Given the change in climate that is definitely happening and the increase in population that is projected by those in the know, feeding everyone is going to be tough.
By 2050 9B folk will be trying to live off the planet and its most fertile areas will be gone or seriously reduced.
You can guarantee that folk in the remaining fertile areas will still eat meat. So what about the others? A vegetarian, locally produced diet using organic methods won’t do it. It really won’t. So what next?
Drought resistant crops, crops with extra long storage life, quick producing plants all these are a valid possibility, but they will not have the time to develop naturally. So it looks like it’s time to accept GM foods are the future for foodstuffs. The only question is will they be developed by the private sector, who will let people who can’t afford them starve; or will governments take over the development role?
I believe in parts of the developing world, governments have already taken over much of that role. Here you never hear anything but Monsato, Monsato, which suits both Monsato and its enemies just fine, for different reasons.
If you think genetically engineered foods are going to meet these promises, think again. It is pure deception, as it has always been, and will continue to be.
Before you jump on this bandwagon you might look into why Indian farmers are committing suicide in large numbers. They bought the con, and are now suffering their fate.
Poisoning the earth does not lead to sustainable life. Never has, never will.
If you are serious about your food supply you might look into organic gardening.
–Gaianne
I’m in the luxurious position of being able to garden organically but there are only two of us and the family will not be expanding.
The use of low impact, organic farming to feed a burgeoning world population as more and more traditional areas of arable land become inert is an unreasonable solution. Couple that with the reduced amount of fresh water due to over welling and general misuse and your solution is unrealistic in the extreme.
Sorry but science is the only way that this problem will be solved. Any solutions need implementation carefully however, as a purely capitalist model is unsustainable too. India is a good example of what happens when profits trump life. German banks are taking a more advanced step by removing food from their investment instruments; so maybe more thinking like the Germans and less avarice like the US would be the way to go.
Either way governments who genuinely have their people’s interests at heart need the freedom to reign in the merchants of starvation.
Organic gardening can be treated as a luxurious hobby, but, contrary-wise it can be undertaken by the serious-minded as a productive path of land restoration. Restoring soil is key, and is possible. Water requirements are far less than with any industrial agriculture, as more direct attention is given to soil and plant needs. Also key is returning nutrients back to the land, and composting is emphasized because it does this. Composting can be done on any scale, large or small, and can be made energy intensive through sloppy planning or energy-free through careful planning–your choice.
Industrial farming destroys the soil, resulting in an ever-increasing need for more (petroleum based) fertilizer. The model for this is drug addiction, where you always need more to get the same effect until you reach the ceiling of the limits of survival (the high dosage you need also kills you). In agriculture this ceiling is seen in eutrophication of watercourses and in (anoxic) dead zones. Also in the gradual extinction of major animal categories such as frogs, which seem to succumb readily to (widely used) atropine
Genetic engineering ups the ante by making the soil toxic, and making the watercourses that drain land toxic as well. A wave of death then ripples through the biosphere.
Nor does genetic engineering increase yields–simply put, it just does not do that, nor could it on an ongoing basis. It is more a one shot system of mining the biosphere, and when you are done, you are done–that’s it. Superbugs and superweeds are two hints of where we are headed with this technology, but the real problem with superpests is not that they are super, but that in the meantime the rest of your biosphere is dying leaving nothing else. It is not too strongly put to call this approach insane.
Actually, it is worse than that: It appears than the very process of genetic engineering disrupts DNA in a way that is dangerous and unhealthy–so that GE foods are inherently not fit to eat. It is not the inserted material that is the problem, nor the proteins it might code for, but the method itself. It seems to disrupt the genome in ways that do not happen in nature except under extreme circumstances, such as exposure to ionizing radiation.
