We actually produce enough food for 10 billion people. The problem is that most of it ends up on the trash. A waste of resources and the rotting food releases a lot of greenhouse gases.
More like make people eat less, and eat only local fruits and vegetables. Not bring fruits from abroad such as avocado. Also make people buy only what they need
@@sleverlight yes. If people only ate brown bread, brown rice, beans, vegetables, meats, grains, olive oil, fruits and vegetable there would be enough land to feed 20 billion. Stop eating rubbish like sugar.
@Edmund two totally different issues altogether. No one is starving to death in Australia and if they are, they can go to a food shelter for the poor for a feed. The issue that is facing supermarkets is spoilt food and if people ate it, and get sick, and if they do, they will sue. That is why the supermarkets throw it away. The risk for them is too high. However, leftovers are now being given to Ozharvests to be given to the poor- at their own risks.
That is a normalcy bias statement. The reason a Commodity is more expensive in the future is because a person in the future is willing to pay a higher price. With so many baby boomers and Den Xers retiring that means millennials and gen z will have to buy at those prices. Since there is less of them compared to the other two , prices of land will be higher , but not at the same rate as it was in the past 40 years. The same thing goes for the stock market somebody in the future must be willing to pay more than the current price of today in order for you to make any profit.
That’s super generic. You’re answer to an incredibly complex problem with a variety of variable was just to do what we do now, just do it better. If we could do it better right now, don’t you think we would be doing that?
I know people will hate on me for saying this, but here it goes anyway: -We actually already produce enough food for more than 20 billion people (Not kidding) but most of it goes to feeding animals which we then eat, or some of it in the trash. Which leads to: Waste of food, waste of space, waste of energy, animal agriculture is bad for the environment AND the amount of meat and dairy products the average human consumes is far too much to be considered healthy or natural. -I'm not saying everyone should go vegan or whatever, just saying that if a majority of the population cut their meat/dairy consumption by at least half and switched to a more plant-based diet we wouldn't have the problem with lack of food to begin with. (And people would be healthier + have less effect on the environment) There you have it, 100% science based facts. But people hate the idea of change so it probably will never happen.
Animals should be out on pasture converting grass that we cannot eat and convert it to a product we can eat. Feeding animals food that we can allready eat is stupid
_Edvin_ we need nutrions from meat not to mention that eating vegetable would reduce the amount of oxygens produced or co2 being absorbed by plants since vegetables are plants and can absorb co2 and stuff
I have started jack fruit trees on my property. The biggest fruit on earth. Doesn't require pesticides. Produces 2 crops per year. 1000 lbs per tree. Drought resistant. I have seen it go 6 months without a drop of water.
Sador11 Yeah, but the point is that we already produce enough to feed 10 billion people. We just use lots of the food we produce to feed cattle and pigs instead of using it to feed the people.
Mustardpocket we already produce enough food for 11 billion, the solution is socialism. 60% of all food in the US is wasted. under socialism that food would go to the hungry instead of being thrown away by capitalists
I've said this for years. We need to implement modern farms to a few skyscrapers in each major city that are big green houses would produce so much food and it would create many many jobs.
It's easy to assemble like Lego... I just see high tech material using countless of LEDs in order to produce lettuce that are mostly indegestible because it's basically only cellulose.
@@Qball914 To be honest, whether or not I'm a chemosynthetic organism is irrelevant to the argument I am trying to make. Currently, chemosynthetic organisms would go extinct if all forms of photosynthetic life went extinct.
Problem is simple governments and banks require constant increase in population in order to sustain taxes and banks to make profits. There needs to be a natural reduction of 1 billion people over the next hundred years in order to heal the planet. Not by mass murders but by educating people just to have replacement children. The concept of infinite growth on finite resources was a 20th-century model that could be sustained for that century, but today we have too many people taxing the resources of a finite planet
The problem ain't population, the problem is that the middle class and richer population will grow from 2 billion to 8 between 2000-2060, the population over the same period went from 6-10 billion A 400% increase vs a 70% increase
If this can be implemented in big major cities, we wouldn't have to rely that much on imported foods, so that might help reduce the cost if it can be widespread
Kevin Thats kinda wrong. Most of the soy thats grown in deforested areas is used to feed pigs and cattle. Vegans aren’t to blame for the destruction of the rainforest
@@iloveheavymetalhi7640 yeah, i wonder who wants biofuel, probably those that wants fossil fuel banned, also what's the correlation between food production and palm oil ?
