With 7 billion people currently living on the planet to feed, we have to be increasingly aware of what is going on and who is taking decisions in the use of GMOs, a matter that is crucial for our survival and well-being. "There's nothing they are leaving untouched: the mustard, the okra, the bringe oil, the rice, the cauliflower. Once they have established the norm: that seed can be owned as their property, royalties can be collected. We will depend on them for every seed we grow of every crop we grow. If they control seed, they control food, they know it – it's strategic. It's more powerful than bombs. It's more powerful than guns". For example, transgenic corn (Mexico), rice, cotton (in India), soya (that can result in transgenic contamination) or the typical GM (genetically modified) bovine somatotropin or somatotrophin (abbreviated bST and BST), or BGH, which is a peptide hormone produced by the cows' pituitary gland. Like other hormones, it is produced in small quantities and is used in regulating metabolic processes. After the gene for BST was discovered and patented in the 1970s it became possible to synthesize the hormone using recombinant DNA technology to create recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), or artificial growth hormone.

How can we balance the need of food production with the need of biodiversity and human health protection? Do you agree with a transgenic world? Is science really independent of economic profit?

See the discussion going on at https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_you_aware_of_what_is_going_on_for_GMs_PCBs_and_dioxins_in_agriculture

Some solutions suggested are (to) reduce food loss and wastage, shift to less beef (a healthier diet), boost crop yields, improve land and water management, increase the productivity of aquaculture.  How else can we act to close this food gap?

http://www.wri.org/blog/2013/12/global-food-challenge-explained-18-graphics

- More diversified food. Some suggest that Europeans have to start to learn eating insects as in Asia....

- Less consumption per person.

- Much food is thrown away in Europe. Reduce the amount of unconsumed food by storing it.

- Increase food recycling? If you not eat it, give it away.

....

This is a most sensitive question, a crucial one, indeed. Much recent debate has arisen as to the countries - or regions - that can properly be considered as the bread baskets of the world.

(Between brackets, that is exactly one of the main reasons about the conflict vis-à-vis Ukraine, that has involved Russia, Europe and the U.S.).

I would most cautiously call the attention to all of us against Malthus-like arguments. They are scientifically untenable and politically dangerous.

Regarding this issue, any researcher is - well, a citizen like any others, which ultimately calls for the feasibility of a collective action at the local and planetary scale.

Every Italian thrown in the trash EUR 316 per year of food not consumed per 49 kg of weight. Since every food has its own environmental footprint that depends on its production chain, which means that along with the wasted food are thrown even 1,226 million cubic meters of water (equal to the water consumed annually by 19 million Italians), 24, 5 million tons of CO2 equivalent (approximately 20% of greenhouse gas emissions in the transport sector), and 36% of nitrogen from fertilizers.

@Carlos et al., I believe that 'necessity is the mother of invention', and of innovation and action.  We will think differently concerning food and water consumption.  I'm not for Malthusian arguments at all :)

@Enzo, great calculations :)  I agree with you completely, we should not waste food because that means wasting other valuable resources of our earth.

Friends, did you observe that the price of food has been steadily increasing all this while?

With 7 billion people currently living on the planet to feed, we have to be increasingly aware of what is going on and who is taking decisions in the use of GMOs, a matter that is crucial for our survival and well-being. "There's nothing they are leaving untouched: the mustard, the okra, the bringe oil, the rice, the cauliflower. Once they have established the norm: that seed can be owned as their property, royalties can be collected. We will depend on them for every seed we grow of every crop we grow. If they control seed, they control food, they know it – it's strategic. It's more powerful than bombs. It's more powerful than guns". For example, transgenic corn (Mexico), rice, cotton (in India), soya (that can result in transgenic contamination) or the typical GM (genetically modified) bovine somatotropin or somatotrophin (abbreviated bST and BST), or BGH, which is a peptide hormone produced by the cows' pituitary gland. Like other hormones, it is produced in small quantities and is used in regulating metabolic processes. After the gene for BST was discovered and patented in the 1970s it became possible to synthesize the hormone using recombinant DNA technology to create recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), or artificial growth hormone.

How can we balance the need of food production with the need of biodiversity and human health protection? Do you agree with a transgenic world? Is science really independent of economic profit?

See the discussion going on at https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_you_aware_of_what_is_going_on_for_GMs_PCBs_and_dioxins_in_agriculture

Dear @Miranda, I was reading your link and got some more reading about, problems and solutions: "Creating a Sustainable Food Future: Interim Findings -A menu of solutions to sustainably feed more than 9 billion people by 2050"! Here it is!

http://www.wri.org/publication/creating-sustainable-food-future-interim-findings

And you, dear Miranda, please have a look to the reduction of your rain forests!!!!