So how are people to be fed? Human population is already way beyond the earth’s carrying capacity. So obviously population is going to come down. If we were careful and thoughtful about it we could probably bring it down slowly and gently–that is, nobody has to die early. For political and economic reasons, it is most unlikely we will be either thoughtful or careful. In fact, people are dying right now, though our political and economic institutions most certainly do not care. But that is true no matter what method we try. Organic gardening, however, provides an approach to food security that can be initiated or implemented by anyone, can be expanded as needed, also, can be scaled up if institutions so desire, and builds the biosphere rather than wrecking it.
These are virtues missing from earth-killing approaches.
–Gaianne
Ours is not a hobby, but a large garden in a very fertile area feeds two all year around. I can assure you the two of us are serious about our food.
Genetic engineering doesn’t have to make the soil more toxic. Because it is combined with some toxic practices at present doesn’t mean it has to be. Drought resistant crops can be developed to grow in marginal areas supplemented with organic compost. GE doesn’t disrupt the DNA anymore than selection does, it just has the potential for more rapid change and a quicker trip down the wrong pathway. But that trip can occur via man’s slower bright ideas too.
It’s nice that you notice the population “must come down” but your solution, which was the point of the original post is not even a solution. The population will continue to increase so it reaches 9B by 2050. Nothing will change that because religion demands it will happen. We can face this face or bury our head in the sand.
So we can either consign billions to death and the rest of us to continuous war or do something. Organic gardening in the remaining and disappearing arable land ain’t gonna cut it.
The only thing that will stand a chance of helping is developing food that can be grown in hostile environments. Evolution and selective breeding is too slow a process so an alternative is required.
Thank you for your reply.
I did not mean the population must come down; I meant it will come down, whether anyone wants that or not. I think the best approach would be to reduce birth rates, and cross over the peak of population gently, that is, by way of natural death rates. But if we refuse to do this, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are certainly up to the job. Sadly, I believe you are right that most religions advocate for proliferation and against stability, and that they will indeed help to create a more extreme overshoot and crash. But this is not sure and has no bearing on my own actions.
Can crops be made more drought-resistant and can genetic engineering help to accomplish this? For the first part, we can look at plants that already know how to survive in dry conditions. For the second, my real point is we are playing Russian roulette: I think enough research is in to be able to say we now actually know that we have no idea what we are doing–We are thrashing around with a sledge hammer in a china shop, hoping for the best. Let me be less allusive: We are learning that all organisms are related, and the sequence of genes in the genetic code are not random, but arranged in optimal ways as a result of evolutionary pressures over long time scales. This is a subtle point: Genetic material is not just a random collection of genes. So when we disrupt DNA sequences randomly (as genetic engineering does) we are doing deep destruction to the organism, that can further harm anything that genetically interacts with it. This genetic harm will cost us dearly over the long term. It may even be costing us in the mid-term, with the introduction of new health problems that are already showing up in the US, where I am posting from.
I will not be consigning anybody to death. But I also am learning to live with the fact that I cannot save people from stupidity or delusion, even fatal stupidity and delusion. The world cannot be saved from the disaster we have now entered, and won’t be. But I am all in favor of mitigation–activities that will ease or reduce suffering and don’t look to bring worse problems in their wake.
I agree that the reduction of arable land is a key problem. But what can stop or reduce this? I don’t see any workable large-scale plans at this point. Meanwhile, composting works, anyone can do it, and I just wish more people were doing it.
–Gaianne
No problems
We have 20 compost bins into which all our food and garden waste goes. After it has been worked all this then goes onto our raised beds for vegetables. Compost is good stuff but only really makes a difference in areas where there is material to compost.
Most of the problem areas, now and in the future, won’t have any compostable material to use. Just look at parts of Algeria, Kenya and Sudan today.
Even if we do grow enough food on the remaining quality land to feed the world, we then have to get that food there. Transportation costs and rot will cost us dear. Dried food requires water and a lack of it at the destination would be a problem. Government sponsored GM food research is one of the most obvious ways to go to ensure that the starving aren’t gouged.