Can We Grow More Food on Less Land? • Hacker News Board

Re: Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?

#241

Post by strainer » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 5:50 AM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #240

strainer wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was replying to your own claims, but I dont think it actually is ridiculous to worry if novel food products could "wipe out the human population". Its just an unnecessarily extreme phrase for catastrophe, but it is possible. Disease can wipe out a population and novel material exposures can cause novel diseases like Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Food safety should not be presumed on theoretical basis, only a long hist…

> I was replying to your own claims, My claim was "they do fine" which, in the context of the question, doesn't mean "there are no side effects". When a family friend had to have his spleen removed, it put him at somewhat higher risk of infection for the rest of their life, but in the context of him having emergency surgery for a ruptured spleen everyone knew what "he's going to be fine" meant. > I dont think it actu…

I read the description "fully synthetic" here as practically specifying a product which can be created by manufacturing process from elements - as the clinical term "elemental diet" also accidentally suggests. Such a product is also what the lead comment supposed was possible as an alternative to agricultural production of food. To me this is the context of "synthetic foods" which we replied under.

From intuition and lack of ever coming across news of an alternative capabilty, I strongly suspect that besides salts and water most of the materials found in medical "elemental" diets ( carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, amino acids, etc) are refined and processed extracts of natural, oops.. grown;) ingredients.

This product guide partially confirms my intuition [1] :

>" Modified cornstarch and maltodextrin derived from corn are two commonly used ingredients in elemental diets. Physicians’ Elemental Diet instead contains tapioca maltodextrin and no modified cornstarch. "

[1] http://data.integrativepro.com/product-literature/info/physi...

...

>I think human extinction is super important to worry about and not enough people do it.

Not enough influential people do for sure, or of less absolute but much less unlikely threats. Oh well, we made it this far, not all bad, at least there is much room for improvement.

Re: Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?

#242

Post by chrisscastaneda » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 6:46 AM UTC

We could just grow plants instead of animals, then problem solved.

Re: Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?

#243

Post by agsdfgsd » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 12:44 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #231

agsdfgsd wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average US family had an annual income of $956 in 1940. That is $17,268.43 in todays dollars, far more than $3k. And that was almost entirely earned by a single individual rather than both adults in the household working like now. Also, someone earning that little paid no income tax. The average house price in 1940 was $2938, which is $53k in today's money. Now the average family income is $70k, but that's mostly…

It’s my fault. Hundred years ago refers to previous turn of century, circa 1900, then went to 1940 about indoor plumbing for toilets. We were poor, not much above Mexican or Finnish standards (better, but hardly by much). It was anascrnt industrislization as well as WWi and WWii that catapulted us into a powerhouse.

That doesn't actually change much. Average income in 1900 was $438, which is $13,186.15 in 2018 dollars. And 1900 was a low point historically more so than now is a high point. The worst of the gilded age exploitation was happening then, causing huge poverty.

Re: Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?

#244

Post by jessriedel » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 5:02 PM UTC

strainer wrote: post #241

jessriedel wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was replying to your own claims, My claim was "they do fine" which, in the context of the question, doesn't mean "there are no side effects". When a family friend had to have his spleen removed, it put him at somewhat higher risk of infection for the rest of their life, but in the context of him having emergency surgery for a ruptured spleen everyone knew what "he's going to be fine" meant. > I dont think it actu…

I read the description "fully synthetic" here as practically specifying a product which can be created by manufacturing process from elements - as the clinical term "elemental diet" also accidentally suggests. Such a product is also what the lead comment supposed was possible as an alternative to agricultural production of food. To me this is the context of "synthetic foods" which we replied under. From intuition and…

Sure, that's a fine criticism to keep in mind. However, I believe the idea is that although the ingredients come from agricultural sources, they have been purified to such a degree that it doesn't matter; they're chemically identical to synthetic ones. (The key question was whether truly synthetic diets are nutritially satisfactory, not whether they are economically efficient to produce now...which they are not.) Of course, it's still conceivable that some secret molecule is needed by the body in minute quantities that was insufficiently filtered from the agricultural sources, but at some level of effective purification that worry starts to bleed into homeopathy.

