13 ms·

With the way the human population is expanding and the rising income of 3rd world nations we are really going to look at a major increase in both genetically en

With the way the human population is expanding and the rising income of 3rd world nations we are really going to look at a major increase in both genetically engineering food stock to be larger and more nutritious as well as ramping up lab grown meat. Conservation is clearly not going to work as so many nations ignore it anyway and quite often regulations lack teeth due to the fear of killing an industry. Its difficult to ask 3rd world nations to cut back while first world nations have been reaping benefits for so long. While I wish organically growing food and conservation was the answer, its unfortunately not. Society just wont change to support it. A science fiction style solution is going to be the only way to feed the world.

coldpie 6y ago
Yup. We're already pretty much at capacity in terms of using arable farming land[1]. We need more efficient farming, which means GMOs and advanced farming methods; we don't need less efficient farming like organic and anti-GMO. [1] https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/how-much-arable-land-is-there/ https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/how-much-arabl...
- jadler999 6y ago
  Any good studies estimating the carrying capacity of Earth with current ag tech?
  - hxegon 6y ago
    can't remember where but I think theoretical upper bound was about 11-12B, but realistically I think 9.5-10B based off nothing in particular.
  - gen220 6y ago
    It's worth noting that every time there's been estimations on carrying capacity applied to humans, it's eventually turned out to be wrong. The reality is that we are not very efficient at agriculture in all of the places where agriculture is practiced. Most carrying capacity models make the assumption that we are at or near peak agricultural output, but this simply isn't true, so the models' predictive powers fall apart. For an example from another industry, where people have been similarly predicting capacity-related doom since the 80s, look at oil. In the 80s, people thought we were going to run out of oil, because "proven accessible reserves" were dwindling. Between the innovations of low-cost fracking and more effective "proving" tools, this problem evaporated. The moral of the story is that, where demand is high, capitalistic pressures means that, given enough time, we will always finds a way to open up more supply. All this to say, be very critical of the assumptions made by whatever models you find, or doomsday claims you may come across. If agriculturalists are not concerned about this, the burden of evidence for us to be concerned should be rather high.
    - rdtwo 6y ago
      Exactly if Americans spent more resources on food there would be more innovative approaches in this sector. Currently food is too cheap and there is barely any opportunity for innovation.
    - kickout 6y ago
      What? Agriculture is hyper-efficient in the biggest areas of the world (US Midwest, Brazil, Eastern Europe).
      - gen220 6y ago
        Sorry, I'd rephrase my original statement a little bit for clarity. I didn't mean at all to say that "nowhere is efficient", which in retrospect is one valid way of interpreting my original statement. It's not that agriculture isn't hyper-efficient in certain locales. It's that it could be more efficient, if its operators cared to invest in making it so. Until demand rises relative to supply (from supply shortages), there isn't a price pressure to innovate on efficiency. This doesn't stop the "big farms" from innovating, because "big farm crops" are a race-to-the-bottom commodity business. That's why we get more corn, soy beans, whatever every year. This is all without mentioning the places where agriculture is rather undeveloped, compared to the places you mention (many locales in Africa, central Asia, even the United States and Canada).
- morsch 6y ago
  We could try harder not to lose or waste food that we produce: FAO estimates that each year, approximately one-third of all food produced for human consumption inthe world is lost or wasted.[1] (Note that this is not just about people throwing away food they bought, though it's a big part of it.) And at first glance it seems obvious that eating less meat, globally, is going to increase available calories/area; the fact that some areas are viable for livestock but not vegetables notwithstanding. About half of the area used for agriculture is used for livestock, if I read [2] correctly. [1] http://www.fao.org/3/i3347e/i3347e.pdf http://www.fao.org/3/i3347e/i3347e.pdf [2] http://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf http://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf
- wongarsu 6y ago
  Though we could feed many more people with current farming capacity if we ate all the corn we grow ourself instead of feeding it to cows that we eat. Meat production is incredibly inefficient. If we eventually manage to produce most of our meat demand from lab-grown meat this will likely free up enormous amounts of agriculture capacity.
  - boo_boo 6y ago
    In what world is lab-grown meat production more efficient than cattle farming?
    - wonderwonder 6y ago
      Given enough resources to refine the process and a few years, I don't see how in the long run it cant become more efficient than farming.
      - boo_boo 6y ago
        I don't buy it. You're comparing the energy inputs required to support large-scale tissue engineering operations with those needed for grazing cattle on pasture. It's not even close.
