Food Bubble

[Bruce551]

The ‘food bubble’ is bursting, says Lester Brown, and biotech won’t save us

http://www.grist.org/article/food-2011-01-12-lester-brown-the-food-bubble-is-bursting

by Tom Philpott

12 Jan 2011 3:53 PM

Camp in HaitiHaitians awaiting food distribution from a U.N. food program.Photo: U.N./Sophia ParisFor years -- even decades -- Earth Policy Institute president and Grist contributor Lester Brown has issued Cassandra-like warnings about the global food system. His argument goes something like this: Global grain demand keeps rising, pushed up by population growth and the switch to more meat-heavy diets; but grain production can only rise so much, constrained by limited water and other resources. So, a food crisis is inevitable.

In recent years, two factors have added urgency to Brown's warnings: 1) climate change has given rise to increasingly volatile weather, making crop failures more likely; and 2) the perverse desire to turn grain into car fuel has put yet more pressure on global grain supplies.

Brown's central metaphor -- which he's been using at least since the mid-‘90s -- will be familiar to readers who've lived through the previous decade's recent dot-com and real-estate meltdowns: the bubble. The world has entered a "food bubble," he argues; we've puffed up grain production by burning through unsustainable amounts of three finite resources: water, fossil fuels, and topsoil. At some point, he insists, the bubble has to burst.

Well, for the second time in three years, the globe is lurching toward a full-on, proper food crisis, especially in places like Haiti that have de-emphasized domestic farming and turned instead to the global commodity market for food. In 2008, global food prices spiked to all-time highs, and hunger riots erupted from Haiti to Morocco. Now prices are spiking again, and have already surpassed the 2008 peak, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.

As if on cue, Lester Brown has come out with another of his reports, this one titled (with that Brownian flair for understatement), World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse. You can download the whole thing free here, grab the brief presentation on food [PDF] lifted from the book, or just read Brown's own post today for Grist on the topic.

Brown may sound at first blush like a neo-Malthusian predicting the inevitable collapse of human civilization, but he makes important points that I've never heard policymakers grapple with seriously.

Take the question of irrigation water. As I've pointed out -- along with others -- before, India has essentially tapped out the water table in its main agricultural regions since embracing industrial agriculture in the 1970s. Brown hastens to add that India, the globe's second-most-populous nation, is hardly alone in facing an irrigation crisis. In China, he claims, 130 million people owe their sustenance to "grain produced by overpumping groundwater."

Overall, Brown depicts a global food system characterized by severe fragility. With global grain reserves returning to the all-time lows reached in 2008, "the world is only one poor harvest away from chaos in world grain markets," as he writes. Indeed, the main reason for the current upswing in prices, he states, is the heat wave that gripped Russia this past summer, which caused a 40 percent drop in that nation's grain crop. Brown warns that a similar weather event in the U.S. corn belt (which produces several times more grain than Russian) would be calamitous -- it would "likely result in unprecedented food price inflation and food riots in scores of countries, toppling weaker governments."

Brown delivered his presentation on the food crisis at a teleconference Wednesday, and I listened in. After he finished, he opened the floor for questions, and I piped up. U.S. policy elites in both parties, when they can be bothered to comment on the global food crisis, revert to biotech-industry talking points: In order to "feed the world," we'll need to convert as much food production as possible to patent-protected genetically modified seeds. What does he think of high-tech seeds' chances of staving off the crisis? I asked.

Not much, he replied. Brown pointed out that that current-generation transgenic seeds have not increased yields; and that next-generation ones -- like corn engineered to tolerate drought, or use nitrogen more efficiently -- will likely increase yields "only marginally." Such technologies might have "important contributions to make," he said, but will likely not be "nearly enough" to feed our growing population.

Coming from a man who's been studying agricultural productivity since the 1960s, and who was in fact a booster of the original "Green Revolution" -- the push by U.S. policymakers and foundations to prod farmers in the global south to use "modern" agriculture technologies such as hybrid seeds, industrial fertilizers and pesticides, and heavy irrigation -- this is a significant statement.

Brown is no wild-eyed critic of the biotech industry. He is making a cold, informed assessment: its products are a distraction from, not a solution to, the task of averting a global food disaster. And if he's right, our policymakers aren't taking the problems he describes nearly seriously enough -- and that's chilling. (Here, for example, is USDA chief Tom Vilsack babbling about the wonders of biotech for feeding an expanding global population. Nina Fedoroff, Hillary Clinton's chief science adviser, toes an even more rigid GMO-centric line.)

