Over population

[Icarus]

Icarus wrote in part:

It won't, we aren't like lemmings in that we do have the means to feed ourselves. People just don't like scientific advancements being the only solution to the food problem (any many other issues).

You are right.  I don't like counting on scientific advancements being the only solution.  To me, it is like buying a new car you can't afford, counting on a raise which you may or may not get.  

That and I don't trust the politicos at all.  They are not as smart as most people think.  But, they are as self-centered as most people think.

I recognize we are not lemmings or bacteria, but we are in unprecedented times.  Though we do know from history, when civilizations lacked resources they desired, they made war on those who had those resources.  This has been happening for 10,000 years.  Why would it be different now?  Sure, we can imagine a world where common sense prevailed, as Stromboli laments it doesn't.  But, I don't see the political situation changing overall for the better.

We don't lack any resources in terms of food. Many more people in first world countries die from overeating compared to starvation. If first world countries as a whole actually started having food shortages the politicians would do what has to be done because their population would demand it. Currently no one cares because we all have enough to eat. Notice I'm only talking about first world countries. Humans tend not to care about a problem until it has a large effect on their lives. People are starving in poor countries and will continue to do so as long as we aren't putting any money into biotechnology and continue to fill our bellies. We have the means to help but little to no funding. If the USA took all the money they spend on military and put it into R&D the problem would be solved very quickly (compared to the speed were going at).

[LikelyToBreak]

Icarus, you talking about common sense amongst the politicians.  There is none, at least none which I have seen.  The way Mexico handled the Chiapas rebellion is pretty much what I have seen.  Most people don't realize how rich Mexico is, because most of the money is in the hands of so few there.  Reforms at the time could have stopped the rebellion, but the politicos preferred force and underhanded tactics.  I don't see them doing anything else here.  We are just not hungry enough to bust their chops about it.

Another thing to keep in mind, just throwing money at a problem won't necessarily solve it.  It takes years for someone to be trained to be a scientist.  Then it takes years for the scientist to come up with results.  Then it takes years to distribute those results wide spread enough to make a real difference.   We may not have the time.

We are counting on something which may or may not happen amongst the scientific community.  Which could happen.  But, I just don't see the politicians changing their spots to stripes.

[Icarus]

Icarus, you talking about common sense amongst the politicians.  There is none, at least none which I have seen.  The way Mexico handled the Chiapas rebellion is pretty much what I have seen.  Most people don't realize how rich Mexico is, because most of the money is in the hands of so few there.  Reforms at the time could have stopped the rebellion, but the politicos preferred force and underhanded tactics.  I don't see them doing anything else here.  We are just not hungry enough to bust their chops about it.

Another thing to keep in mind, just throwing money at a problem won't necessarily solve it.  It takes years for someone to be trained to be a scientist.  Then it takes years for the scientist to come up with results.  Then it takes years to distribute those results wide spread enough to make a real difference.   We may not have the time.

We are counting on something which may or may not happen amongst the scientific community.  Which could happen.  But, I just don't see the politicians changing their spots to stripes.

I'm talking about politicians being pissed off when they can no longer eat steak. That will cause some huge changes. Throwing money at this problem would solve it, we have a number of scientists working on the issue but they're all underfunded. I've seen very few labs that aren't desperately in need of funding. You're right in that it wouldn't solve the problem instantly, it would take several years. We do have several years, humans are very resourceful when we have to be.

[LikelyToBreak]

Icarus, what do the rest of us eat while the politicians eat the rest of the steak?  And can we really count on the politicians funding the scientists in time to save most of us?  If not, can you see where I am coming from with my lemming graph?

[Icarus]

Icarus, what do the rest of us eat while the politicians eat the rest of the steak?  And can we really count on the politicians funding the scientists in time to save most of us?  If not, can you see where I am coming from with my lemming graph?

Not really, because scientific research is going on in many countries not just the USA. Some countries have politicians that aren't horribly corrupt. In the end we're just theorising potential outcomes given the little information an individual can record in their brain. I'm sure the actual future will be very different from anything we've said in this thread. I see where you're coming from but I'm horribly biased towards my own profession, which is in the biochemical sciences. If I said we were going to follow the lemmings graph I might as well quit doing research, which I can't.

[Solitary]

Right. This debate raged back in the 70's, largely because of Paul Ehrlich's book The Population Bomb the problem with the book was that the predictions he made didn't happen.

Really? :-?

