The impending vegan menace
10/9/12 17:44![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
airiefairie.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticshttp://www.mfablog.org/2012/08/scientists-water-shortage-could-lead-to-worldwide-vegetarianism-by-2050.html
A stern warning indeed. The water shortages in various regions of the world are getting more severe with every next year. And the result would inevitably be a drastic change in the eating habits of the ever increasing human population, which is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050.
The water resource is not limitless, especially fresh water. There are already serious problems in vast parts of the world, in food production, food prices, etc. Some have already caused social and political unrest like the Arab Spring (the food prices being among the main factors that triggered the revolutions in the Middle East).
There is a prediction sneaking in that this would cause entire segments of the human population to re-direct to a more vegetarian diet, because growing plants requires relatively less water consumption per calorie, compared to breeding livestock. Currently, people get roughly 20% of their needed proteins from meat products, but the forecasts point to a tendency that this share would be dropping down to 5% by 2050, mostly due to the rampant droughts and the subsequent water and food shortages.
The research comes timely, just as the annual World Water Week has ended in Stockholm. A couple thousand politicians as well as representatives of NGOs and UN itself convened there to discuss the problems of water supply on the planet. The report points out that the vegetarian diet could practically lead to saving enormous amounts of water, and that could be the only option, in light of all the severe water shortages that have happened earlier this summer, especially in major food-producing regions like USA and Russia.
And the shorter-term forecast does not look any better, either. Oxfam and other UN-related NGOs are warning that we could be headed to a second global food crisis, the signs becoming very visible now with the prices of corn and wheat jumping by 50% on some international markets (compared to June-July), mostly due to the drought in Russia, the US and the poor monsoon rainfalls in Asia.
18 million people are in serious peril in the Sahel region at the moment, and as could be expected, the food problem has hit the developing countries the hardest, the majority of them now relying almost entirely on costly imports. This includes parts of Latin America, North Africa and most of the Middle East.
I am not sure if any sort of initiative for changing people's diet to a more vegetarian-orientated one could possibly come from the respective governments of the affected countries, but on the other hand this could rather happen naturally, when people realise that they have no other option for survival. And vegetarianism might be only one of several ways of at least partially mitigating this problem. The other side of the coin is of course the optimisation of the eating habits in the developed world, because they are more than excessive at present. I am talking about wasting less food, but that would require a considerable change in people's culture, which could turn out a difficult thing to achieve.
Another option that should work in unison with the above, is the diversification and intensifying of international food trade, especially involving countries that are already severely affected by food deficits on one side, and countries still enjoying a relatively positive balance in the food production on the other. Now this is where governments (but preferably in collaboration with the market itself) could intervene, by creating a simpler and more accessible environment for food trade, as opposed to aggressive protectionism for the sake of profit and/or tying up national budgets of the developed countries, while starving out the developing ones.
9 million people in the world are already affected by starvation on a daily basis, another 2 billion suffer various forms of malnutrition, while some countries are basking in their status of the "most overfed" societies in the world, throwing out up to half of the food they produce. Yes, paradoxically, there are three competing tendencies currently in the world: malnutrition, and simultaneously obesity and rampant food wasting due to the excessive consumerist nature of some cultures related to the continued prosperity of those societies. But certainly, these things cannot be amended through government decrees, although there are steps that the official authorities could make to promote a different lifestyle, and incentives they could pursue to create the conditions for a more efficient use of the food and water resources of the planet. But ultimately, it boils down to people themselves.
Edit: As for the GMOs, I am all for genetic technology, as long as the effects of its use are thoroughly examined, instead of plunging head-on into every new crop that comes by. I also think there should first be a comprehensive legislation in place avoiding the occurrence of monopolies on the food market by the large food-producing corporations in the GMO field, as well as some practices that lead to domination on the market and holding entire communities and segments of the agricultural industry a hostage to for-profit interests. Food is a strategic resource and its status should be recognised as such.
A stern warning indeed. The water shortages in various regions of the world are getting more severe with every next year. And the result would inevitably be a drastic change in the eating habits of the ever increasing human population, which is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050.
The water resource is not limitless, especially fresh water. There are already serious problems in vast parts of the world, in food production, food prices, etc. Some have already caused social and political unrest like the Arab Spring (the food prices being among the main factors that triggered the revolutions in the Middle East).
There is a prediction sneaking in that this would cause entire segments of the human population to re-direct to a more vegetarian diet, because growing plants requires relatively less water consumption per calorie, compared to breeding livestock. Currently, people get roughly 20% of their needed proteins from meat products, but the forecasts point to a tendency that this share would be dropping down to 5% by 2050, mostly due to the rampant droughts and the subsequent water and food shortages.
The research comes timely, just as the annual World Water Week has ended in Stockholm. A couple thousand politicians as well as representatives of NGOs and UN itself convened there to discuss the problems of water supply on the planet. The report points out that the vegetarian diet could practically lead to saving enormous amounts of water, and that could be the only option, in light of all the severe water shortages that have happened earlier this summer, especially in major food-producing regions like USA and Russia.
And the shorter-term forecast does not look any better, either. Oxfam and other UN-related NGOs are warning that we could be headed to a second global food crisis, the signs becoming very visible now with the prices of corn and wheat jumping by 50% on some international markets (compared to June-July), mostly due to the drought in Russia, the US and the poor monsoon rainfalls in Asia.
18 million people are in serious peril in the Sahel region at the moment, and as could be expected, the food problem has hit the developing countries the hardest, the majority of them now relying almost entirely on costly imports. This includes parts of Latin America, North Africa and most of the Middle East.
I am not sure if any sort of initiative for changing people's diet to a more vegetarian-orientated one could possibly come from the respective governments of the affected countries, but on the other hand this could rather happen naturally, when people realise that they have no other option for survival. And vegetarianism might be only one of several ways of at least partially mitigating this problem. The other side of the coin is of course the optimisation of the eating habits in the developed world, because they are more than excessive at present. I am talking about wasting less food, but that would require a considerable change in people's culture, which could turn out a difficult thing to achieve.
Another option that should work in unison with the above, is the diversification and intensifying of international food trade, especially involving countries that are already severely affected by food deficits on one side, and countries still enjoying a relatively positive balance in the food production on the other. Now this is where governments (but preferably in collaboration with the market itself) could intervene, by creating a simpler and more accessible environment for food trade, as opposed to aggressive protectionism for the sake of profit and/or tying up national budgets of the developed countries, while starving out the developing ones.
9 million people in the world are already affected by starvation on a daily basis, another 2 billion suffer various forms of malnutrition, while some countries are basking in their status of the "most overfed" societies in the world, throwing out up to half of the food they produce. Yes, paradoxically, there are three competing tendencies currently in the world: malnutrition, and simultaneously obesity and rampant food wasting due to the excessive consumerist nature of some cultures related to the continued prosperity of those societies. But certainly, these things cannot be amended through government decrees, although there are steps that the official authorities could make to promote a different lifestyle, and incentives they could pursue to create the conditions for a more efficient use of the food and water resources of the planet. But ultimately, it boils down to people themselves.
Edit: As for the GMOs, I am all for genetic technology, as long as the effects of its use are thoroughly examined, instead of plunging head-on into every new crop that comes by. I also think there should first be a comprehensive legislation in place avoiding the occurrence of monopolies on the food market by the large food-producing corporations in the GMO field, as well as some practices that lead to domination on the market and holding entire communities and segments of the agricultural industry a hostage to for-profit interests. Food is a strategic resource and its status should be recognised as such.
(no subject)
Date: 10/9/12 16:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/9/12 16:13 (UTC)We're extremely, even ridiculously patient people. But the one thing that can stir us up is when food (and drink) prices reach a critical level. THEN shit hits the fan.
I'm not sure most politicians realize this, while being entangled in their permanent political quibbles.
(no subject)
Date: 10/9/12 16:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/9/12 16:45 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/9/12 16:59 (UTC)This is kwashiorkor. This is a "more vegetarian" diet without a whole lot of specialized foods to offset the general lack of digestible proteins in many food staples. Basically, it's when a child is weaned and transitioned from breast milk--where proteins are provided by mom's body--to a high carbohydrate, low-protein diet. Basically, the child's body is consuming itself for the proteins stored while it was breastfeeding.
This is one reason--as well as the costs of more general malnutrition--many of these areas get locked into a downward spiral. The other major reasons are a lack of efficient farms (both land issues, environmental, and infrastructure) as well as issues with building and maintaining a large farming infrastructure and trade arrangements to gain access to food sources that can provide nutrients lacking in locally produced food. When you are saddled with a short gut tract that's optimized for a combination of meat and high-payoff foods like fruits, underground storage organs, and things like honey and eggs, you don't tend to survive well for more than short periods on foods a herbivore or folivore can survive longterm on.
What we may see--instead of a wholesale shift into pseudo-vegetarianism--are institutional change and/or collapse in regions over food and a downward adjustment in the human population growth rate in particular regions as external nutritional support waivers in favor of support closer to home...
(no subject)
Date: 10/9/12 17:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/9/12 17:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/9/12 17:40 (UTC)style="width:392px; height:596px"
that should shrink it down to 1/3 its current size.
(no subject)
Date: 10/9/12 17:44 (UTC)You also touched on an important issue: the increasing significance of local food production as opposed to centralised and/or imported one. This extends to the issue of generic medications, which indeed is another vast topic (http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e4073).
(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 18:15 (UTC)So, wholesale malnutrition, except for those who maintain diets containing meat or a very expensive (in terms of production and transportation) combination of high protein and other nutrient bearing vegetables?
Yeah, that sounds better, or at least more elitist.
"You also touched on an important issue: the increasing significance of local food production as opposed to centralised and/or imported one."
It's one way an agricultural system compensates for time and geographical differences in it's ability to produce food. In simple terms, it means two growing seasons a wear for things a particular location can only grow once a year when the Southern Hemisphere is 6 months off in growing seasons than the Northern one. It also allows access to products that can't otherwise be grown locally. Additionally, you can build cities in places where you simply can't grow the food to support it locally while having access to the nutrition required.
