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.

 

Food production 'must rise 70%'

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Food production 'must rise 70%'


news.bbc.co.uk

Food production will have to increase by 70% over the next 40 years to feed the world's growing population, the United Nations food agency predicts.

The Food and Agricultural Organisation says if more land is not used for food production now, 370 million people could be facing famine by 2050.

The world population is expected to increase from the current 6.7 billion to 9.1 billion by mid-century.

Climate change, involving floods and droughts, will affect food production.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
If people who have more than they need (basically everyone who will read this thread) would simply just show concern and compassion for a few other fellow humans, we could solve this problem.
Whether it is utilizing the use of "vertical farms" or those machnies that can pull water out of thin air, or more technologies.
We have the technology, we can save them.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
relax man, thats 40 years away.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Im sure they can find another fat out of work washed up actor to beg people for money for a starving little kid with flies all over them. Even though most of that money would go toward air travel and camera crews and don't forget the advertising agency and the television air time cost.

Better thought lets give them a Walmart with a Mc Donalds inside they can have a big mac and buy some stuff made in China.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by JBA2848]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by gatorboi117
 


I agree with the article we do need to worry about food supply as farms and food production is being scaled back or wiped out for a myriad of reasons. However I have to take you to task. I do so not being against what you are saying rather than wanting you to look past the ideology and into the realm of putting such into action. Assuming the civilized world had stores of food to give to those countries that are in real pain and trouble with famine, how would your get it to those who need it? Most would say the U.N. has the capacity and the logistics to do so, and in part they are right. But what more other than compassion and logistics would it take. Here comes the REALLY UNPOPULAR answer that charity wants to ignore.......MILITARY ACTION. Case in point, Somalia '90's. The U.N. used peace keepers and its massive logistics to bring tons of food and aid to the impoverished Somali people. Why didn't they get it then? Warlords would repeatedly attack and seize shipments as they were being distributed. The U.N. military forces on the ground had uber-restrictive ROE (rules of engagemnt) placed on them to ensure no one could fire unless fired upon. Meaning they couldn't stop the militia from killing aid workers or Somali civilians just trying to recieve aid. Why would they do that? Power. plain and simple. Going behind the warlords backs decrease thier status to the people they rule. So why not give it to the warlords and let them distribute it to thier people? I don't think this needs an answer. The problem is ideology only works in mental exercises. Once you try and move past that and implement it requires choices, some so not so nice choices that ideologues refuse to make. they live in a utopian world where no one enslaves or does harm to another. Basically a bubble where all conditions are perfectlyy fit to thier mental solutions. In short, the only way everyone on this earth will have food in thier bellies will require war, death, and unimaginable suffering until those who would take advantage of others for personal gain are extinct.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by djvexd]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by gatorboi117
 


I think that is less than 2% per year.
I believe we can accomplish this.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   
We don't need more land, we need to exploit modern techniques for growing and harvesting foods. We have the technology to build hydroponic farms. Build towers that are self contained hydroponic farms and place them all over the world, and figure out how to grow meats that are actually meat. It seems all these organizations spend more time complaining than actually finding solutions



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I am not too concerned. How many of us have more than enough? How many of us throw away food everyday? How large are the meals that you would get at a diner or restaurant? Many of us have so much that we are obese. How many restaurants/supermarkets throw away tons of food.

We don't need to produce more food. We need to be a little wiser with the food we produce now.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by Longtimegone]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:27 PM
link   
Production is going to have a hard time keeping up with that kind of population growth. People need to start focusing on quality rather than quantity when it comes to having children - particularly in the 3rd world where population growth often outpaces economic growth. Not sure how to do this but if it could be done it would lift the standard of living around the world. It's worth pointing out that it isn't just food that is needed because education, clothing, medicine and water will also need to be provided.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by gatorboi117
If people who have more than they need (basically everyone who will read this thread) would simply just show concern and compassion for a few other fellow humans, we could solve this problem.


The truth is, you're right.

Anyone with a heart can see that. People starve every day while others eat caviar.

Nobody is asking you to give up your mansion.

We're asking you to give up your 7th pimped out customized Hummer and you 3rd Yacht.

We're only asking that those with so much that they cannot ever spend it give alot of that extra that they don't need to someone or some group that could benefit from it forever.

Just think of Bill Gates. He does so much for the world. Is he a Socialist? Is he Anti-American? Hell no, he's a great American and I am proud of him. He is doing what everyone with immense overpowering wealth should do.

But greed controls many men and women the globe over, and have throughout time. It will not change in the forseeable future.

And of course I will be called many of those labels myself for the views I have.

But if more people with money like Bill gates would help, the world would improve dramatically. If the people could stop fighting, imagine what marvelous improvements in life peace could bring.

I believe in how amaing a real utopia could be, but I believe it is unattainable.

But still i think we can stop our fighting and just agree to disagree more often.

I am going to try to anyway. To be a better person in general, to get to know people around me, to help someone else for a change.

Maybe if more people would just set that goal for themselves, more people would have a better life.

Edit 2: Hell I just decided to edit out the part that might offend. It bothered me.

