The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.
==Attributed to Gandhi
I believe that, with good luck and good management, the world is capable of feeding the world’s people through the hoped-for demographic transition, when population growth levels off.
But I doubt that the world is capable of keeping all of the world’s people at as high a material standard of living as I enjoy as a middle-class American, barring some breakthrough that is beyond my imagination.
Of course the world is not limited by my imagination. I have no way of knowing what the future will be like. Many of fears of 50 or 60 years ago proved unfounded. Maybe my present fears will prove equally unfounded 50 or 60 years from now.
But, as the saying goes, hope is not a plan. Suppose things are what they seem to be.
What is required to provide for everyone’s need? How much is enough?
Back in the 1930s, thinkers such as Bertrand Russell and John Maynard Keynes projected that economic growth would, in the foreseeable future, provide enough so that human beings—at least those in the USA and UK—could cease striving for more and lead lives based on higher values than acquiring money.
This didn’t happen because the definition of “enough” changed.
I am unhappy if my Internet connection goes down for a few days. I am in acute discomfort if my gas furnace ceases to function. But I was happy as a boy without those things, and so were my parents.
If you go back in history, highly civilized people such as Ralph Waldo Emerson or Samuel Johnson lived happily without electricity, indoor plumbing or private automobiles, and their contemporaries put up with pain and discomfort that people today would find unendurable.