11 ms·

Destroy the soil and we all starve

120 points by alexcasalboni 12y ago

msandford 12y ago
Probably one of the most boring and most important problems in the world. Not enough is being done to address these issues, mostly because it would threaten huge commercial farms. I suspect that the number of farmers is going to grow very substantially in the next 20-50 years as people recognize that you can't steward 1000 acres all by yourself. The practical limit of how many people an acre of land can support is driven almost entirely by how many people are working it. There's the upper limit on inbound sunlight of course, but that's a pretty high limit relative to what industrial agribusiness is doing these days.
- hollerith 12y ago
  I don't understand your comment. >The practical limit of how many people an acre of land can support is driven almost entirely by how many people are working it. Does that not imply that loss of soil will not result in starvation, just the need for more farmers? Do you agree or disagree with, "Destroy the soil and we all starve"?
  - green7ea 12y ago
    From what I understood, he implied that the more people work a piece of land, the more fertile they can make it.
  - msandford 12y ago
    I totally agree with the statement. If you can have 2x as many people work on a piece of land and get 2x the production from it (relative to industrial agribusiness) that's very interesting. That means that the limit for how much food we can get is due to the number of farmers, not the amount of acres. And the idea that we could ruin 20-30% of the farmland in the world and still recover is very encouraging, because you can make up for that kind of loss by simply increasing the number of farmers and production would go up more than enough to make up for it. Also even once land is "ruined" it's still not ruined forever. It just takes some years of rest and rehabilitation before it is fertile again. You can grow peanuts to fix nitrogen. You can plant grass and graze cattle on it for several years to fix large amounts of biomass into the land and kickstart the process of renewal. Medieval farmers knew about this and they had a "two field" system where they farmed one field and left the other fallow. Eventually they figured out that 50% rest wasn't strictly necessary and went to the three field system where a field got 33% rest. Right now most farmland gets 0% rest which is part of the problem. Lets suppose that there are diminishing returns to adding farmers. Eventually you run into the limits of sunlight of course. But if most farmland is only 10% efficient and lets say that quadrupling the number of farmers per acre only triples production. By teaching people to be farmers and to manage their land very jealously we could have well over half the fields in recovery all the time and still have enough food.
    - joshuapants 12y ago
      > That means that the limit for how much food we can get is due to the number of farmers, not the amount of acres I think a pretty serious limit would be that most plants need space, you can only fit a limited number of a crop in an acre and after a certain (fairly low) point having more farmers would not help anything.
      - msandford 12y ago
        Agreed, but industrial agribusiness is predicated on huge automation and the idea that one farmer can farm hundred or thousands of acres. That's an efficient use of labor, but not of acres. We might be getting to the point that land is more valuable than labor and thus it makes sense to spend more human effort per acre than in the past. Here are people in LA that grow a huge amount of food in their backyard, 1/10 of an acre: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM Here's a guy in Canada that makes a legit living urban farming 1/3 of an acre: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnCIlq0KPw0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnCIlq0KPw0 There are tons of additional examples on youtube of other people doing very similar things. The point, though, is that it's very intensive on a labor per acre basis. You can't do this kind of farming with big tractors over thousands of acres with just a few people, you need several people per acre for it to work. But it does work! Yes there is a limit eventually, but the point isn't as low as you think.
        joshuapants 12y ago
        The LA example is interesting, I'd be interested in seeing a more detailed breakdown of what exactly they grew because pounds of food aren't exactly fungible (a pound of lettuce has 77 calories, a pound of potatoes has ~350). From some back of the napkin math, it seems that current farming techniques yield about 50,000 pounds of potatoes per acre, so on the 1/10 acre scale in terms of vegetable matter they outpace the LA farm (though this will vary by crop. It might make more sense to compare calories per acre). I think you have a point, it's certainly worth looking into whether the gains from more labor-intensive farming are greater than the cost of labor when adopted en masse.
CapitalistCartr 12y ago
