3 ms·

I think that's a possibility but that's provided everything else holding up the system(s) actually holds up. The minute supermarkets stop having enough food on

I think that's a possibility but that's provided everything else holding up the system(s) actually holds up. The minute supermarkets stop having enough food on their shelves is the minute panic sets in. After that it's not long before any nation runs the risk of turning into Venezuela and people are killing their neighbor's dog for food. I don't think you're giving enough weight to the grim reality of human nature. The only reason your situation is plausible is because there's some sort of expectation that there will be a certain level of humanity and civility even with extreme events like that and people won't just be left to starve or die. And that might very well be the case. But there are other factors that threaten that decency and if/when that fails, all hell would break loose. Human nature is what it is and people react to their reality. People, generally speaking, have pretty good lives, all things considered. That's why they don't want things like war which disrupt that. But if, for example, their livelihoods are already disrupted and a decent amount of people suddenly have a lot less (or nothing) to lose now, the reasons for shying away from war and violence are less convincing. Toss into the mix that in such cases serving your country can provide people with a purpose to their current existence after their prior purpose and way of life went away, and you have a pretty ugly mix of reasons to engage in war.

mirekrusin 8y ago
Also it feels like food supply is much more fragile now (more dependent), almost 8 bln people now compared to ~1.5 bln 100 years ago, if this collapses, it'll collapse big time.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Running things on "lean manufacturing" ain't helping either. With just-in-time ordering, near-zero buffer at the edge, everyone depends on undisturbed flow through the supply chains. Break that, and we're all in a world of hurt, as there are little to no reserves.
- Erik816 8y ago
  Just being bigger doesn't make it more fragile. Yes we have more people to feed, but there's a lot more people who can grow food now (and of course we have leveraged technology to an incredible degree to reduce the number of people and amount of land needed to produce that food). The food supply could be more fragile, but you would need a lot more data to convince me. I think it is actually far more stable. Look up Norman Borlaug for an example of the kind of improvements we've made within the last 100 years.
  - state_less 8y ago
    Yeah, I'm not so sure about a food shortage. The midwest has a ton of grain stored away hoping for a good price someday. South America and the rest of the world has taken note of our high yield practices and are crowding the market with their own grain. Granted, you wouldn't want to eat field corn, but then we are talking about tough times which could call for tough measures. I'm more worried about dealing with the runoff, byproducts and foolish policies that might waste our foodstuff.
- turc1656 8y ago
  as TeMPOraL and Erik816 mentioned, it's not just the increase in population that you get the impression the food supply is more fragile. In fact that probably has very little to do with it. It's more of the just-in-time aspect of the supply chain that all the supermarkets and other food producers/sellers utilize. It is done for efficiency to maximize profit. It applies to all food products, but especially with perishables. Supermarkets used to keep about 10-12 days of supply at all times. Now the supply is only about 3 days! That's why the stores always look ransacked at the mere mention of a severe rain. Bread, eggs, milk - gone in an hour. This practice is pervasive throughout most of the economy and there is very little planning for any disruptions in any supply chains whatsoever. The decades of relative peace, prosperity, expanded trade, and global growth have tricked everyone into thinking nothing will ever disrupt anything at all. That's probably a mistake. This kind of foolishness may have some serious consequences at some point. We've also become substantially more dependent on a number of nations for constant imports of raw materials and food as well. And we've largely stopped manufacturing pretty much everything which means we also get almost everything sent to us. This could be a real serious issue if there is a sudden large-scale war and a number of countries we rely upon aren't on the same side as ours. And from an economic perspective, business conditions have been pretty sweet for companies over the last 30-40 years outside of a few catastrophic events. Is there even anyone in the business world left at this point that even remembers what it's like to have to survive on low debt and increasing interest rates? Companies have just expected ever-lower interest rates since the early to mid 80's and they've been able to rollover debt easily and take out more money to fund operations. Is there anyone left who has actually managed large businesses in an environment that was less predictable?
  - daxorid 8y ago
    It's not just supermarkets. For most of recent history in the West, it's been fairly normal for homes to maintain a larder, root cellar, pantry, or other long-term food storage as a buffer against both economic and supply-related hardships. Prudently doing so in the modern era, however, is a fairly surefire way to get branded a crazy prepper. And supply chain buffers at home are becoming even shorter with the advent of DoorDash, Uber Eats, etc.

mirekrusin 8y ago

Also it feels like food supply is much more fragile now (more dependent), almost 8 bln people now compared to ~1.5 bln 100 years ago, if this collapses, it'll collapse big time.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Running things on "lean manufacturing" ain't helping either. With just-in-time ordering, near-zero buffer at the edge, everyone depends on undisturbed flow through the supply chains. Break that, and we're all in a world of hurt, as there are little to no reserves.
Erik816 8y ago
Just being bigger doesn't make it more fragile. Yes we have more people to feed, but there's a lot more people who can grow food now (and of course we have leveraged technology to an incredible degree to reduce the number of people and amount of land needed to produce that food). The food supply could be more fragile, but you would need a lot more data to convince me. I think it is actually far more stable. Look up Norman Borlaug for an example of the kind of improvements we've made within the last 100 years.
- state_less 8y ago
  Yeah, I'm not so sure about a food shortage. The midwest has a ton of grain stored away hoping for a good price someday. South America and the rest of the world has taken note of our high yield practices and are crowding the market with their own grain. Granted, you wouldn't want to eat field corn, but then we are talking about tough times which could call for tough measures. I'm more worried about dealing with the runoff, byproducts and foolish policies that might waste our foodstuff.
turc1656 8y ago
as TeMPOraL and Erik816 mentioned, it's not just the increase in population that you get the impression the food supply is more fragile. In fact that probably has very little to do with it. It's more of the just-in-time aspect of the supply chain that all the supermarkets and other food producers/sellers utilize. It is done for efficiency to maximize profit. It applies to all food products, but especially with perishables. Supermarkets used to keep about 10-12 days of supply at all times. Now the supply is only about 3 days! That's why the stores always look ransacked at the mere mention of a severe rain. Bread, eggs, milk - gone in an hour. This practice is pervasive throughout most of the economy and there is very little planning for any disruptions in any supply chains whatsoever. The decades of relative peace, prosperity, expanded trade, and global growth have tricked everyone into thinking nothing will ever disrupt anything at all. That's probably a mistake. This kind of foolishness may have some serious consequences at some point. We've also become substantially more dependent on a number of nations for constant imports of raw materials and food as well. And we've largely stopped manufacturing pretty much everything which means we also get almost everything sent to us. This could be a real serious issue if there is a sudden large-scale war and a number of countries we rely upon aren't on the same side as ours. And from an economic perspective, business conditions have been pretty sweet for companies over the last 30-40 years outside of a few catastrophic events. Is there even anyone in the business world left at this point that even remembers what it's like to have to survive on low debt and increasing interest rates? Companies have just expected ever-lower interest rates since the early to mid 80's and they've been able to rollover debt easily and take out more money to fund operations. Is there anyone left who has actually managed large businesses in an environment that was less predictable?
- daxorid 8y ago
  It's not just supermarkets. For most of recent history in the West, it's been fairly normal for homes to maintain a larder, root cellar, pantry, or other long-term food storage as a buffer against both economic and supply-related hardships. Prudently doing so in the modern era, however, is a fairly surefire way to get branded a crazy prepper. And supply chain buffers at home are becoming even shorter with the advent of DoorDash, Uber Eats, etc.