Rising food prices raise spectre of Malthus

[GliderGuider]

Rising food prices raise spectre of Malthus

Pessimists have believed that humanity is doomed due to overpopulation and overconsumption ever since economist and scholar Thomas Robert Malthus forecasted this fate over two centuries ago. Conversely, optimists have argued that technological innovation will improve standards of living and that population growth is at most a minor issue. But, now, rising food costs have once again raised fears that the population is outstripping the planet’s food supplies.

Although the recent price spikes are partially the result of short-term factors – droughts, floods, speculative investing, low reserves, and hoarding– food prices are likely to remain high as rising demand runs into supply constraints. While higher food prices will have a negative effect everywhere, they will have a particularly devastating impact on the poor, who already spend a large part of their incomes on sustenance and will be forced to spend more.

On the supply side, environmental constraints impede our ability to grow more food. In much of the world the most productive land is already being used for agriculture or covered by artificial structures; the best river sites have been dammed; and the benefits of the technological advances in agriculture production, known as the Green Revolution, have been heavily exploited. Further, in many densely populated countries water shortages are acute. The latest threat comes from rising energy prices. Energy is an integral part of every step in the food production system – cultivation, harvesting, transportation, refrigeration, packaging, and distribution. Even some of fertilizers and pesticides are hydrocarbon-based; consequently these products are becoming more costly as well. Another restriction to our food supply is the recent diversion of crops formerly meant for our dinner tables are now winding up as biofuels.

On the demand side, food consumption is expected to increase by 50 percent over the next two decades because of population growth and higher incomes. As developing countries climb out of poverty, diets become more calorie-and protein-rich, and consumption of animal products grows. World population, now near 7 billion, is expected to rise to 9.2 billion in 2050. Nearly all this addition to population will occur in the poorest regions of the world. Prospects are grimmest for the poorest countries with limited natural resources and extremely rapid population growth, most of them in sub-Saharan Africa. Despite the AIDS epidemic, sub-Saharan Africa is expected to add more than a billion to its current population.

The author mentions the usual limp litany of potential ameliorations: voluntary family planning, the education of women, the reduction of meat-eating in rich nations along with the elimination of subsidies to flesh-growers. It remains to be seen whether such well-intentioned palliatives will overcome the simultaneous rise in both population and food prices. It may not remain to be seen for much longer, though.

[aquart]

1. You can limit population by birth control

Or you can limit population by war, famine, and disease. Most nations prefer the latter.

Massive natural disasters are also a big help. As are unnatural ones like Fukushima.

The Four Horsemen are saddling up.

[GliderGuider]

3. Even War doesn't cut it.

WWII killed about 10 million people a year. We are currently adding eight times that many people to the planet each year. We'd need several WWII-scale conflicts going on simultaneously over several decades in order to bring population growth to a halt. I don't think even a medium-scale thermonuclear war would do it,unless the climate took a catastrophic hit. Human beings are remarkably resilient as a species.

Realistically, the only Horsemen with the required lifting power are Pestilence and Famine.

[Sal Minella]

4. "Required lifting power." What a refreshingly honest locution. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

17. What, yes you can.

Family planning and prosperity bring about naturally small family sizes. Which can bring about a population crisis of a different sort.



edit: AAAAAAAAA My apologies. I read your subject line as 'You CAN'T limit population'

[GliderGuider]

18. The question remains whether you can bring about small enough family sizes by family planning alone

If we need to have prosperity factored in, then from a global point of view we have a major problem. There is no way I can see to make 7 billion people prosperous in the near term, by any traditional definition at least.

World population is still growing by the equivalent of one Egypt every year. Lots of extra mouths, lots of extra food, lots of extra environmental damage. It's a Red Queen's race between population and food, and a flat-out loser between population and the global environment. In order for the rest of life on the planet to have a chance we need to find a way to make the global population start dropping within the next 20 years. Can we do it without increasing the imbalance between humans and other life even further? Increasing prosperity is unlikely to do that, as it would concentrate yet more of the world's resources in the hands of humans and out of the reach of other life.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Prosperity comes part and parcel with smaller family sizes.

Once you stop worrying about infant mortality, and have smaller families, you have less resource drain raising the smaller number of children you do have.

Interesting stuff:
http://roslingsblogger.blogspot.com/2005/10/unicef-wrong-on-family-size-in.html

[LiberalLoner]

2. There cannot be infinite growth of population in a finite world. K&R n/t

[Nederland]

6. There is no evidence of infinite growth happening anywhere...

...so what is your point?

