Summary: For centuries, people feared that population growth would outstrip food supply, leading to famine and collapse. Yet wheat tells a different story: production has soared, yields have multiplied, and the cost in human effort has plummeted. Despite wars, droughts, and disruptions, innovation and open markets have made wheat more abundant than ever.

The Reverend Thomas Malthus (1766–1834) got it backwards. In his 1798 Essay on Population he warned that “the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio.”

Malthus even added, with no small dose of condescension, that “a slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second.”

When Malthus published his essay, the world’s population hovered around 1 billion. By 1960 it had reached 3 billion. Today it stands at roughly 8.2 billion. And yet, instead of mass starvation, food production has outpaced population growth. Consider wheat.

According to the US Department of Agriculture, since 1960 wheat production has surged by 250 percent, while the world’s population grew by only 171 percent. For every 1 percent increase in population, wheat production rose by 1.46 percent. Even more remarkable, this bounty came from just 9 percent more arable land. Wheat yields—the amount harvested per acre—have soared by 271 percent.

But what about the time price? Glad you asked. Since 1960, the time price of wheat has fallen by 85.7 percent.

Put differently, the time it took to earn the money to buy a single bushel of wheat now buys almost seven bushels.

Yes, there have been moments when wheat prices spiked—due to droughts, wars, and politics. Yet with fewer conflicts, relentless innovation, and open markets, wheat has only grown more abundant. If Reverend Malthus could see our world today, I suspect he’d be relieved—and perhaps even delighted—that human ingenuity proved him to be so spectacularly wrong.

Find more of Gale’s work at his Substack, Gale Winds.

Summary: With plausibly up to a trillion burgers sold worldwide, McDonald’s has become one of the most recognizable symbols of abundance and convenience. Its cheeseburger now takes far less work time to afford than in the past, reflecting broad gains in prosperity. McDonald’s has grown into a cultural touchstone, serving communities across the globe.

In 1948, McDonald’s offered nine items on its menu. This helped simplify operations and lower costs. McDonald’s stopped officially counting its hamburger sales after surpassing 100 billion burgers in 1994. However, based on recent estimates of roughly 75 burgers sold every second—or approximately 2.36 billion per year—the total number of burgers sold by McDonald’s is likely in the hundreds of billions, with some sources suggesting McDonald’s has already sold its trillionth burger.

My favorite McDonald’s item is the cheeseburger. It’s been my top choice since 1973, when McDonald’s first came to my hometown. This product will provide you with 300 calories, 15 grams of protein, 31 grams of carbohydrates, 13 grams of fat, and 720 milligrams of sodium. I think it’s delicious and a great food value.

In 1948, entry-level workers were earning around 66 cents an hour. A 19 cent cheeseburger would cost them around 17.4 minutes. Today they’re $1.99 and entry-level food service workers are earning $18.67 an hour, putting the time price at 6.4 minutes. The time price has dropped by 63 percent: You get 2.7 cheeseburgers today for the time price of one in 1948.

Today, with over 41,800 stores in 118 countries and global sales of $130 billion, chances are, wherever you go in the world you can find the Golden Arches calling you. Approximately 93 percent of the restaurants are owned and operated by independent franchisees, which has made many of them millionaires.

Chris Arnade has written extensively about how important McDonald’s is to American culture. He has a PhD in physics from Johns Hopkins University and worked for 20 years as a trader at an elite Wall Street bank before leaving in 2012 to become a photojournalist. His writings include many beautiful photographs that reveal the central role McDonald’s plays in many communities. Please take a few minutes to enjoy his work here.

Writing this has made me hungry. Time to add to that trillion burger count.

Find more of Gale’s work at his Substack, Gale Winds.

Summary: The International Court of Justice has suggested nations could be held liable for historic greenhouse gas emissions, opening the door to lawsuits over centuries of industrial activity. Yet this approach risks punishing the very innovations that lifted billions out of poverty and advanced human health and flourishing. Lasting progress on climate challenges will come not from courtroom battles, but from technological solutions and continued economic development.

The International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion purporting to establish legal grounds that would allow nations to sue one another over climate damages represents judicial overreach that ignores economic history and threatens global development. While the opinion was undeniably legally adventurous, the framework it envisages would be practically unworkable as well as economically destructive.

The ICJ’s ruling suggests countries can be held liable for historical emissions of planet-warming gases. That creates an accounting nightmare that no legal system can resolve. How does one calculate damages from coal burned in Manchester in 1825 versus emissions from a Beijing power plant in 2025? How does one stack up the harm caused by a warming world against the benefits of industrialization?

