Thread: We're all going to starve!

I'm gonna call bullshit on that. To me, food is an infinite product. Like any other farmable resource, you just have to know how to grow it. Its not like silver/gold/oil. I have personally joined a growing movement of being a backyard microfarmer. On my 1/3rd acre piece of property, I have no doubt that I could grow enough produce to feed at least 5 families. I am still working on educating myself, but there is SO much unused/underused property out there. A person simply needs to convert their grass lawn into something productive. I think as long as farmers are selling their crops to petroleum companies and other non-food industries, the proce of food will go up. I think eventually, people will have to stop pushing so many babies out when they realize that uncle Sam can no longer afford to keep feeding them. Perhaps I will be able to cash in on the food boom when it happens .

Originally Posted by biggeemac

I'm gonna call bullshit on that. To me, food is an infinite product. Like any other farmable resource, you just have to know how to grow it. Its not like silver/gold/oil. I have personally joined a growing movement of being a backyard microfarmer. On my 1/3rd acre piece of property, I have no doubt that I could grow enough produce to feed at least 5 families. I am still working on educating myself, but there is SO much unused/underused property out there. A person simply needs to convert their grass lawn into something productive. I think as long as farmers are selling their crops to petroleum companies and other non-food industries, the proce of food will go up. I think eventually, people will have to stop pushing so many babies out when they realize that uncle Sam can no longer afford to keep feeding them. Perhaps I will be able to cash in on the food boom when it happens .

How many people are actually going to take the initiative to convert their usable land in a makeshift farm? Most people are very lazy and/or ignorant. This is precisely the reason a food shortage is even a possibility.

Actually this is far sighted of someone of your experience Sean.

Scientists have frequently documented the exponential growth in the world's human population.
7 Billion Minds, 7 Billion Hearts « SkeptEco

I too have been concerned with the overall food supply, especially when we begin considering using food to provide energy for our car's engines.

There was recently an article written about this problem and I cannot find it. The article was about how the world crop production has always outpaced the population growth by about 4% until recently. The increase in crop production was due to increasing yield per acre of farm land. This was achieved with super fertilizers that rely on potassium and other minerals. The crop yields are shrinking due to lack of potassium. They are still outpacing population growth by about 2%.

The premise was that if we do not figure out a way for our world crop yields to continue to exceed the population growth, then we are one disaster away from massive food shortages. Lot's of scholarly journals have been written about potassium and other minerals needed for crop production.

potassium shortage and crop yields - Google Scholar

I do agree that we will probably have to use more land to produce the same crops but that costs more resources and will drive the cost of food up.

The thing about this is that if and when we figure out there is a problem it will be too late. It takes time for the food to grow.

Soylent Green aynone? Soylent Green - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks like the money is going to be in controlling the minerals and water sources needed for crop production.

Originally Posted by Runum

Actually this is far sighted of someone of your experience Sean.

Scientists have frequently documented the exponential growth in the world's human population.
7 Billion Minds, 7 Billion Hearts « SkeptEco

I too have been concerned with the overall food supply, especially when we begin considering using food to provide energy for our car's engines.

There was recently an article written about this problem and I cannot find it. The article was about how the world crop production has always outpaced the population growth by about 4% until recently. The increase in crop production was due to increasing yield per acre of farm land. This was achieved with super fertilizers that rely on potassium and other minerals. The crop yields are shrinking due to lack of potassium. They are still outpacing population growth by about 2%.

The premise was that if we do not figure out a way for our world crop yields to continue to exceed the population growth, then we are one disaster away from massive food shortages. Lot's of scholarly journals have been written about potassium and other minerals needed for crop production.

potassium shortage and crop yields - Google Scholar

I do agree that we will probably have to use more land to produce the same crops but that costs more resources and will drive the cost of food up.

The thing about this is that if and when we figure out there is a problem it will be too late. It takes time for the food to grow.

Soylent Green aynone? Soylent Green - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks like the money is going to be in controlling the minerals and water sources needed for crop production.

That was honestly a great response. You made some very good points. I'm going to read each of the links you've provided. This topic, although somewhat scary, seems to interest me so much for some reason. It's strange how instead of fearing a disaster, I look for a way to capitalize on it...

Here's a potential problem with this "lemons into lemonade" thinking (although I find it philosophically admirable): even if we assume/project a future food shortage (or water shortage, or shortage of any other strategic resource), you need to take into account therefore there's an increased likelihood that those assets will be nationalized, and the more likely that is, the greater the risk premium.

im not worried about food shortages at all. the reason being how much untapped resources this planet has.

IF a shortage occurs which is totally possible i have faith in entrepreneurs to invest in emerging markets to meet demand.

i read somewhere that the US is only inhabiting 5 percent of its land. that means we could double our populations and we should still have 90 percent of our land for resources. the majority of populations live in coastal areas.

the availability of resources is not a problem at all IMO its the economics that should worry us IMO

Water resources - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia this is quite scary

I do agree that everything is limited by our current knowledge and abilities. I am not of the panic persuasion. I am merely pointing out potential problems to be solved.

