Rising population growth vs falling food production

[Red_Dave]

I was wondering to what extent people here would agree this is a problem and what can be done about it. Its been estimated that global food production could be brought up by 50% so its arguable that some form of international cooperation is needed to boost it. This is clearly a political issue as we,ve seen how Zimbabwe has gone from being the bread basket of Africa to what it is now. Im also interested in what bearing this has on birth control as the topic has popped up quite a few times on these forums.

Globally speaking part of the problem at present is that farmers cant access the credit necessary to buy seeds equipment etc.What I would surgest is that first world governments lend money to farmers in the developing world at low interest rates. One advantage of this would be that courrpt governments could be by-passed but at the same time its arguable that some form of collusion with this governments is necessary in order to improve things like irrigation.

Ultimatly its in everyones interest that this is adressed as a rise in food prices would effect more or less everyone. Its also arguable that it could effect us security wise as we,ve seen in somalia that if a country falls apart then it works to the advantage of terroists, pirates, organised crime etc. We,ve already seen food prices cause instability in Haiti and Eygpt so its fair to say that this issue is very much a non-zero-sum game

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I was wondering to what extent people here would agree this is a problem and what can be done about it. Its been estimated that global food production could be brought up by 50% so its arguable that some form of international cooperation is needed to boost it. This is clearly a political issue as we,ve seen how Zimbabwe has gone from being the bread basket of Africa to what it is now. Im also interested in what bearing this has on birth control as the topic has popped up quite a few times on these forums.

Globally speaking part of the problem at present is that farmers cant access the credit necessary to buy seeds equipment etc.What I would surgest is that first world governments lend money to farmers in the developing world at low interest rates. One advantage of this would be that courrpt governments could be by-passed but at the same time its arguable that some form of collusion with this governments is necessary in order to improve things like irrigation.

Ultimatly its in everyones interest that this is adressed as a rise in food prices would effect more or less everyone. Its also arguable that it could effect us security wise as we,ve seen in somalia that if a country falls apart then it works to the advantage of terroists, pirates, organised crime etc. We,ve already seen food prices cause instability in Haiti and Eygpt so its fair to say that this issue is very much a non-zero-sum game

Crop subsidies are a major problem for emerging economies.

If already industrialized countries would stop them, the 3rd worlders would have a more equitable ground to compete on.
Getting rid of those is hardly possible in my opinion though.

 

[Red_Dave]

Crop subsidies are a major problem for emerging economies.

If already industrialized countries would stop them, the 3rd worlders would have a more equitable ground to compete on.
Getting rid of those is hardly possible in my opinion though.

Unless doing so means that farmers go bust, which would kinda defeat the object. I guess the main issue is coming up with a viable alternative given the problems farmers already have accessing credit. Thanks for replying though the fact that people seem more concerned about Noahs Ark was about to destroy my faith in human nature

 

[Oftencold]

"Zimbabwe has gone from being the bread basket of Africa to what it is now" because of the infantile form of governement they have adopted.

Capitalistic societies tend to procure or produce ample food, non-capitalist societies tend to starve or be rescued by capitalist societies.

The humane thing to do, if you want the filthy little truth, would be to assassinate the leaders in places like Zimbabwe, and set up village for-profit co-ops.

Barbaric of course. The proper diplomatic course of action is to negotiate with the miscreants that caused the problems in air conditioned and catered meeting facilities while hundreds of thousands starve, many to death. That way we can feel “clean.”

 

[Red_Dave]

"Zimbabwe has gone from being the bread basket of Africa to what it is now" because of the infantile form of governement they have adopted.

Capitalistic societies tend to procure or produce ample food, non-capitalist societies tend to starve or be rescued by capitalist societies.

The humane thing to do, if you want the filthy little truth, would be to assassinate the leaders in places like Zimbabwe, and set up village for-profit co-ops.

Barbaric of course. The proper diplomatic course of action is to negotiate with the miscreants that caused the problems in air conditioned and catered meeting facilities while hundreds of thousands starve, many to death. That way we can feel “clean.”

As sympathetic as I am to assasinating many of Zimbawes leaders it has to be said that free-market countries arent doing brilliantly in terms of food production either. The lack of credit for farmers is an example of how free-market solutions arent working as many governments in third world would be willing to intervene to help farmers if the I.M.F didnt have a thing or two to say about that.

 

[Oftencold]

As sympathetic as I am to assasinating many of Zimbawes leaders it has to be said that free-market countries arent doing brilliantly in terms of food production either.

Could you expand on this? We are arguably the most free market oriented market in history, and our food production is little short of astronomical.

I am unaware of any Capitalistic nation facing imminent starvation, or even major food shortages.

This thread is making me hungry.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I was wondering to what extent people here would agree this is a problem and what can be done about it.

More efficient usage of resources in production would be a beginning, as would more efficient distribution of products. Most of the arable land in North America and Europe is either dedicated to growing bluegrass in unsuitable climates or buried under concrete, and our usage of oceanic resources is still as primitive as it was centuries ago.