        wongarsu 6y ago
        If it was just pastures I would agree. But 30-40% of all corn produced in the US (the largest corn producer in the world) is used to feed lifestock [1]. That's a lot of perfectly good farmland that could directly produce food for human consumption. Even if the lab process takes more energy, as long as producing the growth medium takes up less farmland that is a win towards the goal of having enough farmland to feed the world. 1: http://www.worldofcorn.com/#corn-usage-by-segment http://www.worldofcorn.com/#corn-usage-by-segment
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - 6y ago
- SmirthsDAC 6y ago
  Organic and sustainable methods are more efficient, even without GMOs [1]. It is a myth that GMOs or high-tech is the answer to food production/land scarcity concerns, as simply managing a farm properly can lead to yield increases multiple times over conventional, unsustainable methods (annual tillage, broad spectrum pesticides, etc). This is in part because GMOs that are in wide use are little more than ways to deal with pests or herbicides, which high efficiency sustainable farms deal with much more cost-effectively anyway. [1] https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-mini-farms-can-yield-food-security https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-mini-farms-can-yield-fo...
  - rdtwo 6y ago
    No they aren’t. Organic for the most part is a myth. What they do is either spray with a pesticide that can be classified as organic (often nicotine derived) or create an island of organic surrounded by a conventional buffer. Often both.
    - SmirthsDAC 6y ago
      >> Organic for the most part is a myth. What they do is either spray with a pesticide that can be classified as organic That's demonstrably untrue. Many organic methods use no pesticides at all because they use things like row covers or greenhouses which replaces them, or crop-timing to avoid source pests. Look at any farm inspired by Eliot Coleman methods, which can produce crops cost-competitively with conventional agriculture.
      - rdtwo 6y ago
        Some boutique farms for farmers markets can do that, the organic shit you get at Safeway is just organic pesticides
    - jamil7 6y ago
      > Organic for the most part is a myth This is not really true, I think the problem is every country has a different definition and standards, sometimes multiple.
- manishsharan 6y ago
  >> We need more efficient farming, which means GMOs and advanced farming method Considering the fact that so much of the farmlands are devoted to producing animal feed -- how about we as a species start eating less meats ? Make meats more expensive all around the world by imposing ... dare I say it .. caps on Carbon emission.
  - wonderwonder 6y ago
    Issue is that we are not going to. Just like we are not going to solve global warming by individuals making better carbon choices or even nations as other nations will just do whatever they want. We are only going to win these battles by creating cheaper better alternatives. India and China are not going just stop using coal in the middle of their economic expansion. People are just not going to stop eating meat, especially as many 3rd world nations are just reaching the point they can afford it. Only way we can come out ahead on this is scientifically devised cheaper and better alternatives.
    - ido66667 6y ago
      The issue is that we cannot rely on it to actually be there, and to come in time. I agree that we cannot efficiently regulate our behaviour, but I believe that will be our end eventually, science and engineering marvels not withstanding.
    - animal_spirits 6y ago
      Yeah but what about YOU? Are YOU going to choose to not eat meat? Or are YOU going to wait to see what everyone ELSE does first? Its a game theory problem.
      - ajmurmann 6y ago
        It is indeed the tragedy of the comments. That's why we need regulations, sanctions etc. This needs to be the number one issue for all international negotiations. I say that as someone who cut down on 95-99% of meat consumption to reduce my carbon footprint and because I feel terrible for the animals
- kickout 6y ago
  Correct. Farming/ag is fine. Its already scaled and efficient. Now we need to make it sustainable https://thinkingagriculture.io/what-silicon-valley-doesnt-understand-about-agriculture/ https://thinkingagriculture.io/what-silicon-valley-doesnt-un...
- missedthecue 6y ago
  Global warming will free up an enormous amount of arable land (most land is in the northern hemisphere anyway)
- ip26 6y ago
  Is this not exactly what you would expect in a free market? All arable farming land will produce whatever crop brings in the best return; no arable land will be left fallow long term. But just because we are using all of it doesn't mean we need all of it or else starve. Vast quantities of crops are used to produce biofuel, or feed for livestock, or raw materials for other non-food products.
Isamu 6y ago
>A science fiction style solution is going to be the only way to feed the world. I get what you are saying, I just want to clarify: we can feed everybody now, but mostly with vegetables. But yes, shared resources like ocean fish are under too much pressure right now. I feel as though it will take a major worldwide collapse of the fishing industry before there is better enforcement and treaties.
- duhuh 6y ago
  As a resident of a first world country I stopped eating all seafood about 15 years ago. It seems unethical to support over-fishing if I have plenty of other good food to eat.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    Plenty of seafood is farmed. The majority of shrimp for instance comes from farms.
