3 ms·

> apocalyptic Bingo. Wars are already expanding, and the world is preparing for more. With food production suffering from climate change impacts, we are witnes

by bostik 1y ago

> apocalyptic Bingo. Wars are already expanding, and the world is preparing for more. With food production suffering from climate change impacts, we are witnessing famine gaining ground in real time. The breed of politicians in power are doing their best to give pestilence a newfound hold on populace at large. And the fourth horseman is comfortably trotting in the wake of the other three.

vidarh 1y ago
It's worth noting that while these dangers are real, they are largely economic, and so effectively a moral and political choice. Most production of most staple crops are higher than they have ever been, and still increasing most years. World bank data estimates for population growth is a 10% increase from 2020 to 2030, 26% from 2020 to 2050, and 42% between 2020 and 2100. OECD (FAO Agricultural Outlook 2021-2030) estimates agricultural production to increase by 1.4% per year for the decade, which translates to ~15%. So agricultural output is increasing faster than the population at this point despite the climate challenges. But this increase itself creates risks (e.g. soil degradation, pressure on water supply) that is compounded by climate risks and creates variability on a regional level that absolutely will be a massive problem even though it could be "easily" protected against. The famine risk largely comes down to pushing food out of economic reach of poor countries at points where local crops fail, and the very same economic conditions makes those countries less likely to be able to afford to maintain sufficient emergency stores. Of course, that there's food elsewhere that is just too expensive will be of no comfort to those who end up starving.
- boudin 1y ago
  Do you know if the agricultural production increase is driven by exploiting more land (e.g. taking over land from forest) or by increased productivity of the practice? Is it an increase in term of value or volume? Is it an increase of food production for human or raw agricultural output (which also include things like crops to produce ethanol, feed for cattle, etc...)?
  - southernplaces7 1y ago
    >Do you know if the agricultural production increase is driven by exploiting more land (e.g. taking over land from forest) or by increased productivity of the practice? That would depend on the country in question, and in some cases it can be both, with more land being used while production per hectare (or acre) increases too. From wht I know of most developed countries, it's a case of steadily less land used, but much more productively than ever. For example, the United States today produces more food in absolute terms than at any time in its history (an increase of nearly 200% in the last 70 years alone), while land used for agriculture has at pretty much the same time steadily been decreasing since the mid-20th century. Forests are even growing back as a result, with total forest cover having been very gently increasing since 1910 (links below) https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/legacy_files/media/types/publication/field_pdf/forestfacts-2014aug-fs1035-508complete.pdf#:~:text=By%201910%2C%20the%20area%20of%20forest%20land,total%20land%20area%20of%20the%20United%20States. https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/legacy_files/med... https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/look-agricultural-productivity-growth-united-states-1948-2017#:~:text=From%201948%20to%202017%2C%20TFP,almost%20none%20of%20output%20growth. https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/look-agricultural-...
    - boudin 1y ago
      Sorry for pushing the logic but this doesn't account for the land, labour and resources required for the input which replaced former, less technical ways. How much is required to produce the seeds, seedlings, chemicals, energy and machines that weren't used before? In a really old approach farms tended to be fairly independant (e.g. producing their own fertilizers and using animal traction, animal who lived on the farm). This used land and labour which was accounted for but seems unaccounted for in more modern practice. In my opinion this underestimate the land and labour cost and creates a biased vision of the actual efficiency of modern agriculture.
      - worldsayshi 1y ago
        Yeah, and let's not forget the dependence on mined fertilizers.
- troyvit 1y ago
  > It's worth noting that while these dangers are real, they are largely economic, and so effectively a moral and political choice. I bet you're right. I'd just add that those are actually more difficult choices than technical ones. These are global issues and we don't have a global moral or political fabric to use, which means the best we'll come up with is a patchwork of competing ideas. If you think the Linux desktop is bad, wait until you see an attempt at a coordinated international response to drought. For a microscopic view you could look at the U.S.A. and how much five western states fight each other over water rights for the Colorado River. Those states are all part of the same country and they can't even figure it out.
  - vidarh 1y ago
    100% agree they're immensely difficult. Even convincing people that there is a case to mitigate famines have at many times in modern history been a massively uphill battle.
southernplaces7 1y ago
What a pile of nonsense you've just said. Our human society produces far more food than is even necessary to feed the entire human population. We produce so much that absolutely vast amounts are regularly discarded as refuse. Climate is not creating any real problems with food production that couldn't be remedied with a whole bunch of economic, logistical and practical solutions long before humanity ever reached genuine food shortages due to climate. Enough with this nearly religious forcing of a specific narrative. Also, famine isn't gaining ground in real time for the above reason, or at all for that matter. In absolute terms, more people today eat better than ever, and in nearly any case you care to look at of people starving, it's universally due to some regional political bullshittery instead of climate change. (case in point, children going hungry in Gaza right now) Temporary, shifting price rises on food are not the same thing as famine conditions by the way. Incredible how some people here just pull random claims out of their ass because they want them to be true as opposed to actually finding out if they have anything to do with reality.
- arbitrary_name 1y ago
  >Climate is not creating any real problems with food production that couldn't be remedied... I interpret this and GPs comment as the same: we have ways to solve these issues technically, but currently lack the other dimensions (trust, collaboration, incentives). As climate change adds risk, cost, and complexity, we are increasingly further from a solution, not closer. Your aggressive and dismissive rhetoric provides little in the way of substantive evidence or reasoning, either.
- worldsayshi 1y ago
  > remedied with a whole bunch of economic, logistical and practical solutions I worry that many of our solutions entail increasing exploitation on some other corner of the world. Like opening more mines for fertilizers. Eventually easily accessible fertilizers will run out too.

