It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

World food crisis: Production must rise by 50%, says UN chief

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I was thinking the same thing, jackinthebox's thread about Codex Ailmentarius... It just keeps going in that direction more and more.

Take for example... Cherries being $6/lb, Grapes being $3.49/lb, and climbing... The prices of 'healthy' stuff is all reaching unaffordable levels... Only going to get worse.

But don't be surprised to find Ramen is still the same. Little Debbie Cake rolls are still $1/box... etc!!! The 100% unhealthy stuff is staying really cheap, for lack of a better explanation.

As time goes on, America probably will not starve like the rest of the world.... We will get fatter, and more nutrient-deprived.
Yey big Pharma!!




posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Population in the central issue, of course.

Unless the government decides to engage some black op to kill us off limiting the # of kids a family can have will reduce the population but possibly not fast enough to mitigate the coming storm of starvation.

If the world wants to dramatically increase the food we produce my suggestion is banning the production, the wide scale production at least, of meat.

It takes 16 units of grains to produce one unit of meat. So for every 1 meat meal we can produce 16 veggie meals instead. Thats a lot of food. A LOT. link

This would not have to mean the end of meat only the dramatic reduction of meat.

Americans are now, on average, consuming twice their body weight in meat a year. Most of us think this is how it has always been but that is not the case. Meat production has grown five-fold since the 1950's. link

By creating a new standard that put other foods over meat we could increase food production, improve environmental quality by reducing the impacts of our food production, and improve human health.

Some people even believe that the production of meat is equal to or greater than the threat posed to the environment than is posed by the burning of fossil fuels.



Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled. Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half times as much methane as all natural sources. In fact, the effect of our methane emissions may be compounded as methane-induced warming in turn stimulates microbial decay of organic matter in wetlands—the primary natural source of methane. link


Something to think about...



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by LDragonFire
 

maybe
maybe not
As global warming continues areas that are not good for farming now may do to the change in weather patterns may become productive as more condensation falls in newer areas like in the south west US


OK I keep hearing this, would you mind expanding? Where in the southwest could we grow the types and quantities of food grown else where? Please please please be very specific. I really want you guys to SHOW me how this works. Show me where we will move food production to. Also if your one who believes how C02 rise will be beneficial to plant growth (crops) please detail this as well. Just to be straight forward, I think it is CRAP.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by LostNemesis
 


Yeah thats the thread. I mean people were talking about the food shortages since last year at least and even as recent as a few weeks ago some stories came out and we were all told the same thing "no story here keep on moving" then they give us




Then all of a sudden the big boy comes out and says oh by the way there is a crisis and we need to increase production by 50%....think this is odd?



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mybigunit
 


i can tell your implying something. what is it?



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
50% ? this is just a front for pushing more Monsantos GM seeds/ food on the world by 2030.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by mybigunit
 


i can tell your implying something. what is it?


Im implying there are some serious concerns that we the normal people need to prepare for. I think between the shortages and the pricing going way up there will be starvation from lack of supply and lack of money to afford enough food. This may just be a population control method like others have stated.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   
food production probably is not the issue, it's food pricing.


corn ethanol, centralised agriculture (the EU paid farmers NOT to plant certain crops until recently, for example), slow, out of touch planning on behalf of subsidizing governments and so on.

then we have speculation and money from the latest (real estate) bubble desperately trying to f*** something new and things get ugly.

the premise of this UN statement (50% increase or bust) is of course a pure fallacy. as others have already mentoned, reduce meat consumption and you gain vast amounts of crops for people.

reduce pest incidence by optimizing crops for resistance rather than chemical needs - remember many big agribusinesses are also chemical industries, think about Monsanto - they make roughly half of their entire budged from glyphosphate (roundup) alone, they have no reason to sell anything that doesn't require constant chemical attention, obviously.

see the book linked by resistor www.abovetopsecret.com... for more.


in short, scaremongering at its finest, the same kind of people who made wrong decisions (elites) are now claiming that the sky is falling. if it is, it should hit them first because they orchestrated it in the first place.


there's a wealth of threads, particularly on the issue of genetically modified crop, just on the posts button below this entry and you should find plenty of them.

PS: i find it disparaging that people appear so willing or even eager to accept genocide as a 'solution' to a price hike, courtesy of captive markets. stop being played like ******, just an idea.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 


while i agree 50% is pretty steep i think it is laughable you think this is simply an issue of us being played like ******.

the human population is growing exponentially and if you believe that there is nothing to fear from this than you are playing yourself.

at some point humans are going to outstrip the carrying capacity of their habitat, planet Earth.

this has to do with things more basic and fundamental than pricing.

though i agree this could be the tip of the elites hidden dagger of population control i also KNOW it is an inevitable circumstance.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by Animal]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Think of all the farmland we could use for food if farmers were banned from growing Tobacco, poppies, betal nut, coca, & marijuana...ect,

Of course this would have to be done on a Global scale.

The hard part would be removing the corrupt politicians who continue to pad their wallets with the profits through kickbacks or financial support.

I don't see that happening any time soon.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeeHawt
50% ? this is just a front for pushing more Monsantos GM seeds/ food on the world by 2030.


This is probably the what is going on.

Other than that....

Is it just me or does all this de-population and population control talk a repeat of all the eugenic movements that went on about 100 years ago? We all know where the eugenic movement led to.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Human population is fine...a reasonable average human consumption rate is not...If we want to start getting rid of people because of over population,start with America And the EU...let the third world countries have a bash at keeping this place nice and tidy....But seriously...the world is NOT overpopulated...just the ratio between rich and poor consumption is slightly iffy.The population could double,and with the right planning etc etc it would be fine...stop scare mongering....