    - usrusr 6y ago
      Ocean fish farming is more a conversion process than a production process. Most of the feed is wild catch fish.
      - all_usernames 6y ago
        Something like 3lbs of wild caught fish as feed to produce 1lb of farmed salmon.
      - riffraff 6y ago
        but does this apply blanket-like to all farmed seafood, or is it mostly about fish? E.g. I would expect shrimp, mussels, clams to not be fed processed wild catch, unlike salmon.
    - ajmadesc 6y ago
      100 Grams of shrimp has a carbon footprint of 198kg(436lb) https://phys.org/news/2012-02-tiny-shrimp-giant-carbon-footprint.html https://phys.org/news/2012-02-tiny-shrimp-giant-carbon-footp...
neckardt 6y ago
> Society just wont change to support it. Maybe this is just me, but I would happily change my diet to be around 50% Soylent or other meal replacement if the cost was cheaper. Currently I eat around 2400 calories a day, with Soylent that costs me $20 a day. I can get Chipotle for ~$15 per day, and between the two Chipotle clearly wins on taste. From what I can tell meal replacements are often far more environmentally friendly, there might be an environmental win here if the price drops.
- novok 6y ago
  It also will wreck metabolic havoc since it's processed and often uses PUFAs, non bioavaiable versions of nutrients and and other such things. You think we have an obesity crisis now? Wait until it's near mandatory to only eat things like cheap-edition soylent.
- istorical 6y ago
  The price for Soylent you quoted is for pre-prepared bottles. You can get the add-water-only version for much cheaper. In fact, you can get a day's worth of calories for about $10 even with better quality formulation competing products such as Huel 3.0 or Plenny Active. You literally scoop the powder into the provided bottle with the provided scoop they give you, fill it with water, shake it up for 30 seconds, and it's ready to drink. A bit more of a fair comparison just in case anyone reading this is curious on the development of this space.
  - neckardt 6y ago
    I hadn't heard of Plenny Active before, looks like you're right about the price. I'll have to give that a try, thanks for the suggestion!
  - kinghtown 6y ago
    $10 for a daily subscription to Ensure 2.0? You can eat eggs, slow cooker cuts of meat, seasonal fruit vegetables, rice, beans, flour, salt, yeast.. etc for $10 a day easy. As long as one is not too allergic to washing a few dishes, that is. Soylent is too expensive. It's a very attractive solution for me but the price point is higher than real food. Soylent needs to be like $1 a meal, with super duper high protein, if it wants to compete with home cooking. I can make a fine French dining quality 4-6 egg omelette, with a reheated beans and vegetables on the side, for like $2 a plate. A big plate, too.
golergka 6y ago
Why science fiction and not plain old fish farming?
- oftenwrong 6y ago
  And/or an international agreement to reduce fishing, and outlaw the import of fish caught outside the bounds of that agreement. Similar international agreements have worked relatively well to cut down on things like chemical weapons and anti-personnel mines.
  - yisonPylkita 6y ago
    I see little bit of difference between man killing weapons and food
- rdtwo 6y ago
  Currently fish farming is often just fish recycling. Conversion of lower quality feed fish into higher quality market fish.
  - ip26 6y ago
    The most depressing part is the feed fish are often healthier for you than the farmed fish. We go through this whole process and the result is half as much fish as we started with, and it's worse for you.
    - GordonS 6y ago
      The fish feed of today contains far less animal protein than it used to - a lot of the protein now comes from soy. Salmon farming, for example, can be incredibly efficient - Norwegian salmon farms typically get 1 kg of fish for every 1.15-1.2kg of feed. That's an amazing conversion factor. That said, there are serious welfare concerns with fish farming. Even in Norway, which has some of the highest standards in the world, sea lice are a huge problem, and the mechanical and chemical treatments used are horrible. Another issue is the welfare of "cleaner fish", which are places in cages to eat lice from salmon - AFAIK there are still no regulations around their welfare, and mortality rates are shocking[0] https://sciencenorway.no/animal-welfare-fish-farming-salmon-industry/every-year-50-million-cleaner-fish-die-in-norwegian-fish-farms/1631228 https://sciencenorway.no/animal-welfare-fish-farming-salmon-...
kingkawn 6y ago
Time to start killing industries
- eloisius 6y ago
  While there is a small cushion to "kill" in terms of wealth and conspicuous consumption, before long you're talking about killing people. These industries don't just extract wealth for the 1%. They're also feeding billions of people.
palae 6y ago
> A science fiction style solution is going to be the only way to feed the world. What about plant-based diets? That doesn't seem too SF to me
- ianleeclark 6y ago
  It doesn't seem that most people are willing to give up meat/certain animal products.
  - palae 6y ago
    While not giving up entirely, I feel like many people, if presented with facts, would be willing to greatly reduce their consumption.
    - achenatx 6y ago
      oh the naïveté of youth... The easiest way to reduce meat/fish consumption is to make the cost reflect all the externalities.
      - brendoelfrendo 6y ago
