|
tangeng is correct here when it comes to incentives. It works in nature, so why the hell shouildn't it work in humans.
However, there's a far easier method to end world hunger and preserve the environment:
The answer, of course, is up.
The main reason food supply is thought to be limited is simply because there is a finite amount of land, and land development tends to be linear.
However: what if in addition to expanding horizantally (for farmland), what if people expanded vertically as well?
For instance, there is a (albeit inefficient) plan to have greenhouses in abandoned large buildings vai a rotating system of water dispensing, solar powered flourescent lights, and a recycling plan. While the costs are likely high, I predict that as food prices increase, incentives will rise to not only make this new method of farming cheaper but more efficient. As we run out of natural resources, there becomes a huge incentive for people to innovate.
For instance, take the horse and buggy. People were concerned that the horse and buggy was going to lead to a major disaster, because horses ate too much and the streets were filthy, causing a public health nightmare. People were predicting how we would all die of plague caused by these horses and their excrement.
Then someone invented the automobile. And our streets are usually free of horseshit.
Of course, now we're running out of oil, and combustion engines are a (very small) contributor to global warming. People are crying how we need to stop driving or else global warming is going to rise significantly (despite how the argument that a miniscule impact will do anything to offset the aforementioned calamity). Nobody can see what's ahead right now. Somebody might invent something new to supersede the automobile, however. We just don't know.
And for you wanna be Malthusians: people have been predicting world hunger for quite some time. But people have also neglected such advances as the green revolution, which demonstrate that while land expansion may increase linearly, science expands exponentially.
Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of the new population is in developing countries. Unfortunately, they will likely be driven to war, due to strong incentives, and regardless of whatever we can do about it. While war is a terrible, terrible thing, I don't really see how we can prevent masses of people from fighting over dwindling resources (although this is restricted only to the most destitute areas of the third world).
|
The problem of feeding the hungry is to look at things from too narrow a perspective, there have been countries where starvation was rife where it is now now longer the case my own country in the mid 19th century. The reasons why some countries seem stuck in starvation mode and others don't is the issue.
But first, high birth rates are the hallmark of poorer countries, this is not down to the ignorance of poor people, it is a rational response to the parents environment as suggested by this pretty old but still valid Demographic model .(Though the applicability may be arguable, the intuition makes sense to me).
The question then becomes, not how to control population growth outright but to ask why do some countries get stuck in stage 2?
Most countries (will or rather are expected to) eventually kick on to the higher population dynamic stages (approx 4bn of the 5bn citizens of the developing world can be considered to be converging with the top 1bn).
The Bottom Billion is an incredibly interesting book by Paul Collier of Oxford that analyses why certain countries don't converge with those of us lucky enough to be in the developed world.
He identifies several traps that cause such stagnation, many of which are factors that contribute to a corrupt/unstable political environment.
Without addressing the problems brought about by these traps then food aid on its own is more like throwing water on a radiator rather than fuel on a fire, it marginally improves the situation but doesn't solve the problems outlined in the link above.
|
On October 29 2009 03:44 WhiteNights wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2009 03:35 integral wrote:On September 13 2009 17:19 integral wrote:
The population of any species is a function of food supply. Feeding the billions of people has done nothing to reduce the number of starving people, although it has enabled us to produce more billions. Sustaining these additional billions requires more resources than the previous billions. If these additional billions survive to reproduce, even more people are consuming even more resources.
There are more people starving and hungry in the world than ever before.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The only way to end world hunger is for humans to live at their long-term carrying capacity. In this world, that requires a massive die-off. This is only true if the carrying capacity of the earth is less than seven billion, which is as of yet unsubstantiated in this thread. Show nested quote +Education and birth control will do nothing to reduce population; there is a biological imperative to reproduce, and those that do not reproduce will be replaced by those who do reproduce. The only solution to the problem of overpopulation there has ever been and ever will be is death. Anything else is wishful thinking with no historical, ecological, or biological basis. As a last-ditch resort, there is state-sponsored fertility control and sterilization. Death camps are a resort even more drastic than those two already drastic measures.
