4 ms·

Outside of any concerns about the dangers of relying upon a monocrop, what is the most efficient available mechanism capable of feeding humanity using ~today's

Outside of any concerns about the dangers of relying upon a monocrop, what is the most efficient available mechanism capable of feeding humanity using ~today's technology? Soylent green and other options on the table. Science fiction would lead me to believe we could all be fed from vats of yeast. Potatoes feel really efficient (and according to the Martian, nutritionally complete), but would be happy to hear others. As per the article, the answer is probably in weeds, something like kudzu. Some kind of insect recycling system for protein variety from edible waste also seems appropriate.

watwut 3y ago
Insects and worms
- doublepg23 3y ago
  I had just heard about that conspiracy theory on NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/18/1188237695/this-right-wing-conspiracy-theory-about-eating-bugs-is-about-as-racist-as-you-th https://www.npr.org/2023/07/18/1188237695/this-right-wing-co...
  - Vecr 3y ago
    Feed the bugs to the chickens instead.
anon84873628 3y ago
Perennial polyculture food forests built from as many species native to the local environment as possible. Processed and preserved nearby using renewable off grid energy sources including cellulosic ethanol produced from organic waste products. Edit: You can't separate the "concerns about monoculture" from "efficiency" (whether that means outside energy inputs or calorie production or whatever). Every plant/animal species has its own specific advantages, nutrient needs, seasonal cycles, etc. If you use a monoculture then you are necessarily missing out on capturing some advantages (e.g. sunligh) and creating a dependence on outside inputs. Polycultures create a holistic ecosystem that can optimally partition the available sunlight, soil, and water; create mutually beneficial feedback loops, and foster the diverse microbial & pollinator populations necessary to sustain plant life.
bodhi_mind 3y ago
Potatoes are far from nutritionally complete. They’re missing complete proteins, essential fatty acids, and other vitamins/micro nutrients. Great to have in a short term famine, but definitely not for surviving long term.
- myshpa 3y ago
  https://www.popsci.com/nutrition-single-food-survival/ https://www.popsci.com/nutrition-single-food-survival/ For all of 2016, Andrew Taylor ate only potatoes. There were a few caveats to his potato diet: He ate both white potatoes and sweet ones, and sometimes mixed in soymilk, tomato sauce, salt and herbs. He also took B12 supplements. But, overall, he ate potatoes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. He took four blood tests over the year which he claims all came back normal. He even lost weight and felt more energized.
dpeckett 3y ago
The human diet is probably split into several major categories and I think a one size fits all solution is probably not forthcoming. The first category which makes up the bulk of our diet are caloric cereal crops, or starchy tubers. In the calorie category it's all about getting the most starch out of a given land area. All these permaculture, food forest idealists, conveniently don't talk much about calories. Starch is a pretty simple molecule/polymer, I wouldn't be surprised if we find a way to synthesize it from energy and hydrogen feedstock. Then there is protein/nitrogen sources, which today are obtained from animal and legume products. Legumes are undoubtedly more efficient than animal products but are unfortunately still pretty heavy land users. My guess is we'll be eating food fortified with precision fermented proteins pretty soon. Some of those proteins will be mixed with soy, and the synthetic starch and used to produce chicken/fish feed. And then finally there's the third category, vitamin and mineral containing foods (fresh greens, fruits, nuts etc). This is where "weeds" come in. I think in a lot of ways this is already pretty much solved by glasshouse/hydroponic cultivation and is already being practiced on a huge industrial scale. At the end of the day I don't think there's really a serious risk that climate change completely disrupts modern agriculture. Yes it will cause massive changes to the varieties, techniques, and distribution of what we grow but we'll be able to work around it.
tuatoru 3y ago
> most efficient available mechanism Efficiency is exactly what you don't want. There is a tradeoff between efficiency, minimising some parameter such as effort or water input, and resilience in the face of uncertainty. If you are "most efficient" you can't withstand even a small drop in the availability of critical inputs, because you are already using the least amount possible. What we need is diversity, a large repertoire or store-cupboard of things that we know about and can make use of.

watwut 3y ago

Insects and worms

doublepg23 3y ago
I had just heard about that conspiracy theory on NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/18/1188237695/this-right-wing-conspiracy-theory-about-eating-bugs-is-about-as-racist-as-you-th https://www.npr.org/2023/07/18/1188237695/this-right-wing-co...
- Vecr 3y ago
  Feed the bugs to the chickens instead.

anon84873628 3y ago

Perennial polyculture food forests built from as many species native to the local environment as possible. Processed and preserved nearby using renewable off grid energy sources including cellulosic ethanol produced from organic waste products. Edit: You can't separate the "concerns about monoculture" from "efficiency" (whether that means outside energy inputs or calorie production or whatever). Every plant/animal species has its own specific advantages, nutrient needs, seasonal cycles, etc. If you use a monoculture then you are necessarily missing out on capturing some advantages (e.g. sunligh) and creating a dependence on outside inputs. Polycultures create a holistic ecosystem that can optimally partition the available sunlight, soil, and water; create mutually beneficial feedback loops, and foster the diverse microbial & pollinator populations necessary to sustain plant life.

bodhi_mind 3y ago

Potatoes are far from nutritionally complete. They’re missing complete proteins, essential fatty acids, and other vitamins/micro nutrients. Great to have in a short term famine, but definitely not for surviving long term.

myshpa 3y ago
https://www.popsci.com/nutrition-single-food-survival/ https://www.popsci.com/nutrition-single-food-survival/ For all of 2016, Andrew Taylor ate only potatoes. There were a few caveats to his potato diet: He ate both white potatoes and sweet ones, and sometimes mixed in soymilk, tomato sauce, salt and herbs. He also took B12 supplements. But, overall, he ate potatoes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. He took four blood tests over the year which he claims all came back normal. He even lost weight and felt more energized.

dpeckett 3y ago

The human diet is probably split into several major categories and I think a one size fits all solution is probably not forthcoming. The first category which makes up the bulk of our diet are caloric cereal crops, or starchy tubers. In the calorie category it's all about getting the most starch out of a given land area. All these permaculture, food forest idealists, conveniently don't talk much about calories. Starch is a pretty simple molecule/polymer, I wouldn't be surprised if we find a way to synthesize it from energy and hydrogen feedstock. Then there is protein/nitrogen sources, which today are obtained from animal and legume products. Legumes are undoubtedly more efficient than animal products but are unfortunately still pretty heavy land users. My guess is we'll be eating food fortified with precision fermented proteins pretty soon. Some of those proteins will be mixed with soy, and the synthetic starch and used to produce chicken/fish feed. And then finally there's the third category, vitamin and mineral containing foods (fresh greens, fruits, nuts etc). This is where "weeds" come in. I think in a lot of ways this is already pretty much solved by glasshouse/hydroponic cultivation and is already being practiced on a huge industrial scale. At the end of the day I don't think there's really a serious risk that climate change completely disrupts modern agriculture. Yes it will cause massive changes to the varieties, techniques, and distribution of what we grow but we'll be able to work around it.

tuatoru 3y ago

> most efficient available mechanism Efficiency is exactly what you don't want. There is a tradeoff between efficiency, minimising some parameter such as effort or water input, and resilience in the face of uncertainty. If you are "most efficient" you can't withstand even a small drop in the availability of critical inputs, because you are already using the least amount possible. What we need is diversity, a large repertoire or store-cupboard of things that we know about and can make use of.