It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:40 PM
fine, if that's what you really believe, then stop all biofuel programs that displace food crops immediately.

logic dictates it, but all i can see is a PR ploy to bring on more GM crops in a quest to monopolize agriculture and therefore land use and the food supply.

read this thread and you'll see what i mean.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by gatorboi117

Sp what happens when changing weather conditions make this impossible?

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:48 PM
Maybe we need to increase food production, or maybe we need to have a proper mechanism in place to better use what we already produce.
I saw an article a couple of months or so ago about the overproduction of food and how the Tesco supermarket chain alone sends an estimated 5000 tons of meat a year to be burnt as waste. When you consider that they are just one of the large chains, and it's likely that the other big store groups are doing the same, then that's a huge case of over-production.
Then there is the over-production of cereal, fruit and vegetable crops which has more to do with price fixing than actual need. Mountains of the stuff gets deliberately destroyed each year rather then being sold or given to those most in need.

Unfortunately, whilst these practices continue, we will never have production to meet our needs, but to bolster the markets and fix prices and quotas. The over-production also means more and more chemicals used as well to maximise crops and that do is doing untold damage to the environment and, most likely, to us long term as well.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:08 PM
Stop giving half of the population a free ride.

Then they will have to work and support their own children instead of spending their entire lives eating, breeding like rats and creating more and more people that are not contributing to anything.

Yeah, yeah, I know.

Accountability is an outdated concept.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 05:18 PM

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 Health Organization in 2007 said that Bird Flu was a major threat and that possibly millions would die in 2008. I think 3 people did die. These agriculture people work for the same group. They are paid to make people afraid.

an increase of 50% - had to be made in agriculture in developing countries if there was to be enough food by 2050.

Why not just stop paying farmers to not plant/ not produce as is done all across north America and Europe?

Food production would also have to deal with "the effects of climate change, notably higher temperatures, greater rainfall variability and

Political correctness. Its snowing all across the US, coldest summer on record the entire northern hemisphere.

Biofuel production is set to increase by nearly 90% over the next 10 years to reach 192 billion litres by 2018, the FAO said.

Or just stop producing biofuels period. They have a negative carbon footprint anyway!

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 06:12 PM
Dare I say the words "genetically modified foods"!

We have plentiful water - build sea wells
We have plenty of space - go vertical or plant our deserts!
Minerials are our only restraint to endless growth - go space exploration
The only way gmo's sort out our food problems is by causing an increase in mutating pandemics and corresponding death to our population.
What we concentrate on expands, we are scientifically increasing gene tranfers for gmo's, check if them viruses and bacterias are increasing their mutations. I can give so many examples...

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:03 PM
reply to post by Manawydan

You hit the nail. Nice post.

I say to the OP: WHERE DOES IT END? You move from one extreme to the other, vertical farms, air water extraction mechanisms, then what kind of things will we need in 40 years time to increase yet another 70%?

Something has to give. It's time to limit PEOPLE.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:09 PM
We are heading towards Soylent green.

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:23 PM
Something has to give. It's time to limit PEOPLE.

If New Zealand was a city 50 stories high we could house and feed the worlds population. We would need a supply of minerials and possibly review our energy policies... I wouldn't want to live here either. People we are only just getting started our real growth is still to come, given we survive the current pandemic....

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:36 PM
Well I agree a bit with everyone, we need better and more efficient farming techniques, backyard gardening, and a leveling off of human growth. With a general agreement by humans to not prduce more children than 2 parents take up, we could theoretically keep the status quo. So long as our life expectancy stays the same as it is now I know this sounds socialistic or something, but really, we are smart enough creatures to do the math aren't we?

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:40 PM
technology + education = win

As mentioned, vertical farming can easily compensate for this...hell, we could increase farming 1000% in 10 years if we wanted, to.

But in reality, what needs to happen is education and development. The nations that will be exploding the most are poor nations, people have tons of kids mostly as a security measure for themselves (if I have enough kids, one of them will do alright and take care of me when I am older)...but in a educated, progressive developed country, people have less if not a negative population growth..which is what we need

posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 07:45 PM
As bad as this sounds, and to be honest with everyone here I have recoiled at the idea, it seriously maybe time to limit reproduction. *Pulls out the broad brush "let's paint"* If someone can prove me wrong please do , however impoverished people and families account for the majority of births over 4 per household. Why? Becasue they don't have anything to keep them engaged, work, etc. As an example, talk to most successful career women in the U.S. and in the western societies. Most make an attempt to plan and even limit , to ensure quality of life for the children as well as continued productivity without the need for public support. Those in less fortunate circumstances don't. They don't see the light at the end of the tunnel. And from my experience at the bottom most see children not only as someone to love them unconditionally to bring them out of thier funk but also a means to an end. I AM NOT SAYING POOR PEOPLE HAVE KIDS SOLELY FOR MONETARY REASONS.


posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 11:55 PM
Back when I was growing produce, there were lots of times that I would have to destroy a good portion of my crop because of some reason or another. Most of the time it was for lack of a market. lots of food has to be thrown away just because it was not shaped right or have the wrong color or some other reason that has nothing to do with the being inedible.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 01:13 AM
I believe that it was the author Jonathan Swift's "A modest proposal" in which he proposed a practical way to solve these population pressure problems. Legalize cannabilism. You control population growth, develop a new food source and create a "cottage" industry that allows women to work at a job they like. There would no longer be a need for orphanages, reform schools and the need for schools could be controlled and in many cases eradicated. Then there is the "medical" uses. New parts to replace those that have succumbed to age or disease, available to all who could afford them. Babies are a renewable resource and it is much easier to eat them than for us to eat less. A college education is a wondrous thing. I believe Swift wrote this as a commentary on one of Ireland's famines.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 02:57 AM
reply to post by Peter Brake

People we are only just getting started our real growth is still to come, given we survive the current pandemic....

Actually no. Not if current world population trends continue and for good reason.

All of the developed countries have declining populations (unless like in the US they have massive emigration to balance lack of reproduction)

Even what we call 3rd world countries will see declines in birth rates to less than replacement eventually because of globalization and industrialization. Families stop reproduction when babies are only a burden and no advantage!

This won't happen by 2020 but it certainly will have happened by 2050 if the rate of world industrialization proceedes at a normal rate.

So even in Malasia, Pakistan and Hondurus they will have 35 yr old single "teenagers" living with mom and dad by 2050!

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:40 AM
Massive scale vertical farming might be the best direction we should go in but it would be a challenge.

The initial costs of the building material and construction time of creating vertical farms across the globe that would increase production an additional 70%...

That's a buttload of cash. And we all know that companies don't invest in stuff that will save the planet if it will cost them too much up front. It's true.

Let's say they are constructed though. Now lets factor the costs of transporting that 70% increase in production...

I think the World might just cap the production needs via another World War. Sad, but probably true.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 04:10 AM
Exactly why does the earth need such a huge population of people? Not to sound callous here, but perhaps the food production doesn't need to rise, but population needs to fall.

In the animal kingdom, if there are far too many animals, and not enough food to go around, some animals starve to death. Thus bringing the population down enough so that the species as a whole survives.

People are animals, it's just a fact, you like to think your superior to animals, but your really not. The laws of nature cannot be broken for long.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 05:24 AM
The dominating issue that affects food production is water.
Water is becoming scarcer everywhere.The Earth is mostly water but is 97% salt water and most of the remaining 3% is polluted.
As the cities fill up, more water is redirected away from agriculture into the cities and does not go back into the land and into it's own water table, it's lost. And the deserts get bigger. No shock to Australians especially after our recent giant dust storm, we get pounded about water restrictions meanwhile Australia exports water, in particular to China, permanently damaging Australia's water tables, but I can't water my veggie garden.
Food production is directly related to the water problem. You can't address one without the other. And the other is just as big and looming.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 12:16 PM
Here's the problem with this situation:

The majority of the starving nations are third world where this is very little education and much more unregulated crime than in other countries.

Because of this, when aid is given to a starving third world nation, that area begins to eat, returns to health, and continues to follow up on the biological feeling to reproduce.

Because of low educational levels, this biological need "and what these healthy fed peiople feel is their God given right" ....the outcome is that of HIGH reproduction rates which increases the need for food.

In the event of letting nature take its course, in an area that lacks food, the species usually fluctuates to another are where there is food, and those that stay die.

But when man interrupts this process, this is the outcome. Give aid = healthy and fed = make more babies = increase population in areas where there is aid = never ending cycle.

Yes I have sympathy and wish to solve these problems myself. However, I do feel that this planet should only have as many people as it can comnfortably support. An unhealthy excess will lead to huge revolts, famines, plagues, and deaths. We are seeing this now and we aint seemn nothin' yet.

Im investing all my money in food options. We are going to hit over 10 billion pop. and it will cost a weeks worth of wages for a loaf of bread. Food will equal gold.

posted on Oct, 14 2009 @ 03:19 PM
posted by silver tongue devil
Let's say they are constructed though. Now lets factor the costs of transporting that 70% increase in production...

If you were making a food factory you could put it anywhere including down town shopping areas in our biggest cities. One of the advantages is that there is no transportation cost for the food. Replacement minerials would need to be brought in, but no food delivery cost. This is a saving from traditional growing in the countryside.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in