If you reduce beef and meet to a tenth (basically what a human body would need according to some emerging consensus, which could eb wrong), we would basically be able to have around 4 times more grain availbale.. this probably makes a population limit of 20 billion people, half of them eating a ration of meat.
if your reduce agricultural intensity to rational levels by using standard industrial techniques you can probably feed comfortably 10 billion people .. well more than probably, mostly for sure. Now.. what would happen if we take fertilizers out of the equation and we do no allow for more than 200 km distances in the food transport...
The the intensty threshold is reduced, greena griculture becomes a need adn soil uses and monocultives disappear.. the numbers change dramatically... so I know nothing .. I have never read any number which makes sense in this case.
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
what would happen if we take fertilizers out of the equation and we do no allow for more than 200 km distances in the food transport...
There are two suppositions there that don't call for a Boolean AND.
Also: what do we mean by fertilisers?
What if it's a question of aiming at reducing distances (200km is an arbitrary choice...) rather than organising food production in certain parts of the world to be transported to others?
And by fertilizer I eman anything which needs. I did not count natural fetilizers or so-called "alternative ones".
My point was I have nto seen anythign regardign the effect of complete lack of oil in agriculture (considering machines can be driven by electricity), nor the effects of area redsitribution if one wants to minimize transportation.
I just indicated my lack of knowledge.
Its clear that on a spectrum from fresh leafy vegetables at one extreme to dry grains at the other, there are natural, intrinsic priorities on what we would wish to localize first, based on energy cost to transport and store.
All areas should be as self-sufficient as possible in fresh vegetables and fruits.
At the other end of the spectrum, grains can be readily warehoused and transport over long distances with fractions of the energy inputs required the logistics of fresh fruits and vegetables grown and consumed a continent apart. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
As Deni says, this does not necessarily involve the free market, but instead could call for some form of global governance.
Meanwhile, growing as locally as possible whatever perishable fruit and vegetables are possible seems more efficient (and less environmentally destructive) than flying these around, and more likely to deliver the vitamins and other healthful substances involved as freshly as possible to as broad a cross-section of the population as possible, in whatever part of the planet.
Putting a priority on localizing fruit and vegetable production means growing fruits and vegetables locally wherever ... and, indeed, in our current farming system, it means increasing fruit and vegetable production in many farming area.
Putting a priority on as much regional self-sufficiency as we can reasonably accomplish means that every local region, even if not every locale in that region, will engage in some grain or other staple food production (it may, after all, be tubers rather than grains that dominate in many areas).
So, IOW, grain (and other staple food) production far more locally regionalized than at present, but not necessarily localized. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
"Yes, (What you said) this (este) is how I see it too."
or
"No, (What I originally said) that (ese) is still how I see it."
I'm reading the first, but seeing somebody might possibly read the second ... obviously if we were talking face to face, it would be clear from tone of voice and expression. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Speaking of "regional", I've been trying to use it here as "regions of the world", (though I realize it may more often be used to speak of regions of a country), and would be interested in your take on "regional agricultural policy" as suggested in this diary.