Yes Prof Gianni.  We can have no demonstrations here, no such things.  But what I can do is to influence my students, feed their minds with the right attitudes and values :)

Dear All,

I think not the scientific ideas will solve the food (material and energy) question but the common sense and the ethical relationship to each other.

First of all we should stop wasting food (material and energy), change the mainstream paradigm on economic growth which means to limit often unnecessary and luxurious production and to introduce the manufacturing of high quality and “everlasting” that is durable goods instead of the garbage commodities and the planning into production.

What Giovanni listed above shows clearly how dangerous anomalies the merchant mentality with the help of some scientists can trigger. The irrational use of GMOs and pesticides is a manifestation of the low quality, expensive (where pollution of commons is an important part of production) and unsustainable agricultural production.

What can do ethical scientists? Not much - as Marcel former mentioned – until scientists cannot agree with each other and to communicate the right way. Please, do not forget, without scientific contribution present leaders cannot rule the world!

Reduce food loss and waste

Shift to healthier diets

Beef is the least efficient source of calories and protein, generating six times more greenhouse gas emissions per unit of protein than pork, chicken and egg production. Shifting just 20 percent of the anticipated future global consumption of beef to other meats, fish or dairy could spare hundreds of millions of hectares of forest and savannah.

Achieve replacement level fertility

Reducing population growth can help hold down food demand. While most regions are projected to reach replacement level fertility — or the rate at which a population exactly replaces itself from one generation to the next — sub-Saharan Africa's population is on course to more than double between now and 2050.

Boost crop yields

Boosting yields is particularly important in sub-Saharan Africa, which currently has the world's lowest cereal yields but will account for one-third of all additional calories needed in 2050.

Improve land and water management

Conservation agriculture — such as reduced tillage, crop rotations and mulching — increased maize yields in Malawi. Combining these techniques with agroforestry — intercropping with trees — further increased yields. These practices could be scaled up on more than 300 million hectares in sub-Saharan Africa.

http://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/magazine-archive1/december-2011january-2012/the-food-safety-challenge-of-the-global-food-supply-chain/

http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/01/03/18-graphics-illustrate-global-food-challenge

Dear All,

It seems to me that the comments of Giovanni have not been read and understood.

When seed can be owned as a property of corporations and the GMO crops predominate the seed market the diversity of the normal crops will decrease and agricultural production may be collapsed.

Another danger is when merchants decide and are able to manipulate everybody like marionettes.

Global Food Production  (Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries & Aquaculture) while Reducing Greenhouse gases (GHG) Emissions

Food security

Climate change will affect all four dimensions of food security - food availability, access to food, stability of food supplies and food utilization. Food security can be achieved through adaptation and mitigation of climate changes. 

Adaptation

Adaptation in agriculture includes appropriate crop selection; development of heat/drought and more disease and pest tolerant crops; breeding of rice cultivars resistant to climate change such as salt, drought or flood tolerant varieties etc

Mitigation

GHG emissions from agriculture and livestock can be significantly reduced by cropland and grazing land management, for example, cropland management may include nutrient management, tillage/residue management, water management, rice management, agro-forestry-afforestation and/or reforestation which can reduce significant amount of CO2 and some N2O.

Similar topics in RG

The similar topics are being discussed under several threads within ResearchGate as follows: 

1.        What is the future of agricultural production in the context of greenhouse gases?https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_future_of_agricultural_production_in_the_context_of_greenhouse_gases?_tpcectx=home_feed 

2.        Will food contamination be enhanced due to climate change?https://www.researchgate.net/post/Will_food_contamination_be_enhanced_due_to_climate_change?_tpcectx=home_feed

3.         Will ocean acidification be a threat to seafood security, commercial fishing and livelihoods?https://www.researchgate.net/post/Will_ocean_acidification_be_a_threat_to_seafood_security_commercial_fishing_and_livelihoods?_tpcectx=profile_questions

Dear Miranda, I agree with many merit answers above.

I would add that researchers will not have any impact until national and global social politics will see priorities of feeding starving people in poorest areas of the world and learning those people other than submissive patterns of life, characterized by constant helplesness and passive waiting for help.

There is the need world wide of wise poeple in governing bodies, concerning social matters, education and poverty in the world.

There is the constant need of public education campaigns concerning rationality in food consumptions and not wasting food world wide.

Researches and efforts of governments and scholars must address boosting crop yields. Not enough funds have been allocated for food and agriculture.

T. C. R. White (2008) The role of food, weather and climate in limiting the abundance of animals. Biological Reviews Volume 83, Issue 3, pages 227–248, August 2008

The key factor of population growth is food (animals, humans). If there is enough food, disease or competition will not reduce population size. 

The/A key factor of food is weather...