Yes we only inhabit a fraction of the Earth's surface, but there is a significant part of the Earth that we cannot economically inhabit with our current systems. We are always limited by what we currently know and can only learn if we ask the questions.

Good luck to all.

we can always populate the solar system

There are over 7 billion acres of arable land on this planet...do the math on how many calories an acre of land can produce, how many calories the average person needs to survive and how many acres exist for farming, and you'll find that there is more than plenty of arable land to generate enough crops to easily sustain the world's population, even if that population were to double or triple.

The problem arises when that land is not used for its highest and best caloric use (for example, raising cattle or pigs) or when food sources that don't require arable land (for example, fish) aren't harvested in a sustainable way. The other issue is reliable and efficient transportation of food -- the amount of grain that goes bad every year could effectively end starvation around the planet, but it's not cost efficient to transport that grain to where it needs to go.

In other words, we could easily have enough food to feed the world, but to do so, we'd have to do away with food as a business and start regulating use of land and animal harvesting (as would other governments). So, what's more important -- capitalism or ensure that the world is fed? Currently, it's clear that capitalism wins hands-down.

Not saying capitalism is a bad thing, but it's important that we don't confuse what can't be done with what we don't want to do -- feeding the world can be done (today and into the future)...it's just that none of us are ready to do what it would take to accomplish that.

Btw, none of that was judgement or opinion (I'm not at all against people making money at the expense of others)...it was just some food for thought...

The solution: bioengineered algae and plankton that can be injected into human bloodstreams. As long as such modified humans have access to sunlight, photosynthesis will provide all necessary nutrients and metabolic effects. We are looking for volunteers. Side effects may include dizziness, and some of our test subjects have developed a bright green hue. This is humanity's best hope for the future, so we must overcome our aversion to creating a future where Earth-Men are green.

Do some serious study of Monsanto.

If anyone is every going to "take over the world" for evil, just as the dictators in the past have attempted, it will be that company.

Essentially they are producing seeds that are patented and sterile. So that people must purchase more seed from Monsanto. Control the seeds, control the food, control the people.

The more you learn about that company, the scarier it gets.

if you control the water you control everything. salt water is basicly useless if you dont have the right tools and knowledge.

you can go weeks without eating but you can only go a few days without water. plus think about all the economic inputs water has

I disagree with you. Food is abundant. However there could be wars in the future due to scarcity of water.

Originally Posted by SeanKelly

How many people are actually going to take the initiative to convert their usable land in a makeshift farm? Most people are very lazy and/or ignorant. This is precisely the reason a food shortage is even a possibility.

My husband and I own 250 acres that we live on and grow/raise our own food. I raise goats, chickens, geese and we have three large gardens in addition to the fruit/nut trees/tea/hops/culinary herbs we grow.

I can hunt as well, and all my livestock I cull/clean myself (my husband is the cook).

Hence, if I have two legs and two arms then I'm capable of feeding myself.

Originally Posted by Alana

My husband and I own 250 acres that we live on and grow/raise our own food. I raise goats, chickens, geese and we have three large gardens in addition to the fruit/nut trees/tea/hops/culinary herbs we grow.

I can hunt as well, and all my livestock I cull/clean myself (my husband is the cook).

Hence, if I have two legs and two arms then I'm capable of feeding myself.

I guess one might call you the Jack of all Trades...

Originally Posted by JScott

There are over 7 billion acres of arable land on this planet...do the math on how many calories an acre of land can produce, how many calories the average person needs to survive and how many acres exist for farming, and you'll find that there is more than plenty of arable land to generate enough crops to easily sustain the world's population, even if that population were to double or triple.

The problem arises when that land is not used for its highest and best caloric use (for example, raising cattle or pigs) or when food sources that don't require arable land (for example, fish) aren't harvested in a sustainable way. The other issue is reliable and efficient transportation of food -- the amount of grain that goes bad every year could effectively end starvation around the planet, but it's not cost efficient to transport that grain to where it needs to go.

In other words, we could easily have enough food to feed the world, but to do so, we'd have to do away with food as a business and start regulating use of land and animal harvesting (as would other governments). So, what's more important -- capitalism or ensure that the world is fed? Currently, it's clear that capitalism wins hands-down.

The issue is that everything is interconnected. It's hard to fully "optimize" large scale food production and distribution. Take Japan for example. They import a HUGE amount of their food. Why? Because they have nearly outgrown their "space". So they have to ship in the food on transport that runs solely on fossil fuels. Factor peak oil into the equation, and we've got a ticking time bomb.

Now take that scenario and replicate it globally, because at some stage we'll all start "running out of space", right around when oil prices hit a new high, and things will get interesting. It took us around 120 years to add the second billion to the World Population. It took less than 100 more years to add a further 5.....

I think Alana has the right idea....

1. Each day in the US, the food industry produces enough food to supply every single person with almost 4000 calories.

2. $10 billion/yr goes into advertising that food.

Please do some research...