In the United States articles have been bemoaning the loss of our topsoil since the 1930s. They seem to follow a template. We need our soil; we'll die without it. Then explaining the rate we're losing it at; how much we have left, finishing with dire warnings. My parents were farmers. We haven't depended on topsoil to fill our collective larder since those 1930s. We add nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and various minor minerals. Nitrogen made from and by the petroleum industry. We use it to grow corn, a heavy feeder, turn that corn into a gasoline additive and pretend it's green. Phosphates are dug from the ground a few miles from where I live by giant drag lines. We use petrochemicals to compensate for massive mono-cropping and now we have gene-splicing. The soil? It's just a grow medium for petro-food. Anyone who still pretends our modern cornucopia is the fruit of the soil is being willfully ignorant.
- scottshepard 12y ago
  I believe that erosion is a bigger issue than loss of nutrients. For example, Iowa has lost an estimated 10 inches of topsoil in the last 150 years. There are only six inches left. Dust-covered bedrock does not make good farmland.
  - CapitalistCartr 12y ago
    I am definitely not a fan of our current system, but your post illustrates the problem. Under that topsoil is meters of subsoil before the bedrock. The current agri-corps can continue to play the chemistry set game with our food for another century or more if we let them. The rise of "Roundup Ready" crops is helping to eradicate the monarch butterfly. Multiple articles about the plight of the honeybee have been posted to HN. These are externalities to their profits unless and until we change that.
    - daeken 12y ago
      > The rise of "Roundup Ready" crops is helping to eradicate the monarch butterfly. This is true, but it's significantly less direct than the news stories have indicated. The issue is that Roundup is being used to eliminate milkweed, which are essential for monarch butterflies. It's not Roundup or Roundup Ready crops that are harming monarch butterflies, but what they're being used to eliminate.
wwweston 12y ago
If you're interested in a closer look at the topic, you could do worse than looking at the work of Wes Jackson and his Land Institute: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/a-conversation-with-wes-jackson-president-of-the-land-institute/72927/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/a-c... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2fqNxyqubQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2fqNxyqubQ http://landinstitute.org/ http://landinstitute.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wes_Jackson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wes_Jackson
nikhilsoman 12y ago
I think this point is moot. Degradation of soil - or specifically - the ability of topsoil to retain enough nutrients to support agriculture - is not the primary problem we are facing today. The key issues are - #1 Reclamation of fertile land for housing the burgeoning population is the largest reason for declining food production - which in turn leads to the increasing use of chemical fertilizers for enhanced yield from the same or reduced available land. #2 The % of population engaged in agriculture as compared to pure consumers of agricultural produce. This is perhaps what msandford meant. The net number of agricultural workers 'producers' is rapidly declining due to higher yield 'jobs' off farm. This impacts output/acre significantly. However the ceiling for human resource in farming is pretty low. Perhaps we need to look at a metric like Man month/unit of produce. The need of the hour is to change the basic value chain. Consumers have no stake in (and dont care about) the production or the land itself. Farmers are being marginalized by increasing land prices/roi on selling farmland for other purposes. Landowners/Bulk Consumers are driven by volumes - not necessarily by sustainability. This is like strip mining. Perhaps a new platform is required to realign the value chain. The above is particularly true for India - which will also be one of the hardest hit - earliest.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway48303 12y ago
  > The % of population engaged in agriculture as compared to pure consumers of agricultural produce. This is perhaps what msandford meant. The net number of agricultural workers 'producers' is rapidly declining due to higher yield 'jobs' off farm. This impacts output/acre significantly. That has not been the case. Yields have improved in lock-step with the decrease of farmers. This is largely due to improvements in farming equipment, better hybrids, transgenic traits and other technological improvements.
- briantakita 12y ago
  > Degradation of soil - or specifically - the ability of topsoil to retain enough nutrients to support agriculture - is not the primary problem we are facing today. I agree. The biggest problem is our culture taking an overly simplistic reductionistic approach to create solutions (aka the silver bullet). There are a number of issues that all need to be addressed. That being said, Degradation of soil is a major issue that needs to be addressed; if it's not addressed, we will have compounding issues. Note that 12 million hecacres of arable land is lost every year from desertification, caused by soil degradation. http://www.un.org/en/events/desertificationday/background.shtml http://www.un.org/en/events/desertificationday/background.sh...
VOYD 12y ago
One word - Electrolytes.
- shortavion 12y ago
  That gave me a hearty chuckle! Thanks.
anigbrowl 12y ago
What an awful, incoherent article. I had to read almost to the end to learn that the basic problem was too much ploughing. I don't have time to get fully pre-educated on every environmental problem I am supposed to be angry about; maybe if Monbiot and other advocates put a little bit effort into explaining the issue of soil erosion they'd attract more support for their position.
