*. Haven't there often been some sort of shortage of food all over the world with starving people in most developing countries? I guess this has more to do with decision of distribution rather than there being too little food available. Whereas the amount of food coming out several of acres of countries there are some going directly to the slow production of cattle or similar "food products". Instead, the amount of meat production should be decreased and the amount of whole protein crops production - such as
quinoa and
buckwheat - should be increased. Don't believe an old
scientific report from 1914 just because it is done on laboratory rats.
* A good problem of malnutrition of the world could be turned if we went back to
organic farming. This would, of course, mean a different type of farming in general, but it would also solve the unemployment problem of the modern world which haven't been solved in many development countries with the addition of industries.
* Spend less resources
on producing "fuel crops".
* Consider what people really need instead of growing drug plants, tobacco plants, using resources to produce a giant sortiment of alcohol or cookies or candies and instead give people what they really
need. Several potential acres of arable land is used for something more decadent than feeding the world's population.
* As I mentioned earlier the production of meat should be decreased, about to the half of it's current production. The fish of the world should be left for at least four years each to regrow; then a system of only fishing certain spieces within a cycle of four years til' the next "harvest" - and more seasonal dependant - should be developed and deployed in order to prevent overfishing.
* The cities contain several good spots for farming: The roofs, the parks, etc, etc. This would also lessen the amount of alienation often inherited in most city-dwellers by means of a communitydriven project of caring for the rooftop gardens etc etc. This would also mean that the amount of cars and transportation of cities should be reduced to as little as possible.
* A largely in the west unexplored source for food: Insects. Entomophagy have
it's advantages over the occasional meat-production. Even if the idea in our society is seen as something disgusting we might note that our diets would be seen as disgusting by other people of the world. This does require, though, that we return to
organic farming with
companion plants and
crop rotation in order to not ruin the insects with pesticides. A biodiversity of a crop field will prove as effective, but less decadent, as the current industrialized farming.
* People's private gardens hold many potential resources for growing plants for food. Wether or not they will decide to grow in their own gardens or not is the decision of theirs, of course. It is, however, better to
use all available soil as possible rather than just letting everything we eat be made from another country. Some of us might be post-industrial but that doesn't mean that we are, or should be, post-farmers!
I'd like to note that I am no expert in this cause, nor do I have the "exact statistics" of either idea or alternative to compare with. This is beyond just the food resources problem. The way we treat our precious arable land at the moment is too decadent and too short term. Many problems of the modern world would be solved if we just changed our society to grow less on the paper (as economy wants it to do) and
be growing more things instead. It is a utopia, some might say, but at least a sensible and nicer utopia than a barren earth devoid of any arable land, biodiversity or the likes just because we wanted to keep with chemical farming, the usual distribution of products, etc, etc. We won't just need change the way we see food, but also eachother.
Now: Discuss!