Are Humans Running Out Of Food??

[@besmart]

Population growth is slowing down but lots of people are very worried about how we'll feed 10 billion people without wrecking the planet more than we already have. Here's a look at some of the biggest ideas. Check out GatesNotes.com to read more about ideas like these that "swing for the fences"

[@chemistryguy9679]

How do you think we should help mitigate the effects of Climate Change?

[@alphabeta9425]

Hey

[@seamon9732]

We already produce enough calories to feed 12+ billions a year @ 2k calories/day ( average recommended daily intake for healthy BMI ). Yet, 500 millions have less than 800/day, 1 billion less than 1600/day, meanwhile the obese count is at 800 millions and counting. 36 millions die of starvation each year. You can compare that to many historic death tolls... The distribution system ( no money demand = no food ) is just stupid when in a state of overabundance it is IMPOTENT to meet the most basic need. Pop is set to plateau at 10-12 billions before slowly decreasing. Eating slightly less meat would permit us to easily feed 20 billions with LESS LAND/RESSOURCES/WATER/ENERGY.

[@jarnomikkola8438]

But if it's an x2 to grow from 7 to 9 billion people, how the HELL did we ever got to 7 billion ? Cause with that's rate of recursive growth indexing, I am pretty sure a person wouldn't need an atom to feed a 1000 people civilization. :D (the current production number is about 7 to 8 billion tons, yes ~ 1 ton per a person, see this image: suyts.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/image26.png )

[@jamesbradwood5064]

1:28 - This is both the cause and the solution, all in a single statement. Please stop deflecting and try focusing on the root issue here! Stop feeding grain to animals just so you can eat the animals. Eat the grain directly!!! duh c'mon. I thought it was Okay to be Smart???

[@karliikaiser3800]

I´ve read a several times that todays agryculture can feed already 14 billion people. It´s just a problem of wasting food, distribution of food and also animal feeding. I am not vegetarian but I eat more plant based food and less animal products than years ago. Maybe that´s a helpful part as well...

[@matteoalberghini2040]

Going vegan is the best thing you could do to help the planet, big companies will have to listen if enough of us fight back! By the way if anyone wants tips for veganism check out r/veganism on Reddit, they're awesome!

[@WackoMac]

Exactly!

[@WackoMac]

@@matteoalberghini2040 its single handle the easiest thing we can do to have the biggest impact for the better.

[@addman]

While that is true, wast and logistics inefficiency needs to be improved; we will never get 100% efficient. In fact, I'd be surprised if we get to 75 efficient. Some losses are unavoidable. It's also not a dichotomy we should be doing both improving our wast and logistics inefficiency AND increasing crop yields. We also need to think about reducing the amount of arable land we use to grow our crops.

[@robertomorales8751]

@Kernels as long as meat consumption gors down its for the best!

[@toolbaggers]

Your local Whole Foods has a dumpster full of super crops that nobody eats.

[@wholeNwon]

Where wealthy people who will never be hungry shop.

[@khageshbansal2400]

When u will be starving, u won't even know a difference

[@thecodemachine]

Why don't you just stop being poor.

[@thecodemachine]

Apeman Commeth we don’t “need” a high population now.

[@NakedAvanger]

"super crops" nice buzzword bro

[@leonelbustosb]

1/3 of all food is wasted. We are workikg hard to put that down, that is also part of the solution

[@alexv3357]

And that's not mentioning how inefficiently the food that gets eaten is used

[@jacobbartlett331]

Alex von Seggern how is food being wasted if it’s eaten

[@orlamc5051]

@@jacobbartlett331 food is being thrown out by people who buy it, grocery stores that sell it, factories that distribute it, and farms that deem it "too ugly" to sell. Millions of pounds of food waste every year

[@wholeNwon]

@@orlamc5051 And it is one of the major disgraces of our times. Shameful. No one should be hungry. And still there is starvation in America.

[@oldrabbit8290]

@@jacobbartlett331 if it was eaten by livestock that is raised for meat, then it's wasted. Cow and sheep and other cattle have huge food upkeep just to survive - which kinda defeat the point of producing food in the first place.

[@AlexanderWeixelbaumer]

What this video fails to mention is that the GMO's are patented and the farmers are forbidden to make seeds and improve the plant for their own climate/environment. The farmers are dependent on the big companies like Monsanto to get the seeds they need. This high dependency is the real problem with GMO's.

[@mellie4174]

Yup! Whereas before they could save a portion of their harvest and replant the next year!

[@bravetherainbow]

Intellectual property is a crime against humanity. People will starve if it doesn't suit the profits of billionaires. Disgusting.