- throwaway48303 12y ago
  You lasted longer than I did. It only took me a few paragraphs to realize Monbiot has never actually talked to a farmer.
chflamplighter 12y ago
Although erosion is a problem driving an overall loss of naturally occurring plant available nutrition, most growers mitigate this loss with the addition of nutrient rich materials (chemical fertilizers, Poultry Litter, Organic Material, nutrient packages, etc). With these additions growers can ensure a nutritious enough soil for production. The real issue is the loss of the ecology found within that soil through erosion and chemical intensive production practices. If you think about it, soil is basically a plants stomach. It is constantly cycling nutrition to and from a plant accessible form mainly through microbial mediation. Just like your digestive system, soils contain critical populations of Beneficial Microorganisms which are a requirement for crop production. As an additional tool along with Nutrient inputs, growers are introducing Beneficial Microorganisms into their production programs. As a result Growers see a more balanced level of plant accessible nutrition and a more efficient utilization of those Nutrient inputs thus driving an overall increase in the ecological fitness and production of their crops. I personally think we should place the highest value on soil, water --- heck all of our Natural Resources but it is an interesting time as we pick up the pieces left by our agricultural production systems looking towards an ever increasing population. (disclaimer: I am not a grower but the current iteration of my career is working for a Biotech which has developed teams of Beneficial Microbes for Agricultural and Environmental Applications).
tehchromic 12y ago
the fact that important topics like these appear on tech sites like this one is incredibly positive. a good question is: what can the tech industry and culture actually do about it? lots, and way more than it is doing, is one opinion.
throwaway48303 12y ago
"orgy of soil destruction" "allow contractors to rip their fields to shreds for the sake of a quick profit" "This is what topples civilisations" "macho commitment to destructive short-termism" Sensationalist garbage. No farmer willingly treats their land like that, and I'd wager that even the average farmer knows more about soil science and biogeochemistry than Monbiot does. But they don't get sinecures to write clickbait garbage for biased rags.
- wwweston 12y ago
  > No farmer willingly treats their land like that People absolutely will exploit, consume, and even destroy resources they own if they think it will give them sufficient local advantage. Why would land be an exception? > the average farmer knows more about soil science and biogeochemistry than Monbiot does There are farmers whose scientific grasp seems sound and position has a lot in common with Monbiot. Google "Wes Jackson", or just look elsewhere on this page where I've posted some links.
ccleve 12y ago
Can someone explain to me where all of the eroded topsoil goes? It doesn't just blow away. It goes somewhere. Conservation of matter, right? If it ends up as sludge in a lake or river, can't we dredge and get it back? Yes, I know that would be expensive. Just askin'
- pixl97 12y ago
  Simple answer, everywhere. Ever look up at the sunset and see the deep red colors in the atmosphere. That's the light reflecting off the dust. Some of it lands here, other lands there, and much of it lands in the ocean since it covers most of the surface of the Earth. Yes, a lot does go into the rivers (or at least used to), but there it is intermixed with all kinds of other materials, many of them dangerous for human health.
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  It's mostly carried by water, accumulating at every hole around - what includes bottom of lakes and the oceans.
bcheung 12y ago
Aquaponics is a great solution to the problem of lack of farmable soil and water shortages. It uses only 10% of the water for the same yield. It also grows faster, is more nutrient rich, and can be done pretty much anywhere you can store water.
chucksmart 12y ago
War, plague, or famine. Which would you prefer?
mschuster91 12y ago
I don't exactly believe that the world has sustainability problems or is unable to support 10b people. It is possible, if the Western world stops shipping our surplus foodstuff to Africa and ruining the local farms by giving food away for free. We should instead help rebuild the agricultural industry so that Africa can finally feed itself.
- cplease 12y ago
  Feeding people is, sad to say, among the least of our problems. One that, incidentally, we are lousy at already with 7 billion people in the world and a big fraction hungry or food-insecure. It's not just a matter of waste or inefficiencies either. We're approaching resource limits. But yes, we could feed 10B people on rice and beans, for a time, and give everyone sufficient calories, for a time. There's still the little issues like global warming, poisoning of air and water, die-off of other species, and so on. Yes, population WILL peak sometime in the next 100 years, and growth is slowing, but we are already billions past what we can sustain now much less provide everyone with a decent standard of living, and adding billions more at a frightening rate.

