On a tangent, I wish that people talking about food insecurity would stop using the term “hunger” for it. I was expecting an interesting article about the sensation of hunger. That term is not...
On a tangent, I wish that people talking about food insecurity would stop using the term “hunger” for it. I was expecting an interesting article about the sensation of hunger. That term is not only ambiguous but it undersells the trouble of people who have problems getting enough food. Hunger is just a part of their predicament; it’s the physical and mental tolls that starvation brings that are the more pressing issue.
I do recall that food abundance is one of those 'snake eating itself' problems. Humans are still fundementally much the same as animals, and will increase their population until it meets or...
I do recall that food abundance is one of those 'snake eating itself' problems.
Humans are still fundementally much the same as animals, and will increase their population until it meets or exceeds the food supply.
Every step we take to insure nobody goes hungry is one step further to a bigger population.
Barring authoritarian measures like mandatory birth control and forced sterilization, I don't forsee that changing. Voluntary measures will definitely slow it substantially, if free access is available. If the moral stigmas around birth control and the terrible side effects are mitigated, it may well be enough.
To be clear: I do think it's a moral imperitive to feed everyone well. However, it must be understood that in doing so, it will be harder to do so in the future, especially if you have the religious folks crying blood murder about abortions and birth control.
Also, apparenly we don't have abundance, at least not in the ways that matter. 1/4 people on the planet being nutrient deficient means insufficient access to a variety of foods, and 1/8 facing inad3uate food as a whole.
It doesn't matter much if we can produce corn for 10 billion if a billion can't access it and 2 billion can't access other varieties of food.
Does increasing caloric availability actually lead to higher procreation rates in humans? It seems like the USA implies that isn't an ironclad association, given the birth rate and calories...
Does increasing caloric availability actually lead to higher procreation rates in humans? It seems like the USA implies that isn't an ironclad association, given the birth rate and calories consumption. That said, I haven't looked into it in detail. It just seems like there are features of modern human society that makes that sort of strong link between calories and population less true.
Birth rates and economic development are VERY inversely correlated in the modern world. If we make the (probably safe) assumption that living in a more economically developed country means you're...
Does increasing caloric availability actually lead to higher procreation rates in humans? It seems like the USA implies that isn't an ironclad association, given the birth rate and calories consumption.
Birth rates and economic development are VERY inversely correlated in the modern world. If we make the (probably safe) assumption that living in a more economically developed country means you're more likely to have food abundance, it seems exceptionally unlikely that caloric availability leads to more procreation for humans.
The point is that, at the moment, food security crisis is not due to food scarcity in general, but due to other factors that affect its distribution. For example, a chunk of the population suffers...
The point is that, at the moment, food security crisis is not due to food scarcity in general, but due to other factors that affect its distribution. For example, a chunk of the population suffers due to caloric abundance, while another suffers due to caloric deficit. This even often happens in countries facing famine. You should check out Amartya Sen's research on famine.
I'm not sure it's that cut and dry though. While the global population is increasing, most first world nations are dealing with dropping birth rates despite increasing food security. I see where...
I'm not sure it's that cut and dry though. While the global population is increasing, most first world nations are dealing with dropping birth rates despite increasing food security. I see where your coming from, but I think there's a turning point where additional factors like general comfort and stability that comes with living in a nation where most people are food secure can lead to a decline in birth rates largely due to people not wanting to give up their independence and flexibility to raise children. Many comparisons of human to other animals are useful models to try to predict behavior from, but for all our similarities to other organisms, there seems to be just as many differences due to how different our needs (or at least our perceived needs) are from them.
So while for many organisms food security absolutely leads to an exponential population boom until their resources get depleted, humans seem to to have a 20-30 year turn around where generations stop having as many kids. So maybe you don't need draconian policies to prevent too many kids so long as a few generations get access to affordable, abundant entertainment and safe, comfortable housing. Could it be the Internet is the best birth control out there???*
*This is a bit sarcastic but I'm not sure that totally comes through. 😂 I'm mostly just poking at how complex the variables that pull on population growth at least in humans are. I haven't spent much time reading or researching this, these thoughts are mostly just off personal thoughts and observation.
On a tangent, I wish that people talking about food insecurity would stop using the term “hunger” for it. I was expecting an interesting article about the sensation of hunger. That term is not only ambiguous but it undersells the trouble of people who have problems getting enough food. Hunger is just a part of their predicament; it’s the physical and mental tolls that starvation brings that are the more pressing issue.
I do recall that food abundance is one of those 'snake eating itself' problems.
Humans are still fundementally much the same as animals, and will increase their population until it meets or exceeds the food supply.
Every step we take to insure nobody goes hungry is one step further to a bigger population.
Barring authoritarian measures like mandatory birth control and forced sterilization, I don't forsee that changing. Voluntary measures will definitely slow it substantially, if free access is available. If the moral stigmas around birth control and the terrible side effects are mitigated, it may well be enough.
To be clear: I do think it's a moral imperitive to feed everyone well. However, it must be understood that in doing so, it will be harder to do so in the future, especially if you have the religious folks crying blood murder about abortions and birth control.
Also, apparenly we don't have abundance, at least not in the ways that matter. 1/4 people on the planet being nutrient deficient means insufficient access to a variety of foods, and 1/8 facing inad3uate food as a whole.
It doesn't matter much if we can produce corn for 10 billion if a billion can't access it and 2 billion can't access other varieties of food.
Does increasing caloric availability actually lead to higher procreation rates in humans? It seems like the USA implies that isn't an ironclad association, given the birth rate and calories consumption. That said, I haven't looked into it in detail. It just seems like there are features of modern human society that makes that sort of strong link between calories and population less true.
Birth rates and economic development are VERY inversely correlated in the modern world. If we make the (probably safe) assumption that living in a more economically developed country means you're more likely to have food abundance, it seems exceptionally unlikely that caloric availability leads to more procreation for humans.
The point is that, at the moment, food security crisis is not due to food scarcity in general, but due to other factors that affect its distribution. For example, a chunk of the population suffers due to caloric abundance, while another suffers due to caloric deficit. This even often happens in countries facing famine. You should check out Amartya Sen's research on famine.
I'm not sure it's that cut and dry though. While the global population is increasing, most first world nations are dealing with dropping birth rates despite increasing food security. I see where your coming from, but I think there's a turning point where additional factors like general comfort and stability that comes with living in a nation where most people are food secure can lead to a decline in birth rates largely due to people not wanting to give up their independence and flexibility to raise children. Many comparisons of human to other animals are useful models to try to predict behavior from, but for all our similarities to other organisms, there seems to be just as many differences due to how different our needs (or at least our perceived needs) are from them.
So while for many organisms food security absolutely leads to an exponential population boom until their resources get depleted, humans seem to to have a 20-30 year turn around where generations stop having as many kids. So maybe you don't need draconian policies to prevent too many kids so long as a few generations get access to affordable, abundant entertainment and safe, comfortable housing. Could it be the Internet is the best birth control out there???*
*This is a bit sarcastic but I'm not sure that totally comes through. 😂 I'm mostly just poking at how complex the variables that pull on population growth at least in humans are. I haven't spent much time reading or researching this, these thoughts are mostly just off personal thoughts and observation.
It's a good, short summary of common myths about hunger. It needs a "slight" update, as Covid-19 led to an increase in hunger.