The human history has shown that sometimes it's time to leave home and seek new alternatives for survival. The earth's population growth is exponential, while food resources are limited. The path is marked.  Several decades ago was launched space exploration, as one of scientific contributions seeking alternative solutions.

Dear Miranda, thanks for arising this issue. The farming land are decreasing rapidly so we need to develop hybrid crops to increase the product. The field can be used for double/ triple cropping instead of single cropping...

So many of you have said so many things. I have to suggest soneting different.

I think there should be birth control. If the world population is reduced, the demand for food would be reduced. That would cut the problem at its root.

Agriculture should play central role. We must adapt mechanization. Small farms should be merged so precision agriculture be effective. We must increase yield through engorging greenhouse cultivation, use hybrid crops (as suggested by @Ratan above), use irrigation more efficiently,  etc. In all these areas researchers can help us.

2050 is around the corner, a newborn today will be just a young mother or father that day. Despite a scientist could spend his maximum effort to make the crops more efficient [a very brief presentation for a recent conference in Rome is attached, just to have a few simple info], the urgent matter is, simultaneously, to reduce the price of food while the quality and the variety [for vegetable] and the breed [for animals] should be preserved.

Currently, this simultaneity is systematically violated.

In fact, while the food industry / market is going necessarily towards a cost reduction for unit of production [i.e., through GMOs], the same could not be said for preservation of multiplicity, both in terms of genes and sizes. This way, we will reduce some inborn crucial factors in the food supply-chain, such as:

An example for all:

a particular family of ants [Argentine ants] are building a single global super-super-colony, linking together the 3 existing super-colonies of Europe, Japan and South America. The ability of regional farmers to face the invasion is bound — for the 1st time in the history — to reversal of perspective criteria: while remaining exempt from the phenomenon of "contagion", a typical local disaster assumes global relevance, because the sufferers are unable to measure its extent and find an appropriate solution drawn from previous experiences. 

They need a central solution distributed to the peripheries, with same recursive policies. Otherwise, they will remain paralyzed, their product's value will collapse, and the price of "healthy" food will keep skyrocketing.

These kinds of problems are going to change the scale and paradigm of global feeding, increasing its vulnerability.

Coming back to the fist pair of necessities — a lower price, a broader variety of qualities — we are having the proof that the way to get only the 1st goal, decreasing costs to reduce prices, is wrong: instead of obtaining a higher accessibility to food we're inducing several depressive phenomena. 

It would be a mistake, finally, to believe that vertical farming will solve the problem if  scientists / investors will not put both cost reduction and variety, at the top of the inalienable values . Currently, the first vertical farms are doing the opposite, focusing on a few products — and not only for technical reasons.

—g

Article Initial study for an urban agriculture installation, modeled...

Dear Huaijang,

I was to anxious to show your argument. But my first idea was, reduce the population. I don´t know how.

Respect Hanno

Dear @Huajiang Ouyang,

Population can not be reduced. You can only slow down the number of "born" [how many people have ever lived on Earth?]. But this will not solve any problem: in fact, a general higher fitness would corroborate the current trend [the same, for centuries] of life extension, as well as the increase in consumptions. The same problem we're talking about, would remain unchanged as it has always been. But, if you like, some of us may emigrate to Mars, others could  practice an ascetic fasting, and even learn how to extract proteins from the stones.

—g

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_Many_People_Have_Ever_Lived_on_Earth?_tpcectx=profile_questions

Thanks for your various views and the links that you have provided.  2050 is just 35 years down the road.  As Guiseppe reminds us: 'a newborn today will be just a young mother or father that day.'

Even Behrouz can state in his review: 'Beef is the least efficient source of calories and protein, generating six times more greenhouse gas emissions per unit of protein than pork, chicken and egg production.'  Well, cows usually only produce 1 calf but we can get the other proteins sources far more quickly, plentifully.  We will see what other researchers have to contribute to this discussion, thanks.

Dear Miranda et al, Some additional inputs

Climate smart agriculture and aquaculture, and innovative biotechnology to solve the global food challenge

Climate smart agriculture and aquaculture, use of innovative biotechnology would be essential to cope with climate change related threats and to tackle future challenges on global food production.

1. Microorganisms in adaptation

Use of microorganisms can alleviate stresses (heat stress, salt stress, chilling injury, water– logging, salinity, and metal toxicity) in agricultural crop plants opening a new and emerging application of biotechnology in agriculture. 

Reference: Grover, M., Sk. Z. Ali, V. Sandhya, A. Rasul and B. Venkateswarlu 2011. Role of microorganisms in adaptation of agriculture crops to abiotic stresses. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 27: 1231–1240.