by bostik 1y ago

vidarh 1y ago

It's worth noting that while these dangers are real, they are largely economic, and so effectively a moral and political choice. Most production of most staple crops are higher than they have ever been, and still increasing most years. World bank data estimates for population growth is a 10% increase from 2020 to 2030, 26% from 2020 to 2050, and 42% between 2020 and 2100. OECD (FAO Agricultural Outlook 2021-2030) estimates agricultural production to increase by 1.4% per year for the decade, which translates to ~15%. So agricultural output is increasing faster than the population at this point despite the climate challenges. But this increase itself creates risks (e.g. soil degradation, pressure on water supply) that is compounded by climate risks and creates variability on a regional level that absolutely will be a massive problem even though it could be "easily" protected against. The famine risk largely comes down to pushing food out of economic reach of poor countries at points where local crops fail, and the very same economic conditions makes those countries less likely to be able to afford to maintain sufficient emergency stores. Of course, that there's food elsewhere that is just too expensive will be of no comfort to those who end up starving.

boudin 1y ago
Do you know if the agricultural production increase is driven by exploiting more land (e.g. taking over land from forest) or by increased productivity of the practice? Is it an increase in term of value or volume? Is it an increase of food production for human or raw agricultural output (which also include things like crops to produce ethanol, feed for cattle, etc...)?
- southernplaces7 1y ago
  >Do you know if the agricultural production increase is driven by exploiting more land (e.g. taking over land from forest) or by increased productivity of the practice? That would depend on the country in question, and in some cases it can be both, with more land being used while production per hectare (or acre) increases too. From wht I know of most developed countries, it's a case of steadily less land used, but much more productively than ever. For example, the United States today produces more food in absolute terms than at any time in its history (an increase of nearly 200% in the last 70 years alone), while land used for agriculture has at pretty much the same time steadily been decreasing since the mid-20th century. Forests are even growing back as a result, with total forest cover having been very gently increasing since 1910 (links below) https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/legacy_files/media/types/publication/field_pdf/forestfacts-2014aug-fs1035-508complete.pdf#:~:text=By%201910%2C%20the%20area%20of%20forest%20land,total%20land%20area%20of%20the%20United%20States. https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/legacy_files/med... https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/look-agricultural-productivity-growth-united-states-1948-2017#:~:text=From%201948%20to%202017%2C%20TFP,almost%20none%20of%20output%20growth. https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/look-agricultural-...
  - boudin 1y ago
    Sorry for pushing the logic but this doesn't account for the land, labour and resources required for the input which replaced former, less technical ways. How much is required to produce the seeds, seedlings, chemicals, energy and machines that weren't used before? In a really old approach farms tended to be fairly independant (e.g. producing their own fertilizers and using animal traction, animal who lived on the farm). This used land and labour which was accounted for but seems unaccounted for in more modern practice. In my opinion this underestimate the land and labour cost and creates a biased vision of the actual efficiency of modern agriculture.
    - worldsayshi 1y ago
      Yeah, and let's not forget the dependence on mined fertilizers.
troyvit 1y ago
> It's worth noting that while these dangers are real, they are largely economic, and so effectively a moral and political choice. I bet you're right. I'd just add that those are actually more difficult choices than technical ones. These are global issues and we don't have a global moral or political fabric to use, which means the best we'll come up with is a patchwork of competing ideas. If you think the Linux desktop is bad, wait until you see an attempt at a coordinated international response to drought. For a microscopic view you could look at the U.S.A. and how much five western states fight each other over water rights for the Colorado River. Those states are all part of the same country and they can't even figure it out.
- vidarh 1y ago
  100% agree they're immensely difficult. Even convincing people that there is a case to mitigate famines have at many times in modern history been a massively uphill battle.

southernplaces7 1y ago

What a pile of nonsense you've just said. Our human society produces far more food than is even necessary to feed the entire human population. We produce so much that absolutely vast amounts are regularly discarded as refuse. Climate is not creating any real problems with food production that couldn't be remedied with a whole bunch of economic, logistical and practical solutions long before humanity ever reached genuine food shortages due to climate. Enough with this nearly religious forcing of a specific narrative. Also, famine isn't gaining ground in real time for the above reason, or at all for that matter. In absolute terms, more people today eat better than ever, and in nearly any case you care to look at of people starving, it's universally due to some regional political bullshittery instead of climate change. (case in point, children going hungry in Gaza right now) Temporary, shifting price rises on food are not the same thing as famine conditions by the way. Incredible how some people here just pull random claims out of their ass because they want them to be true as opposed to actually finding out if they have anything to do with reality.

arbitrary_name 1y ago
>Climate is not creating any real problems with food production that couldn't be remedied... I interpret this and GPs comment as the same: we have ways to solve these issues technically, but currently lack the other dimensions (trust, collaboration, incentives). As climate change adds risk, cost, and complexity, we are increasingly further from a solution, not closer. Your aggressive and dismissive rhetoric provides little in the way of substantive evidence or reasoning, either.
worldsayshi 1y ago
> remedied with a whole bunch of economic, logistical and practical solutions I worry that many of our solutions entail increasing exploitation on some other corner of the world. Like opening more mines for fertilizers. Eventually easily accessible fertilizers will run out too.