That's exactly what the market will do. The world isn't going to run out of chocolate, the only thing that might happen is the price goes up, then a lot more cocoa gets planted or less people are able to afford it.
Chocolate running out headlines have existed probably as long as newspapers and mass consumer chocolate.
With diseases, world might actually run out of chocolate or at least some varieties of it. Like Panama disease wiped out Gros Michel banana and is now also threatening Cavendish banana. Similarly Frosty Pod Rot seems to be spreading and threatening cocoa plantations.
If the very existence of chocolate were actually threatened, the resources that will be made available to save it would be almost incomprehensible. People really like the stuff, and there is no real substitute.
Bananas aren't that big of a deal for most people, especially if you're looking at going from two popular varieties to one. If the Cavendish gets wiped out too, I'd say that would just be due to people not caring all that much about bananas. I can't imagine the same happening for chocolate.
Actually bananas are a huge deal since they provide the basic nutrition for large populations in many parts of the world. Also Cavendish is the dominant set of varieties world over and there are not many real substitutes for it, yet.
They could grow something else to eat, at least in theory, right? A realistic extinction event should leave plenty of time to switch to another crop.
If bananas went extinct (while people dependent on them were able to switch to some other food), I'd basically just shrug and get on with life. If chocolate went extinct I'd consider it a colossal disaster. I suspect I'm not alone.
I understand that there are a lot of people who care about chocolate and who don't care about banana. I know plenty in the other direction (majority around me).
But there are two points. First is that you are underestimating the kind of role a crop can play in a culture. It is not just a matter of replacing Banana with another crop. It is a matter of changing significant cultural traditions going back hundreds of years. If you think about it, the importance of chocolate is also largely cultural.
Second, it is a philosophical debate that what is more important - something that is basic nutrition for one group or something that is cultural/emotional/luxury/(I can't find the right word for the role chocolate plays) for another. Where the resources will be allocated will depend on who controls those resources and which camp they fall in.
That would be an interesting article, this one however was kinda pointless, as it appeared to be predicated on prices not rising, with only a tiny call out to frosty pod.
Or the market will simply move off of cacao into some other source that's cheaper to source. They'll just change the name to something exotic sounding that doesn't violate regulations on chocolate content "mocha" or "xokolatle" or something that some marketing firm will invent after spending tens of millions of dollars on a branding consultancy.