[guardian]

8. strawman argument

That argument assumes all other factors remain constant...which is not the real world.

[kestrel91316]

33. Try telling the fundies that. Especially the quiverful crowd.

"Gawd will provide."

[guardian]

5. beating a dead horse

"Pessimists have believed that humanity is doomed due to overpopulation and overconsumption ever since economist and scholar Thomas Robert Malthus forecasted this fate over two centuries ago."

Yes. And they have been wrong for two centuries and continue to be wrong.



"Conversely, optimists have argued that technological innovation will improve standards of living and that population growth"

Yes and they were right. By every conceivable measure living standards have improved. People are living longer, in better health, have more food, more variety, more choice, more time for leisure and intellectual pursuits, etc.


What is it about the Malthusians that have them clinging to a failed idea? It would be interesting to see a study of the correlation between people that are adherents of both Malthus and global warming.

[stuntcat]

12. "People are living longer, in better health, have more food, more variety, more choice, more time.."

That's the 10 or 15% who are consuming the most resources, while about 40,000 people die of starvation each day.
And how many more die of junk like diarrhea?
And I wonder why the death toll from natural disasters keeps rising.. Oh but no worries, me and my fat neighbors are living the high life :party:

[Nederland]

7. What will it take for you to admit you are wrong?

This is not a rhetorical question.

Any good scientist should be able to tell you what empirical evidence would force them to conclude that a particular theory is wrong. Take any theory, any theory at all, and a good scientist should be able to say "well, if you do A, B and C and then D happens, then I'd be forced to conclude that theory X is wrong." That is how science works. Theories are constructed that make testable predictions, and then those predictions are compared to empirical observations that will either validate or refute the theory. Science is not faith based, it is evidence based.

So I have to ask, what empirical evidence would have to arise for you to admit that Malthus was wrong? For that matter, what empirical evidence do you have that Malthus was right?

[GliderGuider]

9. Here's what it would take

Planet Earth in the year 12011, with a well-fed population of 1 trillion people all driving SUVs to the future equivalent of a local Denny's.

Now, what would it take for you to admit you are wrong?

Would Planet Earth in the year 2111 with a starving population of 1 billion eating grass and mouse soup do it?

This issue is one of belief, not science. There is no way to prove Malthus was "Right" or "Wrong" short of the appearance of scenarios like those described above.

We know that there is a possibility he was right because we've seen local evidence of it time and again in sub-Saharan Africa. We also know that he has not been "proved right" so far on a global scale because our ingenuity has so far kept us ahead of the game (though at great environmental cost).

Belief enters the picture when we assess whether ingenuity will continue to keep us ahead of the game, or whether rising environmental, economic and social costs will force us to fall behind. A case can be made for either position.

[Nederland]

10. Then the theory should not part of public policy debate

If something cannot be scientifically proven, it properly belongs to the realm of religion. As such, we should not be pursuing one particular policy or another based upon the notion that Malthusian theory is "correct". To do so would be akin to cutting off funding to education on the basis that world is going to end on December 21, 2012.

[GliderGuider]

11. By the same token

We should not be pursuing policies based on the notion that it is incorrect either. The proper thing to do is develop policies that will be beneficial whether or not it turns out to be a concern. Policies that work whether we hit a food ceiling or not, or whether population continues to increase or decline.

To me the question comes down to the Precautionary Principle. Which is worse for humanity in this case - a false positive (we believed Malthus was right but he turned out to be wrong) or a false negative (we thought he was wrong but he turned out to be right)? Policy should always be oriented to avoid harmful outcomes.

[Nederland]

13. The Precautionary Principle is not really helpful here

There are numerous theories about how the world is doomed that can all lay claim to action as dictated by the Precautionary Principle. However, given the fact that the world has limited resources (ironically, as you yourself are arguing here in this very thread) not all of those actions can be pursued. In the end therefore, invoking the precautionary principle is of little use. You will still need to plead your case as to why your cause is more worthy of funding than all the other causes vying for public monies.

