This is why the only viable biofuel is biodiesel from algae. It can be grown (has to be grown, for decent yields) in bioreactor tanks, but that means you don’t have do displace food crops. You can grow it in marginal areas or in deserts or something.

I like your writing, but I disagree with you on the need to scale down our lifestyles. We’re really lucky that the climate crisis brought us to this point now, instead of say 50 years ago, when a number of techs didn’t exist.

Our society is going to, I believe, live or die as a high energy one. The idea of living a lower energy lifestyle is basically a non-starter politically. But existing tech is completely capable of maintaining our current high-energy lifestyle, but with zero carbon emissions.

All the problems are political and economic. No money for health care? Well, almost all US large corporations paid virtually zero taxes, for example. They can afford, I think, a non-zero level of taxes.

TINA – there is no alternative.

Staggering statistics… time to downcrank the food machine and give the planet a break.

Problem is… the people who see the wastage and maldistribution as a fixable issue tend to be blind to the underlying systemic problem: the artificial creation of scarcity to make a profit.

Anyway- everything is there in my post;

We’re keeping 6.whatever billion alive at the moment; current crop production can be called 100%

Pre and post harvest losses, from crop reports, are 20% 1st wrld, 60% 3rd; if you figure 1 and 3 are each about half of world total (a fair guess), then 40% of total is lost there. So; we’re at 60% of crop total feeds 6.whatever.

Plus- 50% of THAT is thrown out in the garbage; now we’re down to 30% of crops produced.

Theoretically then, if we actually delivered 100% of crop to feed people, it could be keeping at least 3X 6 billion alive. Oh, wait, that’s 18 billion, isn’t it? More, actually.

I DEhyperbolized that number because it’s too freaking unbelievable.

There are a TON of other changes possible too. Read Mark Bittman’s post from a couple days ago, and look at the chart. This is what we in the US are spending our food dollars for-

http://bitten.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/what-were-eating/

quite horrifying- and another massive spike in the coffin of the idea that we must produce more crops.

People starve for politics; and profit. Period.

Priorities for most American poor people, food is more like a secondary issue. First, a place to live (or sleep) for family then self or health concerns. Next, things like clothing that immediately identify you as destitute or not (unless you gave up caring). Next come other issues such as whether you feel despair and want to escape (alcohol, drugs, gambling, movies, cable tv, etc) or education and planning for the future. Food fits somewhere into that category.

Most of the folks I’ve seen trying to address this issue of food security are middle-class, but poor folks get inspired once they feel they have some dignity and yes, much of that sense of dignity is derived from a feeling of gross injustice.
My perspective for what it’s worth.

From reading his book, I gather that up to half of the food worldwide is wasted, and in the U.K. for instance, the estimate seems to be at around 70%. He includes a chapter with a wonderful historical accounting of food surpluses and their role in the rise and fall of populations as well as empires. And the later chapters recount various efforts around the world to reduce, re-use, recycle food waste.

In short, highly recommended.

Corinne in Paris

And if we are swimming in food, then the sane alternative would be to redirect people’s resources and talents from trying to figure out how to crank out more food to inventing an economic system where everybody is fed, where food production is stabilized and population begins to decrease. Nah? But sanity does not seem to hold wide appeal these days…

Geez louiz, Dewey…. if the reindeer go into overshoot, someone has to bring in food from the outside. Or they um… go the way of all flesh. If the country you mean isn’t in overshoot yet, it will be soon. Then the first world farmers come in to put everybody on corn syrup. Yey!

Well, sure. It’s called poetic license, and hyperbole. Communication intended to reach the heart is sometimes more effective if you can ignore all the exceptions…

Vera: good heavens! Far from suggesting we want 12 billion people, my own desire is that we shoot for 2 billion, and see if we can make that work.

“Can” never equals “should” to me! The point intended is that we have far far more food available to us today than is believed or admitted- and the need for bigger and faster stripmining of the Earth is fallacious at the outset.

We’re swimming in food- and don’t know, and don’t care.

And in case anyone has other assumptions, no, I’m not talking about 12 billion vegans, either.

Dewey, who feeds the cities? If their rural folks are barely making it, then their cities are fed by… first world farmers.

Greenpa, are you serious? 12 billion? How do you figure? This is utterly insane. If there is 6.7 billion of us why are we devastating the earth by growing for 12 billion?! And there is propaganda to grow even more. Mindboggling.