That there's enough food for everyone and that human hunger/starvation is a political problem, not one of lack of food, was publicized years ago.  But Malthusian concerns are those of overpopulation and its effects on food supplies for humans, without any regard for ecosystems or other species.  From an Earth First! and/or ecological perspective, the problem with human overpopulation is that it's harming the rest of the planet, not that it's causing some humans to go hungry, even though the latter is clearly not the case.

Thank you Sharon.  8)

Fertilizer depends on the oil industry to a large extent. There is a high price on fertilizer now and it will affect world food production this year.

Don't write old malthus off just yet, a couple of bad weather crop failures in different parts of the world and you will have a situation right out of the apocalypse. Regional starvation at best in the Sub-Sahara.

We squandered a 20 year window for Peak Oil and a 40 year window for world food production and poplulation control.

Starring into the abyss is not so bad, being thrown into it will bring the shock of reality home to the planet.

Third world contries will find out how hard the hearts of the industrialized nations are when they start to experience food shortages at home.

They all can't have the luxury of having a nuclear capability to bargain with as North Korea does. Most of you would be amazed to know how many have already starved to death in that country.

Nope, I still have my money on old Malthus, the math is still working in his favor.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

a couple of bad weather crop failures in different parts of the world and you will have a situation right out of the apocalypse.
I have seen compost cited as an equally effective control for Fusarium outbreaks in turfgrass (same fungus causing "white-nose syndrome" in bats). Beyond that however, the re-greening w/ compost vs chemical controls is far superior.

Droughts were not the only thing that caused our Great Dust Bowl. They were just the straw that broke the back of years of unsustainable ag practices...poor rotation, lack of conservation tillage, fossil fuel inputs, etc..

My point: Healthy soil has a vastly superior ability to withstand adverse impacts.

And you are correct of course but going back to my lead in statement. Oil being the main ingredient for fertilizer and that type of fertilizer is not good for soil over time.

I have stated in earlier post I have seen gardens that were conditioned with natural fertilizer, manure from the barn and chicken house that have been tended for over 100 years and the soil is still rich and black and full of nutrients.

The weather always has an effect somewhere, it is just a farmers lot to be held hostage to it. Good soil can recover from a year or two of drought if tilled properly. Soil that has been burned out by the hot fertilizers used today will take longer to recover if ever.

To coax from the soil the ever increasing supply of food needed to meet the demands of an over populated earth with petroleum based fertilizers is a disaster in the making.

Now that the price of oil has put the price of this soil steroid out of reach of many third world farmers the result will be as predicted above.

When you factor in the climate changes and associated drought brought about by global warming the term apoyocalytic will not be considered an exaggeration.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

I'm with Wolverine and anotherID. Agriculture was our true original sin.  Agriculture simplifies ecosystems, diverting a greater share of energy and nutrient fluxes into human biomass, at the expense of all other species.

The invention of agriculture allowed the human population to expand beyond the ecological carrying capacity of the earth. It led to our estrangement from nature, and from each other when stored food created opportunities for the strong to dominate the weak.

Of course it's too late to go back. It does mean, however, that as long as global human population is increasing, all "sustainability" measures are rear-guard actions at best.

It led to our estrangement from nature, and from each other when stored food created opportunities for the strong to dominate the weak.

Of course it's too late to go back.
Its not too late. Its cyclical....liberals/conservatives....conventional/organic....there are still some folks around who recognize that "organic" used to be "conventional" or just plain ole good common horse sense  ;)

I'm not saying we need to go backwards. Too linear a debate. Consider how much we've learned about soil biology since the industrial revolution. Consider mycorrhizal fungi and how new their discovery still is. The glue they make we're learning is vastly important to healthy soil, and btw carbon capture. My concern is that we dont destroy our chances of learning about these mysteries before we have the opportunity.