The carrying capacity of earth is far, far far less than seven billion people. Defining long-term carrying capacity is far more slippery than is proving that we have overshot it; any population that consumes resources faster than they replenish is in overshoot. If we understand the scope enlargement and the vast increase in composite carrying capacity in light of the resource drawdown of fossil fuels, immediately long-term carrying capacity drops to below what it was before the industrial revolution, due to the ongoing pollution and outright destruction of ecosystems.
I encourage debate on the matter of what long-term carrying capacity actually is, however -- when you look at all the factors involved and try to come up with a realistic argument against each one, as I once did, it's very ... enlightening. Most people don't try, however, preferring to ignore the discussion altogether and blindly put their faith in a god, or technology, or human ingenuity to solve their myriad problems.
For related reasons, I usually don't speak up when topics like this come up. People's ignorance and denial juxtaposed with the sheer magnitude of this issue makes me pretty pissed off pretty quickly.
|
First fact
we currently produce enough food for everyone on earth
Current "World" Hunger =/= Global Food shortage
"World" hunger is a strictly local problem... or even more specifically and individual problem... the problem is that people are too poor to buy food.
Basically its an economic issue, the development of countries, and allowing individuals to have economic opportunities. Which means places like many African nations with severe political problems would still have hunger even if the price of bread in the West fell to a penny for a loaf... (actually hunger might even get worse in Africa because the farmers couldn't make enough money)
The Malthusian issue is not a problem because population growth rates have been falling world wide and hunger has been falling worldwide.
The "west" is not growing except through immigration (US is one of a few exceptions and the non-immigration growthrate is very low) and the "nondeveloped world" has decreasing growthrates.
so, population will top out at maybe 10 billion, and there will still be world hunger.... for probably centuries after that, even as food production continues to grow... bcause the problem isn't food production, but distribution.
|
Russian Federation124 Posts
Solution to world hunger is easy:For example 1 million people are dying from hunger you kill half a million of thouse people and the other half survives because now they have enough food.
|
The Tragedy of the Commons
Food and population is only solvable through restrictions on reproduction. An odious idea, but otherwise the problem will perpetuate itself. Some populations have managed to voluntarily place restrictions on themselves (without thinking of them as such) and are declining. The rest will have to, or be forced to, or die out in resource wars. Science may help agriculture provide for a growing number of people for who knows how much longer. Maybe a long time. But we are putting ourselves in debt, and there will be a crash.
On October 29 2009 04:26 integral wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The carrying capacity of earth is far, far far less than seven billion people. Defining long-term carrying capacity is far more slippery than is proving that we have overshot it; any population that consumes resources faster than they replenish is in overshoot. If we understand the scope enlargement and the vast increase in composite carrying capacity in light of the resource drawdown of fossil fuels, immediately long-term carrying capacity drops to below what it was before the industrial revolution, due to the ongoing pollution and outright destruction of ecosystems.
I encourage debate on the matter of what long-term carrying capacity actually is, however -- when you look at all the factors involved and try to come up with a realistic argument against each one, as I once did, it's very ... enlightening. Most people don't try, however, preferring to ignore the discussion altogether and blindly put their faith in a god, or technology, or human ingenuity to solve their myriad problems. For related reasons, I usually don't speak up when topics like this come up. People's ignorance and denial juxtaposed with the sheer magnitude of this issue makes me pretty pissed off pretty quickly.
Same  No one wants to hear about the consequences of peak oil. "We'll replace oil with something else" they say, ignorant of the immense retooling of infrastructure that would be necessary, even if a sufficient alternate energy source could be found and efficiently exploited.
|
we have enough resources to end world hunger, but the real problem is getting the food to the people that need it. The US makes 2-3 more food than we need, the unused food is either dumped or thrown away. Getting the food to people who need it most is the real issue in my eyes.
lol Krikkitone beat me to it. 
|
It has been said many times before that our current technology is perfectly able to feed every single person on the world. Yet it doesn't because of politics and a bad distribution.
