Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Coming Food Catastrophe

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 634 posts

Re: The Coming Food Catastrophe

#231

Post by leni536 »

simonh wrote: post #23
lordnacho wrote: post #3

Sounds like there's a big potential for upheavals similar to the Arab Spring. A fair number of countries subsidize food for their citizens, and if they can't get their hands on any, there's going to be issues. I wonder which countries are most at risk? I read somewhere that the Arab countries get a lot of Ukrainian wheat.

That’s probably mainly due to low shipping costs due to proximity (in the grand scheme of things). There is scope for substitution with supplies from elsewhere in the world, if those supplies can be freed up from their usual end use. Biodiesel, cattle feed, etc. Here in the UK restrictions on labelling sunflower oil now mean it’s acceptable to adulterate it with other oils. My family has switched to using rapeseed oi…

> Here in the UK restrictions on labeling sunflower oil now mean it’s acceptable to adulterate it with other oils.

Do you have a source for this claim? I'm interested since I'm using sunflower oil here in the UK.

Tesco labels its sunflower oil as "pure sunflower oil", it also has an ingredient list of "sunflower oil" [1].

Asda only labels it "sunflower oil", it doesn't have an ingredient list (at least on the website), but it states that the "regulated product name" is "sunflower oil" [2]

From the two the Asda one looks more suspicious, but I don't know what the regulation is. My suspicion is that regulation is for the label "sunflower oil", and Tesco goes out of its way to clarify that it doesn't contain other oils, or otherwise why risk putting "pure" there?

[1] https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/271168790

[2] https://groceries.asda.com/product/cooking-oil/asda-sunflowe...

Re: The Coming Food Catastrophe

#232

Post by Krasnol »

paganel wrote: post #192
jakewins wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hypothetically, if the west actually wanted to give up sanctions in return for clearing the blockade.. why, in what universe, could they possibly expect Russia to stand by its word? Russia said for six months they were simply conducting exercises and had no intention of invading whatsoever. Why should anyone believe they would clear the blockade if sanctions lift?

If they don't stand by their word then they can re-impose the sanctions, it's as simple as that. > Why should anyone believe they would clear the blockade if sanctions lift Because at some point the West will have to sit at the negotiating table with Russia.

There is no "negotiating table with Russia".

There is a "negotiating table with Putin" but it's far from sure if they'll really have to sit on that table or how long that table will even exist.

Re: The Coming Food Catastrophe

#234

Post by corrral »

wyager wrote: post #74
bell-cot wrote: post #28

Tip from an old geezer: Plant Your Victory Garden Now! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_garden

These are part of a propaganda strategy to make people feel like they're "helping". They are not an effective or efficient way of improving food availability. If you enjoy gardening as a hobby, that's great, but these are not practical bulwarks against food shortages. The economies of scale in industrial farming are insane. The ROI on a personal garden is abysmally low, except for herbs and other low-volume plants.

It keeps your variety and options up if rationing kicks in, and lets you stretch the rations farther. It's not a replacement for raw calories.

Re: The Coming Food Catastrophe

#236

Post by vorpalhex »

88840-8855 wrote: post #123

I am refusing to agree that it is all "Putin's fault". The war is his decision and is not to understand from the normal Western position. However, it is the decision of the West to sanction Russia and to 1) accept increasing energy prices 2) accept a lower fertilizer production 3) break up supply chains even further 4) accept the refugee crisis, the costs of entering this war as a proxy combatant, sending tens of bil…

No society is ideal, but it is better to help a flawed country than to let a war monger who is violating sovereignty norms act freely.

Real life is not a series of choices between good and bad - it is a series of choices between bad and worse.

Re: The Coming Food Catastrophe

#237

Post by Johnny555 »

wyager wrote: post #189
Johnny555 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be thinking about this from a personal finance angle instead of an economy-wide production angle. Yes, I tried to be clear: Depends whether you're gardening for a global food shortage, or to supplement your own use, which I suspect is why most people have home gardens. No one's backyard garden in the USA is going to help feed someone in Africa, but even if the global food shortage doesn't mean food shorta…

You took specific objection to my comment that victory gardens were to make people "feel like they were helping". I meant this to imply some kind of externalized effect beyond just saving money. It's also probably wrong that a home garden will net save you money unless you make like $3/hr. Again, unless you're extracting pleasure from gardening.