2.Symbiotic biotechnology in rice

Rice provides nearly half the daily calories for the world's population. Climate change and catastrophic events (salt/salinity, drought) have contributed to rice shortages in several regions due to decreased water availability and soil salinization. USA researchers colonized two commercial varieties of rice and found that rice plants increased tolerance to cold, salt and drought. 

Reference: Redman, R. S., Y. Ok Kim, C. J. D. A. Woodward, C. Greer, L. Espino, S. L. Doty and R. J. Rodriguez 2011. Increased Fitness of Rice Plants to Abiotic Stress Via Habitat Adapted Symbiosis: A Strategy for Mitigating Impacts of Climate Change. PLoS ONE. 6 (7): e14823. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014823 

3. Low energy efficient aquaculture

The farming of seaweeds, oysters and clams constitute the largest proportion of mariculture production worldwide. The culture of these groups requires minimal energy inputs and,  therefore, has a relatively small carbon footprint.

References:

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) 2010. “Climate-Smart” Agriculture. Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation and Mitigation. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Rome, Italy. 41p. 

Pullin, R. and P. White 2011. Climate change and aquatic genetic resources for food and agriculture: State of knowledge, risks and opportunities.  FAO Background study paper no. 55. Rome, Italy. 106p

@Guiseppe,

of course you cannot reduce the actual population. I hope you do not really mean what you slightly implied. But you have to reduce the future number of borns to a higher grade than coming increase of population by higher aging. We are guests on earth not the owners.

PS: My remark, "I was to anxious" meant exactly such possible responses and discussions.

How much food is consumed mainly because of social reasons, e.g. without needing it from an energetic point of view?

If people sleep/dream more, will it reduce food consumption?

The scientists direct contribution may be advancing, helping and/or supporting agricultural especially and/or particularly yield research!

Period!

Dear @Giuseppe, thanks for a nice paper on "Tillages as an urban district plantation located inside the cities"! Very good idea, fine solution!

What can be done without primary resources? You can invent the most sophisticated techniques in the world, but without primary resources (e.g. phosphor, energy input provided by nature) they are useless.

Symbolic example: The most sophisticated  Ferrari will not drive without energy provided by nature. 

Can scientists increase the stock of primary resources, and if so how ? Do we need alchemists to increase the stock of phosphor used in fertilizers?

Thanks for your views, dear friends.  @Golam, very scientific input.  Thanks for your time and effort to make this a useful thread :)

@Prithvi and Tobias, thanks suggetions of what researchers can do; for the link (on food distribution) and for: 'We as researchers and as informed & educated citizens must find ways to tackle such problems, either through better policy framework or through better technologies to support our current food production and distribution. 

@Marcel, thanks for out of the box questions that stimulate discussion :)  I will get back soon.

Friends, Marcel just asked 'What can be done without primary resources?'

Allow me to give you 1 example of what can be done by a country with primary resources.  Thailand is my neighbor to the north.  But not every country is doing this...

'Thailand is a strategic hub of food production for both Asia and the rest of the world due to its biodiversity and natural agricultural productivity. Entrepreneurs in Thailand’s agriculture and food processing industries continue to strive to introduce new technologies. In addition, the Thai Government has introduced policies which support food production at high standards of safety and quality. Thailand has both the high potential and the key fundamentals to become a major production base and distribution center for world food production, as well as an attractive destination for international investors.'

http://www.boi.go.th/upload/content/BOI-brochure2013_food_20130314_59463.pdf

There are other countries with the same climate and resources, but cannot compete with Thailand as the Kitchen of the World, to feed the hungry!

'An abundance of natural resources combined with significant investments in technology, food safety R&D and adhering to international quality standards

have helped to dub Thailand as the “Kitchen of the World.” As the largest sole net food exporter in Asia, Thailand is one of the world’s largest producers of food products such as rice, canned tuna, frozen seafood, chicken and canned pineapple.'

Dear Miranda et al. Further inputs as I thought would be important for this thread!

Some emerging challenges for future global food production

1. Agricultural productivity: The agricultural  productivity will need to increase by 50% if global food shortages are to be averted and to meet demand of 9bn people by 2050 (note:  land is limiting)

2. Water demand: Water will be a critical resource for the future as the production of food and other agricultural products already use 70% of the freshwater withdrawals from rivers and groundwater. There will a significant demand for water for agricultural food production and water scarcity, is likely to be a bigger threat to crop productivity in particular in developing world such as South Asia, Sub- Saharan Africa

3. Reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases: A significant reduction  in emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from agricultural sectors would be needed for future systems of food production (crop, livestock, fisheries and aquaculture)

4. Energy source: Agriculture has developed during the past century with an increasing reliance on fossil fuels sources of energy to drive its systems of production however, future systems of production will  have to look towards systems using less non-renewable energy (such  as renewable energy)

