[411111111111111]

> Having 50% less people would reduce the overall hunger numbers, but not the ratio.

This argument is flawed because of the we're consuming significantly more resources then our planet could provide sustainably.

Increasing the quantity of consumers will always be detrimental for as long as resources are finite.

[spacemanmatt]

> we're consuming significantly more resources then our planet could provide sustainably.

That is not true of everyone. Billions live on/with very little, sustainably.

[yywwbbn]

There very significantly less trees in Europe (also wildlife in many places) 100 years ago. Same applies for industrial pollution (not CO2 emissions).

[spacemanmatt]

Yes, pollution and climate change affect everyone and I am saying that is entirely unfair because many people did not choose these things, do not contribute, and do not benefit. The loss of trees in Europe is due to global effects, not just pollution in/by Europe.

[yywwbbn]

Sorry, there was a typo in my comment (very -> were). What I wanted to say is that the situation in Europe is actually better in most places now than it was in the past.

[spacebanana7]

With respect to food poverty, the increase in logistics/technology/marketing productivity may well offset some (perhaps all) of the resource pressure that a growing population creates.

Generally speaking, logistics have huge economies of scale (see Amazon) so an increase in market size will reduce the logistics cost per each item of food. Especially, for cold perishable dairy foodstuffs like dairy the cold chain costs may well dominate the costs of cows.

[pyuser583]

But we’re nowhere near capacity in terms of food production. Not even close. Few countries are seriously even trying to maximize food production.

And don’t forget minimizing waste - which is another major part of the picture.