[GliderGuider]

14. Your argument would work better if I was proposing that we "fund a cause"

I'm not. If anything, I'm proposing that we future-proof our civilization by taking the possibility of catastrophe into account when we make decisions. Things like, "Let's not put nuclear reactors on fault lines." Or, "Maybe funding womens' education and contraception as foreign aid to developing countries is a good idea". Or, "How about not drowning our lakes and oceans in fertilizer residue?" Or, "Let's not put a big city on top of a super-volcano caldera." Or "Let's not incentivize Big Ag, Big Pharma, Big Fossil or Big Families."

None of it takes a lot of money or even a doomer mentality. Just risk awareness and the desire to survive.

ETA: This really has little to do with whether Malthus was right or wrong. If he was wrong there's nothing we need to do; if he was right then there's little we can do. I'm just illuminating the possibility that he might have been right, and encouraging people to think about the implications.

[kristopher]

15. The Precautionary Principle can't be used that way.

The PP is to guide adoption of specific policies or actions. It can't be used in conjunction with a theoretical construct that is designed to guide research.
Also, it is fundamental to Malthus's work that he assumed population growth is inevitable, but that isn't supported by the modern evidence in anthropology about the state of human populations throughout our development.

[GliderGuider]

16. Of course it can. Here's an example.

First, the definition:

The precautionary principle or precautionary approach states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.

Now take as an example the sometime American policy of not permitting contraception or abortion funding to be included in foreign aid packages. Population activists could (and do) plausibly claim that this policy "has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public", because of the risk of target populations outgrowing their food supply, resulting in famine. Thus the PP would guide us towards not implementing that policy.

The core of Malthus' claim was that populations can, and do, outgrow their food supplies. Does anyone here want to claim it's impossible for humans to do that?

[kristopher]

19. That example isn't the use of the precautionary principle

It is a basic argument having nothing to do with the PP. The PP deals with the legal concept of blame or responsibility. Operating without the PP company X wants to manufacture widgets and produce by-product Z in the process. By-product Z is not known to cause harm, but it is a new organic chemical compound that has never been tested other than the most casual toxicity tests. Z happens to be in a class of chemicals that is highly reactive with another group of organic compounds Y.

Without the PP company X has no obligation to test Z with Y nor to investigate whether company X's use of it will result in downstream mixing with Y.

With the PP it does.

Marx assigned primary significance for the texture of culture and society on the nature of its infrastructure.
Malthus believed it was population pressure.
Harris has shown that it is a combination of the two - production and reproduction - and their interplay that is what actually happens.

[GliderGuider]

20. Is so.

:evilgrin:

Remember the words "or policy" in the definition?

For example (from the Wiki definition):

One of the primary foundations of the precautionary principle, and globally accepted definitions, results from the work of the Rio Conference, or "Earth Summit" in 1992. Principle #15 of the Rio Declaration notes:

"In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

I claim that population control policy falls under that broad category. You may disagree, of course...

[Nederland]

23. Malthusian dogma is in fact dangerous and harmful

The core of Malthus' claim was that populations can, and do, outgrow their food supplies. Does anyone here want to claim it's impossible for humans to do that?

Animal population certainly can and do outgrow their food supplies. However, modern humans are different. While I won't claim that it is impossible for humans to out grow their food supply, I would argue that the likelihood of a post-agricultural society outgrowing its food supply is so minuscule to worry about it the way you do is not only ridiculous, it is in fact dangerous. Yes, for the largely agricultural third world the risk exists and we still frequently see individual human populations that suffer from famine and starvation. However, for the human population as a whole there is no such risk. The rich industrial world has qualities that make it perfectly sustainable, at least from a food supply standpoint. In post-agricultural (i.e. industrial or post-industrial) societies we find the following:

1) The percentage of economic activity dedicated to growing food is very small.
2) Birth rates are close to replacement level and frequently lower.

This combination means the possibility of this type of society outgrowing its food supply is very remote. An agricultural society is at risk for starvation because 90% of its economic activity goes into growing food, and there is no excess capacity to deal with problems if they arise. In contrast, the typical US person spends less than 20% of their income on food. This number distorts the truth however, because it includes the cost of things that are not necessary to simply avoid starvation. For example, it includes the cost of having someone else prepare food (eating out and eating prepared food like frozen dinners) and it includes the cost of foods like meat that are extremely inefficient way of obtaining calories. All said, modern societies produce up to ten times as many calories as their populations need, and could easily produce enough food to survive by spending a mere 2% or 3% of their total economic output on food if they chose to. The only reason they don't is because their people don't chose to eat a vegetarian diet prepared with their own hands. The fact that obesity is a serious problem among the US poor is evidence of just how abundant and cheap food really is.

