The Fertility Implosion

The Fertility Implosion
nytimes.com

Resource isn't much of a problem either if you consider nuclear energy and asteroid mining. Currently we either don't exploit it due to the political environment, or can't exploit it due to technological limits.

I would argue that the food storage and resource storage are a result of institutional and societal problems. That is, war and corruption done more than enough to incite famine and other ills while undeveloped markets disrupt our ability to distribute food and other resources to those that need it the most.

Plus, there's something to be said for humans as the storage of knowledge and expertise. Humanity built entire civilization based on division of labor and specialization, not on the back of a few genius. The more people there are, the more genius we have.

Remember, we barely can absorb the energy of the sun for our own use!

All of that aside, I also think that there are factors more important than the relative number of old people in a given population. Technological development, public health, etc. are all probably more important, and some of those factors are at odds with high fertility.

That being said...

1) What upcoming food shortage? Food production is largely a solved problem. We know how to sustainably produce large amounts of food from a given amount of arable land, and we have plenty of arable land to feed not just the current global population, but the projected maximum global population. It's true! We already have the ability to feed the largest population we'll ever have. True, Africa currently has food shortages, but as soon as Africa stops relying on peasant farming, that problem goes away. We can argue about when (or if) Africa is going to finally have their own Green Revolution[0], but...upcoming shortages? Do you know something the rest of us don't? :)

2) I might ask what upcoming resource shortage, but that's a more complicated question, and probably not worth arguing about. Still, you might want to consider the outcome of the Simon-Erlich wager[1], look at commodity price trends over the last couple decade, and then look at futures prices. Would you take Erlich's side in a repeat of the original wager? I wouldn't, and it's worth noting that Erlich and his ideological allies have repeatedly refused to do so. Again, what do you know that they don't?

3) Also, this is wonderful news for "investors" too (why beat around the bush? Call them "capitalists"; you know you want to...). Trust me, the slavering capitalist dogs are VASTLY more interested in having a rich China full of consumers than in having a poor China full of workers. It might be nice to have cheap Chinese labour making iPods to sell to 300m rich Americans, but it will be FANTASTIC to have cheap robot labour making iPods to sell to 1.3b rich Chinese. (And that's precisely the scenario you're envisioning.) Lower costs and higher sales is how capitalists make their money in the real world.

4) Finally, it remains to be seen how good it will be environmentally. In the short run (say, the next 50 years), it probably won't be. Much as with population growth, we see an inverted curve. Very poor countries can't afford to pollute, and very rich ones can afford not to - but right in the middle you end up polluting a bunch. We went through that period in the late 19th and early 20th centuries; now it's China's turn. They're producing less pollution for every dollar of GDP each year, but their GDP is climbing much faster. The environment is likely to get worse before it gets better. (Of course, look on the bright side: We are conquering global inequality, and the environment will recover eventually. Those are both GREAT. But let's not get carried away.)

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager

(I had a strong personal reaction to your tone; I find your tone really unpleasant. I recognise this is my problem. Sorry.)

You're right that there is enough food for everyone to be fed and live a productive life.[1] But there are still extensive problems sharing that food out.

Just one example: almost half of children under 5 in Nepal are stunted because of chronic malnutrition.[2]

Developing countries spend too much money importing food.[3]

There are problems now that are hard to overcome in future - climate change, desertification, salination, rates of HIV / AIDS in the farming population, migration, etc. Here's a set of photos showing some problems. (http://www.irinnews.org/photo/Slideshow/43/Too-Poor-to-Farm)

But there are interesting methods that show some promise - such as 'empowering women'.[4]

I don't think we are conquering global inequality. I think it's getting worse. And the environment might not recover eventually; it might go into runaway heating and boil off the atmosphere. Or it might recover eventually, after having killed off all human life.

[1] (http://www.wfp.org/hunger/faqs)

[2] (http://www.irinnews.org/Photo/Details/201112300839360722/A-y...)

[3] (http://www.irinnews.org/In-depth/77872/72/A-global-food-cris...)

[4] (http://www.irinnews.org/Report/95038/FOOD-Reduce-hunger-nurt...)