[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by chuckm

I have problems with postulate B. Regarding food production, thanks to Norman Borlaug's work, we are still far from mass starvation due to an inadequate food supply. The problem today is the economics of food distribution. But consider how many farms have gone fallow in the US alone (we are the world's most productive agricultural powerhouse, both in terms of total harvest and, more importantly, in yield per acre). If current US agri practices could be implemented worldwide, our population could comfortably double. Continuing the advances in genetic engineering of crops, I think we could well sustain triple (or more) the current world population. Throw in the not too distant technology of oceanic aquaculture, and the real food production potential is unbelievable.
The other primary resource necessary for life, water, is a stickier issue. However, current technology puts large-scale purification of ocean water within reach. Again, the problem is the economics. I firmly believe that, within ten to fifteen years, high volume production will be far more economical, enough that even many of the poorest nations will be able to afford the technology.
Other necessities (shelter and power) are also technologically within reach. Once again, it is the economics. That's why I am strident in my belief that bringing about economic prosperity in third-world countries, not a first-world return to "simple" living, will produce the best results. "Green" or environomentally friendly tech is available only to those who are able to afford it.

I don't think so, but I'll suspend that for now and play along. The question then is, why would we want to do this?