[edit on 12-10-2009 by BaronVonGodzilla]

[edit on 12-10-2009 by BaronVonGodzilla]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
I think that we need to go back to what most of our grandparents and parents did while growing up, having a simple backyard garden. My own grandparents, before they passed away, would tell me tales of having victory gardens, growing produce, canning and doing things for themselves, as it helped make ends meet. Before my grandfather died, every year, he would go out, and plant a vegitable garden in his back yard, care for it and then pick the vegitables when they were ripe. My own parents, did such until their health prevented them from doing such.
But at the same time we also need to start getting creative with the capture and shipping of water to parts that need it as well.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
clearly the writer of the article has low math skills , as i recall the world used up its resources for this year about a month a go and we are now living on next years stock. so wouldent it be more logical say by 170% instead of 70%

just a thought



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Dare I say the words "genetically modified foods"!

With the expected increase in world population the GMO option has to be seriously considered as part of the solution. The ideological opposition by the rich western environmental campaigners and their paid-for lobbyists which stifle and curtail developments is unhelpful.

Governments must address the concerns of the environmental groups (which I share) especially cross-contamination and also need to break into the large GM companies (e.g. Monsanto) so that the commercial reliance and links with pesticides et al can be broken.

GM should be targeted at staple foods and their resistance to pests, improve their nutrition (e.g. added vitamins), improve their ability to cope with less water, tolerate difficult conditions (e.g. salt resistance) and use less fertilizer.

Governments should also make countries more dependent and bring to an end the reliance on aid. Governments should FORCE CHANGE. It is an affront (to me at lesat) that some countries seem to be in perpetual crisis requiring vast amounts of food aid, yet they still are able to afford fancy military equipment and their leading elite are still allowed to be greatly enriched.

Regards

edit: corrected spelling

[edit on 13/10/2009 by paraphi]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Well, everyone, you should consider that the United States is starving 3rd world countries as it is in more than one way.

Farming Subsidies pay farmers to not produce in order to keep prices at a "desirable" level.

Ethanol accounts for a large percentage of the wheat and other food crop material as well. I read an article that this has caused food shortages in 3rd world nations as a result of the US not having as much surplus to give away or sell.

Furthermore, every nation is guilty of not utilizing all of it's land responsibly, and another problem is that we waste so much. I'm a dumpster diver by hobby, and it's insane and sad what gets tossed out. Billions of tons of perfectly good edible food is thrown out yearly in the trash by stores and restaraunts because it's "expired." A good example: www.nytimes.com...


Cut down on the waste and you probably have the next 40 years covered. With scientific breakthroughs, (hopeful) cuts of subsidies, promotion of free trade and enterprise amongst nations, this won't even be a problem...

From there, why not start growing crops on highway medians, and start growing food on multilevel platforms or something after that? There's ALWAYS a solution. While our resources may be limited planetside, we could further colonize the moon within 40 years, increasing the amount of farmland (domed structures, anyone), and amount of space we have to live off of - from there, mars, and beyond.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   
And yet backyard gardens are under threat by TPTB?
We won't be allowed to grow our own, so where do they think this extra
70% of Food Production is going to come from?

I think the main aim of these so called experts is to keep us in a constant state of confusion.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:27 AM
link   
American farmers are 300% more productive now, than they were in 1950. I think this goal can be accomplished however it requires signifiacant innovation - vertical farming, hydroponics, and also GM foods (if tested bla bla bla) come to mind.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:28 AM
link   
edit; blame terrible Australian INTERNET infrastructure for the double post.

[edit on 13/10/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by STFUPPERCUTTER
relax man, thats 40 years away.


Yup, nothing like waiting till the last minute now is there?

Just imagine if a years crops in one of the worlds "bread baskets" gets wiped out by disease, fungus, or other natural disasters.

There was a recent report of a fungus attacking wheat crops on the African continent that "experts" are concerned will wipe out much of the crops. They are also worried of the fungus spreading to other countries, including the U.S.

Such an event could be devastating to the world's food production.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by gatorboi117
If people who have more than they need (basically everyone who will read this thread) would simply just show concern and compassion for a few other fellow humans, we could solve this problem.


At the risk of sounding like a complete ass, I'd like to ask why? Why bother? No seriously, I am not purposely trying to be rude, but I can't follow the logic of this.

Lets say we somehow manage to increase food production by 70% in the next 40 years and 350 million people are no longer in jeopardy of starvation. Will they not want to reproduce? Because if they do, as you'd expect everyone to, hadn't the original problem remained and gotten much worse?

I guess my question is how many humans is enough? As many as the planet can sustain? At what cost? The environment? All the other species? What about making the world a better place for the following generation instead of the stinky, overpopulated bowl of industrial waste we're currently aiming for?



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   
The message I got from this was:

"If we don't kill off a few billion people, poor kids in Africa are gonna starve because of you."

Think of the source - the United Nations. They say 350 million people will be in famine, when there's 9 billion people in 2050? What difference is that!? No way it will take 70% increase to feed them.

Population reduction propaganda.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join