        So, I agree with this in theory, but how does this work in practice? To stick with the topic of seafood, it's just out there in the ocean; as long as it exists in fish-able quantities, people will fish and fish until there's none left. Pricing in externalities would be huge for the US, but it would need to happen on a global scale to make a difference.
      - kickout 6y ago
        Then also make the airlines price seats to pay for externalities. I bet people won't be flying as much if the seat cost $5000 instead of $500 to pay for damage to environment. Don't single out ag. Tech and transportation are just as bad. At least with agriculture, it produces food.
    - albemuth 6y ago
TN1ck 6y ago
> While I wish organically growing food and conservation was the answer, its unfortunately not. I recently had a lengthy discussion with some friends about their support of a solidary organic farm, where you pay a flat fee per month and get a box of whatever they have in that week. It's really hard for most people to understand that things like these are not sustainable and that it's purely a luxury product. Terms like "organic", "no GMO", "local" sound sustainable as you imagine going back to "the good old days", but it's just impossible to feed the world. Even after I quoted some facts about the needed land usage for organic, it was not really possible to convince them, that it's not sustainable. If anybody has some good articles / studies about sustainable farming for the future, I would love to read them.
- aqme28 6y ago
  I think there are confused definitions for "sustainable." There's "sustains the land," which is food that can be grown this way indefinitely, which is what most people mean when they say "sustainable agriculture." To be more specific, "meeting society's present food and textile needs, without compromising the ability for current or future generations to meet their needs." You're saying sustainable as in "can sustain the future diets of 10 billion people." They don't map 1:1. TBH I think you're right. "Sustainable agriculture" isn't scalable to 2050 populations.
  - kingraoul3 6y ago
    Cuba has already shown the World the way forward with their Green Revolution. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-good-life-in-havana-cubas-green-revolution-410930.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-good-l...
  - kickout 6y ago
    It absolutely does. Do not bet against agriculture innovation. We have a comfortable head start and plenty in the pipe. The problem isn't exactly a secret. Multiple decade research projects focus on this and only this problem. We'll be okay (and sustainable too boot).
  - 6y ago
munificent 6y ago
> the human population is expanding and the rising income of 3rd world nations Fortunately, these two tend to cancel out. As a country gets wealthier, its birthrate tends to decline. Some of the most developed countries have shrinking populations.
- ido66667 6y ago
  Yes, but consumption isn't going down. Even if we stabilise at 11 billion people by 2100, which is much too late and arguably already at overshoot mode, consumption will continue rising and increase resource usage, although the population remains about the same. Those 11 billion people won't use the minimum amount of resources needed to sustain themselves (which is a very low quality of life), but use double or even triple than that.
r0s 6y ago
Supply has never been the problem with feeding the world. More supply solves nothing.
readarticle 6y ago
The human population isn’t expanding much at all. In 1950 there were 2.5 billion humans, today there are 7.7 billion, but by the end of the century there will only be ~11 billion. And at that point, most humans alive will be working age or older (approximately ~3.5 working age adults for every U15). A lack of human population growth will be one of the defining economic issues this century, with a chance at unfortunately solving the issue of rising incomes at the same time.
- kickout 6y ago
  That might be true, but the caloric consumption of the population is changing. People are transitioning from staple based diets (rice, wheat, etc.) to more complex diets (non native fruits/vegetables, meat). As poor countries gain wealth they want the food to match.
  - readarticle 6y ago
    Oh absolutely, I didn’t mean to imply falling growth will neatly solve all the issues they listed so much as continue my one sided feud with our distorted ideas of future population levels. Should have left out the income quip at the end in hindsight!
aklemm 6y ago
The answer is fewer people. I can't see any reason to encourage a rising population, even while I see one has to be careful about encouraging a decreasing population. Nonetheless, engineering for population growth--even if it works--doesn't lead to the best possible world.
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
This is one reason I'm such a fan of fake meat companies like Impossible Foods. I've tried to go on vegetarian diets before, but I just can't do it. I always feel weak and just generally "not right". I don't eat a ton of meat, but I find it really difficult to abstain 100%. An Impossible Burger, however, completely satisfies my cravings for meat. It's not just that it tastes like meat, but I feel sated after eating an Impossible or Beyond Burger in a way I just don't feel eating a normal veggie burger.
redml 6y ago
Or just work towards sustainable population, aka dis-incentivize multiple children, greatly lower immigration, etc etc But everything the governments do right now incentivizes overpopulation.
ArkVark 6y ago
We should cease all food aid, and replace it with education, contraception, and abortion for women for starters.

