

Like some other reviewers, he wanted more humor or as he put it, a: 

“combination of blunt humor and genre appreciation.” 

He didn’t want a show that resembled Star Trek. Based on the audience score, many viewers actually wanted a show resembling Star Trek.

The AV Club reviewer complains that the show’s: 

“mild amicability doesn’t include much of an identity, or even much humor.” 

Like several other reviews, this negative evaluation is based solely on the pilot.

The Screenrant reviewer also expected Galaxy Quest.

“A combination of bawdy humor and Star Trek can work; Galaxy Quest proved as much by being a competent and funny spoof on the franchise (and its stars), while still making for a fairly thrilling Trek-like voyage…That's not the case here, as The Orville makes a sincere attempt at aspirational science fiction one minute, and then swerves wildly into a prolonged joke about alien bodily functions the next. The resulting discordant note is struck again and again.”

My main takeaway from these reviews is that critics had no idea what to make of The Orville early on. Seth MacFarlane wanted to make Star Trek with humor. The critics expected Galaxy Quest. 

Most reviews were not based on the full season. They were based either on the pilot or the first three episodes which were sent to some critics before the show aired.

This article contains Amazon affiliate links. Clicking on these links doesn't cost you anything extra, but it helps to support this blog.

Astronomy Roundup: Alien Contact, Formations on Mars, Diamonds, Black Holes and DNA

Astronomy Roundup is a regular summary of major events in Astronomy.

Study Says Alien Contact Potentially 400,000 Years Away
According to an estimate based on the Drake Equation, scientists say the most likely number of contactable alien civilizations is 36. Formulated by Frank Drake, the Drake Equation is used to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy that have the potential to communicate with us. According to Carl Sagan, this number could be anywhere between “a pitiful few” and millions. He said, “If civilizations do not always destroy themselves shortly after discovering radio astronomy, then the sky may be softly humming with messages from the stars.” Physicist Enrico Fermi wondered why we haven’t heard any of these messages. Fermi’s Paradox is the conflict between the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life and the probability of their existence. If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens ... WHERE IS EVERYBODY? is a book that details seventy-five potential solutions to the Fermi Paradox. 

Recently, Chinese astronomers claimed that since we haven’t detected any evidence of advanced alien life so far, we may have to wait for new habitats to develop before we can engage in interstellar communication. And that could take anywhere from 2,000 to 400,000 years for these Communicating Extraterrestrial Intelligent Civilizations (CETI) to form. 

“The most optimistic scenario had CETI beginning just 25 percent into a star’s lifetime. With each planet holding a generous 0.1 percent chance of forming life, it may only take 2,000 years to communicate with our friendly (they are always friendly, right?) aliens on any one of the potential 42,000 CETIs that form in the Milky Way in that timeframe.”

In the News: Alien Dreams Dashed: Study Says Alien Contact Potentially 400,000 Years Away  

Slithering Formations Found at the Bottom of Impact Crater on Mars
A recent NASA discovery on Mars “resembles horrific sand worms that were scorched to death while emerging from an ancient crater.” The twisted structures are located in the Gale Crater, created 3.7 billion years ago by a meteor strike. According to the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, “The spikes are most likely the cemented fillings of ancient fractures in a sedimentary rock. The rest of the rock was made of softer material and was eroded away.”

Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS

In the News: Slithering formations found at the bottom of impact crater on Mars. What are they?

The Hidden Secret Uranus And Neptune Might Be Holding
If you need an engagement ring, head to Uranus or Neptune where it rains diamonds around the planets’ cores. “Deep below their opaque blue atmospheres, giant diamonds sink through the planets' dense mud-like oceans.” Be prepared to go 5,000 miles below the atmosphere's surface, where there is enough heat and pressure to create diamonds. Once they form, they move down through the mantle toward the core. You will have to act fast to grab some though because as it gets hotter and hotter, the diamonds vaporize.

In the News: The Hidden Secret Uranus And Neptune Might Be Holding

Researchers Say Black Holes Destroy Thousands of Stars as they Grow
Growing black holes violently devour thousands of stars as they pack on mass. This is based on a survey of over 100 galaxies. Astronomers refer to this as “runaway growth.” When they experience this runaway growth, they become “intermediate-mass black holes” or IMBHs. These IMBHs are smaller than the supermassive black holes that typically live at the center of galaxies, including our Milky Way galaxy.

In the News: Researchers say black holes destroy thousands of stars as they grow

Scientists Find DNA's Code for Life in Meteorites
The researchers didn't find DNA or RNA. What scientists at NASA and in Japan say they have found are all five key building blocks of DNA and RNA. They used a mild extraction technique, 100 times more sensitive than what was tried before to find these building blocks in space rocks that fell to Earth over the last century. According to one of the scientists involved in the study, "The presence of the five primary nucleobases in meteorites may have a contribution to the emergence of genetic functions before the onset of life on the early earth.”

In the News: Scientists find DNA's code for life in meteorites

That's it for this Astronomy Roundup. Check back soon for more exciting news in the field of astronomy.

This article contains Amazon affiliate links. Clicking on these links doesn't cost you anything extra, but it helps to support this blog.

Could Elon Musk End World Hunger Instead of Buying Twitter?

Elon Musk May Purchase Twitter

Since Elon Musk made the decision to buy Twitter for $44 billion, a lot of people have complained that he could do much better things with the money. One example, I have seen over and over is that he could have used the money to end world hunger instead. These are some examples of tweets making this claim.

