5 ms·

How about we actually do something like increase the reserve food supply from more than 72 days? Yellowstone is not the only potential source of disruption to t

How about we actually do something like increase the reserve food supply from more than 72 days? Yellowstone is not the only potential source of disruption to the food supply and right now if anything happens in the northern summer we are totally screwed.

Iv 9y ago
Or similarly, try to reduce the population enough so that we are not constantly on the razor edge of famine.
- danieltillett 9y ago
  This wouldn't solve the problem of a disruption to the food supply, just lessen the number who died. If my family starve to death it won't be much comfort to me that only a billion others die rather than five billion.
  - abofh 9y ago
    Nor would it really work in practice. Reducing the population would reduce demand (eaters), which would eventually lead to a reduction in supply (Farmers). Moreover, wrt to the 72 days raised by ggpp, one would just shrink the surplus to 72 days for the smaller population.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  We are not remotely on the edge of famine. Something like 80% of our crop production goes to feeding very calorie inefficient livestock. In any real famine they would be slaughtered and their food intake would be redirected to human consumption. We are nowhere near the limits of the population Earth can support, at least food wise.
  - danieltillett 9y ago
    Us rich people will probably be fine (unless the situation was decades long), but many people in the world won't be able to pay the higher prices. If you are currently spending 70% of your income on food and prices triple then you will starve.
    - petre 9y ago
      'Richness' is rather redefined during a calamity if that size. The banks won't work and money would be quite worthless.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  We're good on a pretty dull razor. Food insecurity is purely a function of the inefficiency of our society's means of food distribution.
  - mythrwy 9y ago
    Only while the sun shines though.
elihu 9y ago
If we assume that a supervolcano blocks out the sun enough to prevent crops from growing for two years and that increasing the 72 day buffer is impractical, then how could we ride it out without mass starvation? I'd guess there'd be a lot of sudden interest in energy-efficient LED grow lights and there'd be an over-supply of beef in the short term because there's no food for the cattle, so we might as well eat them. Long term, it's all about being able to have enough indoor hydroponic/aeroponic space to grow enough food for ~7.5 billion people, which sounds really difficult and impractical. I find it interesting that one possible benefit of Elon Musk's Mars plan is that the same space/energy/resource efficient food production technology that will be needed on Mars is the same technology we would need on Earth in order to ride out certain catastrophes. By creating an interplanetary "insurance policy" to ensure human survival, we may improve our ability to survive on Earth.
- danieltillett 9y ago
  The alternative is we build up a stockpile of food in a similar way to the US strategic oil stockpile. If oil is worth having in storage in case something bad happens it would seem obvious that food should be in the same category.
  - elihu 9y ago
    That does seem like a sensible plan.
  - BinaryIdiot 9y ago
    Food spoils so a stockpile like that isn't quite feasible. Sure we'll be able to get some foods that store well and can last for years but that's a small subset of food and even that food not all of it lasts for more than two years. It's just not realistic. Sure we can significantly enlarge our buffer but two or more years? I can't see that happening in any practical sense.
    - danieltillett 9y ago
      Most grains can be stored for years under the right conditions. Sure the quality will decline over that time, but given we are feeding a large amount of grain to livestock this decline is manageable. Even having a single years buffer would be very worthwhile. As I mentioned in the OP if we have a catastrophic event in the northern summer the poor are in serious trouble.

Iv 9y ago

Or similarly, try to reduce the population enough so that we are not constantly on the razor edge of famine.

danieltillett 9y ago
This wouldn't solve the problem of a disruption to the food supply, just lessen the number who died. If my family starve to death it won't be much comfort to me that only a billion others die rather than five billion.
- abofh 9y ago
  Nor would it really work in practice. Reducing the population would reduce demand (eaters), which would eventually lead to a reduction in supply (Farmers). Moreover, wrt to the 72 days raised by ggpp, one would just shrink the surplus to 72 days for the smaller population.
Houshalter 9y ago
We are not remotely on the edge of famine. Something like 80% of our crop production goes to feeding very calorie inefficient livestock. In any real famine they would be slaughtered and their food intake would be redirected to human consumption. We are nowhere near the limits of the population Earth can support, at least food wise.
- danieltillett 9y ago
  Us rich people will probably be fine (unless the situation was decades long), but many people in the world won't be able to pay the higher prices. If you are currently spending 70% of your income on food and prices triple then you will starve.
  - petre 9y ago
    'Richness' is rather redefined during a calamity if that size. The banks won't work and money would be quite worthless.
Spooky23 9y ago
We're good on a pretty dull razor. Food insecurity is purely a function of the inefficiency of our society's means of food distribution.
- mythrwy 9y ago
  Only while the sun shines though.

elihu 9y ago

If we assume that a supervolcano blocks out the sun enough to prevent crops from growing for two years and that increasing the 72 day buffer is impractical, then how could we ride it out without mass starvation? I'd guess there'd be a lot of sudden interest in energy-efficient LED grow lights and there'd be an over-supply of beef in the short term because there's no food for the cattle, so we might as well eat them. Long term, it's all about being able to have enough indoor hydroponic/aeroponic space to grow enough food for ~7.5 billion people, which sounds really difficult and impractical. I find it interesting that one possible benefit of Elon Musk's Mars plan is that the same space/energy/resource efficient food production technology that will be needed on Mars is the same technology we would need on Earth in order to ride out certain catastrophes. By creating an interplanetary "insurance policy" to ensure human survival, we may improve our ability to survive on Earth.

danieltillett 9y ago
The alternative is we build up a stockpile of food in a similar way to the US strategic oil stockpile. If oil is worth having in storage in case something bad happens it would seem obvious that food should be in the same category.
- elihu 9y ago
  That does seem like a sensible plan.
- BinaryIdiot 9y ago
  Food spoils so a stockpile like that isn't quite feasible. Sure we'll be able to get some foods that store well and can last for years but that's a small subset of food and even that food not all of it lasts for more than two years. It's just not realistic. Sure we can significantly enlarge our buffer but two or more years? I can't see that happening in any practical sense.
  - danieltillett 9y ago
    Most grains can be stored for years under the right conditions. Sure the quality will decline over that time, but given we are feeding a large amount of grain to livestock this decline is manageable. Even having a single years buffer would be very worthwhile. As I mentioned in the OP if we have a catastrophic event in the northern summer the poor are in serious trouble.