Bolding mine. Do you mean that 100 years ago from 2112 or 100 years ago from today? In other words, in 2112 will it be 7 billion, or 1.5 billion?
In truth, it’s really a lot simpler than that. Modern famines are usually the result of war or civil unrest or breakdown of some sort. People starve to death en masse because people with guns prevent them from eating. There’s vastly more food in the world than the population needs, and redistributing enough of it to keep people alive is trivially easy, even for less developed nations. All the advanced crops in the world will not save you if a man with a machine gun chases you into the desert.
The Ethiopian famine of 1983-1985 was not caused by a lack of food, but by the government’s desire for people to die. Other East African nations had similar drought and harvest problems of equally dire nature, but didn’t have famines.
They are not wrong, you are just misunderstanding what they are saying.
Nobody disputes that people are starving right now. Your mistake is that you assume that people are starving because the world can’t produce enough food. That isn’t in any way true.
Here.. Well actually form the last one of those reports. As Marley23 pointed out, the latest projection puts the peak oat 9.2 billion in 2075, rather than the original 9 billion in 2050, apparently mostly due to a revision of the effect of HIV in the developing world.
Note that according to this report the highest probability is that population will stabilise at 9 billion. Since we are currently providing enough food for well over 9 billion people, the amount of farmland being used is decreasing, amount of forest area and wilderness area is increasing, pollution is declining, living standards are rising and commodity prices are falling, the “Malthusian Disaster” simply ain’t gonna happen.
I meant 100 years form then, ie the same as today. However I note that the current projections give this as only the low end projection, with a population in 2112 of ~5 billion (page 13). The median projection is a stable 9 billion. Either way, Malthusian catastrophe is impossible.
I used to think that we were immune to Malthus. Lately I have begun to wonder. Our current high yield farming is largely dependent on non-renewable water and fertilizer. When that runs low, we might find we have to plow subdivisions to get more farmland.
Not really.
As I pointed out above, we have lots of option o increase water use efficiency we just don;t use them because water is free and abundant. If water ever becomes scarce then we can readily increase the amount of water available.
Phosphorus is the only fertiliser in limited supply, and even that is only relative. There are plenty of ways to extract phosphorus from the sea or sewage that are technically viable but are not economically attractive at the moment. Shortage of phosphorus is concerning, but it is never going to be a limit to growth.
We may be able to feed 9 (or 12) billion today, but will that still be the case in 2075, when much of the easily available fossil fuel has been used? I’m hopeful that we will still have enough energy available to work the miracle of the Green Revolution at that date, but this is not a certainty.
The availability of cheap energy is gradually decreasing over time, and by 2075 I’m hopeful that a much larger proportion of the world will have a comfortably high standard of living. But this high standard of living is likely to be quite expensive in terms of energy consumption, driving the price of the Green Revolution up significantly.
Given enough available energy our planets could support tens, or hundreds of billions of people - but finding that energy would be a big challenge.
We aren’t running out of fossil fuel. We’re running out of oil. Oil is particularly used for transportation fuel, but it’s only a fraction of our total energy budget.
We’re probably going to have to get used to electric vehicles, alcohol vehicles, gassified coal vehicles, hydrogen vehicles, natural gas vehicles, biodiesel vehicles, and so on. The days of cheap gasoline and diesel pumped out of the ground will be over. So we’ll have to make do with expensive alternatives.
We aren’t even running out of oil. We are just running out of liquid crude. The amount of oil available in tar sands, shales etc. is many, many times greater than all the crude oil that has ever been found. We aren’t going to run out of oil any time in then next couple of centuries.
Nah, except for electric and LPG those things are just pipe dreams. If we need to use biomass or coal to run vehicles, we will just convert it into petroleum on an industrial scale, which is far more efficient than trying to gassify the stuff.
Even if we did manage to run out of oil in the 300 years time and haven;t found a better solution, “expensive” is a relative term. We can produce petroleum from coal for about 50% more than the cost of producing it from crude.
Basic message is that energy supply really isn’t a problem over any reasonable timescale. We have centuries of available.
Well, that depends on how much energy we actually use. If we anticipate that all nine billion of the humans on Earth in 2075 are using as much energy as a typical US or EU citizen of today, then the easily available fossil fuels would be used up much more quickly. I’d quite like to have a future world with a high standard of living across the board, if at all possible; but that could be quite tricky using fossil fuels alone, assuming no improvements in energy efficiency.
From the cited release:
As I said, they are not wrong, you are just misunderstanding what they are saying.
Nobody disputes that people are starving right now. Your mistake is that you assume that people are starving because the world can’t produce enough food. That isn’t in any way true.
You wouldn’t have had the disease if not for the war.
I beg to differ. Populations expand, and they expand into the territories of other populations. Those populations are either conquered, usually with large-scale male deaths, or displaced. The classic example for the former is the U.K. with its successive Celtic, Roman, Saxon, and Viking waves.
You might also look at the Crusades. Or, in more modern times, the conquest of North America.
That’s no cite.
And still provides no evidence that war was a significant factor in population control.
And your argument isn’t as definitive as you might think. While losses due to disease were greater than losses due to battle-related injury, you haven’t shown that even the war-time disease losses represented a significant fraction of world-wide population.
One of the few diseases to create mass deaths worldwide was the Black Death, which wasn’t war-related at all. Part of the Hundred Years War happened at the same time, and deaths over the few years of the plague vastly outnumber all other deaths over the 116 years of the War.
So, again, cite?
“Displaced” does not affect population. Displaced peoples are still there and contribute to total population and many eventually find new areas to settle.
And there’s little (or, more precisely, NO) evidence that mass genocide in conquered territories was a common practice among most hordes of invading armies.
The end result of many past wars was enslavement or effective control over a conquered people.
The UK, with successive waves of invaders is a perfect example of the principle, unless you think the Picts, Angles, Celts, Saxons, etc had their populations significantly reduced or eliminated (hint: they didn’t). Mostly, just the rulers changed (or died), and the peasants became even more “mongrelized”.
China is another good example. While the rulers class changed periodically, the vast number of regular Joes were still mostly there. It’s even something of a saying that China eventually converts all invaders into Chinese.
Thanks!
No. On the contrary, it is you that seems to be misunderstanding the phrase: “Food production must double by 2050 to meet the demand of the world’s growing population”
Food production, double, 2050… key words in the phrase.
[quote=“Great_Antibob, post:33, topic:622796”]
That’s no cite. [/quotte]
It’s a commonplace that needs no cite that more died from infected wounds and disease than actual warfare. But I’m sure you’re aware of Florence Nightingale.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that it’s deliberate, more of a side effect, but a death is still a death and a consequent reduction in population.
There are no statistics to cite; ancient numbers are notoriously unreliable.
Only if they are displaced into areas that do not have a population. Otherwise one population or the other gets the raw end of the stick. Read your Roman histories.
In the ancient world, if they resisted, conquered peoples were routinely killed (or sent to the mines) if men or enslaved if women. Troy is a classic example. Then there are all those monuments showing conquering kings and generals leading lines of slaves. You might include William I’s Harrying of the North.
I do not believe you are correct. I remember seeing a TV program which showed that in each wave, the males were largely replaced in the invaders’ areas of control. Basically they killed the men and bred the women.
Not exactly, it’s educating & empowering women and giving them access to family planning. See this brilliant Hans Rosling TEDx talk and notice the comparison between birth rates in poor Bangladesh and rich Qatar…
ARTIFICIAL population control means…?
…planning in advance how many children you can afford and raise to adulthood - given your capabilities?
…and NATURAL population control means…?
…famine, war, disease, murders, plagues, and starvation? Right?!