4 ms·

Food has two types of cost, market value and ecosystem cost. It always has been this case. It's the very reason that crop rotation was discovered. By improving

Food has two types of cost, market value and ecosystem cost. It always has been this case. It's the very reason that crop rotation was discovered. By improving the ecosystem that you farm in (in this case soil but Tree windbreaks also count etc...) you increase the productivity. The issue is that most ways to improve productivity are terribly short term. Think slash/burn. So yes food is cheaper than ever to buy but we are burning through environmental capital at dangerous and irresponsible rate IMO. The cost of food will stay cheap until it's too late and the land stops producing at the current level.

saddlerustle 6y ago
What, exactly, will "run out" that affects most food production? The remaining soil lifespan in societies with developed agriculture is hundreds of years, and relatively cheap practices can extend that to thousands of years.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Water https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/grace/study-third-of-big-groundwater-basins-in-distress https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/grace/study-third-of-big-groundwate...
  - saddlerustle 6y ago
    Managing groundwater is an economic co-ordination problem, not a limit to food production. We currently produce crops that are very, very inefficient in terms of water per calorie, because people like them and some jurisdictions like California don't have effective water markets.
    - lotsofpulp 6y ago
      I predict nothing will change until nature forces it, at which point the damage will be irreversible. A small fraction of people live the high life, but a large fraction has tasted it, and almost everyone has seen it. Effectively no one is going to cut down on their consumption because they’re calculating (correctly, in my opinion) that even if they do, someone else will step in and consume their portion anyway.
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Land? The trend is obvious, and we probably don't have anything like Haber-Bosch to save us in the next 50-ish years. https://tradingeconomics.com/world/arable-land-hectares-per-person-wb-data.html https://tradingeconomics.com/world/arable-land-hectares-per-...
  - thu2111 6y ago
    Land? Enormous amounts of land are used to raise animals or food for animals, many of which could be replaced with slightly improved Impossible Burgers. Artificial meat is already pretty much acceptable and its primary constraint is the cheapness of real meat. Land is unlikely to ever be a constraint given demographic trends. If there's ever any pressure on food prices due to lack of land, meat prices will go up and a bunch of farms will switch to crops to use as input to artificial meat processes so they can produce more of it. That's a very deep pool to draw from. As for not having any scientific process to fall back on, that's far from true in most of the world, even the developed world. Sadly the EU has been blocking the use of GM crops for years, supposedly on 'safety' grounds but in reality as a form of trade barrier designed to protect local farmers from having to become more efficient (mostly French farmers). So the EU isn't even using genetic engineering to increase yields, a by now very mature technology! Large parts of Europe don't even use advanced technology because the CAP subsidy scheme pays them to not grow food! When you look around the world there's plenty of low hanging techno-fruit almost everywhere, except maybe the USA where new tech is embraced and farming is quite efficient already. But even then, there's plenty of tech on the horizon should we want it. Genetic engineering is still at the start of what it can do - it's capable of so much more than just pesticide resistance.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      The graph I linked is of arable land per capita. "Arable" means capable of growing crops. It does not matter that we raise animals on it currently.
      - thu2111 6y ago
        Why not? Land used for crops that are then eaten by humans is more efficient than using it grow crops to feed animals. Even if you assume no animals graze on arable land (why would you assume that?) there's still large efficiencies to be had.

saddlerustle 6y ago

What, exactly, will "run out" that affects most food production? The remaining soil lifespan in societies with developed agriculture is hundreds of years, and relatively cheap practices can extend that to thousands of years.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
Water https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/grace/study-third-of-big-groundwater-basins-in-distress https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/grace/study-third-of-big-groundwate...
- saddlerustle 6y ago
  Managing groundwater is an economic co-ordination problem, not a limit to food production. We currently produce crops that are very, very inefficient in terms of water per calorie, because people like them and some jurisdictions like California don't have effective water markets.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    I predict nothing will change until nature forces it, at which point the damage will be irreversible. A small fraction of people live the high life, but a large fraction has tasted it, and almost everyone has seen it. Effectively no one is going to cut down on their consumption because they’re calculating (correctly, in my opinion) that even if they do, someone else will step in and consume their portion anyway.
pmiller2 6y ago
Land? The trend is obvious, and we probably don't have anything like Haber-Bosch to save us in the next 50-ish years. https://tradingeconomics.com/world/arable-land-hectares-per-person-wb-data.html https://tradingeconomics.com/world/arable-land-hectares-per-...
- thu2111 6y ago
  Land? Enormous amounts of land are used to raise animals or food for animals, many of which could be replaced with slightly improved Impossible Burgers. Artificial meat is already pretty much acceptable and its primary constraint is the cheapness of real meat. Land is unlikely to ever be a constraint given demographic trends. If there's ever any pressure on food prices due to lack of land, meat prices will go up and a bunch of farms will switch to crops to use as input to artificial meat processes so they can produce more of it. That's a very deep pool to draw from. As for not having any scientific process to fall back on, that's far from true in most of the world, even the developed world. Sadly the EU has been blocking the use of GM crops for years, supposedly on 'safety' grounds but in reality as a form of trade barrier designed to protect local farmers from having to become more efficient (mostly French farmers). So the EU isn't even using genetic engineering to increase yields, a by now very mature technology! Large parts of Europe don't even use advanced technology because the CAP subsidy scheme pays them to not grow food! When you look around the world there's plenty of low hanging techno-fruit almost everywhere, except maybe the USA where new tech is embraced and farming is quite efficient already. But even then, there's plenty of tech on the horizon should we want it. Genetic engineering is still at the start of what it can do - it's capable of so much more than just pesticide resistance.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    The graph I linked is of arable land per capita. "Arable" means capable of growing crops. It does not matter that we raise animals on it currently.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      Why not? Land used for crops that are then eaten by humans is more efficient than using it grow crops to feed animals. Even if you assume no animals graze on arable land (why would you assume that?) there's still large efficiencies to be had.