|
|
Post by 12540dumont on Jan 23, 2012 15:44:17 GMT -5
As we enter the 21st century we face at least
seven major challenges that will threaten the
sustainability of industrial agriculture.
Population growth, persistent poverty, energy
needs, environmental degradation, food security,
climate change, and an unprecedented explosion
of infectious diseases—all seven developments
likely will force us to rethink the assumptions
about food and agriculture that we have taken
for granted for at least 50 years.
What kind of agriculture can meet
the requirements of an exploding human
population in the face of entrenched poverty in a
post-fossil fuel era that must restore the
ecological health of the natural resources on
which agriculture depends, while the climate is
changing, global society insists that food is a
human right, and increased infectious diseases
require that we attend to the ecological
ramifications of human activities? (Fred Kirschenmann)
Will the seeds and animals that we have bred in the last 50 years be compatible with the agriculture we must develop to meet the challenges of this century?
|
|
|
|
Post by spacecase0 on Jan 23, 2012 18:23:04 GMT -5
I see the biggest thing going on now is that oil is used to make food now, and that same oil is used to create lots of wealth for the upper class, but that oil is getting more pricy every day. I think the seeds and animals we have will be more than sufficient, what we need to do is to get people growing there own food, it is the mass scale things that have failed, when you have people working for themselves they will find ways, mass scale things are just there to get someone more money, and as a side effect they will feed someone or do other things, I think that no more mass scale farming that uses oil and converts it to food is going to be the answer. and last time there was a price increase of the fuel used to drive civilization (peat in this case) people ended up moving out of the cities and went back to farming when it started getting to expensive for mass use. www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/09/peat-and-coal-fossil-fuels-in-pre-industrial-times.html |
|
|
|
Post by olddog on Jan 23, 2012 18:42:49 GMT -5
I have always believed the small farms are more efficient than the mega farms, but I keep hearing that the larger the farm, the more efficient.
I think we may have to change our way of farming, to make more efficient use of the land.
|
|
greltam
grub
Everything IS a conspiracy :]
Posts: 59
|
Post by greltam on Jan 23, 2012 19:55:27 GMT -5
What kind of agriculture can meet the requirements of an exploding human population in the face of entrenched poverty in a post-fossil fuel era that must restore the ecological health of the natural resources on which agriculture depends, while the climate is changing, global society insists that food is a human right, and increased infectious diseases require that we attend to the ecological ramifications of human activities? (Fred Kirschenmann) Like SpaceCase0 and olddog said, there will be a lot of people returning to small scale farming. The inflow to small farms will be continuous if the oil keeps flowing, as more people are priced out of the system, or instant if it stops completely and nobody eats unless they grow it themselves. The thing to understand, is that human ingenuity cannot overpower nature. There is a limit to how many people the world can sustain at a given resource consumption. In the future, whatever doesn't work gets canned, like oil driven ag., and what does becomes the new top-dog. My thoughts: Food as a right, not really. Not even shelter. IF the culture deems it so, it better do the work to make that a reality. I don't believe anyone in america has the responsibility of providing food for people in say africa. They should be able to grow their own or move to someplace they can. I also believe good quality food can keep one healthy against disease/illness, and current agriculture/food processing doesn't provide that. And in the long term those humans resistant/immune to deadly diseases will replace those that die, so I would only worry about it from an individualistic standpoint. |
|
|
|
Post by atash on Jan 24, 2012 1:30:38 GMT -5
>>Population growth,
...will shortly reverse.
>>persistent poverty,
"The poor you will have with you always.". This is not a real factor forcing any change.
>>energy needs,
"Needs" sounds like a prejudicial opinion. We will soon have to "get by" on rather a lot less energy than some people would currently claim we "need".
That said, more energy usage means more is accomplished per unit human labor. THAT LONG-TERM TREND IS ABOUT TO REVERSE ABRUPTLY. Cubans having to resort to oxen to pull plows is probably the wave of the future.
>>environmental degradation,
Agriculture contributes to pollution and other environmental problems, but it's probably the least culpable actor at the moment compared to its necessity. Cut back on over-consumption of luxuries first.
>>food security,
Not sure what to make of this item. There is no food security. Stockpiles are being depleted, and production is starting to reverse its long-standing growth pattern.
>>climate change
Climate is always changing. In some epochs it has been rather more stable than it is now, for very long time frames, but bear in mind that technically we are in an inter-glacial in what is probably roughly the middle of the Quaternary Ice Age.
We were blessed with a long stretch of relatively warm, stable weather, since around 1850.
Interglacials reportedly last an average about 10,000 years. Whether that average is significant or not is anybody's guess.
>>, and an unprecedented explosion of infectious diseases
Of plants, animals, or humans? I think we've seen much worse--eg the Black Death in Europe. The fact that with as many people as we have, who are far more numerous and mobile than their ancestors, we have seen so little in the way of real pandemics, is amazing.
If the status quo doesn't unravel by itself, it might have "help". Bioweapons.
I don't think agriculture per se is a signifcant contributor to the problem, EXCEPT for large-scale livestock factories. Please leave my little old vegetable farm alone.
>>all seven developments
likely will force us to rethink the assumptions
about food and agriculture that we have taken
for granted for at least 50 years.<<
I haven't taken anything for granted, and I think for myself. I am not following any thinktanks and I am not jumping on any bandwagons.
Globalization and consolidation of farming had the effects of keeping food prices more affordable for a long time, than they would otherwise have been.
Unfortunately, they both turned into ends in themselves as the think-tanks funded by the banksters thought they could squeeze more productivity at lower costs from the system, forever. They were so fanatical they pushed it far past the point of diminishing returns. In any case, their natural limits have been exceeded, and now production will start falling.
The ideal size and location of a farm is not necessarily big, small, local, or globalized, but rather, "right sized". Ideally you want a variety of farm sizes and types to take advantage of all possible niches. Because one direction was favored too much for too long, we need to adjust. I say more local and small-scale production, to take advantage of what would otherwise be wasted resources, such as all the shut-down farms all over my home state.
Energy-efficient farming is problematic. The energy requirements of modern farming are totally unsustainable. However, there are no smooth inflection points, but instead rather sharp ones: massive starvation is now a near certainty.
|
|
|
|
Post by davida on Jan 24, 2012 10:29:11 GMT -5
>>persistent poverty, "The poor you will have with you always.". This is not a real factor forcing any change. This could change if everyone began to realize that the quality of their own life improved by increasing the quality of another person's life. And this is most efficiently handled by one on one contact and not using the government or some organization as the middle man. It would be wonderful if the meaning of "the poor" could be changed to mean "the poor" did not have the type of food or shelter that they desired instead of not having any decent food or shelter. An excellent book on this subject is "When Helping Hurts: Alleviating Poverty Without Hurting the Poor. . .and Yourself" by Brian Fikkert, Steve Corbett and John Perkins. The solution is not throwing more money at the problem. I believe the definition of "the poor" had drastically changed since Jesus said "The poor you will have with you always". David |
|
