Food supply V demand
Discussion
As the "elephant in the room" issue of global population numbers is not being approached by politicians nor politics in general, some are saying that within our lifetimes we are expected to reach a point where food supply can not meet the demand of a rapidly growing number of mouths to feed.
Between now and 2050 (just 29 years away) the world's food calorie production will need to be 69% more than what it is today. I think this needs to sink in for a while because many agricultural lands around the world are already 'stressed' !
69% more food calories are required to be produced in order to feed the expected population numbers by 2050, just 29 years away. If of course predictions are accurate. (Even if a bit out here or there, it is still crazy).
So when will we start to see panic buying shelve emptying episodes that we saw for the first time in modern generations here within the UK when the hint of a delay in products and food became a reality at the beginning of the pandemic?
Are we to expect food rationing, lootings and wide spread rioting etc?
Parts of Africa of course are well versed in the above but this may all occur much sooner than we think here in western nations.
Over to you.
Between now and 2050 (just 29 years away) the world's food calorie production will need to be 69% more than what it is today. I think this needs to sink in for a while because many agricultural lands around the world are already 'stressed' !
69% more food calories are required to be produced in order to feed the expected population numbers by 2050, just 29 years away. If of course predictions are accurate. (Even if a bit out here or there, it is still crazy).
So when will we start to see panic buying shelve emptying episodes that we saw for the first time in modern generations here within the UK when the hint of a delay in products and food became a reality at the beginning of the pandemic?
Are we to expect food rationing, lootings and wide spread rioting etc?
Parts of Africa of course are well versed in the above but this may all occur much sooner than we think here in western nations.
Over to you.
Haven’t they been saying this for the last 50 years?
Edit for a more useful comment. Population growth is unlikely to continue on a straight line, and it’s also likely that people will choose to have fewer children if food becomes a real issue.
This problem will solve itself one way or another, be it advances in farming technology or human response to scarcity while no longer needing multiple children to ensure at least one survives to adulthood.
Edit for a more useful comment. Population growth is unlikely to continue on a straight line, and it’s also likely that people will choose to have fewer children if food becomes a real issue.
This problem will solve itself one way or another, be it advances in farming technology or human response to scarcity while no longer needing multiple children to ensure at least one survives to adulthood.
Edited by DanL on Friday 25th June 09:58
The world population has more than doubled just within the 50 years that I have been on the planet. I'm always astonished that it gets so very little coverage vs global warming, zero CO2, plastic waste, don't eat meat etc when surely if we didn't have almost 8bn people consuming everything they can I doubt any of those issues would exist.
TX.
PS easily solvable if people just stuck with one child per couple for a few generations.
TX.
PS easily solvable if people just stuck with one child per couple for a few generations.
There's a book about how the projected increase in world population won't occur due to the march of urbanisation in the developing world and the correlation with fall in the birth rates. Most developed countries are now below population replacement rate (Japan, Italy are 2 that are significantly below and actually have reducing population numbers). This is expected to become the norm in more countries and global population will start to reduce from the middle of this century. That creates problems of its own, but lack of food won't be one of them.
Terminator X said:
The world population has more than doubled just within the 50 years that I have been on the planet. I'm always astonished that it gets so very little coverage vs global warming, zero CO2, plastic waste, don't eat meat etc when surely if we didn't have almost 8bn people consuming everything they can I doubt any of those issues would exist.
TX.
PS easily solvable if people just stuck with one child per couple for a few generations.
Always wondered if "global warming" was a misnomer for "population crisis" and whether the aims of the "global warming" agenda are indeed to tackle indirectly the issue of too many people, without actually having to state it. TX.
PS easily solvable if people just stuck with one child per couple for a few generations.
But there seems to be a fundamental conflict of interests if that were the case because spending billions in an attempt to reduce the rate of climate warming, where on the other hand a tiny richer CO2 content in the atmosphere and a wetter climate would go to aid crop production tremendously. Along with all those billions being directed at many (arguably) pointless 'green projects' where instead it could be aimed towards developing technology for more food production, all seems a missed opportunity.
ironically the issue isn't people being born, but people not dying, countries like the UK have a huge pension liability to account for, which can only be met by immigration so we have more people of working age being brought in to pay for what is effectively a giant ponzi scheme. Let to its own devices the population in most developing nations is dropping sharply.
I don't think it's fashionable to say it, but I think we'll be fine, or just as sort of fine as we are now.
I'm sure if you'd told someone in 50s, 60s or 70s what the population is now they'd be convinced we were eating mud, or each other.
Rather than insects, meat grown from cells is the obvious one and at some point it'll be refined to be able to supply whoever wants it.
