The unrecognizable future
With a predicted population of 9 billion, food production and competition for resources could change the face of our planet.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/earth-unrecognizable-2050-resources-110220.html
While there can be no doubt that the future will be unrecognizable, the curious will wonder what this means for us today. A few questions that should spark interest (as paraphrased from a CafeHayek.com post):
– If the supply of resources is strained, will we not be able to find alternative means of feeding and providing energy to the people of the world?
– If the supply of some resource does fall, will not the price of that resource rise, causing people to use it more frugally as they switch to using resources whose supplies are more plentiful?
– And, if these scientists’ prediction of consistently decreasing resource supplies over the next 40 years does come true, will world incomes over the next 40 years fall rather than rise (as these scientists worry)?
Food for thought.
Fascinating and slightly startling–which is clearly the DN article’s intent!
However, wouldn’t a rise in population mean a rise in production as well? Such a huge population will surely mean the consumption of more resources, but it would also potentially mean more enterprise directed at both the production of traditional resources and the development of alternatives, from itself and from those incentivized by it–that is, if excessive regulation and subsidies don’t get in the way.)
Additionally, the consumption of resources should regulate itself. If a resource is in short supply, its price would necessarily rise and thus limit its availability (again assuming regulations/subsidies don’t tamper with the principles of supply and demand).
While such a rise in population would certainly be challenging in some regards, it has the potential for spurring a great deal of production and creativity, and, given a free-market system, sufficiently maintaining itself. This DN article seems to me an alarmist piece aimed at promoting government regulation and birth control/abortion in the guise of an objective scientific report.
Thank you Claire for your insight. You make two critical points that reflect the CafeHayek.com approach, though I think your point about the productive capacity of the new population is crucial.
It seems so many see the mere consumptive capacity of population as the only real consequence and forget that more people mean more useful goods.
One cannot be sure of the motives behind the article, but it’s pretty clear to this ready that they have not taken into account lessons learned since Malthus.