Number of hungry people in the world:
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that nearly 870 million people, or one in eight people in the world, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2010-2012. Almost all the hungry people, 852 million, live in developing countries, representing 15 percent of the population of developing counties. There are 16 million people undernourished in developed countries (FAO 2012).
 
The number of undernourished people decreased nearly 30 percent in Asia and the Pacific, from 739 million to 563 million, largely due to socio-economic progress in many countries in the region. The prevalence of undernourishment in the region decreased from 23.7 percent to 13.9 percent.

Latin America and the Caribbean also made progress, falling from 65 million hungry in 1990-1992 to 49 million in 2010-2012, while the prevalence of undernourishment dipped from 14.6 percent to 8.3 percent. But the rate of progress has slowed recently.
 
The number of hungry grew in Africa over the period, from 175 million to 239 million, with nearly 20 million added in the last few years. Nearly one in four are hungry. And in sub-Saharan Africa, the modest progress achieved in recent years up to 2007 was reversed, with hunger rising 2 percent per year since then.

Developed regions also saw the number of hungry rise, from 13 million in 2004-2006 to 16 million in 2010-2012, reversing a steady decrease in previous years from 20 million in 1990-1992 (FAO 2012).
The above is based on the new estimates of world hunger by the FAO using revised procedures. It is worth noting that the new estimates give a different answer than the old estimates as the graph below shows (Lappe, 2013).

Children and hunger
Children are the most visible victims of undernutrition. Children who are poorly nourished suffer up to 160 days of illness each year. Poor nutrition plays a role in at least half of the 10.9 million child deaths each year--five million deaths. Undernutrition magnifies the effect of every disease, including measles and malaria. The estimated proportions of deaths in which undernutrition is an underlying cause are roughly similar for diarrhea (61%), malaria (57%), pneumonia (52%), and measles (45%) (Black 2003, Bryce 2005). Malnutrition can also be caused by diseases, such as the diseases that cause diarrhea, by reducing the body's ability to convert food into usable nutrients.

According to the most recent estimate that Hunger Notes could find, malnutrition, as measured by stunting, affects 32.5 percent of children in developing countries--one of three (de Onis 2000). Geographically, more than 70 percent of malnourished children live in Asia, 26 percent in Africa and 4 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean. In many cases, their plight began even before birth with a malnourished mother. Under-nutrition among pregnant women in developing countries leads to 1 out of 6 infants born with low birth weight. This is not only a risk factor for neonatal deaths, but also causes learning disabilities, mental, retardation, poor health, blindness and premature death.

Does the world produce enough food to feed everyone?
The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day according to the most recent estimate that we could find (FAO 2002, p.9). The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.
 
What are the causes of hunger?
What are the causes of hunger is a fundamental question, with varied answers.
Poverty is the principal cause of hunger. The causes of poverty include poor people's lack of resources, an extremely unequal income distribution in the world and within specific countries, conflict, and hunger itself. As of 2008 (2005 statistics), the World Bank has estimated that there were an estimated 1,345 million poor people in developing countries who live on $1.25 a day or less.1 This compares to the later FAO estimate of 1.02 billion undernourished people. Extreme poverty remains an alarming problem in the world's developing regions, despite some progress that reduced "dollar--now $1.25-- a day" poverty from (an estimated) 1900 million people in 1981, a reduction of 29 percent over the period.

 Progress in poverty reduction has been concentrated in Asia, and especially, East Asia, with the major improvement occurring in China. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the number of people in extreme poverty has increased. The statement that 'poverty is the principal cause of hunger' is, though correct, unsatisfying. Why then are (so many) people poor? The next section summarizes Hunger Notes answer.

Harmful economic systems are the principal cause of poverty and hunger. Hunger Notes believes that the principal underlying cause of poverty and hunger is the ordinary operation of the economic and political systems in the world. Essentially control over resources and income is based on military, political and economic power that typically ends up in the hands of a minority, who live well, while those at the bottom barely survive, if they do. We have described the operation of this system in more detail in our special section on Harmful economic systems.

Conflict as a cause of hunger and poverty. At the end of 2005, the global number of refugees was at its lowest level in almost a quarter of a century. Despite some large-scale repatriation movements, the last three years have witnessed a significant increase in refugee numbers, due primarily to the violence taking place in Iraq and Somalia. By the end of 2008, the total number of refugees under UNHCR's mandate exceeded 10 million. The number of conflict-induced internally displaced persons (IDPs) reached some 26 million worldwide at the end of the year .