Britain began large-scale coal combustion during the Industrial Revolution, when atmospheric CO₂ concentrations were 280 parts per million and climate science did not exist. Holding Britain liable for actions taken without knowledge of consequences violates basic principles of jurisprudence. The same applies to the United States, whose early industrialization occurred during an era when maximizing economic output was considered unambiguously beneficial to human welfare.

Critics of historical emissions ignore what those emissions purchased. British coal combustion powered textile mills that clothed much of the world, steam engines that revolutionized transportation, and factories that mass-produced goods previously available only to elites. American industrialization followed, creating assembly lines, electrical grids, and chemical processes that form the backbone of modern civilization.

These developments were not zero-sum exercises in resource extraction. They created knowledge, infrastructure, and institutions that benefited everyone. The steam engine led to internal combustion engines, which enabled mechanized agriculture that now feeds 8 billion people. Coal-powered steel production made possible skyscrapers, bridges, and the infrastructure that supports modern cities, where most humans now live longer, healthier lives than their ancestors.

The data on human welfare improvements since industrialization began are explicit. Global life expectancy increased from approximately 29 years in 1800 to 73 years today. Infant mortality rates fell from over 40 percent to under 3 percent. Extreme poverty, defined as living on less than $2.15 per day in purchasing power parity terms, declined from over 80 percent of the global population in 1800 to under 10 percent today.

Nutrition improved dramatically. Caloric availability per person has increased by roughly 40 percent since 1960 alone, while food prices relative to wages fell consistently. Height, a reliable indicator of childhood nutrition, increased significantly across all regions. Educational attainment expanded from literacy rates below 10 percent globally in 1800 to over 85 percent today.

These improvements correlate directly with energy consumption and industrial development. Countries that industrialized earliest experienced these welfare gains first, then transmitted the knowledge and technology globally. The antibiotics developed in American and European laboratories now save lives worldwide. The agricultural techniques pioneered in industrialized nations now feed populations that would otherwise face starvation.

The International Court of Justice’s liability framework threatens to undermine the very mechanisms that created these welfare improvements. Innovation requires investment, which requires confidence in property rights and legal stability. If successful economic development subjects countries to retroactive liability, the incentive structure tilts away from growth and toward stagnation.

Consider current developing nations. Under this legal framework, should India or Nigeria limit their industrial development to avoid future liability? Should they forgo the coal and natural gas that powered Western development? That creates a perverse situation where the legal system penalizes the exact processes that lifted billions from poverty.

The framework also ignores technological solutions. The same innovative capacity that created the Industrial Revolution is now producing renewable energy technologies, carbon capture systems, and efficiency improvements that address climate concerns without sacrificing development. Market incentives and technological progress offer more promise than legal blame assignment.

Which emissions count as legally actionable? All anthropogenic CO₂ remains in the atmosphere for centuries, making every emission since 1750 potentially relevant. Should liability begin with James Watt’s steam engine improvements in 1769? With the first coal-fired power plant? With Henry Ford’s assembly line? The temporal boundaries are arbitrary and politically motivated rather than scientifically determined.

Similarly, which countries qualify as defendants? The largest current emitters include China and India, whose recent emissions dwarf historical American and British totals. China alone now produces more CO₂ annually than the United States and Europe combined. Any coherent liability framework must address current emissions, not just historical ones.

And where would the money go? This aspect of the case was brought up by Vanuatu. If the island nation receives compensation from the UK and the US, should it not be obliged to pay the British and the Americans for a plethora of life-enhancing Western discoveries, including electricity, vaccines, the telephone, radio, aviation, internet, refrigeration, and navigation systems?

Climate adaptation and mitigation require technological innovation and economic growth, not legal warfare between nations. The countries that industrialized first possess the technological capacity and institutional knowledge to develop solutions to today’s problems. Channeling resources toward litigation rather than innovation represents a misallocation that benefits lawyers while harming global welfare.

The ICJ opinion reflects wishful thinking rather than practical policy. Legal frameworks cannot repeal economic reality or reverse the historical processes that created modern prosperity. Instead of seeking retroactive justice for emissions that enabled human flourishing, policymakers should focus on technologies and institutions that sustain development while addressing environmental concerns. The alternative is a world where legal systems punish success and innovation while offering nothing constructive in return.

The original version of this article was published in National Review on 8/12/2025.

“More children worldwide are now obese than underweight for the first time, due partly to rampant junk food access, the United Nations said in a new report.

While the share of school-aged children and teenagers who are underweight has fallen since the turn of the century – from 13 per cent to 9.2 per cent – obesity rates have risen from 3 per cent to 9.4 per cent, according to UNICEF, the United Nations Children’s Fund.

The only regions where children are still more likely to be underweight than obese are sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

That translates to about 188 million children aged 5 to 19 with obesity globally in 2025, putting them at risk of serious health complications, the report warned. An estimated 184 million children are underweight.”

From Euronews.