4 ms·

An interesting trivia: Dividing the available arable land by global population leaves only a 100x100m plot per person - and that's before barns, silos, houses

An interesting trivia: Dividing the available arable land by global population leaves only a 100x100m plot per person - and that's before barns, silos, houses or warehouses. That's not a whole lot - as a city dweller, I'm confident I'd starve the first winter if not earlier Modern agriculture is really impressive - farmers manage to feed around 10-20 people from such a plot

whiddershins 4y ago
Luckily ruminants do not need crop-suitable land to thrive.
nostrademons 4y ago
It's not really as bad as you suspect. A lot of homesteaders target food self-sufficiency on a quarter acre; while there's some debate [1] over whether that's possible, pessimistic estimates for the amount of space needed to feed a skilled organic gardener's family of 4-6 top out at about an acre. A 100x100m plot is about 2.5 acres. The bigger problems are a.) skills and b.) labor. Homesteading methods basically require full-time gardening by people who have put significant efforts into maximizing yields, intercropping, planting multiple harvests, growing vertically, etc. The advantage of our mechanized farming system is that we can feed the population with 1.4% of the population. [1] https://www.theseasonalhomestead.com/the-truth-about-self-sufficiency-on-a-quarter-acre-1/ https://www.theseasonalhomestead.com/the-truth-about-self-su...
merry_flame 4y ago
I was hoping your figure would be wrong and it is, but the situation is actually worse than than. 1.4 billion hectares of arable land divided by 7.9 billion people yields 0.18 hectares per individual, which is actually a 18×100m plot per person, 5 times less than your figure. And that's before conservation areas, wasting arable land to build suburbs, etc. Looking into national figures is interesting, showing that China has less than half than amount, but also shows that something is off with the figures themselves. Extremely arid and sandy Niger has more than 5 times the global average, which doesn't pass the smell test. I was personally shocked by the sheer unsuitability of the land for growing crops in the most fertile regions of that country, much unlike the lush southern areas of Mali for instance. Forested areas don't count as is clearly seen from low-ranking Brunei, which is 98% primary forest with extremely luxurious landscapes. Papua New Guinea is mostly self-sufficient and yet also extremely low, clearly demonstrating that agroforestry systems aren't accounted for at all. I'm sure other absurdities are to be found. Lies, damned lies, and statistics… [1] https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Agriculture/Arable-land/Hectares-per-capita https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Agriculture/...
db65edfc7996 4y ago
That is a super fun fact. Not that it changes the calculus, but I would be curious what percentage of human calories come from water sources (fishing, seaweed, lobster, etc).

whiddershins 4y ago

Luckily ruminants do not need crop-suitable land to thrive.

nostrademons 4y ago

It's not really as bad as you suspect. A lot of homesteaders target food self-sufficiency on a quarter acre; while there's some debate [1] over whether that's possible, pessimistic estimates for the amount of space needed to feed a skilled organic gardener's family of 4-6 top out at about an acre. A 100x100m plot is about 2.5 acres. The bigger problems are a.) skills and b.) labor. Homesteading methods basically require full-time gardening by people who have put significant efforts into maximizing yields, intercropping, planting multiple harvests, growing vertically, etc. The advantage of our mechanized farming system is that we can feed the population with 1.4% of the population. [1] https://www.theseasonalhomestead.com/the-truth-about-self-sufficiency-on-a-quarter-acre-1/ https://www.theseasonalhomestead.com/the-truth-about-self-su...

merry_flame 4y ago

I was hoping your figure would be wrong and it is, but the situation is actually worse than than. 1.4 billion hectares of arable land divided by 7.9 billion people yields 0.18 hectares per individual, which is actually a 18×100m plot per person, 5 times less than your figure. And that's before conservation areas, wasting arable land to build suburbs, etc. Looking into national figures is interesting, showing that China has less than half than amount, but also shows that something is off with the figures themselves. Extremely arid and sandy Niger has more than 5 times the global average, which doesn't pass the smell test. I was personally shocked by the sheer unsuitability of the land for growing crops in the most fertile regions of that country, much unlike the lush southern areas of Mali for instance. Forested areas don't count as is clearly seen from low-ranking Brunei, which is 98% primary forest with extremely luxurious landscapes. Papua New Guinea is mostly self-sufficient and yet also extremely low, clearly demonstrating that agroforestry systems aren't accounted for at all. I'm sure other absurdities are to be found. Lies, damned lies, and statistics… [1] https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Agriculture/Arable-land/Hectares-per-capita https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Agriculture/...

db65edfc7996 4y ago

That is a super fun fact. Not that it changes the calculus, but I would be curious what percentage of human calories come from water sources (fishing, seaweed, lobster, etc).