Will Aquaculture Save Us from Worldwide Famine?

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MaxS
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
62 replies · 12K views
The Smoking Man said:
When you talk about things like this I am reminded of parts of Southern Ontario. A lot of tobacco was grown there and it provided a steady income for the farmers. HOWEVER, when the taxation, the health scares and all the rest were put into place and demand fell, the tobacco farmers were the ones effected the most.

I know one tobacco farmer out near Cambridge, ON. I recall him telling me that he doesn't grow tobacco year after year in the same fields, as the soil can't sustain it. He had to rotate crops, although I can't remember now what else he grew. I did however see enough tobacco to keep a dedicated smoker satisfied for the rest of his life.

Incidentally, the majority of his tobacco was going to be sold to China.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
MaxS said:
1978 was the year the two rates crossed. Before that point, we had the ability (but did not do so) to distribute equally among all of Earth's population enough food so that no one would have to die of starvation. Since that date however, Earth's population has eclipsed our ability to grow crops (including farm animals). What this means is that even if we tried to distribute enough food for everyone to eat, many people would still have to starve to death because there just isn't enough to go around.
I would like to see the basis for this conclusion. Where is this coming from, a book? The web? What are your references?

GM crops weren't even around in 1978. GM foods are controversial, but you cannot say that the picture you have presented is accurate to the extent that it does not take GM crops into account, one way or another. (That's just one example.)
 
vanesch said:
There is a very natural solution to the problem of reduced living standards (let alone famin) reaching highly develloped democracies: they go to war ! Democracies cannot stand lowering living standards, it makes them elect fascist rulers, who blame the "others" for all the misery.
Now, war is the "market response" to famine, and would regulate the problem ; the problem now is that with all the sophisticated armament around, the problem might be regulated once and for all!
There are examples to what you have posted. There are counterexamples as well. For example, after the fall of the Soviet system the living standards fell (and income distribution probably worsened) but Russia didn't go to war.