Here we are lacking a full definition of "deserving" but using the natural intuitive definition regarding one's personal opinion on ethics; Nihilistically speaking, it doesn't matter who gets food, all possible future paths are equal. by classic human morality from modern society, we might see some people being "worthy" of something, and others who have committed a crime for example, be undeserving of said things. by consequentialism, the person who would make the most people happy by getting the food, gets the food.

You can throw as many points in the bag as you like. It's never filled. — Hillary

well it will be filled after a certain infinite time, based on the size of each point.

On an unrelated, or at least only semi-related subject, does the fact that light has both a wave and particle nature constitute a valid example of a real-life, concrete paradox, which I just denied the existence of? — T Clark

particle-wave duality is only inconsistent in so far, that it doesn't mesh well with our typical view of the universe. it's however perfectly consistent, experiments will deliver consistently similar results. particle-wave duality is just a name to at least somewhat visualise what is happening in the equations of quantum mechanics