[@TheWarrrenator]

Again the problem isn’t science, it’s neoliberal capitalism.

[@felipebrunetta2106]

@@mellie4174 Saving crops to plant next is just not eficient anymore so this is not a big problem

[@vikkycb7948]

Dude it was not farmers who invented new crops it was Norman borloug.

[@WilhelmDrake]

With a population of less than 8 billion, we already produce enough food to feed 11 billion people. The problem is one of food distribution not food production. We choose not feed everyone. We choose to let children go hungry & starve.

[@synonymous1079]

That's really not how that works. Nobody is choosing to let people starve. Some countries are richer than others, have more fertile land, longer growing seasons, etc, and therefore produce food more easily. Add in natural disasters and geopolitical conflicts, and suddenly getting food onto tables in food deprived areas suddenly becomes a lot more complicated.

[@happygimp0]

@@synonymous1079 We import food from poor countries, which has starving people, to feed the animals we breed. Just because people are too stupid to be vegan.

[@Quareque]

We now have more than 8 billion.

[@Killerchloe1217]

ah yes, infinite growth on a finite planet.

[@susmitamohapatra9293]

You're being much more of a Thanos, thinking population is gonna grow infinitely. You should know that population growth will stabilize at 11 billion and according to most models, the 12 billionth human will never be born, because the population would have peaked off by then. There isn't going to be infinite growth as many doomsayers may want to believe. Its just finite growth happening to different countries at different times. We both know growth of food production itself is not finite but it will still be enough to support a few billion more.

[@jayceh]

What infinite growth, what data did you look at? Does that source explain why they have come to the opposite conclusion as IMF, World Bank, and every other legitimate demographic researching institution?

[@allisond.46]

Depending on how you look at things, the 12 billionth human was born quite a while ago.

[@kamratqp1823]

susmita mohapatra, no you’re wrong he means infinite economic growth which will continue even if there is nothing more to consume. This entire video is just ignoring the fact that science won’t solve anything because people are too poor to stay alive in capitalism which is why we need a systematic change. Or wait did I say change I meant FRICKING REPLACEMENT

[@susmitamohapatra9293]

@@MetalArmaggedon Your analogy sounds poetic but not accurate. There is no one major apocalypse, it's a slow death. Millions of species on earth have already died, billions more await. Hundreds of water resources been dried up, thousands are at risk. Climate has warmed considerably, if unchecked it could warm devastatingly. There is no one single day when the barrel explodes. It's already slowly exploding. But it's a story of hope. One where we can still take the right decisions and change things from becoming completely worse. You're right humans won't just stop on their own, if nothing went wrong the population would keep on growing. However economic prosperity and education have helped turn things around considerably. 100-200 years ago Europe and North America was booming in population and to some people it looked like the end was near. However education and prosperity led to a gradual decline in birth rates. The same things is happening with Asian countries now, and some Asian countries have already started to peak off. Over the next century, Africa is gonna do the same until it stabilizes at 4-5 billion. Why do I think so? Because it's already happening. The birth rate's already going down in most places, but the catch is that the death rate has been falling down faster. Leading to a temporary population growth. Also dealing with population growth won't solve the problem in itself. What is required is sustainable development. There are many other ways to deal with the food, water, air, wildlife and environmental problems we face today. Stopping population growth won't solve all those problems in itself.

[@fricki1997]

"Doing things the same way farmers have done them for thousands of years, just doing them better with modern science" If only we could introduce the traits we want directly into plants without waiting for chance to yield the right genetic combination....oh wait, it's called GMO, and apparently many people think that not knowing which exact genes turn up in a newly cultured plant is better than being able to pick them ourselves based on logic ^^

[@schmuelinsky]

So true. I also don't get why Joe (as as PhD biologist!) tried to make an argument against GMOs and instead for sequencing cross-bred crops. The GMO corn's pest bugs developed immunity to the genetically inserted toxin. Okay, that's a problem, but how the heck would cross-breeding instead of CRISPRing help with that? I doesn't make any sense, and it's frustrating because so many people don't seem to grasp what GMO even means, on the technological side. (The economic side, the whole Monsanto monopoly story...that's still very problematic though.)

[@fricki1997]

@@schmuelinsky Indeed. Once there's an advantage, evolution will select for it, be it crops, antibiotics, or even physical barriers such as mosquito nets. If we don't continue developing through means that are quicker than selection of random mutations, i.e. rational design, we'll simply fall behind.

[@TheMrpendertuga]

@@schmuelinsky he did it (I think at least) to help GMOs deniers better understand this and show he is not their enemy (nor science for that matter). Of course he already knows GMOs are the better solution, but the purpose of such a video is to reach and inform a lot of people, especially those who may be otherwise resistant to accept the standard scientific knowledge.