I May Be Missing Something (please tell me). Rather than funding a personal acquisition, Wouldn’t our world be better advanced by using far less than 44 BILLION DOLLARS to eradicate world hunger?, cure cancer? The list is long & the possibilities endless. https://t.co/gy3OiQdZNI

— Paul Stanley (@PaulStanleyLive) April 26, 2022

Elon Musk could have ended world hunger with 8th the amount of money that he financed for Twitter. This life is not real, this world is not real.

— FEAR. ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ (@Jenchy_) April 25, 2022

World hunger is likely being brought up repeatedly because of this Elon Musk tweet referring to the World Food Programme (WFP).

If WFP can describe on this Twitter thread exactly how $6B will solve world hunger, I will sell Tesla stock right now and do it.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 31, 2021

But it must be open source accounting, so the public sees precisely how the money is spent.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 31, 2021

My first thought when I read these claims is that if world hunger really could be eradicated with just $44 billion, surely we would have done it already. It turns out that there’s a lot of complexity to ending world hunger.

Before I get into this though, it’s important to point out that Musk isn’t using his own money to buy Twitter.

“Elon Musk says he has lined up $46.5 billion in financing to buy Twitter,” according to the AP. The money used to buy the social media giant isn’t coming from Musk’s bank account, Instead, “the money would come from Morgan Stanley and other banks, some of it secured by his huge stake in the electric car maker.”

Source: Musk says he has $46.5B in financing ready to buy Twitter | AP News

The banks lending money to Musk to buy Twitter might not be interested in investing in a plan to end world hunger. But let's say Musk did have $44 billion lying around, could he realistically use it to end world hunger?

To answer this question, we have to understand what causes hunger? According to the World Food Programme (WFP): 

“60 percent of the world’s hungry people live in zones affected by conflict.” 

Hunger is a major problem in war zones like Syria, Yemen, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. When a war is raging, access to starving people is often very difficult and dangerous.

“With the help of local partners, we (the World Food Programme) reach those in need even in the most remote areas, using all-terrain vehicles and dropping food from planes when all other avenues are closed.”

Bringing about lasting peace is the best way to tackle hunger brought on by conflict, but that is far easier said than done.

The WFP also lists “climate change-related shocks such as floods or drought” as a major cause of world hunger. It affects the “livelihoods of millions of people, aggravating poverty, hunger and social tensions.”

Wars, floods, droughts, and disease can cause famines

Food loss is another problem. According to the WFP: 

“Lack of access to technology and markets means many farmers are forced to watch their crops rot in fields as the labour and financial investment required to harvest them is often unavailable.”

The WFP has a program to help small farmers “learn how to use improved post-harvest handling methods.” It also provides “storage equipment to protect crops against insects, rodents, mould and moisture.”

Covid-19 has also increased food insecurity because of disruptions in production and trade.

Source: Ending hunger | World Food Programme (wfp.org)

Hunger has many causes and each of these causes requires a variety of solutions. How much approximately would it cost to deal with all of them? According to the Guardian, Ending world hunger by 2030 would cost $330bn. This is based on a study funded by the government of Germany. The $44 billion used to buy Twitter would be enough to pay for about 13 percent. The article states that there is an “immense mountain” to climb in order to end hunger. Carin Smaller, co-director of the organization Ceres2030, is quoted as saying “Whatever we’re currently spending is not helping.” It isn’t enough to just throw money at a problem. Money has to be directed to effective programs.

Source: Ending world hunger by 2030 would cost $330bn, study finds | Global development | The Guardian

Another Guardian article states that “ending world hunger is possible” and asks “so why hasn't it been done?” Ending hunger requires action at several different levels, according to Duncan Green from Oxfam. That includes at the policy level. Governments of nations with high levels of food insecurity must implement programs to address hunger. Ghana made a big dent in hunger using cash transfers to the poor, investments in small farmers, and by raising the minimum wage. Countries with growing economies like India need “proper taxation and effective social services to end hunger and malnutrition” according to Green. He also points out another problem. Rich countries trying to decrease dependence on fossil fuels are investing in biofuels, which competes with food production. Investing in biofuels drives up food prices for poor people.

Source: Ending world hunger is possible – so why hasn't it been done? | Duncan Green | The Guardian

Providing food aid to struggling nations is also far more complicated than it seems. When Musk tweeted the following, he was likely referring to concerns that food aid can sometimes do more harm than good. 

“If WFP can describe on this Twitter thread exactly how $6B will solve world hunger, I will sell Tesla stock right now and do it.” 

In the New York Post article, “Why Elon Musk is right: World hunger can’t be solved with $6 billion,” Michael Shellenberger claims that foreign assistance can potentially lead to conflict. One example he provides is foreign aid destroying a centuries-old credit system in Somalia.

“…foreign food aid had helped undermine the social ties that had kept the nation together.”

Critics of food aid criticize the WFP: 

“for dumping food on poor nations, driving down prices and bankrupting farmers, ultimately making it harder for poor nations to become self-sufficient.”

Trying to solve problems can cause other problems. For example, “the Ethiopian government has blocked aid from being delivered” to a conflict zone in the country. This has led to a famine that afflicts half a million people. “Now, the US and other nations are considering imposing trade sanctions in response, putting in jeopardy the livelihoods of factory workers in Addis Ababa.”

Source: Elon Musk is right: World hunger can't be solved with $6 billion (nypost.com)

Complex problems require complex solutions. And as food aid critics have pointed out, attempts to help can potentially backfire, causing more problems than they solve. One man, even if he is the world’s richest, can’t solve a problem like world hunger on his own. Of course, Elon Musk can help, but ending world hunger requires the coordinated efforts of governments around the world, aid agencies, and corporations to tackle the variety of challenges involved. And it requires humanity to change its ways and find ways to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.