I think it's going to be fungi that will do the biggest work. gotta stop spraying. gotta keep those fungi alive. gotta keep the soil alive. gotta stop tilling.
There's so much unused space on our planet, it's just that people tend to move towards people... hence hugely dense cities... The key is to establish more smaller cities and improve the travel links/costs between them.
No, that would increase overall transport cost, and significantly increase energy use. While we probably wouldn't want all to live in a single gigacity, fewer and bigger cities are better for the environment.
If it's true that agriculture causes more non CO2 greenhouse gas emissions than anything else, then it's the vegetarians that are contributing more to global warming than meat eaters are. I'm not advocating more meat eating and destroying more land for cattle, but eating less meat is not necessarily the answer to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
So in China, are they working with the peasant farmers to get them into this industry, or are these farmers going to no longer be able to sell their crops and thus, putting them out of work? Just curious.
Farmers are put out of work everywhere. It has been, and still is, the main driver for urbanisation and migration. Both industrial and IT revolutions has had massive impact on agriculture, far fewer people produce vastly more food.
Judge Dredd they’re dying out anyways. The young have all left to find work in the cities. The villages are emptying out as China ages so there won’t be a need to give them new work anyways. In fact a lot of college graduates aren’t even allowed to return to the villages (if they come from one).
@@JudgeDredd_ With lettuces that are 11 times more expensive than traditionally farmed lettuce, there's nothing to worry about. When they are able to factory farm dietary staples like rice, potatoes and wheat at or below the price of the traditionally farmed crops, then there will be cause for concern.
Marginal cost. Grazing is the most profitable current use of that land, so we breed cattle. If some other product, broccoli say, would have higher demand, then bye-bye cow.
In the US 40% of food we produce never get eaten So food wastage is the dumbest problem we have and probably the most easiest problem to solve. This could stop 20% of green house emission in the world.
@@malaciousmark3903 just don't buy food more than we need and a research said the larger refrigerator we have, more food we waste. So people should buy small refrigerator which will make them store less food and hence less wastage and it also emit less CFCs so it's a win win for everybody
In the 1700s they said we would never be able to feed 1 billion people. In the 50’s they said we would never be able to feed 4 billion. Here we are today, almost 8 billion and famine has disappeared outside of war zones. Humans are smart, and humanity will innovate itself out of problems, just how we always have. We are doing to today with climate change, we will do it tomorrow with food.
We are way better off now today with a population of 7.7 billion than in 1970 with 3.7 billion. This is likely to continue, and we will be way better off than today when we have a population of 10.7 billion.
Today, 795 million people are hungry. Another 2 billion are expected to join them by 2050. However, global food production is incredibly efficient. The world’s farmers produce enough food to feed 1.5x the global population. That’s enough to feed 10 billion (we are at 7.6 billion currently). Despite this excess, hunger still exists.
dD Lithuania your whole “eat like a human” statement is completely wrong. We as humans aren’t meant to eat one specific food source. We eat what we can get to survive. Keep in mind that I’m not vegan or vegetarian, I like meat just as much as any other, but I’m actually open to change
Prod. Border I dont just eat meat, I like to eat mixed and have different tastes and because im in farming (crop, meat) buisness I understand enough to not feel bad when I eat meat and not just green stuff
My country has a lot of agricultural lands, but there is not enough technology in it yet, farmers can sometimes go out of business or sometimes lose value on products that cost a lot of capital. This made them decide to sell their farmland. These are very worrying that in the future the country will face a shortage of agricultural land.