Re: Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?

#245

Post by SalMonella » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 5:09 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #244

strainer wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the description "fully synthetic" here as practically specifying a product which can be created by manufacturing process from elements - as the clinical term "elemental diet" also accidentally suggests. Such a product is also what the lead comment supposed was possible as an alternative to agricultural production of food. To me this is the context of "synthetic foods" which we replied under. From intuition and…

Sure, that's a fine criticism to keep in mind. However, I believe the idea is that although the ingredients come from agricultural sources, they have been purified to such a degree that it doesn't matter; they're chemically identical to synthetic ones. (The key question was whether truly synthetic diets are nutritially satisfactory, not whether they are economically efficient to produce now...which they are not .) Of…

Nathaniel. I can see what your saying... Paul`s remark is neat, on thursday I got a top of the range Nissan GT-R: after making $6612 this last four weeks and just a little over ten-k last munth. this is certainly the easiest work Ive had. I started this five months/ago and almost straight away began to make more than $71 per-hour. I work through this website, www.Mesalary.com

Re: Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?

#246

Post by clairity » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 5:12 PM UTC

NickM wrote: post #120

Let's try to break this problem down to first principles: - Humans need food to live because it provides energy and nutrients. - From a fundamental standpoint of physics and available materials, nutrients are relatively easy to get; as far as I know, most vitamins and minerals are pretty cheap to either come by naturally or manufacture, and you don't need that much of any of them to keep a person healthy, so let's as…

> "Photosynthesis is an extremely inefficient way to turn solar radiation into chemical energy. Only about 3 to 6 percent ..."

a biologist sees that and thinks "wow, a plant only needs 3-6% of the solar energy available to them to thrive!" #perspectives

Re: Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?

#247

Post by selimthegrim » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 5:21 PM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #107

tareqak wrote: post #6

There is also the problem of food distribution. Ignoring future population growth, the world does produce enough food to people everyone [0] (obtained from the first sentence of [1]). If we are collectively unwilling to solve the distribution problem today, then it there is a good chance that we won't do much about the shortage tomorrow. In addition, unconsumed food waste is also problem, and probably does have some…

We are missing a bit of humility. Just because an apple can be gotten in February doesn't mean you should. It stretches, complicates, and reduces the efficiency of the supply chain immensely. I heard some advice years ago that one of the better things you can do as an environmentalist is teach your kids about the seasonality of foods. Make a big deal about it being orange or pear or cherry season, cut back on buying…

The other day I thought about buying some citrus and then realized I still had a can of beets to get my vitamin C from in line with this.

Re: Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?

#248

Post by strainer » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 6:52 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #244

strainer wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the description "fully synthetic" here as practically specifying a product which can be created by manufacturing process from elements - as the clinical term "elemental diet" also accidentally suggests. Such a product is also what the lead comment supposed was possible as an alternative to agricultural production of food. To me this is the context of "synthetic foods" which we replied under. From intuition and…

Sure, that's a fine criticism to keep in mind. However, I believe the idea is that although the ingredients come from agricultural sources, they have been purified to such a degree that it doesn't matter; they're chemically identical to synthetic ones. (The key question was whether truly synthetic diets are nutritially satisfactory, not whether they are economically efficient to produce now...which they are not .) Of…

We didnt find any reference to a "truly synthetic diet", so it remains a conceptual talking point which is of unknown economy and unknown capability to produce, yet it has been too easy to confuse the medical diet as evidence of the concept.

> that although the ingredients come from agricultural sources, they have been purified to such a degree that it doesn't matter; they're chemically identical to synthetic ones.