However, I think the first issue to address is education; I see it right outside of my house. My idiot neighbours (actually, most of the god damned country) like their whole family living really close to themselves (imagine the issues when you have a fight with a family member). And seeing as they have some unused terrain they build little houses there for their sons, and then for their future wives and future grandsons. Of course every single house is ground floor. So with their amazing idiosyncrasy, because of not using that land by putting it to work (farming), or even just building their houses vertically; the whole block is just a concrete wasteland, when it could have been (could be) much more.
|
is awesome32280 Posts
On October 29 2009 04:28 Krikkitone wrote:
First fact
we currently produce enough food for everyone on earth
Current "World" Hunger =/= Global Food shortage
"World" hunger is a strictly local problem... or even more specifically and individual problem... the problem is that people are too poor to buy food.
Basically its an economic issue, the development of countries, and allowing individuals to have economic opportunities. Which means places like many African nations with severe political problems would still have hunger even if the price of bread in the West fell to a penny for a loaf... (actually hunger might even get worse in Africa because the farmers couldn't make enough money)
The Malthusian issue is not a problem because population growth rates have been falling world wide and hunger has been falling worldwide.
The "west" is not growing except through immigration (US is one of a few exceptions and the non-immigration growthrate is very low) and the "nondeveloped world" has decreasing growthrates.
so, population will top out at maybe 10 billion, and there will still be world hunger.... for probably centuries after that, even as food production continues to grow... bcause the problem isn't food production, but distribution.
This.
|
On October 29 2009 04:08 Caller wrote:
And for you wanna be Malthusians: people have been predicting world hunger for quite some time. But people have also neglected such advances as the green revolution, which demonstrate that while land expansion may increase linearly, science expands exponentially.
For example, this post and particularly this paragraph is just devastatingly ignorant. It's hard to even deconstruct the assertions involved since they're based on a completely different paradigm, one which, in my opinion, is utterly divorced from reality. "Science expands exponentially" is an utterly meaningless assertion and faith-statement.
Even if I were to take your post at face value and respond to its actual content, there is very little that is relevant. The Green Revolution was fueled, subsidized, and funded by fossil fuels and is in no way, shape, or form an "advance" in sustainable food production. Deriving food sources from the consumption of non-renewable resources is an ecological pyramid scheme. The only way a pyramid scheme can be successful is if there is an infinite supply of new investors.
"Onwards and upwards forever" might have been a tenable belief at the beginning of the 20th century, but no longer. The only way such a belief can continue to be held is if one is completely and utterly divorced from the ecological reality of the planet on which we live.
|
On October 29 2009 04:26 integral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2009 03:44 WhiteNights wrote:On October 29 2009 03:35 integral wrote:On September 13 2009 17:19 integral wrote:
The population of any species is a function of food supply. Feeding the billions of people has done nothing to reduce the number of starving people, although it has enabled us to produce more billions. Sustaining these additional billions requires more resources than the previous billions. If these additional billions survive to reproduce, even more people are consuming even more resources.
There are more people starving and hungry in the world than ever before.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The only way to end world hunger is for humans to live at their long-term carrying capacity. In this world, that requires a massive die-off. This is only true if the carrying capacity of the earth is less than seven billion, which is as of yet unsubstantiated in this thread. Education and birth control will do nothing to reduce population; there is a biological imperative to reproduce, and those that do not reproduce will be replaced by those who do reproduce. The only solution to the problem of overpopulation there has ever been and ever will be is death. Anything else is wishful thinking with no historical, ecological, or biological basis. As a last-ditch resort, there is state-sponsored fertility control and sterilization. Death camps are a resort even more drastic than those two already drastic measures. The carrying capacity of earth is far, far far less than seven billion people. Defining long-term carrying capacity is far more slippery than is proving that we have overshot it; any population that consumes resources faster than they replenish is in overshoot. If we understand the scope enlargement and the vast increase in composite carrying capacity in light of the resource drawdown of fossil fuels, immediately long-term carrying capacity drops to below what it was before the industrial revolution, due to the ongoing pollution and outright destruction of ecosystems. I encourage debate on the matter of what long-term carrying capacity actually is, however -- when you look at all the factors involved and try to come up with a realistic argument against each one, as I once did, it's very ... enlightening. Most people don't try, however, preferring to ignore the discussion altogether and blindly put their faith in a god, or technology, or human ingenuity to solve their myriad problems. For related reasons, I usually don't speak up when topics like this come up. People's ignorance and denial juxtaposed with the sheer magnitude of this issue makes me pretty pissed off pretty quickly.
