3 ms·
As global policy, there is a very important, optimal amount of food waste: to first order, the xth percentile of uncontrolled variance in harvest size, where x
by QuadmasterXLII 2y ago
As global policy, there is a very important, optimal amount of food waste: to first order, the xth percentile of uncontrolled variance in harvest size, where x is the percentage of years when we are willing to let some fraction of the population to go hungry. We can start eating 'expired' cheese in an emergency a hell of a lot easier than we can go back in time a year and a half and raise more calfs.
- AnthonyMouse 2y agoIf the harvest is down 25% this year, the result is not that 75% of people eat the same amount of food as they do now and 25% starve to death, it's that the price of food increases and then the average person buys 25% less food. A significant percentage of the world population is overweight. That implies not only that they're eating in a caloric surplus and could feasibly eat less than they do now forever, but that they could eat in a caloric deficit for a period of time and the result would benefit their health. If production of food was temporarily low, people would not have to resort to eating foods that are expired, they could simply eat foods that are stored. The date on the can of soup in your pantry is two years from now, and you were going to eat it two years from now, but you can also eat it now. Low harvests in one year can generally be addressed by the next year, for example by planting different crops this year that aren't susceptible to this year's problem, or planting crops in a larger amount of land area, possibly in another part of the world not experiencing the same yield issues. The optimal amount of food waste is none.
- kragen 2y agoyou can stockpile food safely for a lot more than a year