Technically speaking, they are not chemically identical. They are in certain contexts chemically equivalent, subject to 'trace' contamination, bonding and structural differences which are assessed to be biologically insignificant. Synthesis can produce materials which are purer (as in simpler) than grown, but it is prohibitively difficult to achieve an exact, indistinguishable configuration of biologically generated materials.

It could be common to regard this distinction between identity and equivalence as pedantic, yet it is wrong and unscientific - the difference in meaning between these terms has categorical consequences to deduction. Loose claims of chemical identity, gloze over the theoretical component of equivalence - which is subject to change. Prions for example were easily described as chemically equivalent to their other phenotypes, until they became common knowledge around the 90s. Differentiating phenotypes in chemical terms surely involves advanced notation which I expect neither of us are familiar with. For sure homeopathy is a fanciful placebo based therapy, but even pure chemically speaking "simple" H2O carries perplexing detail at the molecular level[1] Whatever might be theoretically insignificant or not, is subject to ongoing insight and discovery.

[1] http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/clusters_overview.html

Re: Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?

#249

Post by dilap » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 8:18 PM UTC

dilap wrote: post #30

kieranmaine wrote: post #4

What 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.

Thanks for all the responses.

My thoughts on a few of the points raised:

• Does meat cause cancer? I don't think so; I find the arguments unconvincing, and the rebuttals, convincing. In particular see:

- https://academic.oup.com/af/article/8/3/5/5048762

- http://peakhuman.libsyn.com/dr-david-klurfeld-on-meat-not-ca...

• Cow feed efficiency, clearing out forests, etc: Yeah, these forms of raising cattle are bad. I get my beef from here:

https://stemplecreek.com

The cows eat grass and live in harmony with their environment.

• Humane treatment: If you think killing an animal is inhumane, full stop, then sure, from that perspective, it is always inhumane to eat animals. I respect if you have that belief and are a vegetarian as a result.

But it's not a belief I hold.

Everything that lives is going to die; that's the game. The best we can hope for is to live well and to die well. We can give this to the animals we eat.

(I sometimes think of it like this: If all of Earth were some sort of human farm for aliens, would I want them to go vegetarian, replacing humans with vast fields of grain and synthetic labs growing human-like meat? No, I would not. I'd rather be a farm animal than not exist at all.)

• Demonstrate it works: Well, so far so good for me! I've tried eating vegan, vegetarian, the standard "well-balanced diet" (veggies, fruits, rice, potatoes, a little meat, a little fish), low-carb (veggies, meat), and now, pretty much just meat, with a little of fruit now and then. So far, the meat diet is _by far_ the most amazing for me.

I don't get sleepy after I eat, my stomach feels great, I'm getting stronger and leaner, and I'm still just as excited to eat a piece of meat as I was two months ago. We'll see how it works out with time!

I came to this way of eating because I was experiencing (1) frequent stomach aches (2) tiredness after eating (3) slowly but ever-increasing fatness. So I did a bunch of Googling around and looked at a bunch of accounts on twitter. The stuff I found the most compelling ended up being:

- https://twitter.com/tednaiman

- https://humanperformanceoutliers.libsyn.com

- http://peakhuman.libsyn.com

Check 'em out!

Re: Can We Grow More Food on Less Land?

#250

Post by stale2002 » Sun, Dec 09, 2018, 9:14 PM UTC

visarga wrote: post #186

stale2002 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is also a lot more economical than 1200 humans sitting at home playing Fortnite all day because there are no jobs No it is not. I personally care about people being able to do what they want with their free time. The situation you describe is only "efficient" if you value everyone's free time and happiness at 0. I care about people's happiness, on the other hand. The main goal of society should be to provide people…

On the contrary, I think it would be a great benefit to people if they could be more self reliant / not as dependent on state and corporations to survive. I prefer self reliance to more leisure time.

You might prefer that. But other people don't. If they did care about that, then they wouldnt be using that leisure time, they would be becoming more self reliant.

I personally want people to have a choice of what to do with their time, and not have values forced on them.