Who's job is it to feed the world?

[600cc]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130801125704.htm

 

Demand for crops is expected to double by 2050 as population grows and increasing affluence boosts meat consumption. Meat takes a particularly big toll on food security because it takes up to 30 crop calories to produce a single calorie of meat. In addition, crops are increasingly being used for biofuels rather than food production. This study sought to quantify the benefit to food security that would accrue if some or all of the lands used to produce animal feed and fuel were reallocated to directly produce food for people.

 

How about we devote Africa to producing the worlds food supply?

[Tiberius]

http://www.scienceda...30801125704.htm

 

 

 

How about we devote Africa to producing the worlds food supply?

 

Let's just make sure there is enough coffee for everyone

[Chef Jim]

Each adult person in the world is responsible for feeding themselves. No one else.

[meazza]

[Tiberius]

Each adult person in the world is responsible for feeding themselves. No one else.

 

Even the shut ins? You'd starve the elderly? Wow!

[Chef Jim]

 

 

Even the shut ins? You'd starve the elderly? Wow!

 

Any abled bodied person that can at least pick up the phone can figure our how to feed themselves.

[keepthefaith]

What this says to me is that burning oil and natural gas for transportation is good as it doesn't rob from the supply of food. With the demand for water also rising, it dawned on me that melting icecaps due to global warming is also a good thing. We're gonna need the oceans more for our water supply in the future so a rise in the water level will be nicely offset by consumption meaning the beaches should stay about right where they are now if my calculations are correct.

 

http://www.scienceda...30801125704.htm

 

 

 

How about we devote Africa to producing the worlds food supply?

 

Can't do it. If they dig in the soil there, oil appears.

Edited August 14, 2013 by keepthefaith

[boyst]

What this says to me is that burning oil and natural gas for transportation is good as it doesn't rob from the supply of food. With the demand for water also rising, it dawned on me that melting icecaps due to global warming is also a good thing. We're gonna need the oceans more for our water supply in the future so a rise in the water level will be nicely offset by consumption meaning the beaches should stay about right where they are now if my calculations are correct.

 

 

 

Can't do it. If they dig in the soil there, oil appears.

I picture this being read by the Professor from Futurama.

[....lybob]

I think we will see more aquaponics , more vertical farming, more entomophagy, more low energy graphene based water desalination and more phytoremediation- there is no question the technology to feed a growing population is here the question is do we have the will.

[Chef Jim]

I think we will see more aquaponics , more vertical farming, more entomophagy, more low energy graphene based water desalination and more phytoremediation- there is no question the technology to feed a growing population is here the question is do we have the will.

 

We don't need any more ****. We just less poeople. A growing population will be the death of this planet.

[....lybob]

We don't need any more ****. We just less poeople. A growing population will be the death of this planet.

oh goody another Malthusian, sadly they never help the cause by offing themselves, shows a lack of moral conviction IMO.

[TakeYouToTasker]

oh goody another Malthusian, sadly they never help the cause by offing themselves, shows a lack of moral conviction IMO.

They don't need to, as natural scarcity of resources, pestilence, and war takes care of the process very efficiently. Being Malthusian isn't about a top down control, it's about being aware of the very real physical realities of our world; and that's a hard truth regardless of any and all caricaturizations made by yourself, Charles Dickens, or anyone else.

Edited August 14, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[GG]

They don't need to, as natural scarcity of resources, pestilence, and war takes care of the process very efficiently. Being Malthusian isn't about a top down control, it's about being aware of the very real physical realities of our world; and that's a hard truth regardless of any and all caricaturizations made by yourself, Charles Dickens, or anyone else.

 

Except that Malthus has been very wrong, especially when looking at the developed world. and on the evidence of poor countries attaining wealth. Birth rates are dropping in rich countries, while food is more ample than ever. No reason to think Africa won't follow the same trend line once the countries get their act together.

[Gary M]

http://www.scienceda...30801125704.htm

 

 

 

How about we devote Africa to producing the worlds food supply?

 

"Even a smaller, partial shift from crop-intensive livestock such as feedlot beef to food animals such as chicken or pork could increase agricultural efficiency and provide food for millions, the study says."

 

So I will have to take out a loan to buy a sirloin? They can go screw themselves.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Except that Malthus has been very wrong, especially when looking at the developed world. and on the evidence of poor countries attaining wealth. Birth rates are dropping in rich countries, while food is more ample than ever. No reason to think Africa won't follow the same trend line once the countries get their act together.

There are many reasons to think that a) Africa won't follow the same trend, and b) that they wont get their acts together.

