The question of whether 10 billion mouths can be adequately fed can only be answered in due time when, and if, world population grows to this capacity. By 1992, Paul and Anne Ehrlich, as well as Gretchen Daily, Lester Brown and Hal Kane would all publish material supporting the idea that the world's food suppliers could not possibly sustain a population of 10 billion.
Renowned population pessimists Paul and Anne Ehrlich offer a multifaceted investigation of world hunger and population growth in, "Food Security, Population and Environment". Lester Brown and Hal Kane look at grain prices and stocks as well as use personal income and food prices as economic indicators to point out the inefficiencies of the food supply in their work, "Food Insecurity". In "People and Food", Anne Ehrlich sets out on her own to point out how global climate change factors into the question of sustainability. Their approaches are each different, yet the information they provide and the conclusions they eventually arrive at are similar and enlightening. The authors are equally wary of the optimists and offer valid data in order to counter the offense. More importantly, they make suggestions that can help us prepare for the inevitable.
To best determine if the world's food suppliers can provide for the10 billion
people in our future, it is beneficial to look at the past. In 1960, the
world's population was roughly 3 billion people and the annual population
growth was rising steadily until 1969 when it began to taper off after reaching
2%. Since this time, one cannot argue against the claim that improvements
in agriculture have yet to be seen. The successes in agriculture during
this period, thanks in large part to the Green Revolution, are the reasons
why agriculture yields in 1993 were a 2.6 fold increase from 1950. The most
Astonishing component of this fact is that half of the land used for farming
in 1950 will disappear by the millennium. Looking at the economic side,
it is observed that prices during this same period for general grains have
plummeted roughly 50% even though annual production for the same grains
increased 200%. Wheat prices, in 1985 dollars, were $200 a ton in 1950 and
fell to $100 a ton by 1994; this all happened when personal income, especially
in developed countries, was on the rise. The results from the technological
adjustments and economic prosperity mean that even most poor people ate
relatively well during these years. The irony here that population optimists
have no defense of, is that even during this time where food was aplenty,
deaths from hunger still reached into the millions annually. Beneficiaries
from this period of stifling agricultural output would, however leave a
heavy toll for the next generation to contend with.
The price tag left behind from these years is almost too large to calculate.
The results of overplowing and readily adopting green revolution principles
was unsustainable farmland, pollutants in groundwater and in the air, as
well as diminishing marginal returns on crops due to overfertilization.
The boom of agriculture in the 1960's had been due in large part to subsidies
from the government, especially in the U.S. Following these subsidies, market
prices of grains would decrease and the farmer and consumer were both happy.
In this economy, farmers could keep all of their land full of crops without
ever having to worry about losing money. In 1986, the reevaluation of 14
million hectares of U.S. cropland showed that most of the land itself could
not be farmed sustainably.
Eventually, the government would turn these areas into grassland or forests.
Due in large to poor soil conditions, the amount of resources that went
in to farming this particular area was not worth it. Although this case
is about the U.S., this is not unfamiliar territory throughout the rest
of the world. In many countries, farmland that was once suitable for farming,
or at least thought to be suitable, is no longer sustainable land. The fact
of the matter here is that farmers continue and will continue to plant crops
on land deemed unsustainable. According to Brown and Kane, if the grain
produced in the U.S from "unsustainable" land is deducted from
the world grain output, the surpluses from the last decades cease to exist.
Thus, U.S. government subsidies became scarce in the early 1990's due in
part to the concern that there was more unsustainable land than perceived.
Most importantly, farmers depend upon this "unsustainable" land
in order to make a living and others rely on them in order to avoid starvation.
Green Revolution techniques implemented in the past continuing to plague
policy makers, farmers and consumers alike. Although high yields in grains
from the past thirty years is attributable to revolution, its founder, Norman
Borlaug warned that this was not a magic solution for world hunger. By his
estimation these techniques could delay a hunger disaster for about thirty
years if the population remained the same as it was in 1970. What Borlaug
never factored into his forecast were the ramifications that these techniques
would bear on future generations.
One problem is that green revolution technology plant varieties require
a significant amount of fertilizers in order for the crop to mature properly.