 Providing exact figures on the number of stateless people is extremely difficult But, important, (relatively) visible though it is, and anguishing for those involved conflict is less important as poverty (and its causes) as a cause of hunger. (Using the statistics above 1.02 billion people suffer from chronic hunger while 36 million people are displaced [UNHCR 2008])

Hunger is also a cause of poverty, and thus of hunger. By causing poor health, low levels of energy, and even mental impairment, hunger can lead to even greater poverty by reducing people's ability to work and learn, thus leading to even greater hunger.
 
Climate change Climate change is increasingly viewed as a current and future cause of hunger and poverty. Increasing drought, flooding, and changing climatic patterns requiring a shift in crops and farming practices that may not be easily accomplished are three key issues. See the Hunger Notes special report: Hunger, the environment, and climate change for further information, especially articles in the section: Climate change, global warming and the effect on poor people such as Global warming causes 300,000 deaths a year, study says and Could food shortages bring down civilization?

Progress in reducing the number of hungry people
There are two sets of issues that must be considered in evaluating progress: estimations of hunger, and goals set.
 
Estimations of hunger. As indicated above, the two FAO estimations differ. Specifically, since 1992, the earlier estimate has hunger going up, while the later has hunger going down.
Secondly, how do you evaluate progress—what goals have been set.

The target set at the 1996 World Food Summit was to halve the number of undernourished people by 2015 from their number in 1990-92. The target set by the Millenium goals was to halve the proportion of hungry people by 2015

World Food Summit target. The target set at the 1996 World Food Summit was to halve the number of undernourished people by 2015 from their number in 1990-92. (FAO uses three year averages in its calculation of undernourished people.)

Progress using the old estimate of world hunger. The number of undernourished people in developing countries using the old estimate was 824 million in 1990-92. In 2010-2012, the number had increased to 870 million people. So rather than being cut in half to 420, the number has increased to 870 million.
Using the new estimates of world hunger, the number of undernourished people was 1 billion in 1990-92 and had decreased to 870 in 2010-12, with the goal 500 million people.

Millenium goal target. Using the old estimates, there were 824 million hungry people in 1990-92 and the world population was 5,370 million (US census estimates for 1991). Thus the proportion was .143 and halving it would be .071. The current proportion (870 million hungry divided by 2013 world population of 7,095) is .122. Thus in 2013 the world is .051 of world population away from reaching this target, or 362 million people.

Using the new estimates, there were 1 billion hungry people in 1990-92 and and the world population was 5,370 million (US census estimates for 1991). Thus the proportion was .18 and halving it would be .09. The current proportion (870 million hungry divided by 2013 world population of 7,095) is .123. Thus in 2013, the world is .033 away, or 234 million people, from reaching this target.
Thus, in summary, the world is from 870 million to 234 million people away from reaching a hunger reduction goal, depending on which goal and which estimate is chosen.

Micronutrients
Quite a few trace elements or micronutrients--vitamins and minerals--are important for health. 1 out of 3 people in developing countries are affected by vitamin and mineral deficiencies, according to the World Health Organization. Three, perhaps the most important in terms of health consequences for poor people in developing countries, are:

Vitamin A Vitamin A deficiency can cause night blindness and reduces the body's resistance to disease. In children Vitamin A deficiency can also cause growth retardation. Between 100 and 140 million children are vitamin A deficient. An estimated 250,000 to 500 000 vitamin A-deficient children become blind every year, half of them dying within 12 months of losing their sight. (World Health Organization)

Iron Iron deficiency is a principal cause of anemia. Two billion people—over 30 percent of the world's population—are anemic, mainly due to iron deficiency, and, in developing countries, frequently exacerbated by malaria and worm infections. For children, health consequences include premature birth, low birth weight, infections, and elevated risk of death. Later, physical and cognitive development are impaired, resulting in lowered school performance. For pregnant women, anemia contributes to 20 percent of all maternal deaths (World Health Organization).

Iodine Iodine deficiency disorders (IDD) jeopardize children´s mental health– often their very lives. Serious iodine deficiency during pregnancy may result in stillbirths, abortions and congenital abnormalities such as cretinism, a grave, irreversible form of mental retardation that affects people living in iodine-deficient areas of Africa and Asia.

 IDD also causes mental impairment that lowers intellectual prowess at home, at school, and at work. IDD affects over 740 million people, 13 percent of the world's population. Fifty million people have some degree of mental impairment caused by IDD (World Health Organization).