But there's no reason to plunge into Malthusian anguish about a coming global population plunge. A lot people across the world are thinking hard about how to grow sufficient food without sucking dry the global water supplies or burning through fossil fuels like there's no tomorrow. For a bit of hope after imbibing a dose of Brown's bitter truth, check out WorldWatch's State of the World 2011 report, which surveys interesting sustainable-agriculture projects across the globe.

Tom Philpott is Grist’s senior food and agriculture writer.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6567

"In Kibera, Nairobi, the largest slum in Kenya, more than 1,000 women farmers are growing "vertical" gardens in sacks full of dirt poked with holes, feeding their families and communities. These sacks have the potential to feed thousands of city dwellers while also providing a sustainable and easy-to-maintain source of income for urban farmers. With more than 60 percent of Africa's population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, such methods may be crucial to creating future food security. Currently, some 33 percent of Africans live in cities, and 14 million more migrate to urban areas each year. Worldwide, some 800 million people engage in urban agriculture, producing 15–20 percent of all food."

FUBAR, "f**ked up beyond all recognition/any repair".

[English_Bob]

More scaremongering...

The world is on the cusp of growing meat without using animals - the so-called meat trees I refered to before.

In addition, 'vertical farms' are far more than sacks of soil piled on top of each other. There are already test farms producing food with skyscrapers in New York city.

Irrigation issues will be addressed by one of several ways - improved, more efficient desalination of sea water (now tell me THAT'S going to run out) and by the use of crops with are resistant to salt water and will still grow.

The are also ideas about using vast 'fields' floating in the ocean from which to grow crops.

The thing that people like Lester Brown and the rest of The-Sky-Is-Falling-Down Brigade fail to address is mankind's incredible versatility and adaptability.

Wherever there is a problem there will be a solution.

[admin]

More scaremongering...

The world is on the cusp of growing meat without using animals - the so-called meat trees I refered to before.

In addition, 'vertical farms' are far more than sacks of soil piled on top of each other. There are already test farms producing food with skyscrapers in New York city.

Irrigation issues will be addressed by one of several ways - improved, more efficient desalination of sea water (now tell me THAT'S going to run out) and by the use of crops with are resistant to salt water and will still grow.

The are also ideas about using vast 'fields' floating in the ocean from which to grow crops.

The thing that people like Lester Brown and the rest of The-Sky-Is-Falling-Down Brigade fail to address is mankind's incredible versatility and adaptability.

Wherever there is a problem there will be a solution.

Just like the people who have been saying the world has 20 years worth of oil left every year for the last 40 years (despite even more consumption that was ever expected).

[English_Bob]

Just like the people who have been saying the world has 20 years worth of oil left every year for the last 40 years (despite even more consumption that was ever expected).

When I was a kid, everyone in my school expected we would be killed by nuclear bombs. Remember Frankie Goes to Hollywood and When the Wind Blows?

We were brainwashed into believing it was inevitable.

As it happened, life turned out pretty well.

[Bruce551]

Let see ...

A typical aircraft carrier in the U.S. military uses nuclear power to desalinate 400,000 US gallons (1,500,000 l; 330,000 imp gal) of water per day.

Israel is now desalinating water at a cost of US$0.53 per cubic meter. Singapore is desalinating water for US$0.49 per cubic meter.

Can indigness people in Africa & Asia afford to by water for farming at US$0.53 per cubic meter (1,000 liters)?

[Bruce551]

1.5 Billion people don't have electric lights in Africa & Asia. How can they afford to buy water?

[admin]

1.5 Billion people don't have electric lights in Africa & Asia. How can they afford to buy water?

They don't have electric lights because of insanely corrupt governments. Like EB said, human ingenuity will take over. Sooner or later people will have to overthrow these corrupt governments in order to live. Even if fresh water was free it would only serve to delay the inevitable overthrow of corrupt governments.

This is one of the big trends in Africa right now. Many people who have risen up out of total poverty are now stepping up and saying that the best thing other nations can do to help them is to quit sending money. Send business. Send the tools they need to be self-sustainable. The aid money is going directly into the pockets of dictators and corrupt officials.

[Bruce551]

According to the Dalai Lama, environmental problems on the Tibetan Plateau, which is besieged by deforestation, mining, pollution and climate change, are more pressing than China's inclusionist policies. Given Tibet's brutal experience, that says a lot.

