5 ms·

There is also the problem of food distribution. Ignoring future population growth, the world does produce enough food to people everyone [0] (obtained from the

There is also the problem of food distribution. Ignoring future population growth, the world does produce enough food to people everyone [0] (obtained from the first sentence of [1]). If we are collectively unwilling to solve the distribution problem today, then it there is a good chance that we won't do much about the shortage tomorrow. In addition, unconsumed food waste is also problem, and probably does have some correlation with the unequal distribution. An article with the headline "Can we share food more fairly today?" does have a simple answer, but would rock the political establishment uncomfortably, so has little chance of ever being published. [0] Leathers, H., & Foster, P. (2009). The world food problem: toward ending undernutrition in the third world. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc. [1] http://12.000.scripts.mit.edu/mission2014/problems/inadequate-food-distribution-systems http://12.000.scripts.mit.edu/mission2014/problems/inadequat...

Kalium 8y ago
Logistics is hard. On top of that, importing food is a very political subject. Do you want to feed everyone in the world as resource-efficiently as possible, or do you want every country/region/city/neighborhood/community to be equipped to feed itself? Bear in mind that these two are very much different scenarios. Small, poor, inefficient farmers have been bankrupted by cheap imports they cannot compete with more than once in world history. Similarly, price controls on food have led to famine more than once. This is without even touching on the point that a lot of poorer countries really want to be able to export food for a profit. I get the sense that the short answer to your uncomfortable question is simple: yes. With the asterisk being all the political and economic questions that go in it and don't have simple answers.
beat 8y ago
Population growth is leveling off. Birth rate globally is already at/below replacement rate (there are ~2B children right now, the UN estimates that in a century, there will still be ~2B children). The growth we are seeing now is a growth of the adult population, not the child population, due to the 1-2 generation overhang between nations getting decent food and health care (especially immunizations), and the birth rate dropping in those nations from the 5-6 of backwards nations to the <2 of modern nations. (See Hans Rosling for details.) Meanwhile, in a half-century, we've doubled the population, while significantly reducing food costs and radically reducing hunger globally. I'm with Hans Rosling here... the angst about how the world is hungry and getting hungrier is just our minds telling us stories, contradicting the facts on the ground. I don't see a good reason to believe that we will have global food shortages in the future. We'll have less hunger, not more, as the population levels out over the next few decades. I'm basing that argument on past behavior, absorbing the needs of much higher population growth with less technology for decades.
- agsdfgsd 8y ago
  >Birth rate globally is already at/below replacement rate No it is not. Current RNI is 1.06% and projections do not suggest it getting down to replacement levels in the next 50 years unless mortality increases substantially. >Meanwhile, in a half-century, we've doubled the population, while significantly reducing food costs and radically reducing hunger globally. By destroying vast portions of the natural world and wiping out thousands of species and even putting the future survival of our own species at risk. The "angst" is entirely valid. Destroying the planet to prop up obscenely inflated population levels for absolutely no benefit is horrifyingly evil. The expected population growth in Africa is enough to finish destroying every last spec of natural ecosystem on the planet that is capable of being used for food production. Yes, we absolutely need to address this problem.
  - beat 8y ago
    You seem very certain. "Future survival of our own species"? Nah. The last human being will eat the last cockroach. We have made technology to adapt to living on the moon. We might make things painful for humanity in general, might even break civilization (although I think that's unlikely). But survival of the species? We haven't yet invented technology that can wipe out humans. As for our "evil", "obscenely inflated population levels"... well, what do you think we should do about it? Because the only "solution" I can see to this thing that horrifies you is what the Nazis called a Final Solution. The global population is what it is, whether you like it or not. If you had Thanos' infinity glove, would you use it? Would you use it, knowing you're just knocking the population back to 1965 levels?
    - agsdfgsd 8y ago
      >The last human being will eat the last cockroach The evidence is not on your side. >Because the only "solution" I can see to this thing that horrifies you is what the Nazis called a Final Solution. Uh, the solution to do what the article suggests. Grow more food on less land so that population growth doesn't come at the expense of the last shreds of wilderness on the planet. How does one get to the point where you think "growing more food is hitler!!1" is a reasonable response?
hinkley 8y ago
We are missing a bit of humility. Just because an apple can be gotten in February doesn't mean you should. It stretches, complicates, and reduces the efficiency of the supply chain immensely. I heard some advice years ago that one of the better things you can do as an environmentalist is teach your kids about the seasonality of foods. Make a big deal about it being orange or pear or cherry season, cut back on buying these fruits the rest of the year, even if you can afford it. Eat something else instead of making the world bend to your craving.
- wrycoder 8y ago
  By March in 18th century New Hampshire, the pickings were getting pretty lean. You might be able to go down into the cellar and get a soft apple or a potato out of a barrel, and you would have wheat, oats, and barley. Maybe there was still some kale under the snow in the garden. Beyond that, you killed a chicken or went out to hunt some game. So when the raspberries came into season, it was indeed a treat.
  - ryacko 8y ago
    By the 19th century, canning allowed for a greater variety of perhaps less nutritious food.
- ip26 8y ago
  Apples are actually one of the most unseasonable fruits. They keep really well, albiet with some modern wizardry to help. Oranges too. Pears, berries, melons, leafy greens, stone fruit, etc are a different story!
- selimthegrim 8y ago
  The other day I thought about buying some citrus and then realized I still had a can of beets to get my vitamin C from in line with this.
omegaworks 8y ago
On that note, NYTimes seems to be pushing many climate articles today[1] with an urgent framing but casually neglecting to mention the relatively small number of corporations responsible for most greenhouse emissions[2]. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/07/climate/world-emissions-paris-goals-not-on-track.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/07/climate/world... 2. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