The difficulty with this is that in most developed countries, fertilizers
have reached the point of diminishing returns. In developing countries,
there are two problems with fertilizers. Their cost is substantial relative
to a farmer's income and they require generous amounts of water. Besides
these economic barriers, fertilizers pollute groundwater, a resource essential
to the farmer's output. Pesticides are another threat to the groundwater
supply and many pollute the air during application processes. Without pesticides,
these plant varieties hardly even have a chance in warmer climates where
insects are a nuisance to the farmer. Even if a developing country can afford
pesticides, the majority of green revolution plants cannot withstand the
intense heat of the most needful countries.
As Borlaug predicted, his contribution could only buy time. While these
minor innovations certainly are helpful in the short run, the authors generally
agree that planning is the ultimate solution to coping with hunger on a
planet heading towards overpopulation. One common theme among the reports
is that the distribution of food is, and has been, inherently flawed. Paul
and Anne Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily truly elaborate on what they dub, maldistribution.
The underlying concept of maldistribution stems from the obvious discrepancies
in the wealth of nations. Countries with higher per capita output have relatively
low hunger related problems while people from poorer countries suffer the
consequences of inadequate production. This concept is simple. But since
1960, the "food trade" system has changed in an attempt to better
feed the hungry. Nearly 100 nations depend upon the U.S. and Canada for
a large portion of their grains, an intriguing observation to be investigated
later on. What the authors of "Food Security, Population and Environment"
make clear is that although this distribution system is adequate for the
moment, it cannot contend with a population of 10 billion. The evidence
against this system is that in the last decade alone, 200 million people
starved to death. Millions more are malnourished, a problem that leads to
decreasing educational potential in children, and increases the vulnerability
of AIDS and the Ebola virus. If population optimists claim producers can
feed 10 billion people, then why is it that people die of starvation everyday?
Even though maldistribution may not be the crux of the problem, the investigation
of maldistribution leads to several enlightening concepts that can help
explain the worldwide crisis. In observing food trade in 1993, the Ehrlich's
and Daily find that even if the distribution system is ideal, production
simply cannot match consumption. A model shows that a vegetarian diet based
upon the current harvest would feed about 6 billion. If a diet consisting
of 15% caloric intake from animals were used in the model, 4 billion could
be fed; a normal American diet of 30% ingestion of calories from animals
would feed less than half of the 5.5 billion living in 1992. Adequately
feeding a population of 10 billion would require a tripling of food production
by the year 2040. It is plain to see that although distribution is a challenge,
there is evidence proving that there are absolute shortages in food.
The aforementioned concept that the world is becoming increasingly reliant
upon U.S. and Canadian grain production is another reason why the world
has yet to achieve nutritional security. To get a sense of how reliant the
world is upon this region, the U.S. and Canada control a larger market share
of grain than the Middle East countries control oil. North America's agricultural
history is marred by adverse weather conditions that affect the lives of
all people to some degree or another. Droughts, most recently in 1988, are
the typical culprit. They tend to set off a chain reaction around the world
beginning with the rise in market prices and ending with the deaths of even
millions of people their lives when they occur due to the reliance for food
on this region. A most frightening aspect of the dependence is that it continues
to grow. Failure of U.S. crops today would most send shocks of greater magnitude
through the world than were experienced in 1988. Even more frightful is
the data supporting global climate change, a phenomenon that scientists
predict will especially affect the grain belts of North America.
From data compiled by a variety of respected models and observations, it
seems that global warming will further intensify the global food crunch.
This is due in part to the possibility of more frequent adverse weather
conditions that may affect farming in North America specifically and will
affect all the world's fisheries in general. Anne Ehrlich refers to a Stanford
model that tests the possible effects of global climate change on food security.
The model is confident that the overall deaths from hunger would double
over the next 20 years because of frequent drops in harvests due to unfavorable
weather conditions. These results are not certain, but are general possibilities.
They highlight the trend and put more pressure on policy makers to reassess
the situation in an international manner because, after all, global warming
is relevant to the entire human race.
A sufficient distribution system would respond to the growing population
and its structure would invariably provide adequate helpings for the hungry
in third world nations. Is this system a pipedream? If it is established,
will a population of 10 billion be too many mouths to feed? Hunger problems
existing in the early 1990's are evidence enough that the world does not
have the organization to sustain a population of double its size. Because
food security is a commonality among all humans, the only way to prepare
for dealing with the population model forecasts is to plan together. If
international cooperation has the power to overcome disease and war, elimination
of hunger among today's population is certainly within our grasp.