coldpie 6y ago

Yup. We're already pretty much at capacity in terms of using arable farming land[1]. We need more efficient farming, which means GMOs and advanced farming methods; we don't need less efficient farming like organic and anti-GMO. [1] https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/how-much-arable-land-is-there/ https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/how-much-arabl...

jadler999 6y ago
Any good studies estimating the carrying capacity of Earth with current ag tech?
- hxegon 6y ago
  can't remember where but I think theoretical upper bound was about 11-12B, but realistically I think 9.5-10B based off nothing in particular.
- gen220 6y ago
  It's worth noting that every time there's been estimations on carrying capacity applied to humans, it's eventually turned out to be wrong. The reality is that we are not very efficient at agriculture in all of the places where agriculture is practiced. Most carrying capacity models make the assumption that we are at or near peak agricultural output, but this simply isn't true, so the models' predictive powers fall apart. For an example from another industry, where people have been similarly predicting capacity-related doom since the 80s, look at oil. In the 80s, people thought we were going to run out of oil, because "proven accessible reserves" were dwindling. Between the innovations of low-cost fracking and more effective "proving" tools, this problem evaporated. The moral of the story is that, where demand is high, capitalistic pressures means that, given enough time, we will always finds a way to open up more supply. All this to say, be very critical of the assumptions made by whatever models you find, or doomsday claims you may come across. If agriculturalists are not concerned about this, the burden of evidence for us to be concerned should be rather high.
  - rdtwo 6y ago
    Exactly if Americans spent more resources on food there would be more innovative approaches in this sector. Currently food is too cheap and there is barely any opportunity for innovation.
  - kickout 6y ago
    What? Agriculture is hyper-efficient in the biggest areas of the world (US Midwest, Brazil, Eastern Europe).
    - gen220 6y ago
      Sorry, I'd rephrase my original statement a little bit for clarity. I didn't mean at all to say that "nowhere is efficient", which in retrospect is one valid way of interpreting my original statement. It's not that agriculture isn't hyper-efficient in certain locales. It's that it could be more efficient, if its operators cared to invest in making it so. Until demand rises relative to supply (from supply shortages), there isn't a price pressure to innovate on efficiency. This doesn't stop the "big farms" from innovating, because "big farm crops" are a race-to-the-bottom commodity business. That's why we get more corn, soy beans, whatever every year. This is all without mentioning the places where agriculture is rather undeveloped, compared to the places you mention (many locales in Africa, central Asia, even the United States and Canada).
morsch 6y ago
We could try harder not to lose or waste food that we produce: FAO estimates that each year, approximately one-third of all food produced for human consumption inthe world is lost or wasted.[1] (Note that this is not just about people throwing away food they bought, though it's a big part of it.) And at first glance it seems obvious that eating less meat, globally, is going to increase available calories/area; the fact that some areas are viable for livestock but not vegetables notwithstanding. About half of the area used for agriculture is used for livestock, if I read [2] correctly. [1] http://www.fao.org/3/i3347e/i3347e.pdf http://www.fao.org/3/i3347e/i3347e.pdf [2] http://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf http://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf
wongarsu 6y ago
Though we could feed many more people with current farming capacity if we ate all the corn we grow ourself instead of feeding it to cows that we eat. Meat production is incredibly inefficient. If we eventually manage to produce most of our meat demand from lab-grown meat this will likely free up enormous amounts of agriculture capacity.
- boo_boo 6y ago
  In what world is lab-grown meat production more efficient than cattle farming?
  - wonderwonder 6y ago
    Given enough resources to refine the process and a few years, I don't see how in the long run it cant become more efficient than farming.
    - boo_boo 6y ago
      I don't buy it. You're comparing the energy inputs required to support large-scale tissue engineering operations with those needed for grazing cattle on pasture. It's not even close.
      - wongarsu 6y ago
        If it was just pastures I would agree. But 30-40% of all corn produced in the US (the largest corn producer in the world) is used to feed lifestock [1]. That's a lot of perfectly good farmland that could directly produce food for human consumption. Even if the lab process takes more energy, as long as producing the growth medium takes up less farmland that is a win towards the goal of having enough farmland to feed the world. 1: http://www.worldofcorn.com/#corn-usage-by-segment http://www.worldofcorn.com/#corn-usage-by-segment
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - 6y ago
SmirthsDAC 6y ago
Organic and sustainable methods are more efficient, even without GMOs [1]. It is a myth that GMOs or high-tech is the answer to food production/land scarcity concerns, as simply managing a farm properly can lead to yield increases multiple times over conventional, unsustainable methods (annual tillage, broad spectrum pesticides, etc). This is in part because GMOs that are in wide use are little more than ways to deal with pests or herbicides, which high efficiency sustainable farms deal with much more cost-effectively anyway. [1] https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-mini-farms-can-yield-food-security https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-mini-farms-can-yield-fo...
- rdtwo 6y ago
  No they aren’t. Organic for the most part is a myth. What they do is either spray with a pesticide that can be classified as organic (often nicotine derived) or create an island of organic surrounded by a conventional buffer. Often both.
  - SmirthsDAC 6y ago
    >> Organic for the most part is a myth. What they do is either spray with a pesticide that can be classified as organic That's demonstrably untrue. Many organic methods use no pesticides at all because they use things like row covers or greenhouses which replaces them, or crop-timing to avoid source pests. Look at any farm inspired by Eliot Coleman methods, which can produce crops cost-competitively with conventional agriculture.
    - rdtwo 6y ago
      Some boutique farms for farmers markets can do that, the organic shit you get at Safeway is just organic pesticides
  - jamil7 6y ago
    > Organic for the most part is a myth This is not really true, I think the problem is every country has a different definition and standards, sometimes multiple.
manishsharan 6y ago
>> We need more efficient farming, which means GMOs and advanced farming method Considering the fact that so much of the farmlands are devoted to producing animal feed -- how about we as a species start eating less meats ? Make meats more expensive all around the world by imposing ... dare I say it .. caps on Carbon emission.
- wonderwonder 6y ago
  Issue is that we are not going to. Just like we are not going to solve global warming by individuals making better carbon choices or even nations as other nations will just do whatever they want. We are only going to win these battles by creating cheaper better alternatives. India and China are not going just stop using coal in the middle of their economic expansion. People are just not going to stop eating meat, especially as many 3rd world nations are just reaching the point they can afford it. Only way we can come out ahead on this is scientifically devised cheaper and better alternatives.
  - ido66667 6y ago
    The issue is that we cannot rely on it to actually be there, and to come in time. I agree that we cannot efficiently regulate our behaviour, but I believe that will be our end eventually, science and engineering marvels not withstanding.
  - animal_spirits 6y ago
    Yeah but what about YOU? Are YOU going to choose to not eat meat? Or are YOU going to wait to see what everyone ELSE does first? Its a game theory problem.
    - ajmurmann 6y ago
      It is indeed the tragedy of the comments. That's why we need regulations, sanctions etc. This needs to be the number one issue for all international negotiations. I say that as someone who cut down on 95-99% of meat consumption to reduce my carbon footprint and because I feel terrible for the animals
kickout 6y ago
Correct. Farming/ag is fine. Its already scaled and efficient. Now we need to make it sustainable https://thinkingagriculture.io/what-silicon-valley-doesnt-understand-about-agriculture/ https://thinkingagriculture.io/what-silicon-valley-doesnt-un...
missedthecue 6y ago
Global warming will free up an enormous amount of arable land (most land is in the northern hemisphere anyway)
ip26 6y ago
Is this not exactly what you would expect in a free market? All arable farming land will produce whatever crop brings in the best return; no arable land will be left fallow long term. But just because we are using all of it doesn't mean we need all of it or else starve. Vast quantities of crops are used to produce biofuel, or feed for livestock, or raw materials for other non-food products.