[@itsthevoiceman]

Props to the graphics department for this video, because it's BEAUTIFUL!

[@pyrozen6104]

What we have been doing for thousands of years making very slow gmos....

[@recklessroges]

In some cases speed can be quite important. Try seeing who would rather you throw [object] at them or [use portable chemically powered mass accelerator] to launch [object] at them. #don'tShootHumanityInTheFootWithGMOs

[@alexhong1117]

@@recklessroges I almost got a stroke reading that. Just use words and not placeholders.

[@theemperor-wh40k18]

In some cases, but not this one.

[@SingularityHRT]

Is anyone gonna talk about fixing the environment rather than thinking about adapting to the broken environment and making it more broken.

[@Snooker-cn3dm]

There already is food for 10+ billion people. We just feed most of it to the animals. When you feed animals instead of eating the crops directly, not only are animal foods extremely unhealthy, 90% of the food is wasted in the process.

[@stevechapo327]

I have seen several videos about indoor vertical farming. I don't know if it's going to take over but the possibilities look promising. It's water efficient and they can adjust nutrients to overcome soil deficiency and effect taste.

[@Originalimoc]

2:22 I thought it's real until it moves itself 😆

[@ridaimran7565]

SAME

[@silic8873]

yeah

[@minutebrainperson8324]

The current global agricultural output is estimated to be able to feed 12-13 billion people, way more than the 7 billion needed. Yet 40% is wasted, 1 billion people are starving, and a sizable share of the remainder is overweight. The issue is a structural consequence of the global capitalist economy, of the production of food as commodities instead of as essentials. The issue is NOT some dense hypothetical Malthusian scenario. Also, the Gates Foundation is the Gates' tool for tax evasion and PR that costs them a vanishing fraction of their huge wealth, their hoarded loot from wage theft and the like.

[@dalegray934]

Plants actually grow better with higher CO2 levels. Further, GMO food plants can and will save the day -- unless Ludites decide their sensibilities are more important that starving people.

[@catoleg]

​@@systemsouth It seems you don't quite understand how evolution works. It is endless race, there is no end in the act of becoming better. So GMO is definitely not broken idea, it just makes everything faster

[@wwiiinplastic4712]

Higher CO2 is only good up to a point. Like anything else, there is too much of a good thing. One of the effects is that high levels cause the stomata (pores) in the leaves begin to shrink which reduces the plants ability to release water. This affects the plant's ability to cool itself and stresses the plant. And yes, this is a thing.

[@viceralman8450]

Actually most plants decrease photosynthesis when to high levels of Co2 because of this: ”Just knowing that Co2 is an ingredient for photosynthesis does not mean more Co2 will increase the rate of plant growth, this is because plants exchange gases through pores in their leaves call stomata but not only Co2 pass through this pores water does too making plants loose lots of it through transpiration creating negative pressure within the xylem of plants pulling more water from the soil, so while the plants are obtaining more Co2 are loosing more water, now as Co2 increases in the atmosphere the temperature increases as well that’s mean more transpiration and in most plants the rate of water lost is higher than Co2 absorption so plants close their stomata for longer periods that’s means less Co2 absorption and less photosynthesis causing less plant mass also plants need nitrogen to grow so more Co2 don’t mean more plants.”

[@GrayShepard]

@@systemsouth By this logic medicine is also a broken idea. It leads to more resistant illnesses, and GMO bacteria that produce hormones (like insulin) "savagely pollutes the natural environment by interbreeding and polluting the DNA of the wider (bacterial) flora". Does that mean that we must yeet and dispatch all medicine, so we stay more healthy?

[@GrayShepard]

@@systemsouth Kinda impossible. If we had biological weapon breakthrough from high-end labs then GMO organisms breaking into "natural" environment kinda inevitable. And then, they impact on "natural" environment is kinda small, compared to all other nature impact human do. After all, they were engineered not to impact environment, but to prosper on farming fields rich on nutrients, and in lab conditions. Most of them dies out of environment they were engineered for. Actually, we already changed "natural" environment to the point when there not that much "natural" left. And then, humans are part of ecology, and biosphere constantly changing, so in some sense all impact we make on nature is pretty "natural".

[@jacquescousteau4592]

Hey Joe, could you make a video about generosity and willingness to give? How people that have less are often willing to give more (proportionally)?

[@Celis.C]

I think that you left out an important part of the problem. It's nice to be able to have more crops and sufficient food for everyone, but we need food for *_nutrients_* . More resilient crops tend to have less nutritional value, meaning we'd need to eat more food to get those nutrients. Needing more food may lead to things like obesity. Furthermore, I wonder to which degree growing more resilient crops makes it harder for people to digest them. Gluten and wheat intolerance are becoming more widespread, to name but a few examples. Perhaps if we can make the crops that we have more nutritious, we'll also need less of it?