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sparky63
Think of all the farmland we could use for food if farmers were banned from growing Tobacco, poppies, betal nut, coca, & marijuana...ect,


OMG no... I have to strongly disagree with you. I think MORE poppies need to be grown !!!!! They are the essence of life, happiness.. Everything but poppies, sure.

I think that we can live on poppies, low-nutrient crap for calorie sustinence, and vitamins.
We just need more poppies, to get through what it to come.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I would like to strongly make the suggestion that the world needs MORE poppies!! There is a SHORTAGE of POPPIES.


This is not a one-line post.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   
The US will suffer but on a difference scale. We are a programmed 'consumer' culture "feeding" (pardon the pun) a wealth pump. As long as the wealth is derived primarily from a consumption attitude we will continue to be driven to carry on eating garbage devoid of nutritional value and seeking our 'supplements' from petrochemically synthesized vitamin-like pills.

This frees up the 'important' stuff for export - where the World Bank and IMF get a nice 'cut' of the action. 'Wealth' is the infection in the wound. The wound is our willingness to believe what the 'wealth-masters' sell us a reality, coaxing us into allowing their self-serving policies to be regarded as 'law'. Their manipulations of 'the market' brought us to this point. Now they will use 'wealth' and 'wealth management' techniques to influence the 'market' yet again, all while inflating the profit of a few select mega-global citizens like Monsanto.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lethil
Human population is fine...a reasonable average human consumption rate is not...If we want to start getting rid of people because of over population,start with America And the EU...let the third world countries have a bash at keeping this place nice and tidy....But seriously...the world is NOT overpopulated...just the ratio between rich and poor consumption is slightly iffy.The population could double,and with the right planning etc etc it would be fine...stop scare mongering....


Well, as far as food goes, I think Gandhi had it right: “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed."

With that in mind: Portion Size, Then and Now

We Americans eat a hell of a lot more food than we did 25 years ago, and with much of the developing world becoming more affluent, they want more food, too.

I'd guess that the U.N., in pushing for a 50% increase by 2030, is hoping mainly to keep prices under control. I'm not thoroughly convinced that the population will continue to grow over the next 30 years, though. If it's not food and/or bad weather, it'll likely be disease. I vote for U.N. troops to hand out condoms, and to be allowed to hand out said condoms in exchange for aid. Yeah, I went there.

Having said that, even if the reason is to control prices, scarcity doesn't explain the runaway prices. Famine Mentality in a Time of Bumper Crops

At least the current crisis has gotten people around the world to realize that having your food shipped from another country isn't the most sustainable plan. Personally, I'm working on transforming my yard into an edible yet ornamental garden.

[edit on 3-6-2008 by regeya]



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Increasing by %50 is not that hard just get the average person who owns there house with a backyard and frontyard. There was a study done in Vancouver, Canada that says.

Source - The City Farmer



There are 6515 acres ready for planting which is, in intensive city farming terms, 283,793,400 square feet.




seemingly conservative estimates could produce enough vegetables on Vancouver's available 6515 acres to feed all 427,000 inhabitants of the City with some to spare.


The biggest problem is the word "WORK" it is much easier to site inside and eat ordered Pizza etc and watch TV than spend a few hours outside per week.
.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Corporatism is the tendency in politics, for legislators and administrations to be influenced or dominated by the interests of business enterprises, employers' organizations, and industry trade groups.

This is what we've fallen victim to.

The 'food shortage' has been engineered, along with the oil rates. The reasons being; 1) 'necessitate', or justify, greater centralized control and discretionary powers for the highest levels of government (a.k.a. corporate elite); 2) justify an intensive and omnipotent agricultural architecture (via GMO's, etc.); 3) involve the 'unfortunate' starvation of many of our overpopulated world's least 'useful' groups; and 4) place the middle class in sufficient debt and panic that we will demand to be saved from item 3 by items 1 and 2.



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal


while i agree 50% is pretty steep i think it is laughable you think this is simply an issue of us being played like ******.

the human population is growing exponentially and if you believe that there is nothing to fear from this than you are playing yourself.

at some point humans are going to outstrip the carrying capacity of their habitat, planet Earth.

this has to do with things more basic and fundamental than pricing.

though i agree this could be the tip of the elites hidden dagger of population control i also KNOW it is an inevitable circumstance.


i know damn well that overpopulation will result in starvation,l eventually - on a more or less local basis i might add because no-one will willfully sacrifice their own lives and wellbeing on the altar of a globalized economy. nations will of course halt food exports if and when the st hits the fan. so, the question is if your particular area is producing a surplus, what exactly are you worrying about? should we kill each other just because Indians like it crowded? i don't think so. the real issue i have with the current way of handling things is that animal feed is imported into wealthy nations, which could of course feed billions of people.

the danger is certainly there but Club-of-Rome style scaremongering has proven false, as simple as that. this particular event is most definitely not the result of a naturally occuring shortage, it has to do with abandoning strategic reserves (irresponsible, very negligent leaving the financial sector in a position to blackmail us all), misguided policies and the economy of bubbles.

just take all corn ethanol and brazils sugar cane areas and use them for food, right? not quite, because money is the issue, as usual.

or, to put it bluntly, if we had 300mn people, we'd still have 100mn starving because they can't afford it. if anything give people seeds not meals.

PS: many european nations have declining birthrates. do you believe these people regard themselves as a role model?



posted on Jun, 3 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 





nations will of course halt food exports if and when the st hits the fan.


Most of the rice exporters are already doing this. Things are already dire for 3rd world countries that depend on rice imports.



new topics




 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join