In looking back at history, we've seen concerns about the ability of the world to sustain growing world populations. Malthus theorized about it back in the 19th century and Paul Ehrlich wrote his "Population Bomb" book in the 60s where we were advised that imminent starvation was just around the corner. However, thru innovations given to us by agri-business and new farming innovations that greatly increased food production per acre, Ehrlich's and Malthus's predictions have not come to fruition...yet.
This leads me to the notion of that now trendy product known as "organic food". Everyone raves about how great it is and normally follow up with the notions that our foods treated with fertilizers, pesticides and that a lot of the food has are GMO's is a terrible plight against humanity today. This begs the question in my mind: IF all of these innovations in farming (GMO's, pesticides, etc) never materialized, wouldn't the world be a significantly worse place? Wouldn't the dire predictions of Malthus and Ehrlich have come to pass?
If you took away these innovations now, society would be screwed. Most people know nothing about growing, gathering, or hunting their own food. Hell, many people in America can't even cook their own food.
If the innovations never came about, I think we see a different society today but it would not be devastating. I think you would probably see society spread out quite a bit instead of living in tightly packed cities. I also think you would see less technological innovation as a result.
Just my quick thoughts on the matter.
(05-08-2014 01:47 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]In looking back at history, we've seen concerns about the ability of the world to sustain growing world populations. Malthus theorized about it back in the 19th century and Paul Ehrlich wrote his "Population Bomb" book in the 60s where we were advised that imminent starvation was just around the corner. However, thru innovations given to us by agri-business and new farming innovations that greatly increased food production per acre, Ehrlich's and Malthus's predictions have not come to fruition...yet.
This leads me to the notion of that now trendy product known as "organic food". Everyone raves about how great it is and normally follow up with the notions that our foods treated with fertilizers, pesticides and that a lot of the food has are GMO's is a terrible plight against humanity today. This begs the question in my mind: IF all of these innovations in farming (GMO's, pesticides, etc) never materialized, wouldn't the world be a significantly worse place? Wouldn't the dire predictions of Malthus and Ehrlich have come to pass?
It's seems likely that you're right.
It also seems like you're alluding to the new long game being played by "progressives." That is, undo all of the innovation and success (aka actual progress) that has been achieved, and then usher in the problems that they've been pining for.
You mention it w/ food. They're doing the same thing with energy, transportation and commerce.
And that's a serious issue that all cons and libertarians should be paying attention to.
It's possible. It's also possible that other methods for improving production could have been found. Just throwing that out there, since this is a hypothetical question.
Specialization is a natural phenomenon in cultures as they evolve and technology improves. It's also a strong tenet of Capitalism where people come out ahead when they focus on their competitive advantages and outsource "non-core" activities. Throughout all that time - from the moment we first civilized thru today, most of that time our knowledge of crops and how to grow them slowly improved. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that people understood the concept of crop rotation until the 19th century - which developed the first true upshot in food production. Mechanizing farming made the next big leap (early 1900s) and it wasn't until the middle of the 20th century until farming made serious leaps in productivity with the pesticides and fertilizers. I'm fuzzy on when the GMO's started to become more mainstream, but those introductions also were huge contributors to productivity.
(05-08-2014 02:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]It's possible. It's also possible that other methods for improving production could have been found. Just throwing that out there, since this is a hypothetical question.
Off the top of my head, I'd have no idea how you could do it on a commercial scale. However, on smaller scales I suppose you could up productivity via the use of raised beds where you can eliminates rows and use the recommended plant spacing over an area and thus eliminating the space normally allocated for walking between rows. Could enough smaller scale farms have filled the shortfall from using GMO's and pesticides (and artificial fertilizers)? I doubt it.
(05-08-2014 01:47 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ]IF all of these innovations in farming (GMO's, pesticides, etc) never materialized, wouldn't the world be a significantly worse place?
Don't forget that the world would really only be significantly worse for the poor, the weak, and the needy. Also known as just about everyone who is not white, educated, and wealthy.
These white, educated wealthy activists are actively pining for minorities to die so that they can eat shade grown, organic, non-GMO kale.
