- Joined
- Dec 1, 2011
- Messages
- 33,000
- Reaction score
- 13,973
- Location
- FL - Daytona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
NASA has given a six-month grant to a company developing what could be the world’s first 3-D food printer. And the project’s developer, reports Quartz, an online digital news site, believes the invention could be used to end world hunger.
Quartz explains that the printer is the brainchild of mechanical engineer Anjan Contractor. Being developed by Contractor’s company, Systems & Materials Research Corp., it will use proteins, carbohydrates and sugars to create edible food products.
Contractor says one of his primary motivations is a belief that food will become exponentially more expensive in the near future. The average consumer, he told Quartz, will need a more economically viable option.
Some alternative food source options that may be used with the printer include algae, duckweed, grass, lupine seeds, beet leaves and even insects, according to TNO Research, which is working with Contractor on the project.
“I think, and many economists think, that current food systems can’t supply 12 billion people sufficiently,” said Contractor. “So we eventually have to change our perception of what we see as food.”
Here's my question should we allow the population to grow to this point where we have to eat purely processed food made of bugs and byproduct stuff? We've already got "pink slime" and "soy grits" as meat fillers. Does that really sound like quantity of people, over quality of living is desirable?
People keep saying the population growth is slowing and that the current trend says it will level off then decline. But resources like food, water and energy are being strained and we will continue to need renewable sources in the future.
It seems like one is possibly coming up for food. NASA awards grant for 3-D food printer; could it end world hunger?
Here's my question should we allow the population to grow to this point where we have to eat purely processed food made of bugs and byproduct stuff? We've already got "pink slime" and "soy grits" as meat fillers. Does that really sound like quantity of people, over quality of living is desirable?
Every year, 15 million children starve to death. The World Health Organization estimates that 1/3 of the world's population is starving. One out of every eight children under the age of 12 -- in the United States -- goes to bed hungry every night. "It is estimated that some 800 million people in the world suffer from hunger and malnutrition, about 100 times as many as those who actually die from it each year."
I'd say we've already reached critical mass. Wouldn't you?
The world hunger problem: Facts, figures and statistics
No, not even close.
The depletion of phosphorus is very relevant to the world's food production issues. Phosphorus is a major component in fertilizer, without which fertilizer will be rendered useless. Without fertilizer, two thirds of the worlds population will starve because the Earth cannot support our demands for food.
Untrue.
Read up on phosphorus, as just one example.
Peak phosphorus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Every year, 15 million children starve to death. The World Health Organization estimates that 1/3 of the world's population is starving. One out of every eight children under the age of 12 -- in the United States -- goes to bed hungry every night. "It is estimated that some 800 million people in the world suffer from hunger and malnutrition, about 100 times as many as those who actually die from it each year."
I'd say we've already reached critical mass. Wouldn't you?
The world hunger problem: Facts, figures and statistics
Untrue.
Read up on phosphorus, as just one example.
Peak phosphorus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I am aware of the 75-200 year phosphorous supply issue. Man lived without mining it, and will survive not having a plentiful commercial supply. It is more of an issue for ADM than it is for somebody who is not a producer. People will have to grow their own food organically--how shocking. Critical mass will be around 20 Billion people.
Every year, 15 million children starve to death. The World Health Organization estimates that 1/3 of the world's population is starving. One out of every eight children under the age of 12 -- in the United States -- goes to bed hungry every night. "It is estimated that some 800 million people in the world suffer from hunger and malnutrition, about 100 times as many as those who actually die from it each year."
I'd say we've already reached critical mass. Wouldn't you?
The world hunger problem: Facts, figures and statistics
That's interesting...I wonder if there might be a way to recover phosphorus from human sewage?
Well, and then there's fresh water and meeting the energy production needs of a growing population (and the effect that will have on the environment).
It really isn't wise to have a growing population that plans for future possible developments in energy, fertilizer and water needs (among god knows what else, it seems like everywhere I look some resource is just about on its way out). The truly responsible practice would be to plan our population around existing resources. Otherwise it's like blowing your life savings in Vegas on the possibility that you'll figure out how to make more money later.
Perhaps, but given that the people most vulnerable are not planning their population at all, it is better we not either as might makes right. Besides, given the human ability to kill each other with impunity, we do a better job at population control than mother nature forces upon us.
Well, and then there's fresh water and meeting the energy production needs of a growing population (and the effect that will have on the environment).
It really isn't wise to have a growing population that plans for future possible developments in energy, fertilizer and water needs (among god knows what else, it seems like everywhere I look some resource is just about on its way out). The truly responsible practice would be to plan our population around existing resources. Otherwise it's like blowing your life savings in Vegas on the possibility that you'll figure out how to make more money later.
At lower, sustainable populations we won't have to resort to that option quite so frequently. 20 billion people is begging for frequent wars based on limited resources.
At lower, sustainable populations we won't have to resort to that option quite so frequently. 20 billion people is begging for frequent wars based on limited resources.
If the past century has proven anything in demographics it is how unrealistic population planning actually is barring draconian methods, and even then you subject yourself to terrible unanticipated side effects since this generally creates massive imbalances between the elderly bulge and the youth workers. My biggest problem with population control advocates (aside from the deeply immoral ways it has been implemented) is that they tend to only see humans as mouths to feed, bodies to clothe, and nothing more. Every additional human is also a mind, which when confronting resource challenges is our greatest natural resource. One of the greatest things of the past twenty years as been the re-emergence of a billion human beings onto the modern stage in the form of China. The burgeoning scientific research and great contributions emanating from India, China, etc are a crucial boost to our efforts to advance the species over the course of 21st Century.
But limited resources is relative. Our resources have remained the same (and they are enormous), it is our ability to access them that has continually increased. We haven't even begun to tap the gargantuan reserves of our earth's crust or our oceans, we aren't anywhere close to running low on resources.
There's more than one way to control populations -- we need not resort to catapulting extraneous people into outer space. As populations become more educated and financially stable fewer children are born. That's a noble goal and it's good enough for me.
Anyway, if it turns out that a zillion billion people on the planet is what finally spurs us to develop the technology to go out and colonize the universe, and a year later a giant meteor comes and obliterates earth, I'll concede to your position. Until then seven billion people is enough. We are not in danger of going extinct.
People keep saying the population growth is slowing and that the current trend says it will level off then decline. But resources like food, water and energy are being strained and we will continue to need renewable sources in the future.
It seems like one is possibly coming up for food. NASA awards grant for 3-D food printer; could it end world hunger?
Here's my question should we allow the population to grow to this point where we have to eat purely processed food made of bugs and byproduct stuff? We've already got "pink slime" and "soy grits" as meat fillers. Does that really sound like quantity of people, over quality of living is desirable?
Your opinion, while common, assumes there is no possibility of a boom and bust.
If we become too populated for the carrying capacity of our ecosystems, well that'll just motivate us to invent our way out of it! -- It doesn't work that way, actually.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?