5.Research needed: See  top 100 Questions of importance to the future of global agriculture by Pretty et al. 2010 which highlighted the research needed to feed a world population of nine billion by mid-century 

6.References 

Leaver, J. D. 2011. Global food supply: a challenge for sustainable agriculture .Nutrition Bulletin, 36(4), 416-421

O'driscoll, Cath. 2010. Meeting the grand global food challenge: feeding as many as 9bn people on our planet by the year 2050 may be the world's biggest challenge yet--and it will involve using less chemicals.(Food science) .Chemistry and Industry, Jan 11, 2010, Issue 1, p.17(3)

Pretty et al. 2010. The top 100 questions of importance to the future of global agriculture 219–236, doi:10.3763/ijas.2010.0534http://www.efard.eu/top-100-questions-importance-future-global-agriculture

Thanks Golam and friends.  I will be back when I can.  Busy keying in data.  Bye for now.

All babies and little ones are saying a big THANK YOU to all of you, who are concerned about their world in 2050 :) 

Defintely food is not to be taken as a "product". KIt is, on the contrary, one and the same thing as life - and the environment. Thje oppposite would be reducing food to a cossumption (by-)product belonging and depending then on the great food corporations (Unilever, etc.).

As such, then, the food challenge is one and the same thing as knowing how to live well - in this case, how to eat well (smething that is easier said than practiced) -, as well as with the consideration of the environmental hotspots.

And I agree with Cecilia, nature may be wiser to regulate herself - even without us, or in spite of ourselves... We outh to be as wise as possible in order to cope with the current challenges.

Very good question. May I say that is why we live just long enough to feed the whole of population who require food (animals included). If age grows so will the requirements on food. It will be interesting to watch if the total population falls down. May be the product of number of people and years(age) will be practically constant. Anyhow new food techniques like based on nanotechnology will have to be synthesized - there will have to be a limit on the age because of these reasons. It will have to be self balancing. Did nature create so variable number of living beings of so variable age? Hindu philosophy believes in re-incarnation - apparently (may be wrongly interpreted by me) meaning if one dies, another is born - thus number is conserved!

All said and done, it seems if the population grows - either because of longevity or because of number increase, it will be catastrophic and will lead to imbalance which will lead to a new order. What is the critical limit of the total number of people on the globe could be estimated. Apart from burden on all the essentials like food, water, energy, air and land, it will also bring changes in social order. Whether people will work towards human cause is also doubtful. Nature will keep balance as if the recycling system is disturbed, it will be the beginning of  decrease. So a critical limit which can sustain needs to be estimated. Technology if provides us longevity to live upto say 200 years will raise bigger questions- I wrongly thought that the question was concerning longevity anticipated in future leading to problems. If age is limited to 100 years, we have enough problems, but if it is raised to 150-200 years due to advancement in medical research that is what I tried to speculate in my earlier comment too.

Thanks for your views.  I agree with some of them.

@Cecilia: 'The food problem is a very important issue but it is not an isolated variable in the picture of our future survival...' 

The important thing concerning food is that the optimum doesn't mean the maximum amount.  So let me share about the Okinawans: 'The centenarians have lower levels of free radicals in their blood. This is largely due to the fact that Okinawans simply eat fewer calories than the average person due to a cultural practice of eating until you are only 80 percent full called Hara Hachi Bu. Less calories mean fewer free radicals created in the digestive process. Fewer free radicals means better cardiovascular health and less risk of cancer and other chronic illnesses.'

http://longevity.about.com/od/healthyagingandlongevity/a/okinawan_aging.htm

PA (Precision Agriculture) will be one of the ten key breakthroughs in the next decade. PA involves the integration of satellite observations, on-the-ground instruments, and sophisticated farm machinery (VRT, Robotics, etc.) to apply the appropriate amounts of seed, water, fertilizer, and so on, literally meter by meter, so that maximum efficiency in food production is realized. This will become more feasible as technological advances are made in the next ten years, and lead, it is assumed, to better food production. The attached article presents a method for the continuous assessment of major technological advances -- the George Washington University (GWU) Forecast of Emerging Technologies.

@Vijay et al., I agree: 'Whether people will work towards human cause is also doubtful. Nature will keep balance as if the recycling system is disturbed, it will be the beginning of decrease....'

Dear friends, I think that in every generation there will be some who are more motivated than others to be concerned about the condition of our earth.  Yes, we should put our brains and energies to  work with nature, because we are the ones endowed with the intelligence needed for this task.  I don't agree (at this moment) that 'nature may be wiser to regulate herself - even without us, or in spite of ourselves'.

