Look into the future of what we eat, and you'll start wondering what could happen to our meals. As the world's population surpasses nine billion, our food needs will grow by 50 percent. How do we meet them without clearing more forests or expanding industrial agriculture, one of the most significant contributors to climate change? How do we keep our soil healthy, so that crops can grow well?

These questions are challenging. "But one thing is clear," says food journalist Lin Yee Yuan. "To feed nine billion people," she warns, "we're going to need all hands to the pump."

Many of those hands likely will be trying to find new ways to produce protein as the environmental stress of animal production becomes increasingly great. Animal production represents about one-seventh of all human-made greenhouse gas emissions. Beef produced in concentrated feeding operations typically requires nearly eight times the water and 160 times the land per calorie as vegetables and grain. No wonder United Nations officials have been urging everyone to eat less beef—and new food companies are taking it seriously.

Among them is the producer of the Beyond Burger, a patty with beefy coloring and protein from plants that is already available throughout the United States in about 10,000 grocery stores and many restaurants.

Other solutions take inspiration from nature. By the early 2000s, staff at the Land Institute were selectively breeding a grain to create a variety with better production, seed size, and disease resistance.

Today the result, called Kernza, is growing on 500 acres in the United States. A variety of food producers are readying it for market—including Bien Cuit, a high-end bakery in New York, which has made bread with it, and Hopworks Urban Brewery in Oregon, which sells a Kernza beer. "Whatever our meals may be like in 50 years, climate change will require us to make better use of what we already have," says global food expert Raj Patel. "The 21st century is teaching us that things once thought to be weeds and pests could turn out to be food."

South Korean government has tried everything to persuade women to have babies. Among their initiatives: sponsored housing for new couples, discounted after-childbirth care for new mothers, even a “baby payment” for each new born. Corporate South Korea is also getting in action, trying to delay a population crisis that could see the country’s workforce halve within 50 years.

“We will continue to do what we can as a company to solve the low-birth issue,” Lee Joong-keun, the chairman of Booyoung Group, a Seoul-based construction company, said this month after awarding a total $5.25 million to his employees for babies born since 2021. Other companies are offering payments, too. This development has come about as South Korea’s fertility rate (生育率)—the average number of children a woman has over her lifetime -- has decreased to 0.78 in 2022. That means the population is aging rapidly. “The main reasons behind the falling birthrate are the financial burdens of child care and challenges of balancing work and family,” Lee said.

South Korean president Yoon Suk Yeol praised companies that came up with “tax benefits and other various support measures to boost child birth,” according to his spokes-woman. Despite aggressive efforts, South Korea’s fertility rate is on course to sink further to 0.65 by 2025. This is largely because of the stress put on women, who face fierce workplace discrimination if they want to pursue a career while having children, experts say. South Kore a ranked 105th out of 146 countries in gender equality last year, according to the Global Gender Gap Report.

Whether financial bonus can have a positive impact on fertility remains an unanswered question. “Cash payouts are not affordable nor sustainable options for many companies,” said Yoon In-jin, a sociology professor at Korea University. “More importantly, South Korea’s male-dominated corporate culture has to fundamentally change in favor of working women,” he said. “Korean women will start having more babies if they don’t have to sacrifice their career for it.” Nearly 50% South Korean companies punished workers using parental leave, especially on promotions, according to Labor Ministry statistics.

In the early 1970s, a computer program called World One predicted that civilization would likely collapse in the near future.

When deciding the fate of civilization, the program considered the following variables: pollution, population, the availability of natural resources and global quality of life. The program produced graphs that indicated what would happen to those variables in the future. The graphs identified 2020 as a turning point for civilization.

“At around 2020, the condition of the planet becomes highly unlivable. If we do nothing about it, the quality of life goes down to zero. Pollution becomes so serious that it will start to kill people, which in turn will reduce the population to the level in the 1900 and that civilized life as we know on this planet will disappear around 2040 to 2050.”

This was not the end of the model. In 1972, the Club of Rome published The Limits to Growth, a book that built on a program called World Three. This time the variables were pollution, population, food production, consumption of nonrenewable natural resources and scientific developments.

The Limits to Growth pushed the collapse of civilization to 2072, when the limits of growth would be the most readily apparent and result in population and industrial declines.

The book touched off a fierce media war. The New York Times, for instance, wrote that the book assumed that a resource could never change over time, leaving their data shortsighted to any possible changes in consumption habits.

Writing in The Guardian, Cathy Alexander, a Melbourne-based journalist, argued, “The research does not say that collapse of the world economy, environment and population is a certainty. Nor does it claim the future will unfold exactly as the models predicted. But the findings should sound an alarm bell. It seems unlikely that the search for ever-increasing growth can continue unchecked to 2100 without causing serious negative effects—and those effects might come sooner than we think.”