"Tibet is a dying nation. We need America's help," the the Wikileaks cables reported him saying.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/01/wikileaks-and-science/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+(Wired%3A+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2))&pid=866

Life on soi 11 isn't exactly indicative to life in underdeveloped counties, na

[English_Bob]

Life on soi 11 isn't exactly indicative to life in underdeveloped counties, na

Touche... (although I think you mean 'comparable to' - not so easy when you have to write yourself rather than cut and pasting someone else's work, is it?)

However, let me ask you this... What are you trying to achieve by posting and posting these articles on Thailand Friends?

Do you think this is the right forum?

Do you expect me to move out of Soi 11 and go to Nepal and stop them chopping down trees?

Why is that any of your business? Surely the people who live in Nepal have the right to do what they want with their trees.

Be the change you want to see in the world. Give up your comfy existence and do something physically postive rather than your cyber-efforts which are at best futile and at worst counter-productive.

[eagle]

English Bob wrote:

The world is on the cusp of growing meat without using animals - the so-called meat trees I refered to before.

Well now we can get rid of those nasty animals . Problem solved :shock:

[English_Bob]

English Bob wrote:

The world is on the cusp of growing meat without using animals - the so-called meat trees I refered to before.

Well now we can get rid of those nasty animals . Problem solved :shock:

The big picture escapes you (again). If meat can be grown in 'fields', the land previously used as pasture could be used for growing other crops.

(Did anyone else not understand that point?)

[eagle]

English Bob wrote:

The world is on the cusp of growing meat without using animals - the so-called meat trees I refered to before.

Well now we can get rid of those nasty animals . Problem solved :shock:

The big picture escapes you (again). If meat can be grown in 'fields', the land previously used as pasture could be used for growing other crops.

(Did anyone else not understand that point?)

I see your big picture I just don't like it.

[English_Bob]

English Bob wrote:

The world is on the cusp of growing meat without using animals - the so-called meat trees I refered to before.

Well now we can get rid of those nasty animals . Problem solved :shock:

The big picture escapes you (again). If meat can be grown in 'fields', the land previously used as pasture could be used for growing other crops.

(Did anyone else not understand that point?)

I see your big picture I just don't like it.

This is what I don't understand.... Environmentalists berate the world for using fossil fuels.

Then an alternative is found and people start using naturally grown oil - but THAT'S not good enough either.

They complain that meat farming uses too much land - so when an alternative is mooted, they are already anti, despite knowing nothing about it.

Scientists can already grow tissue. They can grow meat without the need for the 'excess' - fur, bones, internal organs. Right now, they can't do it on an industrial scale, but one day...

It seems to me that is an ideal solution - less land use, cheaper meat, no animal cruelty, no need for slaughter, more efficiency.

But already you 'don't like it'...

Funny, but you never read about an optimistic ecomentalist. They must live their entire lives panicking and wishing they had never been born human.

[eagle]

English Bob wrote:

The world is on the cusp of growing meat without using animals - the so-called meat trees I refered to before.

Well now we can get rid of those nasty animals . Problem solved :shock:

The big picture escapes you (again). If meat can be grown in 'fields', the land previously used as pasture could be used for growing other crops.

(Did anyone else not understand that point?)

I see your big picture I just don't like it.

This is what I don't understand.... Environmentalists berate the world for using fossil fuels.

Then an alternative is found and people start using naturally grown oil - but THAT'S not good enough either.

They complain that meat farming uses too much land - so when an alternative is mooted, they are already anti, despite knowing nothing about it.

Scientists can already grow tissue. They can grow meat without the need for the 'excess' - fur, bones, internal organs. Right now, they can't do it on an industrial scale, but one day...

It seems to me that is an ideal solution - less land use, cheaper meat, no animal cruelty, no need for slaughter, more efficiency.

But already you 'don't like it'...

Funny, but you never read about an optimistic ecomentalist. They must live their entire lives panicking and wishing they had never been born human.

I don't think its a good idea to destroy the natural world and create a new man made world because we don't want to deal with what we have responsibly. Man is not responsible enough to hack the gene pool and improve life on earth. Civilized man has managed to f*ck up about everything he has touched or tried to change in the natural world instead of trying to live with it. I don't think that makes him smart or optimistic. Direction is being driven by the machine that controls us and if we let it we will be a Terminator movie. Thats the Big picture I see and I don't think a world of artificial food with android bodies is a great idea for the future. Controlling populations and growing food in ways that don't destroy arable land and using technologies to stop poisoning the planet that sustains us are my idea of a better world. But then the greed machine won't have that.

