News Will Aquaculture Save Us from Worldwide Famine?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MaxS
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the paradox of technological advancements in agriculture, which have increased food production, juxtaposed with the exponential growth of the human population that outpaces food availability. Since 1978, the ability to distribute food equitably has diminished, leading to predictions of widespread famine, particularly in developing countries, and eventually affecting urban areas in wealthier nations. Aquaculture is proposed as a potential solution, but it faces challenges in sustaining food chains. The conversation also touches on the implications of overpopulation, the need for family planning and education, and the role of government policies in addressing these issues. Critics argue that solutions must go beyond merely increasing food production, as systemic issues like political leadership, economic sanctions, and environmental degradation complicate the food crisis. The dialogue reflects concerns about future societal stability, the potential for conflict over resources, and the necessity for a comprehensive approach to global hunger and resource management.
  • #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.
 
Physics 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 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
36
Views
13K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
11K