Not to mention our planet being divided mostly neatly between moderately corrupt liberal global capitalism and thoroughly corrupt regional despotism and anarchy. To date our efforts to alleviate poverty have mostly perpetuated the problem and allowed the failed states which exploit the general misery to continue supporting themselves.

I can probably name a handful of ways we could drastically increase food production, both in the developed and the developing worlds. I'm sure a qualified agricultural engineer with a team of experts in related fields could produce many hundreds times more. The only obstacle remaining would be forming an organization with the financial means (and/or political will) to implement those procedures.

Its been estimated that global food production could be brought up by 50%...

By whom, terminally depressed Malthusians? That number is absurdly pessimistic.

What I would surgest is that first world governments lend money to farmers in the developing world at low interest rates. One advantage of this would be that courrpt governments could be by-passed but at the same time its arguable that some form of collusion with this governments is necessary in order to improve things like irrigation.

This would be a start, but as long as those first world nations are subsidizing their own agriculture-- which isn't merely a matter of trade protectionism, it's a matter of national self-sufficiency and national security-- the developing nations are not going to be able to claw their way out of poverty on the backs of John Deere tractors. There's no way around this one, as those countries are certainly not going to sacrifice their own security and control over their own food supply for the sake of farmers in the third world.

 

[Red_Dave]

Could you expand on this? We are arguably the most free market oriented market in history, and our food production is little short of astronomical.

I am unaware of any Capitalistic nation facing imminent starvation, or even major food shortages.

This thread is making me hungry.

Peru and Haiti both spring to mind though there are factors in mind such as a lack of usable land* and a low level internal conflict retrospectively. Brazil would be a better example as it stopped exporting rice recently as the internal situation was so dire. A better question would be when has food production been boosted via a transition to a market economy?

*Though ive seen ways in which the amount of usable land has been expanded through irrigation

 

[Red_Dave]

Epic fail regarding my claim that global food production could rise by 50%. Its actually alot higher. I think i must have read something along time ago leaving the stats to be mixed up in my brain.Its actually alot higher.

Here are some decent stats.

Gross land balances (GLB) are defined as the total land that is potentially suitable for growing crops but which is not currently being cultivated. GLB estimates have been made using agro-ecological modelling (Fischer et al 2002)21, taking into account existing soil, climate and terrain conditions in relation to major crop requirements, under various assumptions of land management. These estimates indicate that on a global basis, the total availability of land, which has from moderate to very high suitability for rain fed crop production, is about 43 million square kms, (or 4.3 billion hectares). Currently cultivated world arable land is estimated at about 1.4 billion hectares. Over half of the additionally available land is found in Africa and in Latin America. Furthermore, with estimates of 2.435 and 2.084 million km2, respectively, these regions account for most of the land that has the highest suitability class for rain-fed crop production.

From page 55 of http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/31/43040036.pdf

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Unless doing so means that farmers go bust, which would kinda defeat the object. I guess the main issue is coming up with a viable alternative given the problems farmers already have accessing credit. Thanks for replying though the fact that people seem more concerned about Noahs Ark was about to destroy my faith in human nature

Ending first world subsidies is a good idea, it not only opens the market to local small time farmers but also to foreign 3rd world farmers.

I've been interested in one day traveling to Africa to do some aide work but I disagree with what a lot of the agencies try to do first.
Like building a school house when those people are having trouble feeding themselves. That's ass backwards to me.

 

[Red_Dave]

Ending first world subsidies is a good idea, it not only opens the market to local small time farmers but also to foreign 3rd world farmers.

I've been interested in one day traveling to Africa to do some aide work but I disagree with what a lot of the agencies try to do first.
Like building a school house when those people are having trouble feeding themselves. That's ass backwards to me.

Yes im all for removing the subsidies in the first world [as long as they,re subsidising products that go overseas] im just wondering how farmers could be prevented from going broke in their absence.

 

[Red_Dave]

As for education vs food I think theres a need to balance the short term with the long term. In the short term people obviously need food but in the long term education necessary if you want to train people up as doctors, engineers agronomists etc. I think theres an element of empowerment to this as it means people can deal with the issues themselves rather than relying on westerners, which I think is alot more dignified. I think politicaly speaking its important for people to understand the politcal conditions that have got them into the situation they,re in. I.E in Zimbabwe.

I did a bit of voluntary work for an educational charity in peru last year and Ild certainly recomend it.

 

[Oftencold]

Peru and Haiti both spring to mind though there are factors in mind such as a lack of usable land* and a low level internal conflict retrospectively. Brazil would be a better example as it stopped exporting rice recently as the internal situation was so dire. A better question would be when has food production been boosted via a transition to a market economy?

Well, let's begin with a recap of what I posted. The relevant sentence was “I am unaware of any Capitalistic nation facing imminent starvation, or even major food shortages.”

So, agricultural production, while certainly relevant, is not the same thing as food availability. A rich but arid country is not likely to suffer the depredations of hunger.

That said, lets illustrate you lack of research in the matter of the examples you cited, shall we?