It is only thermodynamics and balance which nature follows. That is why nature is statistical. If there is lot of heat, the low pressure caused will allow cld air to move to that location and balance is maintained. Similarly all natural system are self regulated and balancing. This is a broad law of nature. If too many breathing species, too many plants will be required to keep oxygen and CO2 balance. A disturbance will either kill O2 dependents or CO2 dependents- again a new balance will be required. So this surely will be a natural balancing act, humans may try but balance will arise.

I am no expert and cannot come up with any practical idea. Yet let me draw our attention to two influential books. The first is 2005 book by Jared Diamond (Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed). Overall, Diamond identifies five factors that contribute to the collapse of the societies historically: climate change, hostile neighbors, collapse of essential trading partners, environmental problems, and failure to adapt to environmental issues. For today, Diamond lists 12 environmental problems facing humankind: 

     1. Deforestation and habitat destruction

     2. Soil problems (erosion, salinization, and soil fertility losses)

     3. Water management problems

     4. Overhunting

     5. Overfishing

     6. Effects of introduced species on native species

     7. Overpopulation

     8. Increased per-capita impact of people

     9. Anthropogenic climate change

   10. Buildup of toxins in the environment

   11. Energy shortages

   12. Full human use of the Earth’s photosynthetic capacity

The first eight factors were already responsible for the collapse of more than one society and even entire civilizations. The last four are relatively new and rather global problems. Diamond also writes about cultural factors that can aggravate the above problems.

     The second is 2009 book by George Friedman (The Next 100 years). It is mostly on geopolitics, but at the end the author makes a strong environmental statement. In his opinion, because human population will stop increasing and even will start to decrease by the end of this century, all the above environmental problems will be relaxed an even abolished by buffering capacity of the biosphere…

Dear Zaal,

Informing and interesting summary.

Thanks for your posts.  This is great contribution, thanks.

@Mahmoud: 'PA involves the integration of satellite observations, on-the-ground instruments, and sophisticated farm machinery (VRT, Robotics, etc.) to apply the appropriate amounts of seed, water, fertilizer, and so on, literally meter by meter, so that maximum efficiency in food production is realized. '

Cool, no wastage :)

@Prof Zaal: 'The first eight factors were already responsible for the collapse of more than one society and even entire civilizations. The last four are relatively new and rather global problems. ' Yes, many civilizations have collapsed, one after another.

Concerning full human use of the Earth’s photosynthetic capacity, as I said, Thailand has done that more efficiently than my country. But I always tell my students that if we made right use of the sunlight we get for photosynthesis, we would be among the most productive countries in the world.

Dear @Zaal, very nice response. I will be free to attach a presentation of book "The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century" that You have mentioned! Introduction,

Remarks,Questions and Answers follow, and it is printable!

Thanks for fishing for the book, Prof Ljubomir.  I have downloaded it :)

Prof Zaal, thanks.  I want to read why George Friedman says: 'human population will stop increasing and even will start to decrease by the end of this century, all the above environmental problems will be relaxed an even abolished by buffering capacity of the biosphere'.

@Zaal do you really believe that humans can impair the environment so much that collapse of societies is possible? It may be a small factor, nature has some systematic and non systematic controls out of which earthquakes, strikes by external to earth bodies, natural calamities like epidemics, droughts, floods, storms etc. have been responsible for past collapses perhaps which were hardly man made.Nature takes one step to outsmart 100 human steps. So perhaps humans can affect but only incrementally.

One of my anxieties are like dear Vijay mentioned the epidemics for the humans directly or by nature catastrophies like pests (remember Irelands fates with the potatoes). I´m not sure, if the humans will manage these challenges, and if they manage, I don´t believe in peace.

What they say about that. 

—g

http://t.co/YWgBWRkw8l

Dear @Giuseppe, I have seen this tweet some time ago, and I have remembered about. 

In 2025 NO MORE FOOD SHORTAGES! Quote follows for empowering the discussion:"No more food shortages and no more food-insecure people. The innovation? Lighting. "In 2025, genetically modified crops will be grown rapidly and safely indoors, with round-the-clock light, using low energy LEDs that emit specific wavelengths to enhance growth by matching the crop to growth receptors added to the food’s DNA," the report says. "Crops will also be bred to be disease resistant. And, they will be bred for high yield at specified wavelengths."

Let's see what they say about it!  :)

Merely a tweet! Too hopeful! Let us see if coming events in so close as 2025 cast their shadows before.

@Ljubomir,

Thank you for this resource, it is in a very useful format!

You know, dear Liubomir, 

anywhere and never, they (THEY: I mean the thousands of scientific columnists, that talk with hundreds of specialized scientists, to write on dozens of popular science magazines, to be retwitted by millions of singing larks) — never they talks of "prices”. A bunch of fantastic ideas, it seems we still are seeing the results of the Blade Runner's idea — or at best some projections of the beloved Asimov. Google from the South Bay will give us something new to eat.