So the question is, how can a society that needs only 2%-3% of its total economic output to feed itself fall victim to starvation? The answer is that is really can't. When you only need to spend 2%-3% of your income on food, the price of food could increase ten fold and you still wouldn't starve--you'd just have to start cooking your own food and change your diet. The only way a modern post-agricultural population could suffer from significant starvation is for crop yields to fall quickly and drastically. And when I say quickly and drastically, I mean something on the order of a 90% drop over a single growing season. Anything less would be handled by market forces or in the worst case, aggressive government action to distribute food equitable.

Could we see a 90% drop in crop yields over the course of a single year? As I said, I believe the risk is minuscule. One way would be for the oil supply to dry up almost completely almost overnight, another way would be for some sort of engineered disease to strike all the major cereal grain types simultaneously. If the former happens, it is likely that massive numbers of people would die from things other than starvation--lack of heat for example. The latter would really be categorized as an act of war or terrorism that doesn't really fit the Malthusian scenarios we are discussing here.

In fact I would argue that the risk of starvation in a modern society is so very low that Malthusians such as yourself are dangerous. The reality is that today falling populations in the developed world pose a much greater risk to modern societies than any Malthusian scenario could ever hope to. Our entire social safety net is predicated on the idea that there will be a large enough tax base to support people as they grow older. People like yourself that preach a doctrine of having no children to "save the planet" from the mythical risk of overpopulation are in fact sowing the seeds of misery for future generations that will lack the sheer numbers to care for the previous generation. They will be faced with grim choice of dedicating their entire economic activity to caring for them or provide such a minimal level of care the word euthanasia might be an apt description.

[GliderGuider]

24. The gulf between our views is far too wide to be bridged by argument.

Keep your eyes and your mind open. I promise to do the same.

Good luck.

[Nederland]

25. Perhaps not

We just need to identify the core of our disagreement. The best way to do that is to ask only one simple question and avoid long rambling posts like mine above :). It is possible our dispute is merely semantic. For example, I would argue that the food scarcity problem is in fact an energy scarcity problem. I'll phrase it this way:

If a free, clean and infinite energy source were discovered, the problem of food scarcity would go away.

Would you agree?

[GliderGuider]

26. I'm not sure what's gained by calling on the tooth fairy.

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.

[Nederland]

27. The idea is to narrow the debate

The fact that it is a completely unrealistic scenario is irrelevant. The idea is that if we agree to that statement, we can move on to some other issue. So, do you agree with it or not?

[GliderGuider]

28. Sorry.

I don't debate starting from impossible premises. Pick something within the bounds of scientific possibility, at least.

[Nederland]

30. The question is not starting premise

It is a logical tool for allowing us to eliminate one area of discussion so we can focus on others. Its akin to what Plato did when discussing the nature of morality. He introduces the mythical ring of Gyges, which allows the wearer to become undetectable, as a means of exploring the difference between morality, legality and social pressure. He is asking what morality means if a person could do whatever they wanted without having to risk possible consequences--prison, rejection by society, etc. He is not suggesting that such a thing exists, he is merely using it as a tool to narrow the discussion.

Likewise, I am not suggesting that a free, clean and infinite energy source is possible. I'm asking you to imagine such a world so that we can focus on the food issue in the absence of the energy issue.

[GliderGuider]

29. By the way, what is your definition of "Malthusian"?

You and guardian toss the word around as though there was a standard agreed meaning, but I just realized there actually isn't one. What's yours?

[Nederland]

31. Definition

To me, a Malthusian is a person who believes that food shortages can cause the destruction of civil society and force humanity to return to a much more primitive state.

BTW, I would agree that it is possible (I would say almost certain) that future food shortages would result in a situation where the third world is starving in massive numbers and the first world continues on with their obesity. In fact, I would say that is the current situation. The third world is already at the limit of how many people they can feed, and any further population growth beyond their current numbers will die--just as they have for centuries.

[GliderGuider]

32. OK, so here's what I wonder about regarding this definition

You say, "a Malthusian is a person who believes that food shortages can cause the destruction of civil society and force humanity to return to a much more primitive state."

But you also agree that this is already happening in the developing world. How much of the world needs to be in that state for you to declare a "Malthusian crisis", whatever that might mean to you?

