Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How can we feed 20 billion people

  1. Oct 12, 2018 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 12, 2018 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Was that a typo? I see 10 billion in the linked article?

    Given how little of the world uses modern farming techniques and technology, I'm not concerned about the world's ability to vastly increase food production.
     
  4. Oct 12, 2018 #3

    phyzguy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    There won't be 20 billion people by the year 2050. That would require that the population growth rate, currently under 1%/year, to jump to over 3%/year and stay there until 2050. In fact the world population growth rate is steadily slowing as more countries develop. Look at the data. Look at the estimates below from the UN. There will likely be between 7 and 10 billion people on the Earth in 2050.

    350px-World_population_(UN).svg.png 350px-World_population_growth_rate_1950–2050.svg.png
     
  5. Oct 12, 2018 #4

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    A. As pointed out, the population will not hit 20 billion.

    B. Soylent green.
     
  6. Oct 12, 2018 #5

    bob012345

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If it really became an issue easily manufactured artificial foods would be developed and mass produced.
     
  7. Oct 13, 2018 #6

    OCR

    User Avatar

    ... should meet our needs, but...


    Right now, Green still seems to be on the back burner, so I believe Blue would be more... "people oriented".!

    upload_2018-10-13_7-42-49.png


    :DD
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2018
  8. Oct 13, 2018 #7

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The solution is not to feed 10 Billion people, its to have less than 7 Billion by 2050.
     
  9. Oct 13, 2018 #8

    bob012345

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The solar system should support a population on the order of hundreds of billions if efficiently colonized. The population of Earth could be regulated at the same time.
     
  10. Oct 13, 2018 #9

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Make it not illegal to grow your own food?

    Illegal Front Yard Vegetable Garden Dispute Heard by Orlando Planning Board
    Orlando couple continues to battle the City over their right to grow food, with potential $500 per day fines.
    01/18/2013​

    Ok. A bit old.
    And somewhat myopic, as I was only able to grow less than a days worth of food in my front yard this year.
    But, still.
     
  11. Oct 13, 2018 #10
    [Moderator's note: response to deleted post has been removed.]

    Let me back that up with some desert with investment...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2018
  12. Oct 13, 2018 #11

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    :oldlaugh: I had the same thought. :oldbiggrin:
     
  13. Oct 13, 2018 #12

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Interesting, that we're only 11 years away from the 300th anniversary of the publication of A Modest Proposal [wiki].
    Still haven't read it.

    ps. Good grief! What was my excuse? It's only a couple of pages long: A Modest Proposal [text, Gutenberg Project]
     
  14. Oct 13, 2018 #13

    PeterDonis

    Staff: Mentor

    Moderator's note: a series of off topic posts have been deleted. Please keep discussion focused on the thread topic, which is how food production capacity can be increased if population increases.
     
  15. Oct 13, 2018 #14

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think this shows a lot of promise. Reports are that "hamburger meat" that is indistinguishable from the real thing in looks, taste, and texture is already a reality. I don't know that it is currently commercially viable but if not, it likely will be in the near term. If we can do that, we can do other things, most likely. "Easily manufactured" would not be applicable to today's technology, I think, but again, it's likely to be in the future.
     
  16. Oct 14, 2018 #15

    BillTre

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    1) What I have most often read is that if everyone went vegetarian, there would be more food/arable unit of land.
    This would be like cutting out the cow (or whatever animal you might want to eat) as the middle-man in the energy flow from sun to stomach.
    It might also produce a reduction in methane production (cow farts).

    2) I doubt that in the near future there will be any manufacturing method that can realistically compete with biological processes.
    Not only are they reasonably efficient nanomachines, but self replicate and self assemble. They can be stored in small packages (seeds) for distribution.
    It seems more likely to me that more efficient methods of growing biological organisms would be a more realistic approach.
     
  17. Oct 14, 2018 #16
    The first in-vitro meat produced and served as a burger was reportedly produced at a cost of $300,000. Recent improvements in the techniques are said to have reduced that cost to $1000. The researchers believe that if commercialized the cost could be reduce to $10. The process involves the growing of meat from stem cells. One problem is that like real animals it take time to increase the volume. For the muscle cells that are currently being used requires that the growing tissue be "exercised" during the process. So you do not just throw tissue into a nutrient solution an voila you get meat in a few weeks. In-vitro meat is also good for the environment since live stock consume much water and contribute significantly to green house gases.

    So we need only to produce 1% more food per year to meet the demands to feed 10 B people by 2050. Seems easy enough with today's technology. But there are a few things that will make that more challenging. According to a University of Sheffield’s Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures study the world has lost about one third of arable land in the last 40 years about 1% per year. OK, that can be remediated, better soil management. But you cannot talk about food production without talking about climate. Climate change will cause some areas to be less productive not only from drought or excessive moisture but even a 1 deg C increase in temperature is know to reduce grain yields by up to 6%. Increase in temperature and moisture will increase the population of insects and disease. Some arable land will become too wet, dry, hot or cold for some crops while currently non arable land even with sufficient rainfall will probably not be as productive if at all.

    One solution that is being worked on is genetic modification that help make crops more tolerant to changing climate. like drought tolerant wheat.

    Another possible solution to a loss of arable land is hydroculture which is currently seeing a revival. With about 19 M sq mi. of land used for growing crops even a small percentage loss of this land would require hundreds of thousands of sq mi. of hydroponic tanks and other aqua culture facilities which will be challenging.

    The newly released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change we need to reduce CO2 emissions by 45% of 2010 levels by 2030 and down to zero by 2050 to prevent dire consequences .The world is currently increasing emission by 1% per year.

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...ly_2018-10-08&et_rid=382259872&et_cid=2416592

    Feeding 10B people by 2050 is definitely doable although some of the food may be a bit different from what we now eat.
     
  18. Oct 14, 2018 #17

    phyzguy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    But won't climate change also cause some land that is currently not suitable for growing crops to become suitable? There are huge areas of land in Canada, Alaska, and Russia where it is currently too cold to grow crops, that may become suitable for growing crops. Won't this offset some of the lost land?
     
  19. Oct 14, 2018 #18

    PeterDonis

    Staff: Mentor

    These foods (the ones already on the market) aren't "manufactured" in the sense of being made from scratch out of simple compounds like carbon dioxide and water in a factory. They are foods that aren't meat, processed so that they look and taste like meat. Pea protein is a common choice for "hamburger meat" that isn't really meat.
     
  20. Oct 14, 2018 #19

    PeterDonis

    Staff: Mentor

    I haven't looked at this specific study (if you have a link please provide it), but claims of this sort that I've seen do not look at how much of the "loss" of arable land is due to it being repurposed, mostly for housing, not due to it becoming non-arable period. Certainly where I live lots of farmland has become housing developments, but it would still be perfectly good farmland if it were converted back. But because farming has become much more efficient, that land is now not needed for farming, whereas there is a high demand for housing.

    Yes.
     
  21. Oct 14, 2018 #20

    BillTre

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    A few years ago I tried about three different kinds of veggie hamburger.

    None of them were very like hamburger IMHO.
    Perhaps there are better now, if so what are some examples.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook