Will Aquaculture Save Us from Worldwide Famine?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MaxS
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential of aquaculture as a solution to global food shortages and famine, particularly in the context of growing human populations and resource limitations. Participants explore various aspects of food production, population control, and the socio-political implications of these issues.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that while technology has improved food production, the exponential growth of the human population has outpaced food availability, leading to potential widespread famine.
  • Another participant counters that food production can be increased as needed, citing examples from California's agricultural capacity and the complexities of international aid and governance.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of overpopulation, suggesting that addressing population growth through education and family planning could stabilize living standards, referencing China's policies as a controversial example.
  • Concerns are raised about the socio-political dynamics in China, including criticisms of its population control measures and the impact of international relations on food security.
  • Several participants express confusion about the direction of the conversation, indicating a shift from the original topic of aquaculture to broader discussions on China and population control.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the effectiveness of aquaculture or the best approaches to address food shortages and population growth. The discussion includes both supportive and critical perspectives on various strategies and policies.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the capacity for increased food production and the socio-political factors influencing food distribution. There are unresolved complexities regarding the implications of population control measures and their effectiveness in different contexts.

  • #61
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
  • #62
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.)
 
  • #63
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 895 ·
30
Replies
895
Views
100K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K