Imagine that, the Pro-Discrimination Left's policies actually making things worse for the very people they want to help.
My theory: just like poverty, abortion, budget deficits and the decline of Western Enlightenment, hunger and GMO is a bloody shirt that's worth more to the Democrats unsolved, than solved.
(05-08-2014 02:16 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-08-2014 02:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]It's possible. It's also possible that other methods for improving production could have been found. Just throwing that out there, since this is a hypothetical question.
Off the top of my head, I'd have no idea how you could do it on a commercial scale. However, on smaller scales I suppose you could up productivity via the use of raised beds where you can eliminates rows and use the recommended plant spacing over an area and thus eliminating the space normally allocated for walking between rows. Could enough smaller scale farms have filled the shortfall from using GMO's and pesticides (and artificial fertilizers)? I doubt it.
Discoveries like that are not generally attained off the top of one person's head though.
(05-08-2014 02:42 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-08-2014 02:16 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-08-2014 02:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]It's possible. It's also possible that other methods for improving production could have been found. Just throwing that out there, since this is a hypothetical question.
Off the top of my head, I'd have no idea how you could do it on a commercial scale. However, on smaller scales I suppose you could up productivity via the use of raised beds where you can eliminates rows and use the recommended plant spacing over an area and thus eliminating the space normally allocated for walking between rows. Could enough smaller scale farms have filled the shortfall from using GMO's and pesticides (and artificial fertilizers)? I doubt it.
Discoveries like that are not generally attained off the top of one person's head though.
True, but I'm sure you can think of some rudimentary alternatives to those offered by agri-business that don't involve pesticides and GMO's. No one's asking you to solve the puzzle in one afternoon...
(05-08-2014 02:51 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-08-2014 02:42 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-08-2014 02:16 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-08-2014 02:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]It's possible. It's also possible that other methods for improving production could have been found. Just throwing that out there, since this is a hypothetical question.
Off the top of my head, I'd have no idea how you could do it on a commercial scale. However, on smaller scales I suppose you could up productivity via the use of raised beds where you can eliminates rows and use the recommended plant spacing over an area and thus eliminating the space normally allocated for walking between rows. Could enough smaller scale farms have filled the shortfall from using GMO's and pesticides (and artificial fertilizers)? I doubt it.
Discoveries like that are not generally attained off the top of one person's head though.
True, but I'm sure you can think of some rudimentary alternatives to those offered by agri-business that don't involve pesticides and GMO's.
I don't think there are that many alternatives that haven't been explored.
Please understand, the organic food business has been helped tremendously by their neighbors' use of pesticides and antibiotics. They are borrowing protection in the same way that those who delay or avoid vaccinations are accused of. Except it's true here.
(05-08-2014 02:51 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-08-2014 02:42 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-08-2014 02:16 PM)miko33 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-08-2014 02:02 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]It's possible. It's also possible that other methods for improving production could have been found. Just throwing that out there, since this is a hypothetical question.
Off the top of my head, I'd have no idea how you could do it on a commercial scale. However, on smaller scales I suppose you could up productivity via the use of raised beds where you can eliminates rows and use the recommended plant spacing over an area and thus eliminating the space normally allocated for walking between rows. Could enough smaller scale farms have filled the shortfall from using GMO's and pesticides (and artificial fertilizers)? I doubt it.
Discoveries like that are not generally attained off the top of one person's head though.
True, but I'm sure you can think of some rudimentary alternatives to those offered by agri-business that don't involve pesticides and GMO's. No one's asking you to solve the puzzle in one afternoon...
I mean discoveries that would increase production sufficiently to avoid the calamities originally mentioned. BTW, does Europe still not accept our GM crops?
I think the main opportunity to increase bulk yields of food is through further planting and harvesting automation, food sterilization, and pest control processes. A lot of grain, for instance, is needlessly lost to pests after harvest.
Of course, this doesn't scale to the middle of Africa or a rice paddy in the Philippines so the best course of action for small farm yield is smart use of pesticides, fertilizers, and GMO seeds.