Reply #26: I'm not sure what's gained by calling on the tooth fairy. [View All]

[GliderGuider]

I have two responses to that question.

1. In the improbability sweepstakes the development of such an energy source is several orders of magnitude less likely than famine.
2. The human predicament isn't just one of energy and/or food. It's a whole lot bigger than that.

As you pointed out before, famine is likely to be unevenly distributed across the world, just as it is now. I'm not envisioning a uniform global Malthusian crisis as much as the probability of worsening situations in the areas already in crisis, and the spreading of crisis to those areas that are now only marginal. It's entirely conceivable that large swathes of the developing world could fall victim to famine while Americans continue to drive to Denny's. At what point would you call a scenario like that a global famine? After all, even in the midst of a famine some people still eat.

ETA: between 3 and 4.5 billion people live on less than $2 US per day. If half of them succumbed to famine would you call it a Malthusian crisis? If world food prices were to double or triple, it could easily happen - regardless of the obesity of North Americans.