Carrying capacity depends strictly on what we are going to consume. It would probably easily be possible with modern technology to "support" a population of 100 billion people, if all those people got was food, maybe some shelter (a population of maybe 100 million farmers/industries that build farm machinery and 99.9 billion others that "entertain" the farmers for food). You would also have to wipe out all "natural" ecosystems and replace everything with various types of cropland/aquafarming, etc., but it would probably be possible. Probably massive indoor farms as well.
If you are talking about supporting 7 billion people at a standard of living that the upper middle class of the west currently enjoys..... Then that is probably not possible with today's technology (although that would depend on which of today's technologies was being used... if everyone was going to be at that level, a sustainable situation might be possible if we used technologies that Are current, just not common.)
In any case, the 'population problem' looks like it will solve itself as population drops.
Economic development is a different issue.
|
On October 29 2009 04:59 Krikkitone wrote:
In any case, the 'population problem' looks like it will solve itself as population drops.
after all, it's only tautological
|
You are arguing against reality with some cornucopian pipe-dream fantasy of a world. If you would like to discuss what is real, I would be happy to engage in a conversation with you.
We do agree that the population problem will solve itself, but I don't think you will like how population problems solve themselves in reality.
|
On October 29 2009 05:13 integral wrote:
You are arguing against reality with some cornucopian pipe-dream fantasy of a world. If you would like to discuss what is real, I would be happy to engage in a conversation with you.
We do agree that the population problem will solve itself, but I don't think you will like how population problems solve themselves in reality.
What is real? You claim logical correctness by inductively asserting the continuation of trends in biological and ecological decline, but refuse to inductively extend the progress of science. Sure, the idea that science will solve all of our problems is faith based, but the claim to certainty that science will not solve all of our problems is faith based as well.
|
I don't claim to certainty that science will not "solve all of our problems", I'm merely strongly skeptical that it will based on the evidence. (Can't prove a negative anyway.) I'm not a prophet, nor am I prescient, but when people talk about what is theoretically possible based on faulty premises and irrelevant paradigms instead of what is actually currently real, it pisses me off and I respond strongly. I trust that you asking "what is real" does not indicate a semantic or philosophical skepticism towards empirical evidence, merely skepticism that what I am talking about is grounded in said evidence.
I'm pretty sure that very few people who have responded in this thread with their uninformed conjecture here wants to engage in an actual discussion, however; rather than actually looking at the evidence or understanding the relevant subjects, it's far easier to make proclamations and unsupported assumptions based on no evidence at all -- in fact, evidently based on nothing but sheer unadulterated ignorance. If I am wrong and people want to actually go into population ecology and the relevant subjects of carrying capacity and resource drawdown, I am more than willing. Unlike others here, I am not talking out of my ass, and though it will no doubt be perceived that I have my head firmly lodged in it, I don't really care -- this is a hugely important topic and it's extremely frustrating to me that people are absolutely clueless and have no idea that they are.
