Where do we go from here: 4

People and food

No danger of starving here: Christmas in Australia

 
































My third major point (in the first of these posts) was concern about the rapidly-growing human population of the world and whether it was going to be able to feed itself. There are a couple of points in relation to this that need to be kept in mind: one is that most of the population growth is happening in poor countries that are already over-crowded; the other is that most people in the western countries eat too much. The major food problem in these is obesity. In general, they produce ample food for themselves, with enough for export. The difficulties at the moment arise from the logistics of distribution, and the economics of paying for and transporting large amounts of food from areas of plenty to areas of shortage. Right now, for the world as a whole, if food could be distributed rapidly and effectively from the high producing areas to those in need, there would be enough for everyone, not to eat as the privileged do, but to eat adequately, at least pro tem. But it’s unlikely that this will remain the case as populations continue to soar. In the not-too-distant future there is not going to be enough food to feed everyone.

There are blinkered technofreaks who maintain that, since Malthus warned in the late 18^th century of the problems that would be caused by ever-increasing human populations, technical solutions have always been found that have resulted in enough food being produced. This has been true up to now, but there are now new factors in the equation which mean that the argument is not going to hold for the future. One of these – which I wont go on about but which is very important for millions of people – is the world-wide crash in the populations of ocean fish, hunted to near extinction in many areas. But most food still comes from the land, and not only is virtually all the land suitable for arable agriculture already in use but, as I noted earlier, much of that land has been degraded: soil fertility is falling as a result of unsustainable farming practices, and soil erosion is taking a terrible toll. Maintaining high crop yields in modern, extensive agricultural systems involves the use of huge amounts of oil for the manufacture of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers as well as directly for tractor power. We could make great progress if we were prepared to accept much more labour-intensive production systems, and eat a great deal less meat – producing livestock is a highly  inefficient way of converting plant material into food for humans. But as countries like China and India develop, their people are demanding better diets with increasing amounts of meat, so significantly changing market demand for food. And, of course, those countries have burgeoning human populations.

There are solutions – or partial solutions – which, if they can’t entirely solve the problems could improve matters enormously, particularly for the poor of the world. These involve technology, which includes better fertilization, the recycling of plant nutrients, more efficient use of water and animal manures, huge reductions in waste of food and the losses that affect peasant farmers so badly, pest control and plant breeding. Soil erosion and degradation are major problems across Africa, much of Asia and South America; these must be addressed. (There are also serious soil erosion problems in the United States.) The big problem in relation to the poorer, high population countries where the food problem is frequently severe and likely to get worse, is getting the knowledge and technology to the people who need them – a matter of education and resources. And who will pay for the resources needed? In the western countries, where there is no sign of food shortages, there could be huge environmental benefits from waste reduction. Heavy subsidies that encourage the conversion of maize into biofuels cause major distortions in production patterns and food prices and should be abandoned. It would also be good to see moves away from the horrible high-intensity systems of producing chickens and eggs, beef and pork. These are driven more by economics than fundamental necessity.

Is all this going to happen? Well, I don’t think so. Globally, food shortages are going to get worse and will contribute to the increasing pressures on the people of high population countries to emigrate to those where they can expect a better standard of living. There are already serious problems in this respect – every time there’s some sort of crisis they get worse – and they are not going to go away. They may not lead directly to war, but they will lead to ever-stronger calls for restrictive border policies, over-riding humanitarian considerations. The only way to avoid that would seem to be for the rich countries to put ever-increasing effort and resources into improving life in the poor ones in all the obvious areas like education, sanitation and hygiene, food production and (sustainable) transport systems. Whether they will do that is doubtful. Developed countries say they aim to allocate 0.7% of their Gross Domestic Product to aid to underdeveloped countries, but very few do so. There is a strong human tendency to postpone action on inconvenient matters as long as possible, particularly if there is significant uncertainty about the problem facing us and if we ourselves are somewhat insulated against the consequences of the postponement. The rich countries, in general can insulate themselves against food shortages, tighten border controls against the indigent masses and maintain reasonable standards of living. But in the poor, high population countries life will get progressively worse and there will be increasing starvation over the next 25 years. And in the process the natural environment will be destroyed.