Isamu 6y ago

>A science fiction style solution is going to be the only way to feed the world. I get what you are saying, I just want to clarify: we can feed everybody now, but mostly with vegetables. But yes, shared resources like ocean fish are under too much pressure right now. I feel as though it will take a major worldwide collapse of the fishing industry before there is better enforcement and treaties.

duhuh 6y ago
As a resident of a first world country I stopped eating all seafood about 15 years ago. It seems unethical to support over-fishing if I have plenty of other good food to eat.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  Plenty of seafood is farmed. The majority of shrimp for instance comes from farms.
  - usrusr 6y ago
    Ocean fish farming is more a conversion process than a production process. Most of the feed is wild catch fish.
    - all_usernames 6y ago
      Something like 3lbs of wild caught fish as feed to produce 1lb of farmed salmon.
    - riffraff 6y ago
      but does this apply blanket-like to all farmed seafood, or is it mostly about fish? E.g. I would expect shrimp, mussels, clams to not be fed processed wild catch, unlike salmon.
  - ajmadesc 6y ago
    100 Grams of shrimp has a carbon footprint of 198kg(436lb) https://phys.org/news/2012-02-tiny-shrimp-giant-carbon-footprint.html https://phys.org/news/2012-02-tiny-shrimp-giant-carbon-footp...