[eagle]

EB wrote:

Then an alternative is found and people start using naturally grown oil - but THAT'S not good enough either.

I think it was a good idea 40 years ago when Carter wanted to use Algae to be energy independent. But the greed machine shut that down and Carter was called a *****. Oil is the fuel of the military machine and not good for the planet just the machine. Algae is better yes if they can make it without destroying things to use it then thats better then invading and killing to control it. Living with the earth is not rocket science but it doesn't allow money and power to be so easily monopolized. I still have hope for man to live with the natural laws of life on this planet but that won't happen if people accept where the machine is taking us.

[English_Bob]

I don't think its a good idea to destroy the natural world and create a new man made world because we don't want to deal with what we have responsibly. Man is not responsible enough to hack the gene pool and improve life on earth. Civilized man has managed to f*ck up about everything he has touched or tried to change in the natural world instead of trying to live with it. I don't think that makes him smart or optimistic. Direction is being driven by the machine that controls us and if we let it we will be a Terminator movie. Thats the Big picture I see and I don't think a world of artificial food with android bodies is a great idea for the future. Controlling populations and growing food in ways that don't destroy arable land and using technologies to stop poisoning the planet that sustains us are my idea of a better world. But then the greed machine won't have that.

The reality is, the ONLY way to manage the world's resources sustainably is to stop population growth. And that won't happen.

So the alternative is to find new ways to provide for the future - and sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but there are always people anti-progress.

Hydro power is fantastic - we harnessed nature and made it work for us.

Intensive farming - we provide food for billions of people because we abandoned the old ways of picking berries off bushes and hunting wild boars.

Excuse me if I gasp with exasperation... the idea of growing meat in trays as opposed to on animals is EXACTLY what you are asking for. Food grown without the use of arable fields. No-one is talking about android bodies - where did you get that idea?

The 'greed machine' is answering the world's problems. When a need is created, some entrepreneur finds an answer and markets it.

Who cares if they make a billion dollars if it benefits mankind?

Your idea is to limit populations - what's your proposal? Kill people earlier or ban them from breeding?

And what are your workable solutions? None... it can't be done using 'traditional methods'. You are living in a fantasy world... you want things to remain the same, or worse, revert to old systems. But that will certainly result in the deaths of billions of people due to food shortages. (but at least you will have your bees and frogs to keep you company)

[Loburt]

There are an estimated 1.02 billion people in the world suffering from hunger or malnutrition right now. One in every six human beings is hungry, malnourished or starving right now.

By 2050 the projected population of the world will be 9.1 billion people.

The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations has said that agricultural production in all developing countries will need to double by 2050 to feed everyone.

Arable land is being lost or reduced every year. More of what is left is increasingly being used to grow bio-fuels. Government investment in agriculture has been steadily slashed over the past 30 years.

Yes, private companies have stepped in where government has pulled back. One of the biggest is Monsanto. Eagle can tell you about Monsanto. And whatever you may think about Eagle's views on other subjects, he's right about Monsanto.

Another company that has stepped into the agricultural sector is Goldman Sachs. According to an article in Harpers, four or five years ago, by manipulating the commodities futures market Goldman Sachs orchestrated a false shortage of wheat that resulted in sharply rising food prices, causing real food shortages in many countries. In 2008 alone, the price of red spring wheat increased by 460% despite no actual shortage in production. Goldman Sachs made billions off the play.

Average food prices around world rose more than 50% over a 12-month period during 2007-8.

According to the FAO, the average middle class person spends about a quarter to 30% of their income on food. The average poor person spends between 60% and 70% of their income on food.

Rising food prices are devastating to the poor.

In the period of sharply rising food prices of roughly 2006-8, there were riots, protests and social disturbances in more than 30 countries related to rising food prices or shortages.

Few if any countries are self sufficient when it comes to food production.

People don't actually need very much meat to survive or live a decent healthy life. But they do need grains such as wheat and rice. Production of these essentials is not keeping pace with population growth, according to the FAO, which says a real crisis is looming.

The FAO is hardly a radical alarmist organization. In fact, in my experience, it is one of the most conservative branches of the UN.

It's interesting that people who do an awful lot of bashing of science and scientists on issues such as climate change, when it comes to this issue seem to be putting an awful lot of faith in science and scientists - and some very Jules Verne solutions.

One out of every six people on this planet is hungry, malnourished or starving.

Right now.

