In the Netherlands, a group of scientists is working on feeding 11 billion
wired.co.uk
wired.co.uk
Since then, they have added many courses on sustainable agriculture and sustainable development. https://www.edx.org/school/wageningenx
Also, there is not enough food in the world to sustainably feed everyone. Current average diets for wealthy countries are driving climate change that is reducing the ability of less-developed countries to reasonably plan for crops and build their own sustainable food sources.
It's not necessarily more food that's the problem so much as sustainable and low-cost food.
Also, not all food problems can be blamed on western climate change that we will always need to account for, like literal deserts in North Africa.
People need to get over the idea of efficiency and centrally planned. These are not necessary qualities in order for humans to prosper.
Of course so can technological change, but it's not like efficiency is just some dumb irrelevancy.
People need to get over the idea that a free market is the solution to everything?
To be clear I’m not advocating centralized planning, or any specific planning method. I’m simply pointing out the free market has specifically failed at food distribution. Or at least, you're going to need to contort the definition of success to get the free market to meet it.
Also note that planning and central planning aren't synonymous. A central planning process makes more efficient use of planning resources, but that doesn't help if the plans it produces are themselves inefficient because they're based on five-year-old statistics someone faked for their personal gain. So far, decentralized planning seems to be more robust overall, and the additional decision-making overhead is small compared to the cost of actually moving things around.
In that sense, it's not even the case that food distribution is currently unplanned; a great deal of effort goes into determining what quantities of various foods should be transported to warehouses all over the world in order to meet future demand. The problem is just that the planners are optimizing their own profit, and keeping the largest possible number of people well-fed isn't profit-maximizing currently.
I just don't know what this means. Do we have enough food to feed 9B people for one day? For their whole lifetimes? I think the statistic is too vague to mean anything.
I maintain that we do not have processes in place to feed 9B people for their expected lifespan. If we used our current processes, food sources, diets, etc to feed 9B people, there would be so much disruption in the environment that the situation (being able to feed 9B people with existing food) would not last for the lifetime of those people.
Perhaps I am wrong - but climate predictions for year ~2100 are pretty intense wrt. changes in crop production and such. I just don't think "we have enough [food] now for 9B people".
Market forces will cause the types of food produced to be diverse enough to consist of a sane and reasonable approximation of a healthy diet, so I don't think that counterarguments along the lines of "we can feed 9B people if you think living off corn counts as feeding" apply here.
Modern agriculture is incredibly efficient. I am completely sure that if our modern techniques were fully implemented across the developing world, we would be able to feed another 4B people with ease.
I don't think that's all very clear to start with, but if that's what it means then I still don't consider it a useful metric; it's a local maxima that is reducing our ability to talk about long-term sustainable planning.
"Market forces" are largely ignoring the changing climate and food production's part in that. I don't think it's useful to only think about the daily food production and daily food requirements, since our real requirements are to plan to eat for a lifetime, not just one day at a time.
> Modern agriculture is incredibly efficient.
I think this is only true for narrow definitions of efficient. Modern agriculture is extremely inefficient in terms of pollution and sustainability.
If we implemented your idea of modern techniques globally I think we'd be in for a faster-than-expected change in climate that could put large swathes of that new infrastructure and land use at risk.
The definition I was going for is this: 2% of the US is currently employed in the agriculture sector. The US is also a very large exporter of agricultural products. So each ag worker produces over 50x more food than they consume. I think that's pretty amazing.
I think targeting that definition of 'efficient' is a mistake, as it doesn't represent the true, whole-system consequences. The efficiency metric you quote just completely ignores the pollution from the industry, which is a part of the system you're studying.
Passing the sound barrier wouldn't have been so amazing if the plane blew up just after.
I mostly agree with this, but it's still a useful talking point to illustrate the failings of the current distribution of food to people who need food. In a more general context it's a disingenuous data point to bring up that does have long term sustainability issues. The issue of which food we're producing where is a different part of industrialized food production that's also worth time discussing for sure, but not my aim here. Even if we were to move to a better way of generating food for 9 billion people (say, radically via not farming meat on industrial scales) the problem of food distribution would remain. It certainly remains and grows in importance if our supply contracts. However, I don't think there's dire concerns that we should contract our food output, just many characteristics of how we farm our food.