[@chrisleblanc5042]

You should have mentioned indoor super farms using LED and climate control to make it an ideal environment for the plants to grow

[@nathan98000]

More efficient food PRODUCTION will be helpful but isn’t completely necessary if we have more efficient food DISTRIBUTION

[@TheWarrrenator]

nathan98000 The problem isn’t science, it’s neoliberal Capitalism.

[@nathan98000]

TheWarrrenator Good argument!

[@atastypineapple9296]

@@TheWarrrenator shut up lil commie

[@TheWarrrenator]

a tasty pineapple no

[@andrewcohen422]

Huge fan of your channels! Thank you for posting! I would be interested to know how having more people doing small scale farming with in city centers, using regenerative practices, and selling food directly to neighbors, could help alleviate this issue. Things like using rooftops to harvest water and grow food on in urban areas. Or using front and back yards to grow food and biking to transport to markets in suburban areas. Which only scratches the surface.

[@GlorifiedGremlin]

I genuinely believe in personal farming, and that farming practices should be taught in school as well as by parents as kids grow up. You can produce 100 pounds of potatoes in a 5x5 box, so you don't even need tons of space. Most households could easily supplement about 30% of their food needs. The rooftop thing is harder. Most peoples roofs are toxic. You need a metal roof to collect rainwater off it. The tar shingles leech poisonous crap into the water

[@LeoStaley]

It can't feed everyone if we run out of non-renewable topsoil in about 60 years. Or phosphorus required for fertilizer in 70. Or groundwater, which is already completely deleted in many regions, and replenishes on geologic timescales, just like topsoil.

[@Alexander_Kale]

Peak phosphorus, or indeed peak anything, means we have reached the point where we are consuming as fast as we can economically extract. That does not mean we are running out. phosphorus is the 11th common element on the planet, for crying out loud. We are not going to run out, period. If anything, food is going to get more expensive, and that will increase peak phosphorus, as per the above definition. Topsoil is not some magical thing that can only be made by nature. Again, see "Peak". if it becomes expensive, making our own will become economical. Fertilizer. Same. finally water: Israel is already making its own fresh water, no questions asked, no problems encountered. they have all but completely stopped their government founded campaign of trying to educate people to save more water. In short, we are not running out. Of anything. as long as we can keep producing enough energy to feed the machine, and with better nuclear reactors, that seems likely. And before you come up with some weird idea of how we are running out of nuclear fuel: no, that is not going to happen either. See Japan's efforts of extracting it from sea water.

[@ravick007]

The plant the robot was "trying crazy futurist things we never try before" at 6:15 is actually deadly poisonous, a Dieffenbachia. Try not that crazy next time, Mr. Robot! D:

[@SojournerDidimus]

Growth from 7B to 9B requires twice the amount of crops? Needs citation, because they doesn't make sense to me. By the way, the main reason GMO is banned in Europe is not the environmental impact, it's gene patenting. "Owning" a crop is a really scary thing, and will inevitably lead to an even worse imbalance in wealth then is already the case right now.

[@Beryllahawk]

Good video. And I for one appreciate the positivity!

[@lightningstudios9559]

If only our ancestors settled next to a Jungle Tile instead of spending the twelve turns to make a scout.

[@mdavid1955]

Exponential growth in consumption is not sustainable. Nature always bats last!

[@WhompingWalrus]

Agreed, but nature isn't some adversary of man. We _are_ nature. Everything is. Even if we swing 'til we're dead at the diamond, the whole is greater than us. It'll go on, somehow. Even if we aren't there to see it.

[@selenaichtis6762]

Human population growth will be seeing its peak in this century, according to experts' predictions based on growth patterns. We only need to produce/sustain for a little while before it stabilizes, and the need for even more food dies out.

[@somratkhan8688]

Melinda is out of the gate now!

[@NetAndyCz]

Personally, I am fan of multi-level hydroponics/agriculture. You just need some plant nutrients, water, and energy and you can grow food anywhere, even in the middle of the city if you can afford the rent:) The shipping of food across the whole globe is not very environmentally friendly and might not be good for the produce that much either. And eventually we might use that technology on space stations and on other celestial bodies.

[@homewall744]

Where did your nutrients, water and energy come from?

