This article talks about food production, population, and their impact on each other. The worldwide population had been doubling over smaller and smaller time intervals, while the production of food was growing at an even faster pace. A main concern is the exhaustion of natural resources like farm-able land, and the plague we are forsaking the future inhabitant of Earth with.
On average, well-off people have less children, making some think that prosperity is the answer to slowing down population growth (maybe even bringing it to a complete halt) . However, the more luxurious lifestyles have been proven to leave a disproportional larger 'ecological footprint'. If people from other countries around the world increased their consumption to a level equal to that of Americans, grain, oil, water, soil, and other resource requirements would skyrocket. 67 percent more agricultural land than the world has would be needed, or some even say three planets worth of resources.
This article draws a lot of parallels between the ecosystem and business/investing/marketing (as an engineer, I'm not quite sure the difference between the three). Putting emphasis or investing in something like irrigation will have its benefits (profits) like increased yield and decrease wind erosion. However, it will also have its drawbacks like creating conflicts over water rights, depleting nutrients, and requiring energy. "The only way to treat soil is like a bank account... husband it carefully by careful farming and make a deposit once in a while."
At one point he asks 'In the future will we be competing with our cars for food?'. I don't see this as a concern considering how we are currently producing such a large surplus of grain (corn), we can't even find a use for it all.
One proposed outcome is a technological fix that human creativity and our boundless desires will be the driving force for continuing to develop solutions so that we may all have the desirable lifestyle. Even if this is the case, wouldn't the negative repercussions from our developed solutions eventually be too detrimental to outweigh the benefits? And the features of this technological solution (food that makes you lose weight, completely degradable packaging, green means of transportation) seem more like a dreamed up Utopian than feasible features of society.
The second solution, lowering our standards and expectations of the food industry, seems like a much more feasible goal. However, I feel it is much less appealing than the first solution. Do you think people will ever admit that the technological solution is unattainable and settle for less than what they want?
No comments:
Post a Comment