120 points by alexcasalboni 12y ago

Probably one of the most boring and most important problems in the world. Not enough is being done to address these issues, mostly because it would threaten huge commercial farms. I suspect that the number of farmers is going to grow very substantially in the next 20-50 years as people recognize that you can't steward 1000 acres all by yourself. The practical limit of how many people an acre of land can support is driven almost entirely by how many people are working it. There's the upper limit on inbound sunlight of course, but that's a pretty high limit relative to what industrial agribusiness is doing these days.

hollerith 12y ago
I don't understand your comment. >The practical limit of how many people an acre of land can support is driven almost entirely by how many people are working it. Does that not imply that loss of soil will not result in starvation, just the need for more farmers? Do you agree or disagree with, "Destroy the soil and we all starve"?
- green7ea 12y ago
  From what I understood, he implied that the more people work a piece of land, the more fertile they can make it.
- msandford 12y ago
  I totally agree with the statement. If you can have 2x as many people work on a piece of land and get 2x the production from it (relative to industrial agribusiness) that's very interesting. That means that the limit for how much food we can get is due to the number of farmers, not the amount of acres. And the idea that we could ruin 20-30% of the farmland in the world and still recover is very encouraging, because you can make up for that kind of loss by simply increasing the number of farmers and production would go up more than enough to make up for it. Also even once land is "ruined" it's still not ruined forever. It just takes some years of rest and rehabilitation before it is fertile again. You can grow peanuts to fix nitrogen. You can plant grass and graze cattle on it for several years to fix large amounts of biomass into the land and kickstart the process of renewal. Medieval farmers knew about this and they had a "two field" system where they farmed one field and left the other fallow. Eventually they figured out that 50% rest wasn't strictly necessary and went to the three field system where a field got 33% rest. Right now most farmland gets 0% rest which is part of the problem. Lets suppose that there are diminishing returns to adding farmers. Eventually you run into the limits of sunlight of course. But if most farmland is only 10% efficient and lets say that quadrupling the number of farmers per acre only triples production. By teaching people to be farmers and to manage their land very jealously we could have well over half the fields in recovery all the time and still have enough food.
  - joshuapants 12y ago
    > That means that the limit for how much food we can get is due to the number of farmers, not the amount of acres I think a pretty serious limit would be that most plants need space, you can only fit a limited number of a crop in an acre and after a certain (fairly low) point having more farmers would not help anything.
    - msandford 12y ago
      Agreed, but industrial agribusiness is predicated on huge automation and the idea that one farmer can farm hundred or thousands of acres. That's an efficient use of labor, but not of acres. We might be getting to the point that land is more valuable than labor and thus it makes sense to spend more human effort per acre than in the past. Here are people in LA that grow a huge amount of food in their backyard, 1/10 of an acre: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM Here's a guy in Canada that makes a legit living urban farming 1/3 of an acre: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnCIlq0KPw0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnCIlq0KPw0 There are tons of additional examples on youtube of other people doing very similar things. The point, though, is that it's very intensive on a labor per acre basis. You can't do this kind of farming with big tractors over thousands of acres with just a few people, you need several people per acre for it to work. But it does work! Yes there is a limit eventually, but the point isn't as low as you think.
      - joshuapants 12y ago
        The LA example is interesting, I'd be interested in seeing a more detailed breakdown of what exactly they grew because pounds of food aren't exactly fungible (a pound of lettuce has 77 calories, a pound of potatoes has ~350). From some back of the napkin math, it seems that current farming techniques yield about 50,000 pounds of potatoes per acre, so on the 1/10 acre scale in terms of vegetable matter they outpace the LA farm (though this will vary by crop. It might make more sense to compare calories per acre). I think you have a point, it's certainly worth looking into whether the gains from more labor-intensive farming are greater than the cost of labor when adopted en masse.

