Why should we have "the thousands of mouths of tomorrow" to begin with?

Because of increasing population growth in most of the developing countries, increasing demand, urbanization (resulting from rural-urban migration), drifting of most crop and livestock producers from the agricultural sector due to depressing agricultural and food policies on their part. These among other issues are signals of a likely "thousand mouths" in the near future and necessitates a need for devising and implementation of vital measures to curb food insecurity, food crisis and famine implications. What Legesse do you think could be incorporated in such measures?

I would go for food sovereignty, a concept developed by the international peasant organization La Vía Campesina. As this organization is composed of small farmers, it is no wonder that they fight for local solutions. Nevertheless, an integration of local ways of production within regional and national plans in the sense of food sovereignty could solve some of the problems implied by contract farming and the integration into a world market.

And, by the way, I don't think an authoritarian way of thinking like the Club of Rome proposes will lead us anywhere (and if it does, I don't want to be part of it).

Hahahaah, thanks a lot Philip for the wonderful suggestion. Your suggestion is well noted

1. Stop investors using food crops as commodities to be speculated upon.

2. Reduce meat consumption in developed countries to meet that in developing countries half way (4 portions per week seems reasonable).

3. Increase consumption of insect protein in Western countries.

4. Reduce wastage of perfectly edible food (because of cosmetic reasons, over purchasing etc)

And a minor one that many people would probably disaggree with:

Reduce the keeping of pets/companion animals to one per household, as above that I think they're basically a waste of food and have little benefit.

Impressive, thanks a lot Terri for the brilliant suggestions. I however would like to know how cultural differences and differences in food preference could be incorporated in measures to meet the aforementioned suggestions of yours. eg. with consumption of insect protein. Isn't that in some way "Libertarian Paternalism" or limiting their right to choose the food they want to eat in their cultural context in the name of making them better off on insect protein?....

Your concerns are appreciated, David. The question: "Why should we have 'the thousands of mouths of tomorrow' to begin with?" was meant to invoke a discussion on how human civilization is getting increasingly misguided. Competition among global economies has failed to address the dictum "live and let live". To "live and let live", mankind has to be sensitive to other forms of life, to the environment. Unless recycled, nutrients in the soil (which are critical for agricultural productivity) are not only finite, but are also increasingly polarized (in graveyards, in oceans and seas through erosion, etc.). Research proposals, which list the all too common justification (one that is also appreciated by FAO) : "--- to feed the increasing human population", are short-sighted. World leaders (scientists, philosophers, politicians, business men/women, artists, community leaders, etc.) have to begin discourse on these challenges for: "Humankind cheapens in its own abundance". Does a human being have to sale her/his kidney to buy a loaf of bread? What about human organ "harvesters"?

Interesting..Now that's some great enlightenment from your side Legesse, thanks a lot for the issues raised. Your points are well noted and will be revisited later on for further deliberation

I think I know what you mean about Libertarian Paternalism (I know very little about the humanities in general).

Personally I think option 1 should be implemented at a UN level asap, if only to rescue chocolate from the speculators :-)

Option 2 would be significantly more difficult without some sort of rationing system, which no Western government would revisit other than in times of war, so unlikely to ever happen.

Option 3 wouldn't necessarily require force to be applied to the market. Many people I know would refuse to eat insects because of the yuck factor, but that's at least partly because many have never tried them knowingly. (There are far more insects in processed foods than most people realise). I think the first problem would be to create a viable market for foods that advertise the fact that they contain insect protein. The only way I can see that happening is a concerted campaign (probably by government or charities) to allow people the opportunity to try the foods for free, and also educate them to the benefits. A bit of celebrity endorsement wouldn't go amiss either. I suspect this is still a little on the "Paternal" side.

Option 4 is already recognised as being a problem, so various strategies are being attempted to reduce wastage, although generally from the point of view of making people realise it's a waste of money.

The pet thing is pretty much never going to happen, although apparently many pets were killed in Britain as WW2 was declared for just this reason.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24478532

Brilliant, absolutely impressive...Thanks a lot Terri for further explaining your earlier suggestions. They have been well noted

Develop an agriculture that is regenerative instead of being extractive and solidly founded on the principles of agroecology, which fosters food systems sustainability through sovereignty of local/indigenous knowledge and germplasm for producing good quality food.