 

Africa's most immediate issues are obviously political, but those problems won't subside in our lifetimes, as any interventions on our part, either military or aid based, will only serve to exacerbate them. Additionally, lacking western protections on property, they are unlikely to be able to amass or leverage capital in order to promote investment and growth. However, even if we could get past the political realities, Africa, being the birth place of human civilization, has suffered a period of land degredation equal to the length of time humans have been farming. From FAO.org:

 

Africa also suffers from geologically induced and inherently low soil fertility as the bedrock consists of mostly granites and gneiss. African rocks are among the oldest in the world. The relationship between the parent soils and the soil forming factors are very complex because the land surface has undergone a series of shifts in vegetation and climate. Nearly one-third of the central plateau of Africa is of Pre-Cambrian age (over 600 million years old). The rest of the surface is covered with sand and alluvial deposits of Pleistocene age (less than 2 million years old). A recent volcanic activity occurred mainly in the eastern and southern parts of the continent, principally between Ethiopia and Lake Victoria. For this reason, most of the soils in Africa are characterized by a low proportion of clay, making them easy to work, but also easy to lose.

 

Not only is Africa geologically old and afflicted with a harsh climate, but also large parts of the continent have been occupied by human beings much longer than in other continents. Human activities in obtaining food, fibre, fuel and shelter have, therefore, significantly altered the soil.

 

Though degradation is largely man-made, and hence its pace is governed primarily by the speed at which population pressure mounts, irregular natural events, such as droughts, exacerbate the situation. The 1982/85 drought, for example, had a dramatic effect on the speed of land degradation and desertification. Essential though food aid is in such emergencies, it clearly does nothing to alleviate environmental damage.

 

Many African countries have already lost a significant quantity of their soils to various forms of degradation. Many areas in the continent are said to be loosing over 50 tones of soil per hectare per year. This is roughly equivalent to a loss of about 20 billion tones of Nitrogen, 2 billion tones of Phosphorus and 41 billion tones of potassium per year. Serious erosion areas in the continent can be found in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea, Ghana, Nigeria, Zaire, Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Senegal, Mauritania, Niger, the Sudan and Somalia.

Edited August 14, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[....lybob]

Except that Malthus has been very wrong, especially when looking at the developed world. and on the evidence of poor countries attaining wealth. Birth rates are dropping in rich countries, while food is more ample than ever. No reason to think Africa won't follow the same trend line once the countries get their act together.

exactly- while the earth has a carrying capacity limit we do not know what it is, 500 million some say (sorry you 6.5 billion excess people) on the upper side I've heard 40 billion - many estimates have world population growing to a little over 9 billion and then slowly declining, as populations go from developing to developed children go from as source of cheap unskilled family labor to a major expense to raise and educate, and women become a major part of the work force, the combination of women in the work force and increased numbers pursuing higher education both increase the average age of when parenthood starts.

[GG]

There are many reasons to think that a) Africa won't follow the same trend, and b) that they wont get their acts together.

 

Africa's most immediate issues are obviously political, but those problems won't subside in our lifetimes, as any interventions on our part, either military or aid based, will only serve to exacerbate them. Additionally, lacking western protections on property, they are unlikely to be able to amass or leverage capital in order to promote investment and growth. However, even if we could get past the political realities, Africa, being the birth place of human civilization, has suffered a period of land degredation equal to the length of time humans have been farming. From FAO.org:

 

That's why it's a big IF for African countries to get their act together. Nevertheless, the global agri business is fertile enough to feed the continent without needing agrable land in Africa. I can imagine there can be better uses for US corn and Brazilian sugar crops than to feed gasoline engines.

[TakeYouToTasker]

That's why it's a big IF for African countries to get their act together. Nevertheless, the global agri business is fertile enough to feed the continent without needing agrable land in Africa. I can imagine there can be better uses for US corn and Brazilian sugar crops than to feed gasoline engines.

It doesn't matter what the world produces if a) the impoverished can't afford to purchase it (and likely won't be able to in the forseeable future, due to political reasons), and b) simply giving it to them only exacerbates their problems, making them even less solvable long term.

[GG]

It doesn't matter what the world produces if a) the impoverished can't afford to purchase it (and likely won't be able to in the forseeable future, due to political reasons), and b) simply giving it to them only exacerbates their problems, making them even less solvable long term.

 

Don't conflate the issues. The OP link talks about the existing agrable capacity to feed the world if we reverse the idiotic policy of using crops to feed gasoline engines. It's a separate issue of how the food is then distributed and who pays for it.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Don't conflate the issues. The OP link talks about the existing agrable capacity to feed the world if we reverse the idiotic policy of using crops to feed gasoline engines. It's a separate issue of how the food is then distributed and who pays for it.

The issues self-conflate.