As for population itself I think we'll see an all time peak sometime in the next few decades and then it'll work its way downwards as people get more educated and urbanised.
I'm sure if you'd told someone in 50s, 60s or 70s what the population is now they'd be convinced we were eating mud, or each other.
Rather than insects, meat grown from cells is the obvious one and at some point it'll be refined to be able to supply whoever wants it.
As for population itself I think we'll see an all time peak sometime in the next few decades and then it'll work its way downwards as people get more educated and urbanised.
bloomen said:
I don't think it's fashionable to say it, but I think we'll be fine, or just as sort of fine as we are now.
I'm sure if you'd told someone in 50s, 60s or 70s what the population is now they'd be convinced we were eating mud, or each other.
Rather than insects, meat grown from cells is the obvious one and at some point it'll be refined to be able to supply whoever wants it.
As for population itself I think we'll see an all time peak sometime in the next few decades and then it'll work its way downwards as people get more educated and urbanised.
Yep, I agree with this thinking. Developed countries are already in the falling pop bracket, just usually buffed up a bit by immigration. I'm sure if you'd told someone in 50s, 60s or 70s what the population is now they'd be convinced we were eating mud, or each other.
Rather than insects, meat grown from cells is the obvious one and at some point it'll be refined to be able to supply whoever wants it.
As for population itself I think we'll see an all time peak sometime in the next few decades and then it'll work its way downwards as people get more educated and urbanised.
Excuse the Daily Fail link
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9724865/B...
But we could just tax more people into starvation like we are trying to force the poor off the roads.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9724865/B...
But we could just tax more people into starvation like we are trying to force the poor off the roads.
speedyguy said:
Excuse the Daily Fail link
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9724865/B...
But we could just tax more people into starvation like we are trying to force the poor off the roads.
'Food Czar' aka a fat well connected failure with no relevant knowledge. Just who we need to tell everyone what to do. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9724865/B...
But we could just tax more people into starvation like we are trying to force the poor off the roads.
Silenoz said:
There's a book about how the projected increase in world population won't occur due to the march of urbanisation in the developing world and the correlation with fall in the birth rates. Most developed countries are now below population replacement rate (Japan, Italy are 2 that are significantly below and actually have reducing population numbers). This is expected to become the norm in more countries and global population will start to reduce from the middle of this century. That creates problems of its own, but lack of food won't be one of them.
Can you provide a link? Global reproduction rate per female is only 2 point something now; historic low levels. But population must go up because of health/life expectancy improvements. Nothing can stop it unless death rates rise massively because of war or a pandemic way worse than what we have now. Otherwise, global population must go up significantly before the increases you describe happen.Randy Winkman said:
Silenoz said:
There's a book about how the projected increase in world population won't occur due to the march of urbanisation in the developing world and the correlation with fall in the birth rates. Most developed countries are now below population replacement rate (Japan, Italy are 2 that are significantly below and actually have reducing population numbers). This is expected to become the norm in more countries and global population will start to reduce from the middle of this century. That creates problems of its own, but lack of food won't be one of them.
Can you provide a link? Global reproduction rate per female is only 2 point something now; historic low levels. But population must go up because of health/life expectancy improvements. Nothing can stop it unless death rates rise massively because of war or a pandemic way worse than what we have now. Otherwise, global population must go up significantly before the increases you describe happen.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53409521
It will give some interesting economic and migratory patterns.
Edited by mike9009 on Friday 25th June 18:44
bloomen said:
I don't think it's fashionable to say it, but I think we'll be fine, or just as sort of fine as we are now.
I'm sure if you'd told someone in 50s, 60s or 70s what the population is now they'd be convinced we were eating mud, or each other.
Rather than insects, meat grown from cells is the obvious one and at some point it'll be refined to be able to supply whoever wants it.
As for population itself I think we'll see an all time peak sometime in the next few decades and then it'll work its way downwards as people get more educated and urbanised.
Newarch is correct wrt the problem...I'm sure if you'd told someone in 50s, 60s or 70s what the population is now they'd be convinced we were eating mud, or each other.
Rather than insects, meat grown from cells is the obvious one and at some point it'll be refined to be able to supply whoever wants it.
As for population itself I think we'll see an all time peak sometime in the next few decades and then it'll work its way downwards as people get more educated and urbanised.
In1960, people lived to be about 70 (slightly higher?). They say (they talk a lot, don't 'they') the first person to live to be 150 may already have been born. That will be an outlier (at first), but even if you put the pension age up to 70, how can you budget for 80 years of unproductivivity at the tail end of your life?
Our obsession with preventing death will be our ultimate downfall. And of course there's many good things being done in medical science, such as cancer cures and treatments etc. Which is (obviously) excellent. But comes with the rather large drawback mentioned
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff