Image: Matt Collins
We are eating ourselves out of house and home. Recently, in the September 24 issue of Nature, Johan Rockström and his colleagues proposed 10 “planetary boundaries” to define safe limits of human activity. (Scientific American is part of the Nature Publishing Group.) Those limits include caps on greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, the global conversion of land cover to cropland, and other mega-impacts on the earth’s ecosystems. Yet humanity has already exceeded several of them and is on a trajectory to exceed most of the others. The rising demand for food plays a large role in those transgressions.
The green revolution that made grain production soar gave humanity some breathing space, but the continuing rise in population and demand for meat production is exhausting that buffer. The father of the green revolution, Norman Borlaug, who passed away in September at the age of 95, made exactly this point in 1970 when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize: “There can be no permanent progress in the battle against hunger until the agencies that fight for increased food production and those that fight for population control unite in a common effort.”
That common effort was inconsistent at best and sometimes essentially nonexistent. Since 1970 the population has risen from 3.7 billion to 6.9 billion and continues to increase by around 80 million a year. Food production per person has declined in some big regions, notably sub-Saharan Africa. In India the doubling of population has absorbed almost all of the increase in grain production.
Food production accounts for a third of all greenhouse gas emissions when one tallies those from fossil fuels used in growing, preparing and transporting food; the carbon dioxide released by clearing land for farming and pastures; the methane from rice paddies and ruminant livestock; and the nitrous oxide from fertilizer use.
Through the clearing of forestland, food production is also responsible for much of the loss of biodiversity. Chemical fertilizers cause massive depositions of nitrogen and phosphorus, which now destroy estuaries in hundreds of river systems and threaten ocean chemistry. Roughly 70 percent of worldwide water use goes to food production, which is implicated in groundwater depletion and ecologically destructive freshwater consumption from California to the Indo-Gangetic Plain to Central Asia to northern China.
The green revolution, in short, has not negated the dangerous side effects of a burgeoning human population, which are bound to increase as the population exceeds seven billion around 2012 and continues to grow as forecast toward nine billion by 2046. Meat consumption per capita is rising as well. Beef poses the biggest threat because cattle require up to 16 kilograms of feed grains for each kilogram of consumed meat, they emit large amounts of methane, and the fertilizer used to grow their feed contributes hugely to nitrogen oxides.
It is not enough to produce more food; we must also simultaneously stabilize the global population and reduce the ecological consequences of food production—a triple challenge. A rapid voluntary reduction in fertility rates in the poor countries, brought about by more access to family planning, higher child survival and education for girls, could stabilize the population at around eight billion by 2050.
Payments to poor communities to resist deforestation could save species habitats. No-till farming and other methods can preserve soils and biodiversity. More efficient fertilizer use can reduce the transport of excessive nitrogen and phosphorus. Better irrigation and seed varieties can conserve water and reduce other ecological pressures. And a diet shifted away from eating beef would conserve ecosystems while improving human health.
Those changes will require a tremendous public-private effort that is yet to be mobilized. As we remember Borlaug’s great achievements, we must redouble our efforts to respond to his admonitions as well. The window of opportunity to achieve sustainable development is closing.
See what we're tweeting about
20 Comments
Add CommentShort answer: probably not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinally something we can agree on. We have to reduce the world population. When I went to school the world population was 2 billion people to day it is an insane number impossible to feed. Imagine a cattleman having a finite amount of pasture that keeps twice the amount of cattle the pasture can feed. Impossible! Any cattleman would say. Yet this is what we do. Forests are burn to heat food people can't get enough off. TMP! (Too many people) should be the people's cry from now on. Condoms and sex education enforced. Then all energy should be taxed to make it extremely onerous to waste. Efficiency would grow immediately people not able to afford to waste energy. Nuclear power plants not creating global warming gases. SUV's would be junked. Even cars carrying one person but made to carry 5 or 6 would be history.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that the population needs to be lower. This is the irony in finding new medical advances. While we save more lives, it goes against the natural process of life. It's kind of good in a way that cancer has not been cured because it is one of the only checks on human life left. I realize that if I or someone I loved came down with an illness I would probably feel differently.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPopulation control is the only way the homo sapien can keep from ruining his dwelling, problem is it will not happen on a voluntary basis. We need to develop non-pathogenic sterilising agents that is transmitted by inhalation if we are to keep the species alive. Procreation will then be a sought after procedure similar to artificial insemination.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat no one seems to realise is that tearing down the forests not only reduces carbon dioxide conversion to sugars, it also reduces the amount of solar energy consumed in the manufacture of sugars. This energy then ends up heating our little planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFeeding the world is not a technical problem. The only reason for hunger is corruption, political. We already make enough food to feed the world by 1.5x's.
Nor is there any shortage of energy, just the simple machines, devices to make, catch, use it eff.
Population is simple too. Just educate the women and give them micro loans solves that cheaply as has been proven.
".....as the population exceeds seven billion around 2012 and continues to grow as forecast toward nine billion by 2046."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"......more access to family planning, higher child survival and education for girls, could stabilize the population at around eight billion by 2050."
Does anybody know which were the assumptions for the forecast, obviously not those from the second quote.
Too often discussions are based on studies that have not been updated and whose premises have changed. I don't want to discredit anyone I just wish the author would have a chance to reconfirm that his (her) findings are still true.
Will we ALL be cannibals? Of course not,... But we "Red State" people have considered "Blue State" people to be a back up food supply for a while now. Oh, and keep up the good work with your municipal gun control measures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author speaks of the green revolution as if it is a gift from God. The green revolution is keeping billions alive right now. But it is enabled by fossil fuels. They are a finite resource. At some unknown date in the future, fossil fuels will be nearly gone. The population problem will then solve itself. Petroleum gave us the population bubble, and petroleum will burst the bubble. We have only ourselves to blame, because of our stupid, self-serving, short-sighted optimism, and our inability to imagine scenarios beyond the range of our past experiences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince birth control, and senior death panels are both considered unethical and immoral--what we need is a good, old-fashioned:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear War. Boom. You're toast. Dinner's served.
To Mr. Paul Collier: NOW HEAR THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMalthusian theory that was disproven when it was first posited is being held up yet again, combined with the now disproven "we're all gonna die!!!" climate change embarrassment. Are these people really so daft to think this will be allowed to go forward as legitimate science? Already there is a huge groundswell of anger about the climate change fanaticism that is pushing things like cap and tax down everyone's throats, and we're going to heap forced birth control on top of that and expect people not to take to the streets looking for the head of anyone claiming to be a scientist or politian/ policy maker?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have known since the 60`s that we can not feed our growing population on meat. It takes 100 pounds vegetable protein to produce 10 pounds of cow, we need 10 pounds of cow, to incorporate 1 pound of protean in ourselves(most of what we eat is converted to heat, through digestion to maintain our body tempature, thats the price of being warm blooded). Cut out the middle man(Cow), it`s the only logical way to feed our race and save our planet. But then again there always the SOYLENT GREEN solution !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTelrunya:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMalthus was never wrong, he may have got his timing wrong, he did not take into consideration technological advances in food production, but now those advances have hit a brick wall. We can and will advance further but population growth is now poised to outpace technological advances.
The current sets of wars across Africa, South America and parts of Asia are all based on shortages of land, water and food. Tribes emerge one trying to dislodge the other in their life-preserving war for land, water and food. The Tutsi and Hutu tribal wars are a case in point, the people could not identify if the belonged to one tribe or the other they used height and religion to classify origins.
A population of 7 Terra humans in 2012 is unsustainable. It requires the conversion of our remaining forests to food production. This reduces biodiversity, it also reduces the mass of CO2 converted to sugars on a daily basis. Solar energy that would have been consumed to generate food is now heating up our planet.
Remember our atmosphere is a creation of the life in all its forms that exists on this planet. More species have gone extinct in the past 200 years than were been lost in the fifth extinction, we are truly living in fascinating times - the sixth extinction.
Will the homo sapien survive this extinction? I reckon no, don't have a scientific model to prove so, but our extinction will be good for the future of this planet. I seeding rock within the heliosphere of an insignificant little star.
When it comes to survival, it is not the species that is important, it is the knowledge that is carried in the genetic sequence, the knowledge that is contained in the triplets that code for the 20 amino acids that generate all the proteins in all life forms on our little rock.
A crystal can self generate, seemingly defying the second law but entropy increases overall. Can knowledge self generate? Will a DNA or RNA based life form generate spontaneously? The genetic code for every life form be it a virus, bacteria or you is based on exactly the same knowledge based code.
This issue, putting emotive issues aside for a moment, really depends on the will of 20 - 40 year olds over the next 40 years, in my opinion. At least if we are to be half serious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven that natural resources and our ability to convert them into consumables is the true measure of wealth (not money) which population is wealthier. One with 6 Billion or less or one with 9 Billion.
Just considering the math, if the 20-40 year olds decided to have 1 child families over the next 40 years, birth rates per family could rise to 2 + at the 40 year boundary and continue indefinetly to sustain a population of 3 Billion from the 100 year boundary.
All the while steadily decreasing pressure on many key ecological, economic and conflict isssues.
Its irresponsible to not meet this challenge on behalf of future generations. And its immoral that our leaders fail to bring this topic to the international community.
Their are simple economic measures that can benefit as well.
DeSoto has some interesting strategies that aid the economic evolution, which is part of any solution.
The source: - http://mises.org/books/desoto.pdf
(chapter 9 for those with limited time)
Did anyone read this line:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"And a diet shifted away from eating beef would conserve ecosystems while improving human health."
...and remember the interesting conclusions of Gary Taubes' Good Calories Bad Calories? The food problem may be even more serious than many believe.
To produce 1 kilo of beef requires 30 kilos of cereals and also soy beans. Eat less meat and there would be enough cereals to feed the world. Modern cereals are bred for their starch content. Cereals should be hybridized with wild cereals which have a high protein content, so there would be less need to eat meat. Growing barley uses three times less fossil energy inputs than wheat. If crop varieties were grown in their respective ecological niches, food production would double. And such measures need no new technology...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStopping population growth is difficult, but we know how to do it. In dozens of countries around the world, four reforms that can be summarized in the acronym HEEP have resulted in stable populations. The four reforms are Health, Education, Employment and Pensions. They are effective in rich countries such as Germany and Sweden, in poor countries such as Cuba and Poland, and in non-western countries such as Japan. Health care must be guaranteed as a right, not a commodity, and include reproductive health care and contraception. Education, especially for women, is the strongest correlate with family size - women with more education tend to want, and have, fewer children. Employment gives women income and value outside the home. Pensions allow parents to rely on sources other than their children for retirement income. These are things that people want, not draconian social interventions. There are places in the world, though, where education for women is resisted, where reproductive health services are seen as immoral, or women are expected to remain in the home. Our challenge is to extend the HEEP reforms worldwide before ecological catastrophe overtakes us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to UN Population Fund, there are over 200 million women who would use family planning if they had access to it, and over 40% of pregnancies are unintentional. Picking this low hanging fruit would make a terrific difference, without any coercion. Why don't we do that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStop shipping food and medicine to third world countries and their populations will stop increasing. Africa already can't feed it's self, and every year we ship them food aid they respond with rapid population increases.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisokay...I have two questions: First, does anyone else recall that there used to be a couple of billion rumjnants running around the northern hemisphere, post-LCM? did they not emit CO2 or what? Secondly, should non-nuclear war not be considered an environmental control agent, much the same way as a forest fire? Keeping the underbrush cleared out makes for stroner trees. Thus if human life is not precious, it can be managed in much the same way as a herd. Hmmm..who to do that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this