To clarify my own position a bit more:

I don't use the "Malthusian" label for myself. I accept the ecological position that populations can outgrow food supplies to varying degrees, for various reasons related to both (food) supply and (population) demand. I know this happens regularly to human populations in regions where food supplies fail, and to which food imports are difficult for either logistical or economic reasons. In such cases civil society can break down and return to a much more primitive state (as we have seen over the decades in various places in Africa).

I do expect that various effects related to climate change and the overexploitation of soil and water will probably combine with rising world food prices to reduce food availability in Africa and Asia, potentially enough to send the global population into decline. The effects of famine could be exacerbated by sudden changes in fertility rates due to poor perceived opportunities, as we saw in Russia during the breakup of the USSR. As you say, it's already happening in some places, so all I'm really expecting is a widening of the affected regions and a deepening of the impact over the next decade or two. Civil society will break down and primitivism will reign in those places, but North America and Europe should be largely immune from outright food shortages.

So, would you call this position "Malthusian"? Because from what you've said it sounds a lot like something you might agree with.
How do you see your position as different from mine, that makes mine "Malthusian" and yours not?

[Nederland]

36. Malthusian crisis

But you also agree that this is already happening in the developing world. How much of the world needs to be in that state for you to declare a "Malthusian crisis", whatever that might mean to you?

For me it is not so much a question of how much of the world needs to be in a state of starvation to be declared a "Malthusian crisis". The defining quality of Malthusian predictions that I most strongly disagree with is the idea that at some point there is a monumental shift or change of some sort. In the work of Malthus, Erlich and others there is the idea that even if we currently doing ok, at some point in the future something changes, some limit is reached, and we have a population crash that results in the destruction of civil society. It is the crash part that I have never understood. To me, it seems like you hit your resource limit and simply get stuck there. Yes, lots of people are dying because there are more people than food, but there is no crash. The number of people who die of starvation stays pretty constant, and there is no sudden shift or change as has been described by those I would call "Malthusians".

[GliderGuider]

37. The perception of a looming crash is entirely a psychological reaction.

The conviction that a crash must result is purely a result of the commentator's fears. It's an internally generated worldview, springing (as far as I can tell) from the ego's fear of annihilation. It's usually dressed up with analysis to make it appear more rational, but at its core it is nothing but an expression of fear.

That's not to say that the possibility that growth will cease or a decline will set in are unrealistic, but expecting a "crash" is both unwarranted and psychologically counter-productive. It can bring on a toxic combination of depression, despair and paralysis - one of the unhealthiest states imaginable - without offering any way out for either civilization or the individual. It's sort of like a low-level fugue state. I'm intimately familiar with this state, because I fell down that rabbit-hole about six years ago, and only started to climb out in the last couple of years. Anyone who reads my web-site articles about energy and population from 2007 and 2008 will see this process on display.

I still think we're headed for a series of unexpected events as oil supplies begin to wind down, but a global crash of civilization is not in the cards as far as I'm concerned. A long, slow, painful and bumpy decline is entirely possible, but mud huts on Wall Street in five years is not.

[GliderGuider]

42. Is it perhaps the idea of "tipping points" that gives you pause?

A fundamental element of the "fast-crash doomer" position is the expectation that there will come a tipping point past which the brakes don't work and all bets are off. This can apply whether the doom in question is related to climate, energy, food or economics. Without the expectation of a tipping point, we can conceive of encountering all sorts of limits without "things falling apart".

Does any of that resonate with you?

[Nederland]

44. It does resonate

In fact, so much so I don't think there is much we disagree about.

The primary difference is probably that I firmly believe that in the next 15-20 years we will see the rise of intelligent machines, and that development will change everything so drastically all bets on what the future looks like after that moment are pointless. The only question is if we can make it another 15-20 years. The only real barrier I see in that time frame is energy. Food, climate change and the others won't have a strong enough impact before then.

[tama]

38. Historical evidence

strongly proposes that most - if not all - civilizations (aka compulsory growth economies) collapse because of enviromental destruction (because of non-sustainable agriculture) leading to food shortages etc. Often after a period of predatory imperialism. I suggest googeling and even reading a classic work on the subject, 'Top soil and Civilization' by two American conservationists.

PS: 3rd world is starving because 1st world is robbing their resources to continue their obesity (ie. predatory imperialism).