So, once you focus on exclusive, local growing, you either have to pick and choose what livable locations remain, tolerate malnutrition as a side effect, and/or tolerate exceptions to the policy...
(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 18:40 (UTC)I don't know if it is better, but that is one conclusion that this research has reached, and I have chosen to present it here. Whether you agree with its conclusion or not, whether its prediction will ever become reality, and what you seem to believe *I* advocate or approve of, are three completely different things.
(no subject)
Date: 12/9/12 18:13 (UTC)More likely, it might be healthy--or reasonably healthy--nutrition for some, borderline or worse malnutrition for the rest and a less severe die-off. Pretty much as it is now. The elitism is more about how this outcome would turn out looking.
(no subject)
Date: 10/9/12 20:19 (UTC)I worry very specifically about the American North West's reliance on Fossil water (specifically the Ogallala Aquifer, which is directly responsible for ~30% of all U.S. irrigation)
(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 00:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 07:45 (UTC)The sea has withdrawn for a couple of miles since then. Which doesn't necessarily mean it's due to climate change, but there it is.
(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 14:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 16:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/9/12 20:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 18:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 18:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/9/12 18:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/9/12 18:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 14/9/12 18:06 (UTC)We have a mammalian metabolism. Most plants in areas without access to large quantities of sunlight (and other, base nutrients) manage by either being dormant most of the year or by being slow all the time. Any mammal that tries that will be prey for most of the time unless--like bears--they are the biggest, baddest motherf***ers in the area. When there are other, meat-eating humans around, that will never be the case.
Second, the restrictions on photosynthetic growing seasons by climates--which would impact photosynthetic humans as well--is half of the reason we have food access issues anyway outside of Africa and in regions of Africa. We deal with the differences in growing seasons and conditions by shipping food from locations that can grow it when we need it--including from southern hemisphere locations like Argentina. Unless you're talking about a very location restricted race of human or shipping huge numbers place-to-place around the globe continuously, photosynthetic humans wouldn't be an advantage and would likely be less competitive to other humans with access to meat.
Third, photosynthesis does not work out for a human or even any other mammalian body plan because photosynthesis is restricted to superficial tissues while the ability for robust movement requires a relatively "deep" set of tissues. Plants compensate for this issue by minimizing the metabolic mass supporting the photosynthetic parts and by reducing metabolic rate everywhere else. For a tree, that means most of the massive parts (trunk) are semi-dead and only alive enough to provide support for the photosynthetic mass above and access to nutrients and nutrient storage below from the root system. For a human, you would not get enough energy from a mobile body plan to be able to afford movement or it would require the ability to increase--massively--the amount of photosynthetic tissue relative to the rest of the body which presents even more issues when you talk about thermoregulation and mammalian systems...
So, not that useful.
(no subject)
Date: 14/9/12 21:46 (UTC)Wow.
(no subject)
Date: 12/9/12 15:06 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 12/9/12 18:17 (UTC)Google "bushmeat".
(no subject)
Date: 10/9/12 21:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 01:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 07:50 (UTC)I am not very familiar with this policy. Is it protectionism? Or inadequate management? Or perhaps artificial pumping up of the prices? Or the creation of monopolies through legislation? In any of these cases, yes, it would be an example of government policies affecting food prices in a negative way.
Like you mentioned, the problem is often that governments do not dare to take long-term decisions and form long-term policies, for fear of losing elections. Because these decisions are often unpopular. So all they do is tickle the populist chord in the public's perceptions, and only tinker with the symptoms while seldom addressing the root of the problems. And this extends way beyond just food issues.
(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 12:49 (UTC)So, if you travel to Canada, you will notice the absence of good quality European cheeses. You may also notice high prices. Apparently, at American grocery stores near the Canadian border, Canadians are notorious for buying enormous quantities of milk and cheese. Canada exports almost no dairy products, and supply management, a major trade irritant, has stalled trade agreements that would have allowed Canada to export other foods. Supply management has been used to suppress the organic food industry as well.
Australia and New Zealand phased out supply management a few years ago.
Here is a link.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1218322--tear-down-the-supply-management-wall-in-canada
(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 13:33 (UTC)Thanks for the link.
(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 04:32 (UTC)Sure, there were plenty of fruit and vegetable dishes as well, not to mention home brewed beer in abundance. But that's not the point.
Not every ecosystem can support plowed agriculture. Not every ecosystem should, especially when the crops are almost wholly carbohydrate-loaded seeds that have only one benefit; they store well. We need to return as a planet to the local, diverse, non-plowed food raising permaculture, pastoralism, and other techniques, processes that produce more food per acre than simple tractor dragging. Will we? Given that it requires more human labor, I doubt.
Still, that kind of farming makes for a far better late-summer feast.
(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 07:53 (UTC)Turns out my jape wasn't that far from the truth, though.
(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 04:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 05:50 (UTC)GMO's like monsanto are terrible in every way imaginable. Their technology doesn't work, they engage in horrible and exploitive business practices. They're a real menace.
(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 07:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 10:09 (UTC)?
(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 11:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 11:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 12:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 07:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/9/12 07:59 (UTC)Considering that the title was the only non-serious part of my post, I hope you wouldn't mind if it stays as it is. =)