neckardt 6y ago

> Society just wont change to support it. Maybe this is just me, but I would happily change my diet to be around 50% Soylent or other meal replacement if the cost was cheaper. Currently I eat around 2400 calories a day, with Soylent that costs me $20 a day. I can get Chipotle for ~$15 per day, and between the two Chipotle clearly wins on taste. From what I can tell meal replacements are often far more environmentally friendly, there might be an environmental win here if the price drops.

novok 6y ago
It also will wreck metabolic havoc since it's processed and often uses PUFAs, non bioavaiable versions of nutrients and and other such things. You think we have an obesity crisis now? Wait until it's near mandatory to only eat things like cheap-edition soylent.
istorical 6y ago
The price for Soylent you quoted is for pre-prepared bottles. You can get the add-water-only version for much cheaper. In fact, you can get a day's worth of calories for about $10 even with better quality formulation competing products such as Huel 3.0 or Plenny Active. You literally scoop the powder into the provided bottle with the provided scoop they give you, fill it with water, shake it up for 30 seconds, and it's ready to drink. A bit more of a fair comparison just in case anyone reading this is curious on the development of this space.
- neckardt 6y ago
  I hadn't heard of Plenny Active before, looks like you're right about the price. I'll have to give that a try, thanks for the suggestion!
- kinghtown 6y ago
  $10 for a daily subscription to Ensure 2.0? You can eat eggs, slow cooker cuts of meat, seasonal fruit vegetables, rice, beans, flour, salt, yeast.. etc for $10 a day easy. As long as one is not too allergic to washing a few dishes, that is. Soylent is too expensive. It's a very attractive solution for me but the price point is higher than real food. Soylent needs to be like $1 a meal, with super duper high protein, if it wants to compete with home cooking. I can make a fine French dining quality 4-6 egg omelette, with a reheated beans and vegetables on the side, for like $2 a plate. A big plate, too.

golergka 6y ago

Why science fiction and not plain old fish farming?

oftenwrong 6y ago
And/or an international agreement to reduce fishing, and outlaw the import of fish caught outside the bounds of that agreement. Similar international agreements have worked relatively well to cut down on things like chemical weapons and anti-personnel mines.
- yisonPylkita 6y ago
  I see little bit of difference between man killing weapons and food
rdtwo 6y ago
Currently fish farming is often just fish recycling. Conversion of lower quality feed fish into higher quality market fish.
- ip26 6y ago
  The most depressing part is the feed fish are often healthier for you than the farmed fish. We go through this whole process and the result is half as much fish as we started with, and it's worse for you.
  - GordonS 6y ago
    The fish feed of today contains far less animal protein than it used to - a lot of the protein now comes from soy. Salmon farming, for example, can be incredibly efficient - Norwegian salmon farms typically get 1 kg of fish for every 1.15-1.2kg of feed. That's an amazing conversion factor. That said, there are serious welfare concerns with fish farming. Even in Norway, which has some of the highest standards in the world, sea lice are a huge problem, and the mechanical and chemical treatments used are horrible. Another issue is the welfare of "cleaner fish", which are places in cages to eat lice from salmon - AFAIK there are still no regulations around their welfare, and mortality rates are shocking[0] https://sciencenorway.no/animal-welfare-fish-farming-salmon-industry/every-year-50-million-cleaner-fish-die-in-norwegian-fish-farms/1631228 https://sciencenorway.no/animal-welfare-fish-farming-salmon-...

kingkawn 6y ago

Time to start killing industries

eloisius 6y ago
While there is a small cushion to "kill" in terms of wealth and conspicuous consumption, before long you're talking about killing people. These industries don't just extract wealth for the 1%. They're also feeding billions of people.