Kalium 8y ago

Logistics is hard. On top of that, importing food is a very political subject. Do you want to feed everyone in the world as resource-efficiently as possible, or do you want every country/region/city/neighborhood/community to be equipped to feed itself? Bear in mind that these two are very much different scenarios. Small, poor, inefficient farmers have been bankrupted by cheap imports they cannot compete with more than once in world history. Similarly, price controls on food have led to famine more than once. This is without even touching on the point that a lot of poorer countries really want to be able to export food for a profit. I get the sense that the short answer to your uncomfortable question is simple: yes. With the asterisk being all the political and economic questions that go in it and don't have simple answers.

beat 8y ago

Population growth is leveling off. Birth rate globally is already at/below replacement rate (there are ~2B children right now, the UN estimates that in a century, there will still be ~2B children). The growth we are seeing now is a growth of the adult population, not the child population, due to the 1-2 generation overhang between nations getting decent food and health care (especially immunizations), and the birth rate dropping in those nations from the 5-6 of backwards nations to the <2 of modern nations. (See Hans Rosling for details.) Meanwhile, in a half-century, we've doubled the population, while significantly reducing food costs and radically reducing hunger globally. I'm with Hans Rosling here... the angst about how the world is hungry and getting hungrier is just our minds telling us stories, contradicting the facts on the ground. I don't see a good reason to believe that we will have global food shortages in the future. We'll have less hunger, not more, as the population levels out over the next few decades. I'm basing that argument on past behavior, absorbing the needs of much higher population growth with less technology for decades.

agsdfgsd 8y ago
>Birth rate globally is already at/below replacement rate No it is not. Current RNI is 1.06% and projections do not suggest it getting down to replacement levels in the next 50 years unless mortality increases substantially. >Meanwhile, in a half-century, we've doubled the population, while significantly reducing food costs and radically reducing hunger globally. By destroying vast portions of the natural world and wiping out thousands of species and even putting the future survival of our own species at risk. The "angst" is entirely valid. Destroying the planet to prop up obscenely inflated population levels for absolutely no benefit is horrifyingly evil. The expected population growth in Africa is enough to finish destroying every last spec of natural ecosystem on the planet that is capable of being used for food production. Yes, we absolutely need to address this problem.
- beat 8y ago
  You seem very certain. "Future survival of our own species"? Nah. The last human being will eat the last cockroach. We have made technology to adapt to living on the moon. We might make things painful for humanity in general, might even break civilization (although I think that's unlikely). But survival of the species? We haven't yet invented technology that can wipe out humans. As for our "evil", "obscenely inflated population levels"... well, what do you think we should do about it? Because the only "solution" I can see to this thing that horrifies you is what the Nazis called a Final Solution. The global population is what it is, whether you like it or not. If you had Thanos' infinity glove, would you use it? Would you use it, knowing you're just knocking the population back to 1965 levels?
  - agsdfgsd 8y ago
    >The last human being will eat the last cockroach The evidence is not on your side. >Because the only "solution" I can see to this thing that horrifies you is what the Nazis called a Final Solution. Uh, the solution to do what the article suggests. Grow more food on less land so that population growth doesn't come at the expense of the last shreds of wilderness on the planet. How does one get to the point where you think "growing more food is hitler!!1" is a reasonable response?

hinkley 8y ago

We are missing a bit of humility. Just because an apple can be gotten in February doesn't mean you should. It stretches, complicates, and reduces the efficiency of the supply chain immensely. I heard some advice years ago that one of the better things you can do as an environmentalist is teach your kids about the seasonality of foods. Make a big deal about it being orange or pear or cherry season, cut back on buying these fruits the rest of the year, even if you can afford it. Eat something else instead of making the world bend to your craving.

wrycoder 8y ago
By March in 18th century New Hampshire, the pickings were getting pretty lean. You might be able to go down into the cellar and get a soft apple or a potato out of a barrel, and you would have wheat, oats, and barley. Maybe there was still some kale under the snow in the garden. Beyond that, you killed a chicken or went out to hunt some game. So when the raspberries came into season, it was indeed a treat.
- ryacko 8y ago
  By the 19th century, canning allowed for a greater variety of perhaps less nutritious food.
ip26 8y ago
Apples are actually one of the most unseasonable fruits. They keep really well, albiet with some modern wizardry to help. Oranges too. Pears, berries, melons, leafy greens, stone fruit, etc are a different story!
selimthegrim 8y ago
The other day I thought about buying some citrus and then realized I still had a can of beets to get my vitamin C from in line with this.

omegaworks 8y ago

On that note, NYTimes seems to be pushing many climate articles today[1] with an urgent framing but casually neglecting to mention the relatively small number of corporations responsible for most greenhouse emissions[2]. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/07/climate/world-emissions-paris-goals-not-on-track.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/12/07/climate/world... 2. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...