"something killed our huge monoculture, so we replaced it with another huge monoculture, and now something's killing it!" Is it really so surprising?
Going back to a more "natural" system would involve a lot of variation in fruit crops, which means handling and processing costs would go up tremendously, likely leading to the same result: no bananas for most people.
One of the more sustainable solutions is to eat local - food that is locally grown, thus suited for your environment. However, this means that all those in temperate climates will (eventually) need to forgo tropical fruits... or grow them in glasshouses.
Not sure what the best approach would be here, but I'm fortunate enough to be in an area where you can grow bananas - so I'm trying my luck (Auckland, New Zealand)
What's so bad about banana seeds? Are they hard like in grapes?
Also the cultivated ones have been developed specifically for their transportability and shelf life, with the taste as a lower priority. Hmmm... wonder what those Gros Michel taste like?
That particular variety had seeds about the size and hardness of cherry pits, but not as spherical, and several per bite.
It was still edible, but not particularly enjoyable to me.
Plantains are also not a good banana substitute - they are much more starchy than bananas. Think halfway between banana and potato (though I probably haven't let them ripen enough - probably need to wait until the skin is black...)
It's MUCH more sustainable to grow them elsewhere and ship them than it is to grow in a greenhouse.
Local is NOT a sustainable way to grow food, because you end up growing plants that are not perfectly suited to the climate. It's much more sustainable to grow the best plant in the best place and ship them.
What I mean with local IS growing plants suited for the climate. So in most cases, tropical is out, unless you can take advantage of specific areas that may have a generally warmer micro-climate to grow these foods. But this implies small scale, as otherwise you'd have to put in acres of greenhouses, at which point shipping may well be a better option.
The thing about our current system is that it is efficient, making long-distance shipping feasible. However, it is not resilient, as it depends on politics and cheap energy. I'm not sure if I'd class that as sustainable just because that's how we've done it for the last 50 or so years...
And just because you have lots of small greenhouses doesn't in anyway reduce the number of greenhouses - it just means you have to use more material to build them.
I can manage without tropical food, but do you think people in florida can manage without wheat?
Local is an ecological disaster. It's one of the ultimate forms of greenwashing because there is absolutely nothing "green" about it. They cut out a tiny bit of energy for shipping and replace it with just huge amounts of energy for everything else. Not to mention land and fertilizer.
> current system .... not sure if I'd class that as sustainable
It's more sustainable than any other alternative. The thing about our current system is that we use it because it's the best option we have.
It's very easy to prove that: Energy, fertilizer, land, etc cost money. Ergo the cheapest option is the one that uses the least of those. And the cheapest option is the one people naturally gravitate toward.
At best you can try to shift the costs, i.e. rather than spend energy, spend fertilizer; rather than pay for pesticides pay for spoiled food, etc. And if that is your goal then the current price structure may not match your ideal. (Since people optimize based on the current costs of those things, not your particular ideal cost for those things.)
This is basically what Organic food is: people believe that pesticides are too cheap, so they value them as more expensive and then the resulting food costs more.
But do not try to claim local is more efficient - because what input are you optimizing there? It's certainly not energy, land, pesticides or fertilizer.