[@NetAndyCz]

@@homewall744 Energy comes from power plants, water depending on location, usually the same way as for the rest of the city, nutrients can come from the soil, minerals, or even organic waste. Since pretty much everything can be recycled it uses way less resources than average field. It is not affected by weather or seasons and it may use more power, but since a lot is saved on transport and storage, it may actually be more energy efficient as well. The biggest downside is the initial cost and that we cannot cultivate every plant this way.

[@michalsidorow9407]

@@NetAndyCz I think he asked you what is your damn source of energy. Plant is pathetic answer building itself don't produce it need source like coal.

[@NetAndyCz]

@@michalsidorow9407 Or uranium.

[@cathleenc6943]

@@homewall744 water can be sourced from grey water, rain water, and reclaimed water from sewage treatment, in addition to piped in or ground water. Nutrients can come from that same water treatment plant, and if combined with fish farming into aquaculture, the fish waste and waste water can be used to nourish the plants, who then clean the water which can be pumped back into where the fish (or other seafood) are kept. As these systems don't need as much power as modern agricultural equipment does, the power to run it can easily be sourced from solar or wind power. Hydroponics is also less labor intensive, though the labor involved does require more knowledge and skill than dirt farming. The main difficulty is part of that, since the people starting and running the "farm" would need more education and different training than a traditional farmer. Also, the start up costs may be higher, and there may be less chance of making use of those government farming subsidies and start up grants to do so (I am not sure if you could get government assistance to start one of these the way you can if you want to start a normal farm or not.)

[@whoooshme8898]

I'm starting to believe we're living in a final destination movie!

[@krishvyas19]

vertical farming is the solution, this might bring the next green revolution

[@thomasherzig174]

where hall all the electric energy come from fro the LED light? one m2 of agricultural land receives between 1000kWh to 2000 kWh of natural sunlight annually. ( defending on the location) You can pile agricultural land vertically on shelves, but you cannot do that with the sun. So far vertical farming only commercially works for overpriced lettuce and herbs that mostly contain water and little dry mass, therefore they don't need much light to grow. But for food with more dry mass and higher nutrition value, it would never work unless customers are willing to pay 60 USD for a kg of corn or weat

[@ronaldwong6092]

Soylent Green made from a replicator so it won't gross.

[@rparl]

These new crops are often via seeds which the farmers must buy every year from the company which owns them. This is no good.

[@y37chung]

There is no need to develop anything fancy within agriculture, we just need a more efficient and greener distribution system to distribute food and organic waste (fertilizer).

[@Pedro-tm6ue]

Climate change is a big deal but that graph at 6:57 could be a bit misleading, if you're not paying that much attention.

[@gigglysamentz2021]

Looks fine to me. I assume you mean that it's misleading to not start the y axis at zero, but it's often done and here it's to show that the recent increase is completely different to the natural oscillations.

[@gigglysamentz2021]

Admittedly I would have put a little cut on the bottom of the y axis, just to make it clear enough...

[@Pedro-tm6ue]

@@gigglysamentz2021 sure but that's why I said the "if not paying attention" thing

[@devenderlour4561]

I think hydroponics farming is best option as it increases per acre yield multiple times Pest free so no need of pesticides. No soil so very low chances of disease. 90% Less water use. In close system there is no chance of harm to yield because of dry or flood or high speed winds. And lots more benefits. I know it's setup is expensive but it is one time investment.

[@happygimp0]

Or we could just simply go vegan, very easy to do, basically everyone can do it, it is cheaper, does not need advanced technology and it is more ethical.

[@LITTLEMUSTANGFILLY]

I totally relate how keeping action keeps you positive. I went through such a sever depression because I didn't know what to do to try and help. My friends happened to be starting an environmental club that same year. It made a huge difference to my mental state

[@guyzan]

Government pensions are a worst catastrophe than climates change.

[@kumiq17]

Okay I'm going to post my thoughts before and edit in my thoughts after the video. Clearly separating the two. Prevideo We have enough food to feed the entire planet rn as is. The issue is less food and more the transportation of that food and cost. If we simply cut back on our massive meat eatting (which takes up far more land) and fix our inferstructure, like our damns, roads, bridges, electrical lines etc. We could feed 10 billion people, super crops can only help. Since they can be grown in more places, are less likely to be damaged or destroyed by threats like fungus and result in greater yeilds Post video Nothing has changed. Do everything better. That's it. Genetically modify the plants, improve the old ways, build more damns, improve our distribution. Do better.

[@evanward9552]

I acknowledge that this was 2 yrs ago and your opinion has probably changed to some degree but simply curious on what you mean by build more damns? -not agreeing or disagreeing, just curious.

[@mbanerjee5889]

That's we need more vertical farming. When more people eat food that is plant-to-table, fewer resources are wasted in the production process.

[@xelaboksan]

Look up Joel Salatin. Regenerative farming is the answer.