[Nederland]

39. That is a very narrow view of history

It is a very narrow view to say "Historical evidence strongly proposes that most - if not all - civilizations collapse because of enviromental destruction". Perhaps environmentalists believe this to be true, but certainly historians do not. Historians believe their are a large number of reasons that civilizations collapse, and there is nothing close to consensus on the subject. Even for something as well studied as the collapse of the Roman Empire, there are still numerous opinions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization#Fall_of_civilizations

[tama]

40. Thanks for the link

Reading from it, there seems to be indeed a strong consensus among the historians mentioned that civilizations collapse because of unsustainable agriculture and enviromental degregation (deforestation, erosion, silting), of which other causes are consequenses of.

[Nederland]

43. Did we read the same article?

By my count, only five (Diamond, Turchin, Demarest, McNeely, and Homer-Dixonof) the twelve historians listed count environmental factors as a cause of civilization collapse, and for three of those (Diamond, Demarest, and Homer-Dixonofof) it is merely one of several possible causes.

[GliderGuider]

41. I'd broaden the causes just a bit

My impression is that most collapses of civilization have both a social and an ecological component.

I would characterize the social component as "unsustainable complexity" (given the available resources and technology), as described so well by Tainter.

The ecological component can include resource shortages (e.g. energy and water) and crop failures due to climate change or soil degradation caused by poor farming practices, over-use or deforestation.

These factors interact. For example even if crop yields stay high in one area, it may be impossible, due to social or economic problems, to get the food where it's needed. Also, as resources or food supplies decline, the level of complexity that can be supported also declines, with a resulting rise in social disorder.

Modern industrial civilization is showing disturbing signs of both types of problems.

[guardian]

34. I accept YOUR definition

that YOU posted in the OP.

"Pessimists have believed that humanity is doomed due to overpopulation and overconsumption"


In other words...a DOOMER

[GliderGuider]

35. That's an interesting approach, but it's incomplete or incorrect on several levels.

Level 1. That was not my definition, it was supplied by the author of the article as a straw man.
Level 2. I have no definition for the term "Malthusian", since I think it's a content-free pejorative and I don't use it.
Level 3. If you accept the definition you gave above, then what is your definition of "doomed"?

My position is outlined in post #32, but I repeat it here for easy reference:

I accept the ecological position that populations can outgrow food supplies to varying degrees, for various reasons related to both (food) supply and (population) demand. I know this happens regularly to human populations in regions where food supplies fail, and to which food imports are difficult for either logistical or economic reasons. In such cases civil society can break down and return to a much more primitive state (as we have seen over the decades in various places in Africa).

I do expect that various effects related to climate change and the overexploitation of soil and water will probably combine with rising world food prices to reduce food availability in Africa and Asia, potentially enough to send the global population into decline. The effects of famine could be exacerbated by sudden changes in fertility rates due to poor perceived opportunities, as we saw in Russia during the breakup of the USSR. As you say, it's already happening in some places, so all I'm really expecting is a widening of the affected regions and a deepening of the impact over the next decade or two. Civil society will break down and primitivism will reign in those places, but North America and Europe should be largely immune from outright food shortages.

I'll ask you a similar question I asked Nederland - what degree of famine crisis would it take to qualify as a "Malthusian" crisis from your point of view?

[kristopher]

22. Children's Day and Japan's future

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Children's Day and Japan's future

Japan's Children's Day on May 5th had less to celebrate this year than ever before. The number of children in Japan dropped for the 30th straight year to a record low, according to a report from the Internal Affairs and Communications Ministry on May 2. Children under 15 now make up only 13 percent of the Japanese population, the lowest ratio of children among the 27 countries with populations over 40 million.

That ratio might not seem too bad, since most people would surely prefer smaller classes, less crowded trains or larger living spaces. And other countries, such as Germany, Poland and Italy, are also facing population declines due to low birth rates. However, the population decline, which according to the Ministry could lead Japan's population to fall to 60 million by 2100, presents problems that must be addressed. Together with a record-high 23 percent of the population aged 65 or older, Japan is quickly becoming a very different country. Most of the worries about these population shifts focus on economic issues. Certainly, a minimum level of workers is needed to keep the economy going and more dependents for each productive worker could weaken social services and welfare. The question of what size population is best is more than an economic question; it involves a broader conception of what can improve the quality of life. Few people in any country would consider bringing up a child under stressful conditions. Countering the low birthrate will require extensive changes in many areas of Japanese life.

Before more ...

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ed20110510a2.html