CapitalistCartr 12y ago

In the United States articles have been bemoaning the loss of our topsoil since the 1930s. They seem to follow a template. We need our soil; we'll die without it. Then explaining the rate we're losing it at; how much we have left, finishing with dire warnings. My parents were farmers. We haven't depended on topsoil to fill our collective larder since those 1930s. We add nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and various minor minerals. Nitrogen made from and by the petroleum industry. We use it to grow corn, a heavy feeder, turn that corn into a gasoline additive and pretend it's green. Phosphates are dug from the ground a few miles from where I live by giant drag lines. We use petrochemicals to compensate for massive mono-cropping and now we have gene-splicing. The soil? It's just a grow medium for petro-food. Anyone who still pretends our modern cornucopia is the fruit of the soil is being willfully ignorant.

scottshepard 12y ago
I believe that erosion is a bigger issue than loss of nutrients. For example, Iowa has lost an estimated 10 inches of topsoil in the last 150 years. There are only six inches left. Dust-covered bedrock does not make good farmland.
- CapitalistCartr 12y ago
  I am definitely not a fan of our current system, but your post illustrates the problem. Under that topsoil is meters of subsoil before the bedrock. The current agri-corps can continue to play the chemistry set game with our food for another century or more if we let them. The rise of "Roundup Ready" crops is helping to eradicate the monarch butterfly. Multiple articles about the plight of the honeybee have been posted to HN. These are externalities to their profits unless and until we change that.
  - daeken 12y ago
    > The rise of "Roundup Ready" crops is helping to eradicate the monarch butterfly. This is true, but it's significantly less direct than the news stories have indicated. The issue is that Roundup is being used to eliminate milkweed, which are essential for monarch butterflies. It's not Roundup or Roundup Ready crops that are harming monarch butterflies, but what they're being used to eliminate.

wwweston 12y ago

If you're interested in a closer look at the topic, you could do worse than looking at the work of Wes Jackson and his Land Institute: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/a-conversation-with-wes-jackson-president-of-the-land-institute/72927/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/03/a-c... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2fqNxyqubQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2fqNxyqubQ http://landinstitute.org/ http://landinstitute.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wes_Jackson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wes_Jackson

nikhilsoman 12y ago

I think this point is moot. Degradation of soil - or specifically - the ability of topsoil to retain enough nutrients to support agriculture - is not the primary problem we are facing today. The key issues are - #1 Reclamation of fertile land for housing the burgeoning population is the largest reason for declining food production - which in turn leads to the increasing use of chemical fertilizers for enhanced yield from the same or reduced available land. #2 The % of population engaged in agriculture as compared to pure consumers of agricultural produce. This is perhaps what msandford meant. The net number of agricultural workers 'producers' is rapidly declining due to higher yield 'jobs' off farm. This impacts output/acre significantly. However the ceiling for human resource in farming is pretty low. Perhaps we need to look at a metric like Man month/unit of produce. The need of the hour is to change the basic value chain. Consumers have no stake in (and dont care about) the production or the land itself. Farmers are being marginalized by increasing land prices/roi on selling farmland for other purposes. Landowners/Bulk Consumers are driven by volumes - not necessarily by sustainability. This is like strip mining. Perhaps a new platform is required to realign the value chain. The above is particularly true for India - which will also be one of the hardest hit - earliest.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
throwaway48303 12y ago
> The % of population engaged in agriculture as compared to pure consumers of agricultural produce. This is perhaps what msandford meant. The net number of agricultural workers 'producers' is rapidly declining due to higher yield 'jobs' off farm. This impacts output/acre significantly. That has not been the case. Yields have improved in lock-step with the decrease of farmers. This is largely due to improvements in farming equipment, better hybrids, transgenic traits and other technological improvements.
briantakita 12y ago
> Degradation of soil - or specifically - the ability of topsoil to retain enough nutrients to support agriculture - is not the primary problem we are facing today. I agree. The biggest problem is our culture taking an overly simplistic reductionistic approach to create solutions (aka the silver bullet). There are a number of issues that all need to be addressed. That being said, Degradation of soil is a major issue that needs to be addressed; if it's not addressed, we will have compounding issues. Note that 12 million hecacres of arable land is lost every year from desertification, caused by soil degradation. http://www.un.org/en/events/desertificationday/background.shtml http://www.un.org/en/events/desertificationday/background.sh...

