3 ms·
We can verbalize the problem: our population growth has outpaced our investment in agricultural technology and infrastructure such that in order to even try to
by akiselev 10y ago
We can verbalize the problem: our population growth has outpaced our investment in agricultural technology and infrastructure such that in order to even try to feed everyone, we have to turn to ever more drastic measures that are unsustainable or carry worrying existential risks. It is only in the last decade or so that farmers are finally going full force in with tech that was standard factory equipment thirty or even fifty years ago except now designed for farmers. There is no technological breakthrough coming, we already have all of the technology and the rate at which its costs are dropping is monumental. Finally the low margin businesses that feed the human race are able to afford it.
As the article talks about, this is largely because the old equipment and seed manufacturers, the ones the farmers trust for their farm, are finally starting to provide "smart" machinery and even cloud services with mesh sensor networks. Combine this with genetic engineering of nitrogen fixating bacteria, breeding guided by genetic screening, and all of the hard work that people like Norman Borlaug have done and will do and we will be able to sustainably feed our civilization without a high chance of running face first into an ecological catastrophe.
- ciconia 10y agoNo, automating stuff and using technology to protect crop from "the vagaries of nature" (what a ridiculous idea!) will not solve the main problems of modern non sustainable agriculture, namely soil erosion, contamination and monoculture vulnerability. Despite constant technological progress, agriculture sadly remains one of the top contributors to global warming. Unless the whole concept changes I really don't see how we can avoid a global catastrophe.