But the point is: Who pays to do all this?

Who puts the capitals, and most importantly: the proportion Quality:to:Cost, will it still be the same again?

If in 2050, 2025, or tomorrow morning it will be still the same, nothing like that [even if made ] will solve the age-old trend.

Is there a way to invert the paradigm, so that you have that if quality than economical, while if bad than expensive?

—g 

@ Guiseppe, you are asking Very Interesting questions.  Prof Ljubomir and the rest of us can only make some guesses.  So let's wait and see, ok?  :)  :)

Who pays to do all this?

Who puts the capitals, and most importantly: the proportion Quality:to:Cost, will it still be the same again?

I hesitated to contribute within this interesting thread about a real concern as I am not an economist… Here I just share that I admire the magic of the economists’ famous “everything else being equal” to ease projections. The risk is that that also serves politicians to HOLD everything else equal while an alternative maybe to CHANGE something else: education, democracy, poverty, armed conflicts… or some things like that. Things that consider populations are part of the solutions of problems they are part of. Following links embedded in the initial report thankfully shared by Dr Yeoh, one can already appreciate what related researchers suggested as solutions. Yet, the researchers titled their suggestion as follows:” A menu of solutions to sustainably feed more than 9 billion people by 2050”. To be fed by 2050, are the 9 billion people asked to wait and see passively as part of the everything else to be equal? Yet, I also understand that researchers are not policy makers: They just can advise politicians making rational policies or avoid destructive practices. More active, they label them “activists”…

Thanks @Abdessamad.  You say it so well:

'Yet, I also understand that researchers are not policy makers: They just can advise politicians making rational policies or avoid destructive practices. More active, they label them “activists”…  Not just that, our advice is not always heeded at all :(

Good discussion on important concern. Stressing on the food alone with increased anticipated population is not enough. It is like marinating your vision (eyes) alright while you age and not bothering about other organs. If we (means the present generation and another one) are growing the earth has to extend support all around. All issues like quality and quantity of air, water, land environment, climate to medical issues like infections and diseases for survival and social issues like jobs, mental health, technology, connectivity and  fuel etc. all will need redressal. So food is not the only challenge. The lesson is only population control. The number should not increase at all.

I agree with Kamal, but insist that the use shall be strictly sustainable.

It seems that the idea is catching on. Popsci is covering vertical farming as never done before. 

—g

https://theconversation.com/the-only-way-is-up-as-new-tech-sheds-light-on-the-future-of-food-29234

@Giuseppe Laquidara yes, go vertical as humans live in multistory buildings farming also needs to have compact vertical corridors.  

Thanks for your views. @ Guiseppe, thanks for the link.  I like it very much:

'Vertical framing is promising because it requires no soil, and can save space and energy – and improve crop yield. It takes advantage of the vertical space of city buildings rather than turning over wide expanses of land to agriculture and uses advanced greenhouse technology: hydroponics or aeroponics, and environmental controls that regulate temperature, humidity and light to produce vegetables, fruits and other crops year-round.

In large cities such as New York, Chicago, Tokyo and Singapore, these ideas are taking root. Singapore has taken local urban farming to a high level – Skygreens has built the world’s first commercial vertical farm in large three-storey greenhouses, providing a sustainable source of fresh vegetables.'

In some parts of Rajasthan(India), finding potable water is a five hour journey. People in this area trying to find and collect water , even when they find it, the water is often not safe, contaminated harmful substances.

Here easy to collect water from atmospheric air/ droplets of dew. If  we construct an inexpensive/easily-assembled water extraction tower that extracts gallons of fresh water from the air. These towers might one day provide  clean drinking water every day.

Thank you Sir

@Chandra Mohan hope there is enough moisture in the air. I thought air is dry in desrts which is quite like in Rajasthan. May be during Monsoons, the air is quite humid and this might work.

I want to enter two statements.

@Kamal, I don´t want to support your proposal, to use every square inch on the surface of the earth for the production of food. Humans are not the only residents on the globe. We don´t have the single right to live here.

@Vijay, the places on earth, even in the deserts, where you cannot win water by the mentioned techniques are very very rare. Even in Gobi or Namib deserts, the technique to win water by condensing techniques will work. But to win water in greater dimensions will be expensive.

After some absence, I am back to this thread! You do not have to read just watch wit a little reading! :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHMC2T_L_3M

@Hanno Krieger  how you really recover water from moist air? How effective are de- humidifiers? And further, are these chemical free?