VOYD 12y ago

One word - Electrolytes.

shortavion 12y ago
That gave me a hearty chuckle! Thanks.

anigbrowl 12y ago

What an awful, incoherent article. I had to read almost to the end to learn that the basic problem was too much ploughing. I don't have time to get fully pre-educated on every environmental problem I am supposed to be angry about; maybe if Monbiot and other advocates put a little bit effort into explaining the issue of soil erosion they'd attract more support for their position.

throwaway48303 12y ago
You lasted longer than I did. It only took me a few paragraphs to realize Monbiot has never actually talked to a farmer.

chflamplighter 12y ago

Although erosion is a problem driving an overall loss of naturally occurring plant available nutrition, most growers mitigate this loss with the addition of nutrient rich materials (chemical fertilizers, Poultry Litter, Organic Material, nutrient packages, etc). With these additions growers can ensure a nutritious enough soil for production. The real issue is the loss of the ecology found within that soil through erosion and chemical intensive production practices. If you think about it, soil is basically a plants stomach. It is constantly cycling nutrition to and from a plant accessible form mainly through microbial mediation. Just like your digestive system, soils contain critical populations of Beneficial Microorganisms which are a requirement for crop production. As an additional tool along with Nutrient inputs, growers are introducing Beneficial Microorganisms into their production programs. As a result Growers see a more balanced level of plant accessible nutrition and a more efficient utilization of those Nutrient inputs thus driving an overall increase in the ecological fitness and production of their crops. I personally think we should place the highest value on soil, water --- heck all of our Natural Resources but it is an interesting time as we pick up the pieces left by our agricultural production systems looking towards an ever increasing population. (disclaimer: I am not a grower but the current iteration of my career is working for a Biotech which has developed teams of Beneficial Microbes for Agricultural and Environmental Applications).

tehchromic 12y ago

the fact that important topics like these appear on tech sites like this one is incredibly positive. a good question is: what can the tech industry and culture actually do about it? lots, and way more than it is doing, is one opinion.

throwaway48303 12y ago

"orgy of soil destruction" "allow contractors to rip their fields to shreds for the sake of a quick profit" "This is what topples civilisations" "macho commitment to destructive short-termism" Sensationalist garbage. No farmer willingly treats their land like that, and I'd wager that even the average farmer knows more about soil science and biogeochemistry than Monbiot does. But they don't get sinecures to write clickbait garbage for biased rags.

wwweston 12y ago
> No farmer willingly treats their land like that People absolutely will exploit, consume, and even destroy resources they own if they think it will give them sufficient local advantage. Why would land be an exception? > the average farmer knows more about soil science and biogeochemistry than Monbiot does There are farmers whose scientific grasp seems sound and position has a lot in common with Monbiot. Google "Wes Jackson", or just look elsewhere on this page where I've posted some links.

ccleve 12y ago

Can someone explain to me where all of the eroded topsoil goes? It doesn't just blow away. It goes somewhere. Conservation of matter, right? If it ends up as sludge in a lake or river, can't we dredge and get it back? Yes, I know that would be expensive. Just askin'

pixl97 12y ago
Simple answer, everywhere. Ever look up at the sunset and see the deep red colors in the atmosphere. That's the light reflecting off the dust. Some of it lands here, other lands there, and much of it lands in the ocean since it covers most of the surface of the Earth. Yes, a lot does go into the rivers (or at least used to), but there it is intermixed with all kinds of other materials, many of them dangerous for human health.
marcosdumay 12y ago
It's mostly carried by water, accumulating at every hole around - what includes bottom of lakes and the oceans.

bcheung 12y ago

Aquaponics is a great solution to the problem of lack of farmable soil and water shortages. It uses only 10% of the water for the same yield. It also grows faster, is more nutrient rich, and can be done pretty much anywhere you can store water.

chucksmart 12y ago

War, plague, or famine. Which would you prefer?

mschuster91 12y ago

I don't exactly believe that the world has sustainability problems or is unable to support 10b people. It is possible, if the Western world stops shipping our surplus foodstuff to Africa and ruining the local farms by giving food away for free. We should instead help rebuild the agricultural industry so that Africa can finally feed itself.

cplease 12y ago
Feeding people is, sad to say, among the least of our problems. One that, incidentally, we are lousy at already with 7 billion people in the world and a big fraction hungry or food-insecure. It's not just a matter of waste or inefficiencies either. We're approaching resource limits. But yes, we could feed 10B people on rice and beans, for a time, and give everyone sufficient calories, for a time. There's still the little issues like global warming, poisoning of air and water, die-off of other species, and so on. Yes, population WILL peak sometime in the next 100 years, and growth is slowing, but we are already billions past what we can sustain now much less provide everyone with a decent standard of living, and adding billions more at a frightening rate.