Community | October 06, 2009 | 13 comments

In next 50 years, humans must produce as much food as has been produced in history

source: http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/smart-takes/in-next-50-years-humans-must-produce-as...

Image
lookatmypix
“It is really hard for me to comprehend that in the next 50 years, we’ll have to produce as much food as we have ever produced in human history,” Clark said. “That means in the working life of my children as much grain as has ever been harvested since the Egyptian time.”









What a scary and tragically sad future but I am optimistic and want to believe we can change that.

“We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.”
By Oscar Wilde




Join Organic:
http://current.com/groups/organicgreen/
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green,   Current Tonight,   Earth and Science,   3 more
  2. tags:
    News,  Green,  Environment,  Science,  3 more
  3.     
    |

13 comments // In next 50 years, humans must produce as much food as has been produced in history

  • asherp
  • lookatmypix
    • 0
      lookatmypix  

    • The article tells us that as a consequence of global warming the future of global food production is being threatened.

      Organic agriculture and beyond can increase carbon sequestration in soil (solving global warming), cut energy use producing more in the long term.
      Conventional agriculture will not make it.
      Hence my suggestion to address this along with global warming as it threatens our very existence.

    • 2 years ago
  • lookatmypix
    • 0
      lookatmypix  

    • To good_stuff:

      In a previous post about the "population myth" it was specified by me that population growth was obviously "a direct consequence of resource depletion and inhibitions to sustainable development degrading the environment".
      On that post, consumption was being analyzed not in relation to natural resources(land availability and conventional agriculture system) but in relation to CO2 emissions (global warming).
      Industrialized nations have more impact on global warming than underdeveloped ones even though the latter represents 63% of the population of the world.
      Again, it was in relation to global warming and how big oil tries to shift the focus on blaming an incorrect cause and obfuscating us to protect their agenda.
      It's a thin line and I understand it can be a bit confusing.
      Please, carefully read through all comments as it can make it clearer. http://current.com/items/91053616_the-population-myth.htm

    • 2 years ago
  • brandonthebuck
  • good_stuff
    • 0
      good_stuff  

    • I'm going to second that, but wasn't lookatmypix the one recently arguing that overpopulation isn't impacting the enviroment the same way consumerism is?

      It isn't that people need to stop having kids entirely, just that they should stop at one or two.

    • 2 years ago
  • TheCopperQueen
    • 0
      TheCopperQueen  

    • I agree with sadyellow. There are too many people. I understand people want kids and everyone doesn't want to die of starvation...but I think it's time for people to consider adoption if they're able and use contraception.

    • 2 years ago
  • sadyellow
    • 0
      sadyellow  

    • stop breeding! there are too many people!! how can the general population not see this??? just stop making more people!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • 2 years ago
  • NotFooled
  • TheCopperQueen
  • brandonthebuck
  • lookatmypix
    • 0
      lookatmypix  

    • Increasing production but reducing the environmental impact, how?
      We need to go beyond organic, we need to put our imagination at work, this is the only way we will survive and it represents one of the greatest causes of our time.

    • 2 years ago
  • ampersand
    • 0
      ampersand  
    • lookatmypix:

      I'm repeating myself here, but I think it's applicable:
      We are still relentlessly carrying out our core biological mandate to reproduce as much as possible while in a state of denial about the obvious empirical limits to the consequences. The good news is we have the technology and understanding to bring it into balance. The bad news is that because we have already exceeded a resource sustainable level of population on earth more than five-fold, we are now in a cataclysmic losing three way race between education and ignorance and poverty.
      The mass industrial production of food and even the so called "Green Revolution" had severe toxic effects.
      Science and industry might have the ability to manufacture basic food stuffs for 7, or even 8, or 9 billion people, but at what cost to the environment, or the health or the quality of life of those people?
      I myself don't think the answer is making the planet look more like the toxic crowded wasteland of China.

    • 2 years ago
  • lookatmypix
    • 0
      lookatmypix  

    • This is why it is important that we address along with global warming the conventional agriculture system that keeps on destroying our planet.

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos