Future collapse: how optimistic should we be?

1st paragraph: Prof. Kelly FRS is optimistic about the chances of avoiding a collapse, but sadly we find his arguments entirely unpersuasive. For example, have Malthus (or we) really been wrong about food security? Roughly 850 million people are seriously undernourished (lacking sufficient calories) today, and perhaps 2 billion are malnourished (lacking one or more essential nutrients) [1]. When Malthus lived, there were only about 1 billion people on the planet. We agree that there are many things that could be done to feed today’s population of 7.1 billion, or even perhaps over 9 billion in 2050. Many of them (e.g. limiting waste) have been discussed for 50 years with little sign of progress. We do not think any serious analyst doubts that, if it were equitably distributed, today’s food production could nourish everyone adequately. Equally, we know of no serious analyst who believes such distribution is likely in the future. The concern is that climate disruption combined with other problems with the agricultural system will make it impossible to feed an ever larger future population, even if equal distribution were achieved. That concern is reinforced by the recent observation that, even before the likely heavy impacts of climate disruption on agriculture appear, production is failing to keep pace with projected needs [2].