That would require quite the famine, to kill every human. We are omnivore foragers: we eat whatever we can find. To kill us all would require something that got rid of damn near every edible food we know. Including things like dandelions and mongongo nuts. I doubt that's likely.
What seems far more likely to me is that humanity will survive, but for a few generations it will be a survival in a food desert, until our population rebalances to the resources available, and, much like what happened in the aftermath of the wars of the Khans, our environment starts healing. I don't think this will happen within my lifetime (and I'm in my early 20s), but I'd be surprised if, in my lifetime, humanity's quality of life, purely in terms of our ability to feed, clothe, and treat ourselves, didn't noticeably drop.
Growth must not be humanity's end goal. If that's all we work towards, then we literally are cancer of the environment: abnormal creatures with uncontrolled growth.
It does not make much sense to talk about fresh water supply on scales larger than aquifer.
Some are strained, and wars may be started over some, but Egypt and the Sudan starting a war over the Nile really doesn't have many implications at all for people who get their fresh water elsewhere. It won't make water more expensive in North Dakota; wells in Australia will still produce fresh water as Egyptian and Sudanese soldiers burn on the battlefield. Fresh water isn't like oil, it is not a traded commodity (and if we consumed it in small enough quantities to ship around like we ship oil, then there would be no shortage concerns).
There are plenty of concerns, but they are regional concerns with regional solutions. Some of those solutions may be "Find somewhere else to live", or even "Wait until enough of the population in this area dies, so that the water supply is sufficient for the survivors". These possible resolutions are not pleasant resolutions.. but the world seems to have a knack for being less than pleasant.
My point here is that there is no reason for these regional issues and their potentially horrific resolutions to threaten the survival of the species itself. We are too resilient for that. Should that be comforting? Who knows. Probably not.
Sure, they have some problems with hydraulic fracturing... a solution to that problem won't help Egypt, and a solution to Egypt's problem won't help North Dakota. Widespread regional issues are still regional issues.
Honestly, I think we'll survive, but if we do die, it will be because we can either no longer eat or fuck, and since we are so good at finding or making things to eat, I figure the famine must be logistics based.
I also think that, more likely than not, the standard quality of life will continue to rise. It has been getting better for a very long time now, and we seem to have some significant momentum in that regard.
What seems far more likely to me is that humanity will survive, but for a few generations it will be a survival in a food desert, until our population rebalances to the resources available, and, much like what happened in the aftermath of the wars of the Khans, our environment starts healing. I don't think this will happen within my lifetime (and I'm in my early 20s), but I'd be surprised if, in my lifetime, humanity's quality of life, purely in terms of our ability to feed, clothe, and treat ourselves, didn't noticeably drop.
Growth must not be humanity's end goal. If that's all we work towards, then we literally are cancer of the environment: abnormal creatures with uncontrolled growth.