161–170 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A science fiction style solution is going to be the only way to feed the world. What about plant-based diets? That doesn't seem too SF to me
They don’t work. You will have gastro intestinal issues on plant only diets. All those vegan you tubers are cheating for a reason.
I'm shocked that the article didn't mention this, but the mass die-offs we're seeing are because the world's coral reefs will be dead by 2050: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/environment-90-per... https://www.businessinsider.com/great-barrier-reef-could-dis... https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2020/02/24/70-90-per... The effect of this is that 500 million pacific islanders will be forced to flee to So…
> I sure wish a tech billionaire would do something about this. I've noticed in tech that a common hope that people in tech hold is that "the billionaires", in their infinite wisdom and generosity, will pull magical solutions out of their hats and save us all. Like you mention later, yeah, right. > one of the thousand reasons I got out of tech Not an option I've considered much, but it's almost tempting.
With the way the human population is expanding and the rising income of 3rd world nations we are really going to look at a major increase in both genetically engineering food stock to be larger and more nutritious as well as ramping up lab grown meat. Conservation is clearly not going to work as so many nations ignore it anyway and quite often regulations lack teeth due to the fear of killing an industry. Its difficu…
> the human population is expanding and the rising income of 3rd world nations Fortunately, these two tend to cancel out. As a country gets wealthier, its birthrate tends to decline. Some of the most developed countries have shrinking populations.
Those 11 billion people won't use the minimum amount of resources needed to sustain themselves (which is a very low quality of life), but use double or even triple than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 500 million pacific islanders will be forced to flee to Southeast Asia How the heck did you come up with this number? The entire population of Oceania excluding Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea is 3 million.
Can’t speak for the parent of your post, so I don’t know if the numbers add up, but population of Indonesia alone is 270 million. And the country is spread out amongst many islands. That’s just one country of many.
I'm shocked that the article didn't mention this, but the mass die-offs we're seeing are because the world's coral reefs will be dead by 2050: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/environment-90-per... https://www.businessinsider.com/great-barrier-reef-could-dis... https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2020/02/24/70-90-per... The effect of this is that 500 million pacific islanders will be forced to flee to So…
- Which industries (and organizations) are you still in at this point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indonesia and the Philippines pretty universally considered southeast asia and not pacific island nations. They are in-fact the majority of southeast asia, which they are supposedly fleeing to? Also, they're quite developed countries and to the relatively small extent their food consumption is fish, it comes from trade and commercial fishing, not subsistence fishing, so their food supply will be no more impacted than…
> Indonesia and the Philippines pretty universally considered southeast asia "...will be forced to flee Southeast asia" OP says it right there in the same sentence you quoted...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Society just wont change to support it. Maybe this is just me, but I would happily change my diet to be around 50% Soylent or other meal replacement if the cost was cheaper. Currently I eat around 2400 calories a day, with Soylent that costs me $20 a day. I can get Chipotle for ~$15 per day, and between the two Chipotle clearly wins on taste. From what I can tell meal replacements are often far more environmentally…
What about people who enjoy eating? Cheese, meat, vegetables, wine, etc? Let's not forget eating is a pleasurable activity, not only a source of energy and protein.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The human population isn’t expanding much at all. In 1950 there were 2.5 billion humans, today there are 7.7 billion, but by the end of the century there will only be ~11 billion. And at that point, most humans alive will be working age or older (approximately ~3.5 working age adults for every U15). A lack of human population growth will be one of the defining economic issues this century, with a chance at unfortunat…
That might be true, but the caloric consumption of the population is changing. People are transitioning from staple based diets (rice, wheat, etc.) to more complex diets (non native fruits/vegetables, meat). As poor countries gain wealth they want the food to match.
Should have left out the income quip at the end in hindsight!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>A science fiction style solution is going to be the only way to feed the world. I get what you are saying, I just want to clarify: we can feed everybody now, but mostly with vegetables. But yes, shared resources like ocean fish are under too much pressure right now. I feel as though it will take a major worldwide collapse of the fishing industry before there is better enforcement and treaties.
As a resident of a first world country I stopped eating all seafood about 15 years ago. It seems unethical to support over-fishing if I have plenty of other good food to eat.
With the way the human population is expanding and the rising income of 3rd world nations we are really going to look at a major increase in both genetically engineering food stock to be larger and more nutritious as well as ramping up lab grown meat. Conservation is clearly not going to work as so many nations ignore it anyway and quite often regulations lack teeth due to the fear of killing an industry. Its difficu…
> Society just wont change to support it. Maybe this is just me, but I would happily change my diet to be around 50% Soylent or other meal replacement if the cost was cheaper. Currently I eat around 2400 calories a day, with Soylent that costs me $20 a day. I can get Chipotle for ~$15 per day, and between the two Chipotle clearly wins on taste. From what I can tell meal replacements are often far more environmentally…
At the moment I have 54938 calories of food on hand (not counting tomatoes, lettuce, and onions that I do not track because I only use them as sandwich toppings or for small salads where they contribute negligible calories).
This cost $171.44. That works out to $7.49 for 2400 calories.
Most of this is heat and serve stuff. E.g., there are some mini deep dish pizzas, some frozen breakfast sandwiches (think Sausage McMuffin clones), Hormel "Compleats" entrees, instant rice cups, add water and nuke mashed potatoes, canned soup, and such. Another big group is things for sandwiches: bread, sliced meats, condiments. An assortment of things that don't require any cooking or prep, such as protein bars and potato chips. Finally, ham steaks, liquid egg substitute, and frozen mixed vegetables.
It turns out I'm spending somewhere between 1/2 to 1/3 of what I spent on food pre-COVID. The interesting thing is that it is not a hassle. I always knew I could eat a lot cheaper if I cooked at home, but that also took a lot more time. But for most of what I'm keeping now, cooking is really just putting it in the microwave or in a frying pan for a while. That doesn't really take much time at all.
When COVID is done I will go back to getting take out--but only now and then for variety. I don't think it will ever go back to being my main food source.
I will probably gradually add more things made at home from lower level ingredients, which should bring the cost down some more, and can probably be done without adding much more time.