palae 6y ago

> A science fiction style solution is going to be the only way to feed the world. What about plant-based diets? That doesn't seem too SF to me

ianleeclark 6y ago
It doesn't seem that most people are willing to give up meat/certain animal products.
- palae 6y ago
  While not giving up entirely, I feel like many people, if presented with facts, would be willing to greatly reduce their consumption.
  - achenatx 6y ago
    oh the naïveté of youth... The easiest way to reduce meat/fish consumption is to make the cost reflect all the externalities.
    - brendoelfrendo 6y ago
      So, I agree with this in theory, but how does this work in practice? To stick with the topic of seafood, it's just out there in the ocean; as long as it exists in fish-able quantities, people will fish and fish until there's none left. Pricing in externalities would be huge for the US, but it would need to happen on a global scale to make a difference.
    - kickout 6y ago
      Then also make the airlines price seats to pay for externalities. I bet people won't be flying as much if the seat cost $5000 instead of $500 to pay for damage to environment. Don't single out ag. Tech and transportation are just as bad. At least with agriculture, it produces food.
  - albemuth 6y ago

TN1ck 6y ago

> While I wish organically growing food and conservation was the answer, its unfortunately not. I recently had a lengthy discussion with some friends about their support of a solidary organic farm, where you pay a flat fee per month and get a box of whatever they have in that week. It's really hard for most people to understand that things like these are not sustainable and that it's purely a luxury product. Terms like "organic", "no GMO", "local" sound sustainable as you imagine going back to "the good old days", but it's just impossible to feed the world. Even after I quoted some facts about the needed land usage for organic, it was not really possible to convince them, that it's not sustainable. If anybody has some good articles / studies about sustainable farming for the future, I would love to read them.

aqme28 6y ago
I think there are confused definitions for "sustainable." There's "sustains the land," which is food that can be grown this way indefinitely, which is what most people mean when they say "sustainable agriculture." To be more specific, "meeting society's present food and textile needs, without compromising the ability for current or future generations to meet their needs." You're saying sustainable as in "can sustain the future diets of 10 billion people." They don't map 1:1. TBH I think you're right. "Sustainable agriculture" isn't scalable to 2050 populations.
- kingraoul3 6y ago
  Cuba has already shown the World the way forward with their Green Revolution. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-good-life-in-havana-cubas-green-revolution-410930.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-good-l...
- kickout 6y ago
  It absolutely does. Do not bet against agriculture innovation. We have a comfortable head start and plenty in the pipe. The problem isn't exactly a secret. Multiple decade research projects focus on this and only this problem. We'll be okay (and sustainable too boot).
- 6y ago

munificent 6y ago

> the human population is expanding and the rising income of 3rd world nations Fortunately, these two tend to cancel out. As a country gets wealthier, its birthrate tends to decline. Some of the most developed countries have shrinking populations.

ido66667 6y ago
Yes, but consumption isn't going down. Even if we stabilise at 11 billion people by 2100, which is much too late and arguably already at overshoot mode, consumption will continue rising and increase resource usage, although the population remains about the same. Those 11 billion people won't use the minimum amount of resources needed to sustain themselves (which is a very low quality of life), but use double or even triple than that.

r0s 6y ago

Supply has never been the problem with feeding the world. More supply solves nothing.

readarticle 6y ago

The human population isn’t expanding much at all. In 1950 there were 2.5 billion humans, today there are 7.7 billion, but by the end of the century there will only be ~11 billion. And at that point, most humans alive will be working age or older (approximately ~3.5 working age adults for every U15). A lack of human population growth will be one of the defining economic issues this century, with a chance at unfortunately solving the issue of rising incomes at the same time.

kickout 6y ago
That might be true, but the caloric consumption of the population is changing. People are transitioning from staple based diets (rice, wheat, etc.) to more complex diets (non native fruits/vegetables, meat). As poor countries gain wealth they want the food to match.
- readarticle 6y ago
  Oh absolutely, I didn’t mean to imply falling growth will neatly solve all the issues they listed so much as continue my one sided feud with our distorted ideas of future population levels. Should have left out the income quip at the end in hindsight!

aklemm 6y ago

The answer is fewer people. I can't see any reason to encourage a rising population, even while I see one has to be careful about encouraging a decreasing population. Nonetheless, engineering for population growth--even if it works--doesn't lead to the best possible world.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

This is one reason I'm such a fan of fake meat companies like Impossible Foods. I've tried to go on vegetarian diets before, but I just can't do it. I always feel weak and just generally "not right". I don't eat a ton of meat, but I find it really difficult to abstain 100%. An Impossible Burger, however, completely satisfies my cravings for meat. It's not just that it tastes like meat, but I feel sated after eating an Impossible or Beyond Burger in a way I just don't feel eating a normal veggie burger.

redml 6y ago

Or just work towards sustainable population, aka dis-incentivize multiple children, greatly lower immigration, etc etc But everything the governments do right now incentivizes overpopulation.

ArkVark 6y ago

We should cease all food aid, and replace it with education, contraception, and abortion for women for starters.