[@atikurrahman-pn7ei]

Americans: the banana doesn't look good, I won't eat it

[@matthewpepperl]

it is not just Americans

[@jamescarmody4713]

We need to behave with inter-discipline knowledge between indigenous wisdom and modern science to feed our future population.

[@PhysicsPolice]

James Carmody What specific agricultural knowledge does indigenous wisdom have that isn’t already known to modern science?

[@upsidedownbagofflour697]

@@PhysicsPolice Many of them have a detailed understanding of how their local ecosystems work and how to use that to sustainably produce food through careful manipulation of their environment. While, say, ecologists understand how this works (and can quickly learn if they don't for some locality), westerners tend not to be a fan because these strategies are better for local subsistence than mass food production. To meet this end, western farmers use technology such as synthetic fertilizers, GMOs and pesticides to increase yields for monoculture crops, often with devastating ecological consequences such as algal blooms. Add that to bringing invasive species everywhere and it begin to appears that indigenous populations have a better understanding of how the environment works than most westerners who gamble with novel techniques and unforeseen consequences. But in reality scientists have a deep understanding of these issues and are trying to solve a more complex problem than the indigenous originally were: feeding the world rather than just your family/village

[@PhysicsPolice]

Upside Down Bag of Flour you’ve raised at least one serious problem: algal blooms. But I fail to see how indigenous wisdom provides a realistic solution. At all. You contrasted pre-technological practices with synthetic fertilizers, etc. but how in the hell is this actually helpful? I’m not hearing solutions. I’m hearing complaints and pining for the good old days. I believe that’s because indigenous wisdom has basically nothing to offer on the topic of modern agricultural challenges.

[@PhysicsPolice]

Which is why we *don’t* need to “behave with inter-discipline knowledge between traditional wisdom and modern science”.

[@cathleenc6943]

@@PhysicsPolice plenty. 2 years ago a new fish species was discovered in Australia that fishermen had been catching and selling to fish markets for over 15 years. Indiginous peoples often grow or gather local foods that are more suited to their location but are not common fare among other populations. These food plants could be introduced to other populations to encourage eating plants that take fewer resources to grow. For instance, indiginous people of Texas and Mexico often eat nopales (prickly pear cactus pads and fruits) but this is not something commonly eaten by the majority of people living in Texas, and it's so easy to grow that it's harder to get rid of than to grow. Some of these local fare plants may not do well when shipped, but agricultural science could help that along. Indigenous farmers often know ways to improve crop yield without increasing resources like water, pesticides/herbicides, and fertilizer, which is not something modern agriculture science has studied or promoted in the last century, so many if these ideas were pushed aside as not valuable or were even forgotten when modern farmers turned to chemicals to improve crop yield. Also, indigenous people often eat animals that are not commonly on the tables of modern westerners, but are highly nutritious and tasty. There is a small movement to include insects back into our diets, and it is small and indigenous farmers who are leading this movement. I think this channel did a video on that as well. Or someone did, since I watched one recently.

[@seattlegrrlie]

We DO NOT have a food problem. We currently produce more than enough food to feed the entire world and then some. We have a waste problem where rich people stores are filled with shiny, perfect produce that goes bad and gets thrown away while impoverish people have no ability to access or purchase this food.

[@happygimp0]

True, but there is also the fact that we breed animals and feed them with plants we could it. that is very inefficient. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/105002

[@houndsaregreat]

I wish people would address the usefulness of regenerative animal agriculture as well. There are farmers raising herds of beef cows while putting more carbon back into the soil than they take all the while strenghting the ecosystems where their cattle graze. I can't help but feel since not everyone can healthily become vegan that this is a huge piece to the puzzle as well

[@WeissM89]

Everyone can become a healthy vegan, according to the most prestigious medical and research institutions and the World Health Organisation. Fun fact: Beans could travel around the world and their carbon footprint would still be inferior to local meat.

[@WackoMac]

Better start growing grass on Mars...

[@___LC___]

WeissM89 no, some of us can’t become healthy vegans without medical intervention, as we lack certain enzymes required to obtain what is needed to be healthy.

[@WackoMac]

@@___LC___ the enzymes are in the food.

[@___LC___]

EnGage With Nature Digestive enzymes🤦🏼‍♀️

[@feynstein1004]

I think there's no need to be alarmed. Economic systems tend toward equilibrium. In this case, as the population increases and food gets scarce, it will get more expensive. Meaning that people will firstly stop wasting it, secondly stop buying too much, and thirdly meat, which is very inefficient, will get significantly more expensive than plant food. And so people will reduce their consumption of it drastically. All of these factors act as negative feedback loops and protect the system from total collapse.

