3 ms·
>World isn't overpopulated. I don't think there is a hard limit on number of people. Yes there most certainly is a hard limit on how many people this plant can
by syshum 7y ago
>World isn't overpopulated. I don't think there is a hard limit on number of people.
Yes there most certainly is a hard limit on how many people this plant can support. We have increased it, and continue to increase that limit with technology at a faster rate than reproduction but there are social trends that are seeing that progress rolled back.
Anti-GMO, Organic, and several other social trends in food production means the amount of land, water, and other supplied needed to a feed a person is growing not reducing. With out Advanced Farming, pesticides, GMO Crops and other advancements we would have exceeded the planets ability to provide long ago.
- djg321 7y agoNow that there is a strong incentive to produce organic non gmo food, technologies will be developed to increase crop yield given those constraints (in addition to existing permissible technologies in organic farming such as drip irrigation, tractors and: https://interestingengineering.com/video/this-flamethrowing-tractor-gets-rid-of-weeds-without-the-need-of-chemicals https://interestingengineering.com/video/this-flamethrowing-...). Sure, yields would always be higher if gmo and chemical pesticides were allowed, but in the long run we can still expect yields to increase.
- syshum 7y agoGMO is not just about increasing yields but also getting crops to grow in wider more diverse climates, something we may very well need with Global Warming Take for example the Semi-dwarf wheat that has been claimed to save billions of people and makes up pretty much all wheat grown today. This adversion of GMO is not based in science but rather F.U.D. I find it amusing that many people that are Anti-GMO are also very very concerned with Climate Change, and laugh a people that question climate change for being "anti-science" then then spread all kinds of lies and misinformation about GMO...