How can we feed 20 billion people

  • Thread starter wolram
  • Start date

Answers and Replies

  • #2
russ_watters
Mentor
21,614
8,734
It is reported that there will be 20 billion people by the year 2050, just how are we to feed them unless drastic changes are made to farming and food wastage.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181010132300.htm
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.
 
  • #3
phyzguy
Science Advisor
5,026
2,025
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
 

Attachments

  • 350px-World_population_(UN).svg.png
    350px-World_population_(UN).svg.png
    10 KB · Views: 506
  • 350px-World_population_growth_rate_1950–2050.svg.png
    350px-World_population_growth_rate_1950–2050.svg.png
    4.1 KB · Views: 494
  • #4
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2021 Award
28,494
13,367
A. As pointed out, the population will not hit 20 billion.

B. Soylent green.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc
  • #6
OCR
941
861
If it really became an issue easily manufactured ...
Soylent green.
... 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
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-10-13_7-42-49.png
    upload_2018-10-13_7-42-49.png
    50.5 KB · Views: 450
Last edited:
  • #7
cronxeh
Gold Member
973
10
The solution is not to feed 10 Billion people, its to have less than 7 Billion by 2050.
 
  • #8
bob012345
Gold Member
1,597
648
The solution is not to feed 10 Billion people, its to have less than 7 Billion by 2050.
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.
 
  • #9
OmCheeto
Gold Member
2,219
2,683
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.
 
  • #10
Rive
Science Advisor
2,262
1,660
[Moderator's note: response to deleted post has been removed.]

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.
Let me back that up with some desert with investment...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,606
4,562
  • #12
OmCheeto
Gold Member
2,219
2,683
:oldlaugh: I had the same thought. :oldbiggrin:
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]
 
  • #13
38,572
16,310
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.
 
  • #14
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2021 Award
17,809
9,872
If it really became an issue easily manufactured artificial foods would be developed and mass produced.
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.
 
  • #15
BillTre
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,091
6,360
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.
 
  • #16
gleem
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
1,990
1,367
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.
 
  • #17
phyzguy
Science Advisor
5,026
2,025
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.

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?
 
  • Like
Likes bob012345 and russ_watters
  • #18
38,572
16,310
Reports are that "hamburger meat" that is indistinguishable from the real thing in looks, taste, and texture is already a reality.

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.
 
  • #19
38,572
16,310
the world has lost about one third of arable land in the last 40 years

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.

But won't climate change also cause some land that is currently not suitable for growing crops to become suitable?

Yes.
 
  • #20
BillTre
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,091
6,360
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.
 
  • #21
38,572
16,310
what are some examples.

I have tried "Beyond Meat", which uses pea protein. It's still not exactly like hamburger, but it's closer than other brands that I've tried.
 
  • #22
BillTre
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,091
6,360
I have tried "Beyond Meat", which uses pea protein. It's still not exactly like hamburger, but it's closer than other brands that I've tried.
Have had that one of those. (I used to live with vegetarians, but now I don't.)
However, pea protein's mix of amino acids (similar to fish) makes it is a good thing to base food for baby fish on.

It might be more realistic to not seek a hamburger replacement (taste-wise), but rather but something that shares some taste characteristics (like savory with lipids) that could be used in a similar manner. Replication of a particular food with other components is probably not that easy.

Still waiting for Star Trek replicators to make things from scratch.
 
  • #23
gleem
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
1,990
1,367
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?

That is certainly possible at least for a fraction of the land but the seasons may still be too short to match the productivity of the land that it replaces. We won't know how the land gets reallocated until it does.

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.

see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/arable-land-soil-food-security-shortage for a summary.

None of them were very like hamburger IMHO.
Perhaps there are better now, if so what are some examples.

I have eaten a number of different veggie burgers and yes they are not like the real thing although the chicken one come the closest. Both soy beans and peas are complete proteins so we can do without the issues related to raising live stock. BTW beef is the real culprit in meat production, Chickens, pork, eggs, and dairy are 10 times more efficient with regards to resources required .. see .https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...-resources-poultry-dairy-eggs-pork-180952103/

WRT beef it along with pork are still considered bad guys for cardiac heath so doing away with them might be the best. As I said previously we might have to adapt to new foods but I would definitely miss a good grass fed beef burger.
 
