The history of agriculture is intertwined with the history of humankind. Each increase in the size of human settlements was accompanied by further sophistication in the cooperative effort to produce, store, and distribute ever-larger quantities of food. New technologies, like the plow and the irrigation ditch, led to new abundance but also new problems, like soil erosion and the buildup of salt in the soil. Progress was slow but steady. Through the centuries, the ratio of population to food supply remained relatively stable, with both growing at a roughly equal rate. But with the scientific revolution in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the human population began surging, and for the first time it seemed possible that the population might soon outstrip the ability of the environment to yield enough food. This fear was articulated at the beginning of the nineteenth century by the English political economist Thomas Malthus; that he was famously wrong has been due to a series of remarkable innovations in the science of agricultural production. Malthus was right in predicting that the population would grow geometrically, but he didn't foresee our ability to make geometric improvements in agricultural technology. Even today, with several countries in the world suffering massive famines, there is little doubt that a commitment to use more land and newer agricultural methods could vastly increase the amount of food produced on earth. The problem we now face is therefore more complicated than the one Malthus identified. In theory, the food supply can keep up with the population for a long while yet, but in practice, we have chosen to escape the Malthusian dilemma by making a set of dangerous bargains with the future worthy of the theatrical legend that haunted the birth of the scientific revolution: Doctor Faustus. Al Gore, Earth In the Balance
Al Gore, Earth In the Balance
Actually I'm rather afraid that Malthus (and Gore) are all too right and we have merely postponed an inevitable reckoning.
Beyond a critical point within a finite space, freedom diminishes as numbers increase. This is as true of humans in the finite space of a planetary ecosystem as it is for gas molecules in a sealed flask. The human question is not how many can possibly survive within the system, but what kind of existence is possible for those who do survive. Frank Herbert, Dune
Frank Herbert, Dune
I suspect the human question of what kind of existence is possible in this finite planetary ecosystem affords the human species a fairly stark choice between two alternatives. I do not believe we can maintain anything like our current global human population while simultaneously maintaining anything like the affluent life styles typical of the populations of the current industrialized, so-called First World nations. I'm quite certain we cannot extend that life style to the billions now living near subsistence levels in the so-called Third World. I suspect that within a generation, two at the most, we in the First World will learn to live a much more austere life style whether we want to or not. Or some billions of the current human population of our planet will cease to survive. Anyone care to guess which alternative will come to pass?
I am at heart a scientist, a technologist. I cling to the hope that reason, science, and the sane application of technology can solve virtually every problem. But the longer we let those who reject reason and science set the agenda, the less hope I have. Now where are we going and what's with the handbasket?
My prediction is an abrupt and painful escalation of environmental predicaments. Many populaces will fail to adapt, or "succeed" in anihilating each other. But on community level, a good portion of them will fare well enough to survive a decade (or two) of utmost hardship. In this sense, I agree with the Oil Drum discussion on social localization. In particular, small communities can handle "tragedies of commons" problems without going into general theoretical discussions.
A couple of days ago you brought-up an interesting point when you commented Climatic Patterns are stable-ish for long periods of time.
that is true when the time period used is based on the fundamental human decision-making time period: (roughly) one second. If one collapses geologic time such that it approximates human time one sees continents merrily whizzing around, bashing into each other, rebounding, joining, spliting apart, & etc.
Actually, my impression from reading works from 150 years ago is that the classical English liberal economists like Smith, Ricardo or J S Mill were Malthusians. They were concerned with "the end state of capitalism" in which profits were low, wages stagnated and there was general misery. J S Mill saw a way our only through population control and universal education. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
And I haven't read Mill, though I know I should, but I wholeheartedly agree with those two points. Now where are we going and what's with the handbasket?