Only about 5% of the total cost goes to the farmers, and they are probably only about 5% of the sustainability issue.
This idea that eating whole food plant based is hard and time consuming is a myth. Almost every veggie cooks unattended in the microwave in about 10 minutes, potatoes included.
Since I didn't have the budget for highly processed things, I inadvertently ate super clean.
So this has me thinking, there are already complex distribution channels for medicine for places in need; to that could be added a few key supplements like B12. As long as they are getting otherwise the main macronutrients met, it becomes easier for more people to eat WFPB, which in fact like me in times of poverty many people already do.
Insects are popular in places where meat is still relatively scarce/expensive. I'm sure it's a great source of protein if you are in need of protein and there's nothing else around. However, I prefer to eat things because they are delicious. I could probably feed myself on a shoe string budget by giving up most of the things I enjoy eating/drinking. But why would I want to?
The trick is going to be feeding 11 Billion people in a way that is actually enjoyable. Insects are going to be a hard sell to someone who can afford a steak. On the other hand, shrimps, lobsters, etc. are just under water insects (or at least closely related). I don't particularly enjoy them but for lots of people they are kind of a delicacy and a completely normal part of their diet. A lot of these kind of things are learned behavior.
Science giving us options is a good thing. But I'd say they need to focus more on the eating experience than on just the protein content/nutritional value. Things like texture, juiciness, umami, maillard reaction etc. All the reasons people like steaks basically. The kind of things that get foodies excited.
Fast forward, in this decade I ate insect burgers by a Belgian company called Damhert. Again, nutty flavor, and tasted well. In Africa, insects already get eaten as they're a cheap and reliable source of protein. Unfortunately, it isn't quite clear if insects suffer from pain. At the very least they don't have a CNS, like mammals do. There is even a Dutch "insect cookbook" [1]
Maastricht University is also busy feeding 11 billion, with the in vitro burger (meat based on stem cells). Don't have a link at hand. While not strictly vegan (the stem cells are taken from a live animal), it is vegan in spirit as it reduces animal harm substantially.
[1] https://www.bol.com/nl/p/het-insectenkookboek/92000000397193...
Feeding 11 billion people where everybody can spend $100/day on food? Very simple. If necessary (and it's not), we could build vast quantities of greenhouses and get orders of magnitude improvements in calories per acre.
The environmental consequences of such high-intensity farming is another issue, of course.
how do we know this?
It's not another issue, it's the same issue. We're in this mess in the first place because nobody cares to price in the costs of the equation over time. We all want to eat for like a century, right? So why make price estimates that only work for ~10-20 years of unsustainable-climate-change-driving industry and then collapse when the climate changes and farming has to change too?
Pricing the costs into the equation from the start makes your "very simple" point become still, "quite complex".
The environment changing is a key fact in the pricing of things, and ignore-the-environment-in-first-estimates trope is a major flaw in how we think about problems.
Inflation is not caused by the creation of money itself. If it were, the USD would be resembling the Zimbabwean dollar after all the 'Quantitative Easing'.
For inflation to occur you have to put the fresh currency into the hands of those that are actually going to spend it on unmet needs for which there is an inelastic offering, meaning you can not or choose not just produce more to meet the demand.
Giving free new money to Mss. Rich will not suddenly inflate the bread price, as her demand for breads was met long ago. It might drive up the stockmarket as she is dumping cash on speculation or buying shares back in her own companies, or drive up prices of real-estate for speculation etc.
I just went vegan and without it being a strong personal conviction I wouldn't have been able to do it.
I'm not opposed to eating bugs, but we do have other options. Like there's also lab grown meat. All three sound like a good way to move forward.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the problem is insurmountable, but it does actually need to be dealt with somehow rather than just hoping tech will save us when we need it — that approach works fine right up until it fails catastrophically.
Do you suggest imposing those restrictions elsewhere? Via what means, and how do you intend to enforce this within those countries?
Plus you can solve climate change AND road traffic!
Please explain to me how you plan to enforce your ban on people having more than one kid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
We do waste water, but this is besides the point. The point is that you could have the best resource extraction technologies, but if there are no resources left to extract due to depletion, then you are pretty much borked.
The Wikipedia page is pretty good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
(Not a sociologist, but used to be married to one.)