Maybe Boring Co and Square Roots can do some underground vertical farming so we don't keep running out of romaine.
Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?
41–50 of 287 posts
Re: Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?
#42Or we could stop throwing away nearly 1/3 of the food we produce...
I'm guessing a lot more waste happens towards to consumer side. Producers for example sort out misshapen fruits and vegetables for use in manufacturing processes. Tomato sauce, jams, pre-chopped veggies. Scrap vegetable waste goes for animal feed. Scrap meat for pet food, etc. But when it gets to the grocery store or restaurant, the waste food is less likely to be used in this manner.
Re: Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?
#43Or we could stop throwing away nearly 1/3 of the food we produce...
We don't. There is pretty much 0 loss in meat once you take into account derivative products (including both pet food and the chemical industry).
Re: Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?
#44What if we all had a green wall with aquaponics ?
I think this is what it has to eventually be. We all have a garden in our garage. We save tons on transportation costs throughout the chain. It has to be near zero work. People used to all have gardens in their backyard but stopped when they could afford the cheap produce at the store.
Bush tomatoes, lettuce, basil and kale are fairly low maintenance in my experience.
You can increase yields with more work, but you can often get away with only watering when it hasn’t rained for a few days.
Re: Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?
#45What would make people eat less beef? Since taxes seem a hard sell, would subsidizing chicken + non-meat protein help? As a vegetarian I'm trying to get my head around what would help change the behaviour of the meat eating HN members.
Perhaps because you can survive on beef alone (including organs meat), but can't survive on lettuce without some sort of supplementation ?
Re: Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?
#46What would make people eat less beef? Since taxes seem a hard sell, would subsidizing chicken + non-meat protein help? As a vegetarian I'm trying to get my head around what would help change the behaviour of the meat eating HN members.
I have a mirror-image question: What will it take to convince vegetarians that a meat-based diet is actually the healthiest way to eat, and that meat can be raised in humane, environmentally-friendly ways? :-) Edit: This a serious question. Down voting is hardly a productive form of dialog.
Some strong scientific studies indicating such would be a good place to start :-)
On the other hand:
(1) "meat-based diet is actually the healthiest way to eat"
Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets, (2009): "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."
Health effects of vegan diets, Craig, W., The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, (2009) From the summary: “Vegans are thinner, have lower serum cholesterol and blood pressure, and enjoy a lower risk of CVD. BMD and the risk of bone fracture may be a concern when there is an inadequate intake of calcium and vitamin D. Where available, calcium- and vitamin D–fortified foods should be regularly consumed. … Vegans generally have an adequate iron intake and do not experience anemia more frequently than others. Typically, vegans can avoid nutritional problems if appropriate food choices are made. Their health status appears to be at least as good as other vegetarians, such as lactoovovegetarians.”
(2) meat can be raised in humane, environmentally-friendly ways
Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Poore J. and Nemecek T. Science, (2018). Example conclusion: meat and dairy provide 18% of calories and 37% of protein, but uses 83% of farmland and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change. Springmann M. et al. PNAS (2016) “The food system is responsible for more than a quarter of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, of which up to 80% are associated with livestock production. Reductions in meat consumption and other dietary changes would ease pressure on land use and reduce GHG emissions. Transitioning toward more plant-based diets that are in line with standard dietary guidelines could reduce global mortality by 6–10% and food-related greenhouse gas emissions by 29–70% compared with a reference scenario in 2050.”
And well, I'm not sure if humane slaughter matters to conscious animals. I certainly wouldn't appreciate if someone humanely slaughtered me. And as for the consciousness aspect: The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness 2012. A group of prominent neuroscientists created The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness, in which they state their support for the idea that animals are conscious and aware in a similar way as humans. “The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.”
EDIT: these points are cribbed from a blog post I wrote on this subject: https://medium.com/@colorado.j.reed/veganism-from-an-enginee...
Re: Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it would be seen as a "tax" to the corn producers, beef eaters, sugar water drinkers, car owners, and probably a load of other groups who benefit from the artificially cheap price.
Out of that list, the corn producers can get lost. They are not entitled to our subsidy.
Well sure, but there are a lot of lobbying groups relying on the subsidies. Beef, pork, ethanol, corn syrup, international food exporters.
If a congressperson raises the price of the commodity they all rely on, they will piss of a LOT of money, and probably not raise enough next election cycle, and lose their seat.
Re: Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?
#48What if we all had a green wall with aquaponics ?
I think this is what it has to eventually be. We all have a garden in our garage. We save tons on transportation costs throughout the chain. It has to be near zero work. People used to all have gardens in their backyard but stopped when they could afford the cheap produce at the store.
The missing context is that people did that out of necessity. Hundred years ago 56% of Americans were rather poor. Most non-city people had outhouses in the 1940s. America’s rise to wealth has been long and hard fought. Wealth didn’t just land into our laps.
The average American family had an annual income of ~$3000 (in today’s dollars), So, yeah, poor.
Re: Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not interested in eating less meat so we can grow the population more. It's not a cost issue. Why do we want a population size that requires people to cut back on quality of life?
Would you eat more chicken instead of beef though? Is there a certain meat you couldn't do without and if so why? I'm not against anyone eating meat (although as an ethical - and hypocritical milk drinking vegetarian - I'd like to see animal suffering reduced) just interested in what meat eaters love about meat.
I don't see stacking as many people as possible on Earth as a worthy goal and therefore I am not interested in changing my behavior for the purpose of achieving it.
Your animal suffering point has merit. But what the article is talking about is simply growing enough food to feed more people, so that's what I am addressing. However, I think that this is just another symptom of the same thing. Factory farming is only necessary if we need to feed multiple billions.
Re: Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?
#50What if we all had a green wall with aquaponics ?
I think this is what it has to eventually be. We all have a garden in our garage. We save tons on transportation costs throughout the chain. It has to be near zero work. People used to all have gardens in their backyard but stopped when they could afford the cheap produce at the store.
> I think this is what it has to eventually be. We all have a garden in our garage.
No you won't, at least not with greens. Did you even try to do the math for the required amount of food a single person needs per-year ? Even if you go with rabbits, which are easy to raise, you can only self produce a small amount of meat per year, maybe ~150lb once you get to "scale".