News Can Shifting Dietary Patterns Reduce Global Hunger?

[Containment]

In my opinion the world doesn't have a hunger problem it has a educational problem. I'm not going to link my sources for this as I feel it is generally understood to be true. If enough people asks for them I'll find some as I'm sure it's easy info to find even on wiki. Anyhow my point is that country's with good educational systems tend to have lower birth rates. Lower birth rates result in slower population growth or in the case of the US and some other country's negative population growth excluding people coming in from other places. Less population means more to go around overall assuming that the rich don't just hoard it all. So if more effort is put into improving the worlds educational systems that should in turn result in less baby's and more food/resources.

Of course the more interesting thing that I just recently learned that I had not really considered is that overpopulation was one of the biggest driving forces behind technological advancements in the past. It seems when the wealthy land owners had stability they also had little reason to advance crop growing methods. So perhaps overpopulation is a motivational force for good? I think that may have been true in the past however I personally don't see how education or lower population can be a terribly bad thing in the current age.

One thing I do think that is interesting is that the country seen as the fastest growing currently "China" has had laws put in place that helped to lower it's birth rates. So could it be that just passing laws that help to lower a country's birthrates could be the trick to getting a better economy and more education?

TL:DR More Education = Less Population = More Wealth

 

[Containment]

I also wanted to give the Op kudos I do agree that most people at least in the USA could eat healthier and it would probably save them money and be better use of farm land to have less cow/ pigs ect... I used to wonder how on Earth people could spend so much on food I spend about 1/2 to 1/3 of what most people tell me they spend on food in week and I personally feel like I splurge on unhealthy stuff more then I should. I guess that kinda explains why I see so many people that look like they couldn't even use an escalator without breaking a sweat.

 

[MarcoD]

Of course the more interesting thing that I just recently learned that I had not really considered is that overpopulation was one of the biggest driving forces behind technological advancements in the past.

It isn't, and it hasn't been.

Recently, I am hearing a lot of 'complacent' and 'military' explanations on how history, and technological advances, evolve.

Stuff like:

• All progress is due to struggle.
• The cold war drove a large number of technological advances.
• When forced by environmental circumstances, technological advance will solve all problems.
• And now, overpopulation is a driving force.

Sorry, but all rather idiotic. As far as we know:

Technological advances occur most when well-educated people can work on solutions in peace.

The rest is humbug.

 

[mheslep]

...
Sorry, but all rather idiotic. As far as we know:

Technological advances occur most when well-educated people can work on solutions in peace.

The rest is humbug.

Educated people working in relative peace and freedom, to draw a distinction between the former Soviet Union (and its terrible products like the Lada automobile) which had well educated populace, was generally at peace, but never free.

 

[Polymathiah]

You have to take into account the nutrient density as well. One kg of beef is much more dense than one kg of rice or veggies, especially if it's a fatty section or organ meat. A person could live perfectly well on just beef (I do), but trying to live on only rice would be a good way to become deficient in many nutrients. Plants don't come close to animal sources in nutrient density or spread.

My n=1 experiments have found something like 90% animal, 10% plant balance to be best for health, body composition, mental acuity, and energy levels. Your mileage may vary.

 

[LearninDaMath]

People, there is not a shortage of food due to lack of cows (or lack of ability to create enough cows) on planet earth. There are food shortages because food, for whatever reason, is not entering the bellies of people who wish to have more food than they are obtaining. But lack of chickens (or ability to increase supply of chickens) is not the reason.

One thing is for sure. As time goes on, technology progresses, products become cheaper and more efficiently produced. And food products will be easier to purchase/obtain/recieve, globally. Assuming we have a society that allows for everyone's basic needs to be met, food shortages will not be an issue.

Even as population increases and doubles...there will be enough food for everyone. And by the time population increases to the degree that life is unsustainable on earth, it will be unsustainable for reasons that don't include food.

Food breaks down into energy. We won't always have to eat broccoli to get our vitamins, and we won't always have to raise pigs to get some tasty bacon.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

One thing is for sure. As time goes on, technology progresses, products become cheaper and more efficiently produced. And food products will be easier to purchase/obtain/recieve, globally. Assuming we have a society that allows for everyone's basic needs to be met, food shortages will not be an issue.

Hopefully this is true but already there is more than enough money and food to go around. The issue again is distribution, whether or not a technology becomes cheaper is no help if the people who need it are still too poor to afford it (and those who can are unwilling/unable to buy it for them).

 

[Curious3141]

I'm vegetarian, but I've more or less stopped trying to persuade others. If it makes one feel better to go veg, so be it. If not, suit yourself.