How awesome. I wantto grow a community garden. RU-vid is very beneficial. Thanks for sharing. Many blessings to you for what you are doing. 🙏🌻💖🍉🌻🍓💜🌍🐝🐞🐛🦋🌻🌹🌈
So the vertical farming in buildings is more efficient and saves resources, labor, and money, but yields lettuce that is 11 times the normal price? I'm all for it, like I was and am still for solar panel installations in new homes but that is a hefty price to pay for lettuce. It may be the case that a lot of that grown lettuce is just being tossed out at the end of the day since it is likely not being sold at all. I can understand 2x maybe 3x but 11x the regular price.
There not explaining this in the united states. There taking out all our Dams and growing nothing on Farms of thousands of acres. Growing Drugs has become big in America in the last six Years. We need to explain this growing of food isn't dangerous to the people. Thank you for finding ways I hope we can do this.
@@malaciousmark3903 about 1.4 billion tonnes of food gets lost or waste each year, thats 1/3 of the food produced in the world. 1.4 billion tonnes of food could feed 2 billion people each year.
eko pranata ok so ya we have food waste. You think you can feed people with food waste. The definition of food waste means that humans can’t eat it. You can’t feed homeless people scraps from your trash. I am all for limiting waste but feeding people scraps isn’t the answer
@@malaciousmark3903 you dont get what i'm trying to say, i mean some people buy more than they need, keep it in refrigerator, forget about it and it rot. Supermarket throw tonnes of edible food, they can donate it actually. People goes to restaurant and not finish eating their food, more food goes to waste. Tonnes of fruit, veggies dont make to the supermarket because they dont look pretty, too small or having weird shapes. Get this one? I mean some people struggle to eat and others waste so much of them, food waste not only create gas that contributes in global warming, there is also energy lost if it goes to waste, energy in production delivering it, and keeping it.
Lotta people think population control is a solution. We have 30 years for our population to produce the next 2 billion people. Yes, additional supply is an issue, no doubt. But, those 2 billion people are our future innovators, laborers, scientists, consumers, and entrepeneurs making this technology ever more possible. People are the solution, not necessarily the problem.
Corn and soybeans and many other vegetables actually produce carbon emissions the means of production and the ways of agriculture produces a carbon footprint, improper crop rotation reduces soil nutrition making what its usefulness very limited to biofuels, high fructose corn syrup or food grain for livestock
I still don't get it at this point why instead of looking how to feed 10 billion in 50 years, look for HOW NOT TO GET TO 10 BILLION STARTING NOW!!!!!! are we blind? or we turn our head to pretend that overpopulation is not upon us NOW!! Sigo sin entender por que a estas alturas en lugar de ver como alimentar a 10 billones en 50 años, buscar COMO NO LLEGAR A 10 BILLONES EMPEZANDO YA!! estamos ciegos? o desviamos la vista para pretender que la sobre-población no esta sobre nosotros YA!!
American farmers must keep working hard to feed 1.4 billion Chinese. Industrial China will use agrarian America as its food basket. Other nations will have to survive on a little or starve.
@@danielgorzelniak3209 lmao Ikr, all of us humans trying as hard as possible to reduce our c02 emissions and a volcano could reset all that progress in one day.
More complicated than that. Poverty also severely limits access. Farming as we do it now is not sustainable so will fail to produce enough by the end of century because of soil depletion. Agriculture as we do it now produces more CO2 (and perhaps methane) than any other human endeavor.
The case: traditional small-scale peasant plants the rice The show: modern fancy farming technique growing lettuce for more expensive price. I will come back, when they can eventually grow and harvest Mango and Coconut from that lab. Please notify me again later!
Not very sure about the idea of taking all the food production process indoors with led. Part of the planets cycle system includes these plants being outdoors. Lets find more ways to plant outside.
he has a shirt that has plants in it, because he is a botanist. Neil deGrasse Tyson Tyson and Richard Dawkins often wears ties with astronomical objects in them. Doesn't have anything to do with flexing son.
Angelo Im my knowledge which is little, I think this would do the most immediate benefit. World wide education, one child per couple would benefit every one, especially that one child. Would be nice if current and next able generations participate. Just a small thought.
