"Corky K"
yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0pvd04lr7ravbmabk506h6dd85oic0ms2r@4ax.com...> [Default] On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:06:44 -1000, in or.politics you wrote:
>
>>I think you are missing the point. The population of the world is
>>increasing. More people, means more people to feed. More people to feed
>>means you need food to feed these people. But we hve a basic problem.
>>Land
>>to grow the foods that are needed to feed this growing population, is
>>limited, i.e. the world has used just about all of the land that can be
>>used
>>to grow the food we need to feed this growing population. So, unless you
>>can figure out a way to provide the food needed for this growing
>>population
>>(trranslation: get more food out of each acre of land), sooner or later,
>>you
>>won't be able to feed this growing population. And "if" you cannot feed
>>this growing population, people will die.
>>
>
> No, I understand the point exactly, Jerry. But the question of how to feed
> the
> masses is a very complex one. Technology has provided us with one answer
> and it
> is being used. But with that answer, more questions come. It is a very
> complex
> issue. As I drove around the Big Island, for example, I saw pastures with
> wild
> cane growing and realized that these were once cane plantation fields and
> are no
> longer able to be used at all for growing because of several factors,
> including
> the slash and burn methods of harvesting and the lack of real irrigation.
> But it
> really all comes down to what the growable areas of land will be used for,
> monoculture and lack of diversity aside. If there is a choice between
> growing
> for energy (bio fuels) or growing food to feed the masses, which do you
> think
> will be done?
At this point in time, some countries like the United States are diverting
some of their land to produce ethanol. But the United States has one big
advantage that some countries do not have. They can produce more food than
their population needs. So, they can afford to use that land for the
production of ethanol. Having said that, when you divert your land to
produce ethanol, you are not using that land for the production of food.
Then the old supply/demand problem rears its ugly heard. Less land being
used to produce food, means the cost of food rises. Less land used to
produce food also means what was a situation where this country produced a
large surplus of food items like wheat, will be reduced, and perhaps reduced
substantially. A reduced production of wheat, means that we will not be
helping countries that we send that surplus wheat to, to feed their
population, we will no longer send that wheat to. In other words, there is
no free lunch. Someone pays the price....
Especially when a farmer receives a far greater sum for his crops
> if they are to be used for bio fuels. Energy will always win. But that
> wasn't
> the subject of this thread, the increasing lack of diversity in our food
> source
> and how Monsanto and companies like it are contributing to such was. Your
> opinion? Is genetics really the well thought out answer? Or just the short
> term
> band aid?
It is what we are talking about. Companies like Monsanto are in the
business to figure out a way to increase the yield per acre. If you can
increase the yield per acre, then the impact of what we were talking about
is less. A higher yield means you can produce more wheat for instance, on
one acre of land. Which in turn means that you can use some of your land
for the production of something else, like biofuels without any significant
impact on the food supply.
