Finite world

When still in that introspective mode, let us see what Nobel laureate Paul Krugman says in his column in New York Times about this finite world in terms of economy.

Rightly, he points as expected to how the primary driving force behind rising commodity prices isn’t demand from the United States, but from China and other emerging economies. 'As more and more people in formerly poor nations are entering the global middle class, they’re beginning to drive cars and eat meat, placing growing pressure on world oil and food supplies.

'And those supplies aren’t keeping pace. Conventional oil production has been flat for four years; in that sense, at least, peak oil has arrived.'

He goes on to note how extreme weather, driven by climate change possibly, has also played an important role in driving up food prices.

However, while concluding that the commodity prices are a 'sign that we’re living in a finite world, one in which resource constraints are becoming increasingly binding', he goes on to offer a consolation that this will not mean the end to economic growth, or a collapse. 'It will require that we gradually change the way we live, adapting our economy and our lifestyles to the reality of more expensive resources'.

Are we missing the vital aspect here? Sure, for some time at least there will be food, energy, water, but these will be so expensive that only few with the money can buy it. Soon enough catastrophe will follow.

Simply because we are dealing with a finite world and making infinite demands with our rising population. By mid-century we are poised to hit the 10 billion mark.

We must learn to live with less, less of food, water and energy. There is no way out of that. Is there?

Perhaps as costs of essential commodities keep rising, we will be forced to make the effort. Perhaps the new year will see a changing trend.