[@PhysicsPolice]

3:10 False. The reason Europe and Africa don't allow GM crops has to do with systematic misinformation campaigns that primarily argue against the health safety of these foods. Environmental concerns come in a distant second place. And this controversy is 100% political, primarily motivated by economic protectionism. Gullible people concerned for their health are used as pawns to wage the anti-GMO war. The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that GM techniques are not inherently more dangerous to human health or the environment than traditional breeding. The same is true for common traits like Bt and glyphosate tolerance. Transgenic technology is not reasonably described as "extreme genetic hacking". That's merely pejorative and shows a profound ignorance of biotechnology. You're better than that.

[@wwiiinplastic4712]

You are correct, good sir.

[@danijelandroid]

Haven't watched the video. Answer: we don't need super crops. The food that we have can feed 10 billions and even more. 1) we throw away a lot of perfect food 2) a lot of people eat more than they need. Those 'leftover food' could easily feed an extra 3 billion or is it 2.5 billion.

[@hdmat101]

Instead of food aid, send condoms. Stop having kids that you can't feed.

[@TheWarrrenator]

hdmat101 we must Stop treating women, globally, as bipedal broodmares.

[@hdmat101]

@@TheWarrrenator I do not think of women like that. The idea that their sole purpose is to bear and nurture children is ridiculous. My comment was directed at both men and women since procreation requires both.

[@TheWarrrenator]

hdmat101 You personally may not perceive things that way but you and we participate in a world that does.

[@hdmat101]

@@TheWarrrenator you are right.

[@RookieDev]

Joe: "...and we have a new even scarier disaster to avoid" Also Joe: *start smiling*

[@IeshiAke]

I read "supercops" instead of "supercrops" and now I'm a happier person

[@ActiveAngel2010]

My current research is finding a solution to a related challenge. As agriculture has increased, the nutrients for all produce and feedstock is diminishing. It’s estimated that earths supply of Phosphorus will run out in the next 50-130 years. At that time... there will be no more food. As such, we are recycling blackwater to grow produce fit for human consumption. It’s a complex subject with many other facets (such as reducing environmental impact), but very interesting!

[@decoder55killer]

Yes. If we optimize the way we consume food and barely any goes to waste we will have enough

[@TheAvsouto]

Nobody thinks in the only way of making all these problems vanish. Less people.

[@waytoohypernova]

Genocide time bæbeeeeeyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

[@narlycharley]

We need to stop animal agriculture and we'll have plenty of room for crops for human consumption.

[@vpr1422]

GM Crops are not only rejected because of environmental concerns, but because of gross monopolic practices too (looking at you monsanto)

[@PhysicsPolice]

Sebastian Salgado Reality check: Monsanto the company doesn’t even exist anymore.

[@PhysicsPolice]

Do you support golden rice? That’s a non-profit GM crop.

[@vpr1422]

@@PhysicsPolice in what solar system do you even live in?

[@vpr1422]

@@PhysicsPolice Haven't heard of it. I'm not against GM food, I'm against bad company practices.

[@PhysicsPolice]

Sebastian Salgado sane solar system as you, bro. And I read the news, here, too. Bayer acquired Monsanto.

[@vavyer3340]

I'm quite disappointed by this video: - As many mentioned in the commentaries, we are producing way enough, but a lot is wasted or used for animal feeding - Talking about Malthus and the Population bomb without any step back tends to confirm their underlying conclusion: the problem comes from the poor. I'm not saying that it is what you think, but it can be interpreted this way, especially when you say that +2 Bn people means ×2 crops, as if those 2 Billion were eating much more (which is exactly the opposite : they are consuming far less than in developed countries). - GMOs... it might be part of the solution, but first you have to assume that enough independant researchers would alarm us if there was any impact on health without being pressured by such large corporations (Bayer), second you forget to mention that GMOs are enslaving the farmers: they are forced to buy the seeds every year and to use only the pesticides produced by the GMO seller (Monsanto's Round Up for instance). So, do GMOs spare pesticides? In the long run, not really. - Let's talk about Bill and Melinda Gate now: philantropy is not about being nice because billionnaires don't know how else to spend their money, it is the ideal tool to get rid of taxes while gaining a positive image and political power. Plus, their actions are often linked to philantropists' real business: I wouldn't be surprised if Bill Gates had some shares in GMO companies and if the foundation was attempting to promote the technology through this kind of partnerships. Please answer my looooong comment so that you can clarify your intention about all this (which I'm sure was genuinelly positive :) ).

