Organic and Sustainable Farmers Can Feed the WorldEXTRACT: In developing countries, ecological agriculture practices can greatly increase productivity, particularly if the existing system is low-input, which is largely the case for Africa.
You need to be a member of AZ Herb Forum to add comments!
I have a hard time with the debate over whether or not we can sustainably feed the worlds growing populations. Without destroying habitat and population diversity, destroying the earths bioremedial powers, without polluting fresh water, without the eutrophication of water systems, without the depletion of top soil, without the dramatic change in local climates. And most importantly without energy intensive fossil fuel inputs for fertilizers, pesticides, seeding, harvesting, packaging, storing, and transporting food.
today it take roughly 10 calories of energy (in the form of fossil fuels) to produce one calorie of food. this ratio is fundamentally unsustainable. Also, as the figures state, we are annually producing more calories of food than the last. But at the same time the amount of calories being consumed by each person is dropping. This is because population growth is outstripping the growth of agriculture.
So, the amount of food grown in the old way (large, centralized monoculture crops and livestock) is growing, which also means our energy consumption is growing at the rate of 10 times the agriculture growth. This is insanity! and it will never be able to feed the world. It may appear to be doing it right now, but it isn't. The current system of food production cannot be sustained even for the next 50 years, let alone indefinitely.
However, I don't think anyone can say that locally grown organic foods can sustainably feed the world current or projected populations. There are too many variables. Only nature knows the answer. And we as a species are so enveloped in the current system to adequately judge whether or not the worlds populations can be fed sustainably, with any sort of method.
I believe the future will require us to interact wiht our food in ways that we cannot even imagine right now. The future will be completely foreign to us when it arrives. Like someone born at the turn of the 20th century in the world today. We will not only be required to produce food close to home (IE, the majority of it IN OUR HOMES), without high energy inputs (nothing but our hands and backs).
As for how many people can actually survive in this way? No one can adequately answer the question. Nature bats lasts, and I think many more people will have to go hungry before there is any significant change. So by the time people change, it will already be too late for some. From any examination of history, a population decrease is almost an inevitability, as the this card house civilization is stacked higher and higher on the unstable foundation of fossil fuel energy, the longer the majority of leaders and people continue down the path the harder will be the crash.
Replies
I have a hard time with the debate over whether or not we can sustainably feed the worlds growing populations. Without destroying habitat and population diversity, destroying the earths bioremedial powers, without polluting fresh water, without the eutrophication of water systems, without the depletion of top soil, without the dramatic change in local climates. And most importantly without energy intensive fossil fuel inputs for fertilizers, pesticides, seeding, harvesting, packaging, storing, and transporting food.
today it take roughly 10 calories of energy (in the form of fossil fuels) to produce one calorie of food. this ratio is fundamentally unsustainable. Also, as the figures state, we are annually producing more calories of food than the last. But at the same time the amount of calories being consumed by each person is dropping. This is because population growth is outstripping the growth of agriculture.
So, the amount of food grown in the old way (large, centralized monoculture crops and livestock) is growing, which also means our energy consumption is growing at the rate of 10 times the agriculture growth. This is insanity! and it will never be able to feed the world. It may appear to be doing it right now, but it isn't. The current system of food production cannot be sustained even for the next 50 years, let alone indefinitely.
However, I don't think anyone can say that locally grown organic foods can sustainably feed the world current or projected populations. There are too many variables. Only nature knows the answer. And we as a species are so enveloped in the current system to adequately judge whether or not the worlds populations can be fed sustainably, with any sort of method.
I believe the future will require us to interact wiht our food in ways that we cannot even imagine right now. The future will be completely foreign to us when it arrives. Like someone born at the turn of the 20th century in the world today. We will not only be required to produce food close to home (IE, the majority of it IN OUR HOMES), without high energy inputs (nothing but our hands and backs).
As for how many people can actually survive in this way? No one can adequately answer the question. Nature bats lasts, and I think many more people will have to go hungry before there is any significant change. So by the time people change, it will already be too late for some. From any examination of history, a population decrease is almost an inevitability, as the this card house civilization is stacked higher and higher on the unstable foundation of fossil fuel energy, the longer the majority of leaders and people continue down the path the harder will be the crash.
thanks again for the article,
Cheers,
Andrew