3 ms·
Or similarly, try to reduce the population enough so that we are not constantly on the razor edge of famine.
by Iv 9y ago
Or similarly, try to reduce the population enough so that we are not constantly on the razor edge of famine.
- danieltillett 9y agoThis wouldn't solve the problem of a disruption to the food supply, just lessen the number who died. If my family starve to death it won't be much comfort to me that only a billion others die rather than five billion.
- abofh 9y agoNor would it really work in practice. Reducing the population would reduce demand (eaters), which would eventually lead to a reduction in supply (Farmers). Moreover, wrt to the 72 days raised by ggpp, one would just shrink the surplus to 72 days for the smaller population.
- Houshalter 9y agoWe are not remotely on the edge of famine. Something like 80% of our crop production goes to feeding very calorie inefficient livestock. In any real famine they would be slaughtered and their food intake would be redirected to human consumption. We are nowhere near the limits of the population Earth can support, at least food wise.
- danieltillett 9y agoUs rich people will probably be fine (unless the situation was decades long), but many people in the world won't be able to pay the higher prices. If you are currently spending 70% of your income on food and prices triple then you will starve.
- petre 9y ago'Richness' is rather redefined during a calamity if that size. The banks won't work and money would be quite worthless.
- Spooky23 9y agoWe're good on a pretty dull razor. Food insecurity is purely a function of the inefficiency of our society's means of food distribution.
- mythrwy 9y agoOnly while the sun shines though.