Comments on: Ban Ki-Moon says 50% increase in food production necessary

By: sorghum growing

sorghum growing — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:51:51 +0000

[...] demand by 2030. Pope Benedict XVI called the hunger and maltnutrition facing the world ???unacchttp://smashthemirror.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/ban-ki-moon-says-50-increase-in-food-production-neces…To branch or not to branch EurekAlert!The closest wild relative of maize, teosinte, does not look [...]

By: Brian Cesarotti

Brian Cesarotti — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:21:00 +0000

Yeah, there’s more than enough to feed everyone if there was some super-efficient economic force that could distribute it evenly. I think the limit on how many people we could feed is where we get estimates of the Earth’s carrying capacity (9 billion+). I think an increase in production above what is necessary can aid in distribution by increasing supply and and driving down the market price. Right now, supply is a little more limited in relation to demand for all kinds of food and energy, raising the price, and making it unavailable to much of the world. By increasing supply, you are going to feed more people, even if you already have enough to feed everyone already. However, I think local production is the main solution for the world’s hungry so that they don’t have to incur transportation costs, have increased food security, and they don’t rely on food aid,

You make good points, thanks for the comment.

By: Nathaniel

Nathaniel — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:24:20 +0000

Hmm… this seems to be one of the better researched commentaries I’ve come across. One of the things you missed was that we have actually produced enough food to feed everyone in the world for the last several years running. World Hunger: 12 Myths is a book I’ve sometimes recommended to point out that distribution of food seems to be a larger problem in ending hunger than actually producing the food itself.

I know it is not classified this way but I would also say that (at least in the USA) much of the farmland lost is due to “suburban” rather than “urban” growth as when farmland is sold to developers they generally don’t build apartment buildings (urban) but rather homes and possibly McMansions-something you alluded to with comments on the need for greater population density (which is not only better for preserving land, but also much more energy and fuel efficient).

I should say I’ve never been one to agree with Malthus and I don’t see reason to now. I’ve often seen people who believe his theory trying to use shortages or inequalities to justify his theories rather than looking at the direct causes of the various difficulties-conduct that doesn’t solve the problem(s). But I do see reasons to live with more sustainable lifestyles and business practices. I’m glad you touched on some of them. I just wanted to make the addition points on food distribution and suburbanization.

By: Rob Costa

Rob Costa — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 01:04:02 +0000

One glimmer of hope is that the as the developing world industrializes, population growth will level off mirroring the pattern of developed nations. As the incentive structure changes (rising opportunity cost to children), developing nations may avoid the Malthusian trap of 0 per capita growth. Of course, it remains to be seen if our fuel supplies will support that kind of industrialization.