As many here probably know I enjoy reading Gwynne Dyer.
Found this to be interesting to think of. Consider all the problems that might occur if there truly is a food shortage in the world. What might we all have to do and what are the repercussions if things do not get 'fixed' enough for people to have enough to eat. As Gwynne says "eating is a non-
negotiable activity. Today Russia, tomorrow the world."
This is the vision of the future that has the soldiers and security experts worried: a world where access
to enough food becomes a big political and strategic issue even for developed countries that do not
have big surpluses at home. It would be a very ugly world indeed, teeming with climate refugees and
failed states and interstate conflicts over water (which is just food at one remove).
The world grain reserve, which was 150 days of eating for everybody on the planet ten years ago, has
fallen to little more than a third of that. (The “world grain reserve” is not a mountain of grain somewhere,
but the sum of all the grain from previous harvests that is still stored in various places just before the
next big Northern Hemisphere harvest comes in.)
We now have a smaller grain reserve globally than a prudent civilisation in Mesopotamia or Egypt
would have aimed for 3,000 years ago. Demand is growing not just because there are more people, but
because there are more people rich enough to put more meat into their diet.
Re: Enough food?
Not many people can wrap their brains around how the Chinese have improved their diets and have the money to continue importing beans even at higher prices. What is a real shame is how the corupt governments in Africa starve their people, that rich area of the world should be a net exporter of food. Also counties who count on a "just in time" supply of food can really get bitten in the arse in times of shortages.