We are a long way from figuring out how best to respond
– and it is clear that the current model is lining up to be a train wreck of epic
proportions.
The Malthusian Dilemma: 18th century economist Thomas
Malthus concluded that "The power of
population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce
subsistence for man". In very simple terms, he pointed out that, since
population growth is exponential and productivity gains are incremental
(geometric), food supply will always limit population growth. In other words: If
there is food available, populations explode until they are limited by their
ability to produce more food. In the 200 years since Malthus, we have seen proof
of his theory. Periods of population growth are always preceded by a revolution
in agricultural productivity.
In 1850, it took 8 people to feed 10. Today it takes 2. The
four largest ‘spurts’ in population correspond to the four great agricultural
productivity innovations:
·
Transportation: The late 1800’s – rail brought
food to the city and goods to the farm. It also started the exodus from farm to
city. Farmers began to produce more than they consumed.
·
Mechanization – The mid 1900’s tractors drove
the acreage tillable by one person from under 40 to over 1,000.
·
Cheap Nitrogen – Until 1915, nitrogen (the single most important nutrient in
growth rate) came from manure. The Haber-Bosch
process (invented about 1915) gave us the ability to make nitrogen fertilizer from
natural gas. Today, conservative estimates say that 60% of our yields are
accomplished through the use of chemical fertilizers – nearly all of which come
from oil and gas.
·
Genetics
– In the second half of the 1900’s, genetics quadrupled corn yield and
increased animal production nearly 10-fold.
World
population growth rate has exceeded 2% four times throughout all of human
history: 1880’s, 1940’s, 1950s and 1960’s (where it peaked at 2.3%/yr.). Since
the 1970’s, it has slowed to about 1%.
A few not so fun facts:
Today we are adding the population of Germany to our planet every year (80 million).
97% of population growth is happening in agriculturally (and economically) ‘poor’ countries.
Virtually ALL population growth is occurring in cities.
When cities grow, for historical reasons, around markets and transportation, they typically displace the best agricultural land.
20% of the population consumes nearly 80% of the agricultural output – mainly caused by demand for animal protein in the ‘wealthy’ countries: US, Canada, Japan, Australia and Saudi Arabia. (It takes 18 lbs. of grain to produce 1 lb. of beef.)
As economies around the world develop, the demand for animal protein is growing 7 times faster than the demand vegetable-based foods.
The US produces 35% of the world’s wheat, 60% of the corn and 20% of the rice.
Most of the land in China, India, Africa and other areas where the population is growing will not produce food without irrigation and chemical fertilizers.
US corn yield is 155 bu/acre. In India it is 26. US milk/day/cow is 80 lbs. In India it is 8.
In considering the issue, a real solution exists only within a
very few actions:
1.
Limit population growth: This, of course, is THE
solution, but a very morally and philosophically delicate one to implement.
However, since out of control birth-rates are primarily driven by ignorance,
religious zeal and poor government policy, it can and should be impacted on
those platforms.
2.
Limit the consumption of animals: A moral
imperative for the ‘wealthy’. Meat, as a nutritional ‘need’, was born of
abundance and followed by gluttony. It is not a requirement for good health –
and, in fact, may be at the root of a subclass of the food crisis –
malnutrition in the face of obesity. Moreover, the ‘wealthy’ have many important
food choices often not available to the vast majority: organic, local,
sustainable, perishable, heirloom – and access to huge variety.
3. Drive another revolution in agricultural
productivity (including sustainability and real nutrition): Take off the
shackles of the techno-fearing fanatics and fund this - and it will produce
results. It is our quickest way to a solution – keeping in mind that it is only
a short-term fix if not done thoughtfully, with an eye to sustainability, real
nutrition and population growth. (Of course, more food, without controlled
population growth, just delays the inevitable.) Our past jump to technology may
have created some unintended consequences - issues that need not be repeated - but, without it, the population
is already too big.
No fan of government intervention, I would prefer to drive these
changes at the individual level. Personal commitment and grass roots movement
can (and does) go a long way. However, food supply may be one of the few things
(like roads, human rights and security) that our governments should provide.
And the consequence of not taking action on any or all of
the above? The US will be compelled, by moral obligation or force, to feed an
insatiable world. Make no mistake: Starvation is a mighty motivator, desperation is a super-rational rule-rewriter,
and envy a sure cause of resentment and violence. At the very worst, the
starving hordes, having very little to lose, with take our food-wealth by force
– likely resulting in what we have always feared most as the world-enders: nuclear
confrontation, energy depletion, Armageddon by pandemic and/or rule by
religious/political zealots. At the very least, this will dramatically change our environment, cost of living, cost of energy, cost of foreign aid, world-role, political orientation - and will grant huge power to agribusiness.