|
On October 29 2009 03:22 Biochemist wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2009 02:51 KlaCkoN wrote:On October 29 2009 02:29 Biochemist wrote:A quick google search reveals hundreds of organizations dedicated to ending world hunger. Here's one page from the university of michigan: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/food_supply/food.htmUnfortunately it seems like all of these guys have the cause and effect backwards. They predict (correctly) that world population is rising quickly, and that food production can't keep up with it. Unfortunately, producing more food is like dumping gasoline on a house fire in the hopes that it'll burn the gasoline instead of your house. Throughout history, world population has always been controlled by the available food supply. Every major advance in technology (e.g. irrigation, commercial fertilizer) and every major advance in food trade (e.g. columbian exchange) has been accompanied by a corresponding jump in population. Feeding starving people now will only enable them to reproduce so that in 20 years we have twice as many starving people and an even more severe food shortage. It seems like such a waste of everyone's time and effort to me; the only long term solutions involve education and birth control, and the short term solution of giving them food just makes the long term problem even bigger. It seems so black and white to me, can anyone offer another side of the picture? You wrong ~~ (which may be why all those organizations do indeed exist.) The invention of the Haber process did prevent a massive starvation disaster in Europe and ever since then there has been no starvation at all in either (western) europe or north america even though the population has increased a lot. Point beeing that it is perfectly possible to remove hunger using technological advancment if only the political situation in general is stable. Of course in countries unstable for other reasons (africa) the only effect was to increase the amount of starving people I agree with that. But as soon as these countries stabilize then it will indeed be possible to solve the food problem. Demanding abstinence and birth control of an uneducated and starving population is a far more farfetched solution than peace keeping, trade and other kinds of support meant to improve the ecconomic situation. That is a good point. Considering that the population in the "west" is still growing, do you think we'll eventually need another Haber-type breakthrough to prevent a second starvation crisis? I expect that the government will eventually step in and impose population control measures (which would come with a whole new set of issues).
At least in europe the population isn't really growing anymore though afaik. I doubt population control will be necessary, it's a general trend that as soon as a region become advanced and rich enough the birth numbers decrease significantly. (It's happened literally everywhere so far, no reason to believe it won't continue)
But well yes, technological breakthroughs of various kinds will be very necessary if the goal is to support ~10 billion people at the living standard we have come to expect in the west. Which is necessary if we actually want the birth numbers to drop by themselves. I don't think food production will be a major challenge though, so much food is just wasted nowadays (fish fed to chickens, stockpiles in europe allowed to rot to keep prices up, good farmland used for housing, efficient farms seized by governements in zimbawe or venezuela etc) No we can produce an absolutely insane amount of food if we needed to.
The problem will be more along the lines of rare minerals running out, finding reliable energy sources etc. I'm very optimistic about our ability to tackle these problems though.
|
On October 29 2009 06:04 integral wrote:
I don't claim to certainty that science will not "solve all of our problems", I'm merely strongly skeptical that it will based on the evidence. (Can't prove a negative anyway.)
We must view the world so differently ~~
Look at the world two hundred years ago and the problems people had then. Lack of food, death by common sicknesses, sanitary problems and so on.
They are all "solved" now, of course we have a bunch of other problems in their place but I see no reason why we wouldn't be able to solve them as well. And more importantly I see no reason why we wouldn't be able to lift the rest of the world to our standard.
|
On October 29 2009 04:42 uglymoose89 wrote:we have enough resources to end world hunger, but the real problem is getting the food to the people that need it. The US makes 2-3 more food than we need, the unused food is either dumped or thrown away. Getting the food to people who need it most is the real issue in my eyes. lol Krikkitone beat me to it.
And it has actually been more harmful. The US makes way more food than we need, so we have an obese population. However, there are still plenty of food that gets dumped to other countries. What it does is drive local farmers out of business and just made them more dependent on foreign aid. Most organizations would rather have rich countries donate cash rather than food because of this. The cash theoretically allows people to purchase more food and still keep their local farmers in business.
|
GMOs are the solution to world hunger yet people are afraid of fish in their stawberries so people die of hunger.
|
The easiest way is to let starving people starve to death. Many are starving because their countries don't have the economy or even the size to feed a population as large as they have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