[eagle]

I don't think its a good idea to destroy the natural world and create a new man made world because we don't want to deal with what we have responsibly. Man is not responsible enough to hack the gene pool and improve life on earth. Civilized man has managed to f*ck up about everything he has touched or tried to change in the natural world instead of trying to live with it. I don't think that makes him smart or optimistic. Direction is being driven by the machine that controls us and if we let it we will be a Terminator movie. Thats the Big picture I see and I don't think a world of artificial food with android bodies is a great idea for the future. Controlling populations and growing food in ways that don't destroy arable land and using technologies to stop poisoning the planet that sustains us are my idea of a better world. But then the greed machine won't have that.

The reality is, the ONLY way to manage the world's resources sustainably is to stop population growth. And that won't happen.

So the alternative is to find new ways to provide for the future - and sorry if that offends your sensibilities, but there are always people anti-progress.

Hydro power is fantastic - we harnessed nature and made it work for us.

Intensive farming - we provide food for billions of people because we abandoned the old ways of picking berries off bushes and hunting wild boars.

Excuse me if I gasp with exasperation... the idea of growing meat in trays as opposed to on animals is EXACTLY what you are asking for. Food grown without the use of arable fields. No-one is talking about android bodies - where did you get that idea?

The 'greed machine' is answering the world's problems. When a need is created, some entrepreneur finds an answer and markets it.

Who cares if they make a billion dollars if it benefits mankind?

Your idea is to limit populations - what's your proposal? Kill people earlier or ban them from breeding?

And what are your workable solutions? None... it can't be done using 'traditional methods'. You are living in a fantasy world... you want things to remain the same, or worse, revert to old systems. But that will certainly result in the deaths of billions of people due to food shortages. (but at least you will have your bees and frogs to keep you company)

Finding a way to feed people makes more people so your idea won't work unless we find a way to live on the moon or mars.....quickly.....

[English_Bob]

Quick reply to both...

Climatologists are talking about the remote possibility of problems in 50-100 years' time. They are scaremongering and irrelevant. All the glacial ice in the world makes a tiny fragment of the sediment washed into the sea by rivers and erosion every year - we should stop the rivers and tides? Sea levels rise and fall - people move and adapt.

Food scientists are making inroads because the need is right now. Population growth is the problem and they are trying to find answers.

Luddites are screaming, 'Stop the progress... we like the old ways.'

It doesn't work like that. Unless there is a major pandemic or another world war Population will outstrip production (this is what I was writing a few months ago when the doom-mongers were spouting the global warming Armageddon).

The problem of food vs population is far more credible and worrying than the possibility of less ice.

But necessity is the mother of invention. Man will find a way to feed the population or poor people will start to realise the economies of scale - smaller families are cheaper to feed and will therefore stop having babies.

The population growth is highest in the poorest regions - Indian and China. when food becomes short or too expensive, people will control the birth rate naturally.... Of course they will... that's what people do

[eagle]

Quick reply to both...

Climatologists are talking about the remote possibility of problems in 50-100 years' time. They are scaremongering and irrelevant. All the glacial ice in the world makes a tiny fragment of the sediment washed into the sea by rivers and erosion every year - we should stop the rivers and tides? Sea levels rise and fall - people move and adapt.

Food scientists are making inroads because the need is right now. Population growth is the problem and they are trying to find answers.

Luddites are screaming, 'Stop the progress... we like the old ways.'

It doesn't work like that. Unless there is a major pandemic or another world war Population will outstrip production (this is what I was writing a few months ago when the doom-mongers were spouting the global warming Armageddon).

The problem of food vs population is far more credible and worrying than the possibility of less ice.

But necessity is the mother of invention. Man will find a way to feed the population or poor people will start to realise the economies of scale - smaller families are cheaper to feed and will therefore stop having babies.

The population growth is highest in the poorest regions - Indian and China. when food becomes short or too expensive, people will control the birth rate naturally.... Of course they will... that's what people do

Availability of food is one of natures population control methods and yes thats what will happen naturally. My main concern these days is numnuts hacking the gene pool to make franken food , franken people etc. Living with the planet that sustains us and not against the grain is my preference and what I see as the best solution to a sustainable life on planet earth. Awareness of problems has to happen to steer a course to a better future. What is better is a matter of opinion. Environmentalist is what everyone should be IMO. If your not for the environment what are you for ?

[English_Bob]

Hmmm.... Are domesticated animals natural?

We started breeding cows, pigs, chickens and goats millenia ago to provide us with food.... it was much better than waiting for them to die naturally or hunting wild animals down.

can't be passed on?