Peru might export more avocado than last year

Peruvian avocado exports are likely to surpass last year's scale, since exports between January and May 2009 amounted US$ 37.3 million, according to Peru's Foreign Trade Society (ComexPeru).

Last year's these exports amounted to US$ 72.7 million.

Coffee leads Peruvian agro exports

Coffee is still the largest agricultural export product of Peru prompting the government to take the necessary measures to continue boosting its development, Peru's Ministry of Agriculture (Minag) reported.

“Coffee is one of the flagship products and the main agro export product of the country, which reached US$ 643 million in 2008,” Peru's Minister of Agriculture Carlos Leyton said.

Foreign Agricultural Section

Haiti:
Haiti's most important agricultural trading partner is the United States. A considerable part of the agricultural exports from Haiti move to the United States and also an important proportion of the country's agricultural products import requirements originate in the United States. During 2006, U.S. agricultural exports to Haiti, including forest products increased over the previous year to US$215 millions. This value includes high in rice, vegetable oils, including soybean and consumer ready products such red meats and poultry and fresh fruits and processed vegetables. During the same period, Haitian agricultural exports to the United States remain slightly above the same period the year before to US$16 million. Cocoa, essential oils, fresh fruits (mango) and seafood, including lobster represented the bulk of the export, while coffee and value added forest products continue to grow slowly.

Brazil's agricultural exports hit record high in 2008

Brazil's agricultural export reached a record 71.9 billion U.S. dollars in 2008, up 23 percent from 58.5 billion dollars in 2007, the country's Agriculture Ministry said Friday.

Brazil's agricultural exports soar in June

July 14, 2009
Brazil exported 31.443 billion U.S. dollars of agricultural products in the first six months this year, figures released by the Ministry of Agriculture on Monday showed.

Brazil's agricultural exports to China up 52.5% in March

Brazil's agricultural exports to China registered a 52.5 percent increase in March, totaling $598.8 million, Brazil's Agriculture Ministry said on Thursday.

A better question would be when has food production been boosted via a transition to a market economy?

Let's use an example available to school children outside of the State Contolled "Education" Sytem.
Massachusetts Bay Colony

During their first three years in the New World, the Puritans abolished private property and declared all land and produce to be owned in common (a commonwealth).

In Plymouth over half the colonists promptly died from starvation. Governor William Bradford observed that the collectivist approach "was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort." He lamented the "vanity of that conceit of Plato's . . . that the taking away of property and bringing community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God." Governor Bradford implemented private ownership of property, but Platonic Christianity continued to dominate other aspects of regional social policy.

And

Plymouth settlers faked illness rather than working the common property. Some even stole, despite their Puritan convictions. Total production was too meager to support the population, and famine resulted. Some ate rats, dogs, horses and cats. This went on for two years.

"So as it well appeared that famine must still ensue the next year also, if not some way prevented," Governor Bradford wrote in his diary. The colonists, he said, "began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length after much debate of things, (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. … And so assigned to every family a parcel of land." The people of Plymouth moved from socialism to private farming. The results were dramatic.

"This had very good success," Bradford wrote, "for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. ... By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many. ... " Because of the change, the first Thanksgiving could be held in November 1623. What Plymouth suffered under communalism was what economists today call the tragedy of the commons. But the problem has been known since ancient Greece.

*Though ive seen ways in which the amount of usable land has been expanded through irrigation

This statement indicates to me that you probably never been engaged in agriculture at any level. This is not surprising considering the prevalence of hyper-urbanized individuals on the Left.

Allow me to broaden your horizons.

Free market economies have not only modernized the ancient practice of irrigation, they have provided abundant agricultural mechanization, motorized transport, tremendously improved seed stock, pesticides, fungicides, natural and manufactured fertilizers, soil amendments, refrigeration, agricultural education and market research, to name just a few Capitalistic contributions to bringing food to your table without you having to get dirt under your fingernails.

I thankfully for the future, somebody made a lot of money doing so.

 

[danarhea]

I was wondering to what extent people here would agree this is a problem and what can be done about it. Its been estimated that global food production could be brought up by 50% so its arguable that some form of international cooperation is needed to boost it. This is clearly a political issue as we,ve seen how Zimbabwe has gone from being the bread basket of Africa to what it is now. Im also interested in what bearing this has on birth control as the topic has popped up quite a few times on these forums.

Globally speaking part of the problem at present is that farmers cant access the credit necessary to buy seeds equipment etc.What I would surgest is that first world governments lend money to farmers in the developing world at low interest rates. One advantage of this would be that courrpt governments could be by-passed but at the same time its arguable that some form of collusion with this governments is necessary in order to improve things like irrigation.

Ultimatly its in everyones interest that this is adressed as a rise in food prices would effect more or less everyone. Its also arguable that it could effect us security wise as we,ve seen in somalia that if a country falls apart then it works to the advantage of terroists, pirates, organised crime etc. We,ve already seen food prices cause instability in Haiti and Eygpt so its fair to say that this issue is very much a non-zero-sum game