Solitary

[Johan]

How can there be too many children? That is like saying there are too many flowers. - Mother Theresa
We're fucked. - Johan

[wolf39us]

Yep, thank you vasectomy!

[Poison Tree]

Currently, a significant part of the starvation problem is a lack of infrastructure. You can have food rotting in a store house and people starving a few 100 miles away, both going to wast because the former can't reach the latter.

[dawiw]

The danger of rapid population growth is the significant decrease in natural resources. We may be fighting over food, water in a worst case scenario,.

[PopeyesPappy]

Currently, a significant part of the starvation problem is a lack of infrastructure. You can have food rotting in a store house and people starving a few 100 miles away, both going to wast because the former can't reach the latter.

This

Waste is the largest part of the hunger problem. We currently produce enough food to feed everyone. Unfortunately half of what we produce is wasted. In developing countries most of the waste is due to difficulties getting from field to market. In developed countries food rots on store shelves, or never makes it to market because selling price is less than what it would take to transport it.

There is no profit in feeding the hungry.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

With glaciers melting off and deserts expanding the water wars can soon begin. The wars and famine will certainly reduce population so all the water rights Pepsico is buying up will be much more manageable, but alas, far fewer living customers to sell syrupy crap to. Well crap.. time to divest my stock portfolio..

[LikelyToBreak]

Icarus wrote in part:

I see where you're coming from but I'm horribly biased towards my own profession, which is in the biochemical sciences. If I said we were going to follow the lemmings graph I might as well quit doing research, which I can't.

NO! Don't quit doing your research!  As you have said and I agree, the only chance we have is in science.   8-[

Solitary quoted in part:

Essentially control over resources and income is based on military, political and economic power that typically ends up in the hands of a minority, who live well, while those at the bottom barely survive, if they do. We have described the operation of this system in more detail in our special section on Harmful economic systems.

This is where the problem is today.  The politicians and warlords, control the people with food.  The yeoman farmer who could supply himself and his family with food was harder to control than the peasant farmer who pretty much lived on the whim of the lord who owned the land.  

This was the way it was in Europe, until the black plague wiped out twenty-five percent of the people.  Then the Lords had to let the peasants thrive more, or they were off to better pickings elsewhere.  The middle class was pretty much started because of the black plaque.  With a shrinking middle class in the US the poor can be abused more.  Because it is the middle class which starts the revolutions changing the way things are.  With too many people we cannot make it so that everyone can achieve all that they can.  

Which, while we may be able to supply subsitance living to 10 billion, 9 billion will be living lives hardly worth living.

Poison Tree wrote:

Currently, a significant part of the starvation problem is a lack of infrastructure. You can have food rotting in a store house and people starving a few 100 miles away, both going to wast because the former can't reach the latter.

Yes, an oil crunch due to reaching peak oil will make this worse.  If there are problems getting food a 100 miles down the road now, how are we going to get it a 2,000 miles across an ocean?  Keep in mind, it is the politicians who have the say on infrastructure.  If the infrastructure doesn't serve their desires, it doesn't happen.  Hitler had the German autobahn built, not because it would help the German people, but it served his needs.  Which were to have something to brag about, while ensuring he had a quicker way to move his army around.

dawiw wrote:

The danger of rapid population growth is the significant decrease in natural resources. We may be fighting over food, water in a worst case scenario,.

Good point.  We are running out of helium even now.  Not a big deal, except to the balloon people, but an example of dwindling resources.

[Icarus]

Icarus wrote in part:

I see where you're coming from but I'm horribly biased towards my own profession, which is in the biochemical sciences. If I said we were going to follow the lemmings graph I might as well quit doing research, which I can't.

NO! Don't quit doing your research!  As you have said and I agree, the only chance we have is in science.   8-[

Thanks for the support but as I said, I can't stop doing research. I would see it as meaningless if I took on a different mindset to the one I have now. Which is why I see your point but I have to keep believing in mine.

[Colanth]

Another thing to keep in mind, just throwing money at a problem won't necessarily solve it.  It takes years for someone to be trained to be a scientist.  Then it takes years for the scientist to come up with results.

Most "results" haven't come from a scientist working to get that result, they've come from pure research.  And we stopped funding pure research quite a while ago, because it doesn't bring results that the stockholders (or bean counters) can see.  (Coming up with a new doo-dah for cellphones isn't science, it's technology.)  Almost any time someone wants to do pure research these days, he's shot down.  There's no money, and how is it going to benefit the company?