3 ms·
> We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet That, too, is debatable. Google "Do we have enough food" - we could feed 10B people with what we produce
by grumbelbart2 2y ago
> We definitely need more GMO crops to feed the planet
That, too, is debatable. Google "Do we have enough food" - we could feed 10B people with what we produce. Feeding the world is currently more a matter of donating (who pays?) and distributing it, not so much of producing the food in the first place.
> namely the lack of pesticides, of which some may be dangerous (but often regulated)
There is also overfertilization, which puts nitrates into ground and ultimately drinking water, and the over-use of herbicide, which massively strains local ecosystems to their collapse. The farmer revolts in Europe over the last 1-2 years have shown how politically difficult any kind of regulation in this area is. The EU is now backing down. It seems to be very difficult to find a middle ground in the "excessive vs. organic" spectrum.
- v7n 2y agoDistribution is in itself a problem, yes, but there's also the geopolitical angle of depending on foreign imports to feed a nation.
- danpalmer 2y agoYeah this is a complex problem. It does seem the case that we probably have enough food globally, but not at a national level. Also it seems that we don't have sufficient food for everyone to live at the level of the average American or European, so arguably there's benefit there in increasing food production. Also a large population still farm every day, being able to reduce the time input for farming could increase productivity by freeing people up to do other things.
- xboxnolifes 2y ago> Feeding the world is currently more a matter of donating (who pays?) and distributing it, not so much of producing the food in the first place. Yes, but if food can become X% more abundant do to increased yield or survivability in previously unsurvivable climates, distribution and costs can become that much less of an issue.