We started interbreeding them to improve their productivity. We selected foods for them, bred out poor genes and increased the yield per animal.

Science has moved on. We produce much more than we used to, because we NEED to feed the population.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your suggestion is to stop trying and let starvation sort out the food/population problem.

It's not workable. Why don't we stop trying to cure diseases? How about not trying to prolong people's lives? Ban people from having children? Why not start sterilising people who aren't environmentalists so their genes?

You (and Bruce) are in the wrong place. This forum is populated by Thai girls and white males. The number of families is minimal. The size of family in Thailand is not excessively large nor damaging.

Why aren't you preaching to the Chinese and Indians? THAT'S where the biggest problem lies. Get out there and stop those bastards having any more kids... Better yet, provoke a war between the two nations and get much faster results.

[Bruce551]

The Red areas are where people face starvation today (1 in 6 of world population)

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/08/afghanistan-africa-worlds-greatest-food-security-risk-report.php

"Sub-Saharan Africa is particularly vulnerable to food insecurity because of the frequency of extreme weather events, high rates of poverty and failing infrastructures, including road and telecommunications networks, which decrease both production and distribution capacity. Conflict is also a major driver of food insecurity and the ongoing violence in Afghanistan and DR Congo is largely responsible for the precarious food security situation in both countries."

[eagle]

Hmmm.... Are domesticated animals natural?

We started breeding cows, pigs, chickens and goats millenia ago to provide us with food.... it was much better than waiting for them to die naturally or hunting wild animals down.

can't be passed on?

We started interbreeding them to improve their productivity. We selected foods for them, bred out poor genes and increased the yield per animal.

Science has moved on. We produce much more than we used to, because we NEED to feed the population.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your suggestion is to stop trying and let starvation sort out the food/population problem.

It's not workable. Why don't we stop trying to cure diseases? How about not trying to prolong people's lives? Ban people from having children? Why not start sterilising people who aren't environmentalists so their genes?

You (and Bruce) are in the wrong place. This forum is populated by Thai girls and white males. The number of families is minimal. The size of family in Thailand is not excessively large nor damaging.

Why aren't you preaching to the Chinese and Indians? THAT'S where the biggest problem lies. Get out there and stop those bastards having any more kids... Better yet, provoke a war between the two nations and get much faster results.

There is a huge difference between selective breeding and slicing genes and slapping them together to see how it comes out. They are trying to mix genes of difference animals species. They have done it with salmon and its on the market. The powers that be are screwing up more then they are fixing food productivity with the chemical fertilizers they pushed on the US and the world in the 50s. If they screw up all their gene splicing its more then an oops.

National Geographic dedicated a whole magazine to the coming food crisis and in it they show statistically that the chemical fertilizer in farming is not working. It destroys arable land. You see anyone forcing food on the starving of the world or stopping genocide in Sudan so they can feed people. They run out of food they will have a huge population drop. One thing that I see in the favor of Africa is huge chunks of land are being bought up by entrepreneurs to grow food as they are hoping to cash in on the need for food.

Education and lack of food will have a big impact on population just because it works that way. I don't see people handing out man made meat pies to help the poor starving masses. Monsantos is on its way to mutating all our food and there is evidence that the food they invent has dangerous side effects ,but they have the power and they are pushing their inventions. You see Monsantos as a nice old man wanting his company to feed the poor of the world? You think everything will be fine then good for you. I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and simply trust the ingenuity of man and I don't think we all should wait till people are starving to death more then they already are to talk about the subject. You really think Thailand will be free of hardship in a global food crisis. The last economic crisis shows how the world is effected as a whole. I find Bruce's posts informative and on the most important of subjects and preachers would but suggest its not a bad idea to have a discussion if they are indeed spiritually motivated.

[CiaranM]

The population growth is highest in the poorest regions - Indian and China. when food becomes short or too expensive, people will control the birth rate naturally.... Of course they will... that's what people do

also in the western world ppl r living a lot longer than they used to, but r having (relatively) fewer kids .... this could lead to a seriously out of balance population in the future !!

[eagle]

The population growth is highest in the poorest regions - Indian and China. when food becomes short or too expensive, people will control the birth rate naturally.... Of course they will... that's what people do

also in the western world ppl r living a lot longer than they used to, but r having (relatively) fewer kids .... this could lead to a seriously out of balance population in the future !!

There's been lots of discussion on how this will effect the social security program in the US. Between economic disasters and environmental disasters anywhere in the world could find itself in trouble.