  • #24
38,572
16,310
Both soy beans and peas are complete proteins

I personally don't digest soy protein well, so I prefer pea protein for burger substitutes. Whey protein is also complete; I have whey protein bars for quick snacks.

WRT beef it along with pork are still considered bad guys for cardiac heath

As I understand it, this is mostly due to the way they are raised in mass production in the US: fed corn and other grains, lots of antibiotics, no freedom. Free range grass fed beef, antibiotic free, is much less of a risk. See, for example, here:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...se/expert-answers/grass-fed-beef/faq-20058059
 
  • #26
gleem
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
1,990
1,367
As I understand it, this is mostly due to the way they are raised in mass production in the US: fed corn and other grains, lots of antibiotics, no freedom. Free range grass fed beef, antibiotic free, is much less of a risk. See, for example, here:

Actually I think it has to do with the saturated fats in the meat. Free range beef is better because the ratio of the good Omega3 to the not so good Omega 6 fatty acids is much greater. Feeding cattle with grain has made them more like the grain that they eat. I understand that too much omega 6 contributes to inflammation.
 
  • #27
OCR
941
861
Both soy beans and peas are complete proteins so we can do without the issues related to raising live stock.

Let's see now... We plant all this stuff into soy beans and peas, correct ? . :olduhh:

upload_2018-10-14_16-39-19.jpeg


upload_2018-10-14_16-11-25.jpeg



But, oh my !!

What are the cows going to eat.? . :oldconfused:

upload_2018-10-14_16-32-2.jpeg


Soy beans and peas, correct ? . :oldeyes: .


Some people seem to forget... cows are pretty good, self propelled grass harvesters...

I could go on, and on, and on... but this will do... . :oldgrumpy:

Carry on.

.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-10-14_16-11-25.jpeg
    upload_2018-10-14_16-11-25.jpeg
    113.4 KB · Views: 328
  • upload_2018-10-14_16-32-2.jpeg
    upload_2018-10-14_16-32-2.jpeg
    75.8 KB · Views: 344
  • upload_2018-10-14_16-39-19.jpeg
    upload_2018-10-14_16-39-19.jpeg
    123 KB · Views: 326
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 256bits
  • #28
256bits
Gold Member
3,614
1,643
Some people seem to forget... cows are pretty good, self propelled grass harvesters...
All that rolling and rocky land. Maybe it will have to be tamed into submission - cut the trees, git rid of the useless flora and fauna, level it out, bring in a mass of topsoil, and voila we have pristine agricultural land worthy for a pamphlet.
 
  • Like
Likes OCR
  • #29
256bits
Gold Member
3,614
1,643
One problem I find with feeding the people is that some in some parts of world, for their reasons that they only know, will just not eat. There is food aplenty, but will they take, no they will not. Of course I speak not of the chatter class who will never substitute sparkling wine and fish eggs for champagne and caviar as the substiture is not real food. But of the ones with frail frames - they seem to have an aversion to food . Around a bit less than a billion are susceptible to follow this philosophy of food and the number is growing.
https://www.worldhunger.org/world-hunger-and-poverty-facts-and-statistics/
 
  • #30
OCR
941
861
Lol... . :smile:
Maybe it will have to be tamed into submission...
 
  • #31
OCR
941
861
Lol... . :smile:

But wait!!

upload_2018-10-14_18-48-29.jpeg


upload_2018-10-14_18-49-44.jpeg


upload_2018-10-14_18-50-36.jpeg



I'll get right on that... . :oldlaugh:

.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-10-14_18-48-29.jpeg
    upload_2018-10-14_18-48-29.jpeg
    81.4 KB · Views: 332
  • upload_2018-10-14_18-49-44.jpeg
    upload_2018-10-14_18-49-44.jpeg
    92.6 KB · Views: 335
  • upload_2018-10-14_18-50-36.jpeg
    upload_2018-10-14_18-50-36.jpeg
    79.3 KB · Views: 346
  • Like
Likes 256bits
  • #32
gleem
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
1,990
1,367
Live stock unfortunately contribute the majority of green house gases from agriculture about 40% in the US. Agriculture contribute 13% of green house gasses much of which is methane and nitrous oxide which are more potent than CO2 . So as we need to live we are thwarting ourselves to survive. We cut down forests which absorb CO2 and produce vegetation much of which is wasted fed to cattle and decomposed to produce green house gases. Cattle consume about 5000 lbs of grain before slaughter. There are 88 M cattle/calves in US. about 1/4 cow for every person. Mass wise cattle comprise about twice as much flesh mass compared to humans and are far more potent producers of methane. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesal...re-warming-the-planet-and-theyre-here-to-stay.
 
  • #33
38,572
16,310
I think it has to do with the saturated fats in the meat. Free range beef is better because the ratio of the good Omega3 to the not so good Omega 6 fatty acids is much greater.

That's an important factor, yes. I suspect it's not the only one, but there's a lot we still have to learn about nutrition and how various foods affect us, so scientifically speaking we can't give a lot of details about the relative benefits of various ways of raising meat animals. It stands to reason that an animal raised in a lifestyle for which that animal has evolved for a long time--cattle evolved to eat grass and be free range, not to eat grains and be penned all the time--will be healthier and will therefore provide healthier food. But that's not based on a detailed understanding of science in this area; it's just common sense.
 
  • #34
Stephenk53
122
55
Here is a video that I think could add to this discussion

Personally I think we should for now focus on reducing how often we eat meat then focus on synthetic meat
 
  • #35
stefan r
Science Advisor
921
305
I personally don't digest soy protein well, so I prefer pea protein for burger substitutes. Whey protein is also complete; I have whey protein bars for quick snacks.



As I understand it, this is mostly due to the way they are raised in mass production in the US: fed corn and other grains, lots of antibiotics, no freedom. Free range grass fed beef, antibiotic free, is much less of a risk. See, for example, here:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...se/expert-answers/grass-fed-beef/faq-20058059

Whey is still cow based protein. Has no effect on climate or population limits. In order to get the cow to produce milk it has to give birth to 50% bulls. When they cow gets old it produces less milk. Either the veil and cow gets eaten or old cows and bulls are roaming around adding additional limitations to agriculture production.

That's an important factor, yes. I suspect it's not the only one, but there's a lot we still have to learn about nutrition and how various foods affect us, so scientifically speaking we can't give a lot of details about the relative benefits of various ways of raising meat animals. It stands to reason that an animal raised in a lifestyle for which that animal has evolved for a long time--cattle evolved to eat grass and be free range, not to eat grains and be penned all the time--will be healthier and will therefore provide healthier food. But that's not based on a detailed understanding of science in this area; it's just common sense.
It is quite clear that eating beef lowers your life expectancy. A slightly less toxic cow is still toxic.

It is highly unlikely that red meat was a primary dietary source for evolving humans. There was some of that. Insects and shell fish can be a sustained protein source. You could periodically kill a mammal or bird with a rock and supplement a stone age diet. As a staple it is dysfunctional. Hunting may have had a cultural effect: big game hunters made friends. There may have been strong reproductive advantages: After gorging on excess meat there could be sex. In terms of how to avoid starvation during most normal weeks of the year gathering is a much better strategy than hunting. If you are chasing big animals and all of them escape then your children die from starvation. Digging grubs and roots and picking berries and nuts would keep you alive for a lifetime. The people who stayed alive eating grubs were able to show up at the party thrown when someone killed a horse. Antelope have large horns which can help select against people who harass them. Hyenas and lions do kill buffalo so people chasing around a buffalo and waiting for one to be injured would frequently find that their children have been eaten.

There is a limited amount of free range. Cattle tend to destroy it. There is no way you can have 10 billion people on Earth consuming free range beef as a major component of their diets.
 

Suggested for: How can we feed 20 billion people

  • Last Post
3
Replies
72
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
52
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
26
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
11K
Top