Dear Kamal,

I knew, it must have been a misunderstanding. Like you I know the empty fields without any vegetation and agriculture. But I´m convinced, that these areas are devastated because of missing sustainability. And this waste is a typical consequence of misuse of nature by humans.

@Vijay, some weeks ago we had a QR here in RG  where we discussed the producing from "pure" water from condensated moisture in the air. This technique is successfully used by some inhabitants of regions with water  shortage, but till now it´s not convienient to produce large amounts of water for industrial or agricultural use. Therefore my remark, it will be expensive. 

Thanks Prof Ljubomir and friends for your posts.  Yes, I just found time to watch the video and dig up more info on precision farming for us.  Earlier @Mahmoud did mention PA, thanks.

'Precision farming (PA) or satellite farming or site specific crop management (SSCM) is a farming management concept based on observing, measuring and responding to inter and intra-field variability in crops. Crop variability typically has both a spatial and temporal component which makes statistical/computational treatments quite involved. The holy grail of precision agriculture research will be the ability to define a Decision Support System (DSS) for whole farm management with the goal of optimizing returns on inputs while preserving resources.'

This machine calculates fertilization recommendations and then varies the amount of fertilizer spread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_agriculture

Since 1979, forestry worker Jadav Payeng has been cultivating a forest in northeast India that now spans 550 hectares. From 16 years of age, Jadav Payeng has been planting a forest , tree by tree. Not only is it fighting the effects of erosion, it's become a home for elephants, rhinos, and Bengal tigers. Since 1979, one man has built an entire forest, it  is now larger than New York’s Central Park.

On the other side,  the forest cover of the Philippines dropped from 70 percent down to 20 percent. In total, 46 species are endangered, and 4 were already eradicated completely. Only 3.2 percent of total rainforest has been left. Based on an analysis of land use pattern maps and a road map an estimated 9.8 million ha of forests were lost in the Philippines from 1934 to 1988.

All of us can make a difference and can do something to stop environmental problems and planting a tree is a good way start refurbishing our damaged planet.

Dear Chandra Mohan, thanks for an inspiring description of how 1 man could make a great difference.  I like the conclusion: 'All of us can make a difference and can do something to stop environmental problems and planting a tree is a good way start refurbishing our damaged planet.'

Many of my friends, including Prof Kamal, have been planting trees, read about it on this thread :)

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Since_today_is_Environment_Day_what_are_the_places_that_you_wish_will_never_change_from_effects_of_human_activities_What_can_you_do_to_ensure_this/5

It´s really interesting. We are asked for food production and admire the foresting. I hope, that shows a new learning for sustainability.

Dear Hanno, it's all inter-related.  For the earth to yield its produce to feed humankind, we need to be concerned about maintaining its health and sustainability.

That is right dear @Miranda, The Sustainable Agriculture is the basic for mankind health and sustainability!

Dear Prof Ljubomir, Prithvi et al.,  I think each country has to work hard to have sustainable agriculture, aquaculture and forestry.  Please see this link that I found.

'Food drives the world; apart from clean water, access to adequate food is the primary concern for most people on earth. This makes agriculture one of the largest and most significant industries in the world; agricultural productivity is important not only for a country's balance of trade, but the security and health of its population as well.'

http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0712/top-agricultural-producing-countries.aspx

Thanks Prof Kamal, I agree.  What will be a feasible way to collect water, and channel it to water poor countries that are nearby?  (We will ask Raoof.)  For many years, Singapore depended on Malaysia for water.  You will be happy to read their story: 'From vulnerability to strength'.

http://www.pub.gov.sg/water/Pages/singaporewaterstory.aspx

Dear Prof Kamal and friends, actually I thought you would already be on holidays.  So I am surprised and happy to find you gave a great answer.  This image shows my cubicle and how I spent some time (with some friends) to decorate the empty space in front of my section of cubicle.  SELAMAT AIDILFITRI (or greetings of peace at Eid).

Dear Prof Gianni et al., you did ask me to 'have a look to the reduction of your rain forests!!!!' What we have done is to plant all kinds of plants and trees in my college, to replace the natural flora.  We have successfully planted thousands of beautiful shrubs and trees.  I can just give you a few examples here.

Very nice Miranda! the office and planting trees! Wish you and all our friends peaceful and happy life.

Dear Mirinda, I am happy to hear that you  have  planted thousands of beautiful shrubs and trees in your campus. Its really good work ma'am. I am very impressed.

Thanks dear friends.  I'm glad you like my college and my activities.  [I was out for track activities but had to return quickly because the air quality isn't good today.]

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_best_ways_to_control_the_air_quality_when_it_is_affected_by_activities_in_neighboring_countries_as_well?_tpcectx=profile_questions

Hey, very well done Miranda!!!! That is a really good example to follow!!!

Thanks Miranda!

Best

Gianni