You took specific objection to my comment that victory gardens were to make people "feel like they were helping". I meant this to imply some kind of externalized effect beyond just saving money.

Yes, that's why I quoted it specifically and clarified that I was talking about a home garden.

It's also probably wrong that a home garden will net save you money unless you make like $3/hr. Again, unless you're extracting pleasure from gardening.

The people that benefit the most financially from a home garden are already low paid - those are the people that aren't going to struggle to afford food as prices rise. My sister has been gardening for years, a couple years ago she kept a spreadsheet and added up her savings based on retail prices of produce and her "revenue" from her garden (which covers most of the back yard of her 1/2 acre lot plus one apple tree) was over $2500 after deducting expenses (excluding labor).

She estimated around 2 hours/day tending the garden for a 6 month growing season, so that's around 360 hours of work, or around $7/hour, which is better than she'd take home working a minimum wage job and in exchange they get all of the organic produce they can eat in the summer, plus a lot of frozen or canned food in the winter. And she ends up giving a lot of it away to friends/family.

For a lot of people here, putting in 360 hours of work to earn "only" $2500 worth of food sounds like a terrible bargain, but for many people in this country, that's a great bargain.

Re: The Coming Food Catastrophe

#238

Post by jaegerpicker »

wyager wrote: post #116
Johnny555 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are part of a propaganda strategy to make people feel like they're "helping". Depends whether you're gardening for a global food shortage, or to supplement your own use, which I suspect is why most people have home gardens. A home garden can supply a significant fraction of your food - especially if you do canning or otherwise preserve for winter use. From the link in the parent post: Fruit and vegetables harve…

> Depends whether you're gardening for a global food shortage, or to supplement your own use No, the effect on supply is the same. > A home garden can supply a significant fraction of your food It takes 5+ acres in a decently arable region with fertilizer to feed one person. By the time you're providing for a significant fraction of your caloric intake, it ceases to be a "garden". > an amount equal to all commercial…

>>> It takes 5+ acres in a decently arable region with fertilizer to feed one person. By the time you're providing for a significant fraction of your caloric intake, it ceases to be a "garden".

This is incorrect, it takes around 1/2 an acre if it's vegetarian or 1.5 acres including chickens/ducks for meat and eggs. That's using a traditional organic farming. If you use Hydroponics (Plants grown in water with no soil) or Aeroponics (Hydroponics grown in towers) or Aquaponics (Hydroponics with aquaculture, where the fish provide both protein and the fertilizer for the plants) the yield is dramatically higher (5x-10x per sq ft) can be done year round and indoors. It's not a perfect solution, it takes knowledge to setup and run, a very small capital investment for startup, and a constant power source. That said it IS commercially viable, you can already today buy produce produced this way in almost any grocery store, and it's viable for home production. I personally have several systems running in my apartment ranging from off the shelf commercial systems (AeroGarden Back to the Roots...) to custom built aquaponics systems. On a pure dollar level it's more expensive per lb of food, no doubt but within reason I don't care about that. I grow better and fresher food and most importantly I control the supply chain.

We can and should use these kind of technologies to replace as much of the modern agriculture system as we possibly can. No of the this mentions the MASSIVE environmental improvement that switching to these systems would make, which is reason enough to do it.

Re: The Coming Food Catastrophe

#239

Post by ncpa-cpl »

Scoundreller wrote: post #147
barbazoo wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an outdated policy but I've heard of that happening here too, Stratas not allowing people to use their outdoor space to grow any kind of food.

At least the FCC protects your ability to put up a satellite dish (and “An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals.”) If they hated my garden and chickens, they’re really gonna hate my 40’ Rohn and guidewires!

> 40'

Is it for shortwave or ham radio?

Re: The Coming Food Catastrophe

#240

Post by corrral »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #226
EddieDante wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your local zoning board might object. I live in PA, and one of the neighborhood vigilantes immediately ratted me out to the local government when I started growing corn, squash, and beans in my backyard while raising a couple of chickens for eggs.

> one of the neighborhood vigilantes immediately ratted me out to the local government Better than your previous phrasing, but try again; if the action that they took was to report you to the government then they are the opposite of a vigilante by definition.

The original word (which: I can't keep up, is that really bad now? When did that happen, last week?) made more sense, really. "Vigilante" is way off from it.
Post reply on HN