[@schmuelinsky]

Mistrust towards the health safety of GMOs is not justified in my opinion. The selection of the specific gene sequences (selecting by *genotype*) is actually more precise of a mutation than traditional cross-breeding based only on the *phenotype* of the crop. Plus, you don't have to wait for the plant to mature to see if it even worked. So the whole thing is also faster which means health risks can be found earlier compared to traditional breeding. Monsanto is one hell of a capitalist *sshole company though, I'll give you that.

[@bogdy72000]

i'd throw some cash your way if i was bill just to shut u up :D

[@pedrootavioazevedodaroz1736]

@@schmuelinsky Monsanto isn't even capitalist, they are just *holes that have money and the power of the state* to shut any startup that could provide competition *why did we give the power for companys to even hold patents? that just kills capitalism

[@edvinnasholm4175]

We grow.

[@dayceem]

The next green revolution? Soylent Green

[@macbuff81]

There is great progress being made in "growing" meat in the lab. Not only would it require vastly less resources than farming animals, but it would also end the suffering of those animals which are still often kept in horrible conditions. The problem with GMOs is that they make dependent on big corporations. This could be addressed with proper legislation, but politicians are often bribed and bought out by those very corporations

[@NickRoman]

Correction: that disaster hasn't happened *YET*

[@brianjonker510]

Thomas Malthus has not been correct for 200 years. But just you wait this decade will prove how far forward thinking his theory was.

[@NickRoman]

@@brianjonker510 , the thing is, when you look at the situation, it couldn't be more obvious. That's why it is bizarre that few people seem to actually be concerned.

[@robbenvanpersie1562]

@@NickRoman it wil happen anyway whether we're concerned or not coz majority don't care

[@veganchaatparty]

Super Super Super Awesome!!! Thanks for Sharing!!!

[@AMBEE-sp2ev]

Soylent green is people.

[@IchiroSakamoto]

Our children will all be soyboys horray

[@ise1441]

how about we don't platform Malthusian ideas? How about we refuse to platform people who lie about stats?

[@yeat7264]

To my knowledge, we are currently overproducing food grotesquely. We have enough food to feed pretty much everyone. The problem is that a lot of people do not have enough money to buy this food. Also, a lot of the countries that are currently facing famine are the poorest countries in the world, often lacking the infrastructure to deal with climate change ruining their food production. Of course this isn't so simple, but i think that a large portion of the famine problems we see today, are caused by capitalism and climate change (which, climate change is largely also caused by runaway capitalism)

[@Titanic-wo6bq]

#MakeFoodCheaper

[@westtech001]

My concern is this may be a more powerful way of doing what farmers have already done, but if that means Monsanto patents it it's not nearly as likely to be helpful

[@Fortynienq12]

Joe's most expensive video

[@JamesTheFoxeArt]

Hemant Arora Who’s Joe?

[@Fortynienq12]

@@JamesTheFoxeArt the guy who got sponsored by Billy.

[@nxzca]

JamesTheFox joe mama

[@brokkoliomg6103]

@@nxzca HAAAA GOOOTYYY

[@ViratKohli-jj3wj]

@@JamesTheFoxeArt Joe Mama

[@matchrocket1702]

We will definitely need GMOs to get through the challenges that face us. The problem is that usually means big agribusiness goes with it. In places like Africa agribusiness destroys local economies based on small family farms. There needs to be a way to incorporate advances in farming technology that doesn't simply crush a current system out of existence. I have no idea how that would be done. But since tremendous effort is being put into the biology of plants, maybe some could be put into how the results of those efforts could be successfully incorporated into farming it without bulldozing local economies.

[@terryenby2304]

I wish people would stop being so anxious of GM crops. We could make a huge positive difference on lives with the right genetic modifications. Yes we need to remember to keep diversity and be aware of what will happen when crops interact... but I go out of my way to avoid non-GM food. Because it seems to be the only ways humans will survive.

[@happygimp0]

We already grow enough plants to feed over 10 billion humans. But we breed animals and feed them with it, which is very inefficient. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/105002 People are too selfish and egoistic to eat vegan.

[@yellowishnesses1138]

I agree to an extent. GMOs are a tool that shouldn't be demonized. However, avoiding non-GM food is going too far in my opinion. Avoiding foods that advertise "No GMOs" and raising awareness has little impact, too. Only a radical minority believes that GMOs are inherently dangerous enough to avoid. Businesses will continue to market towards this minority as long as it exists. (They are still GM crops, anyway.)

[@13thravenpurple94]

Great work 🥳 Thank you 💜

[@MidnightBloomDev]

Covid-19 may sadly postpone our food problem

[@naveenraj2008eee]

Hi joe sir Another remarkable video.. Ir8 is from my home state tamil nadu... Cool to see the reference. Thanks for the video..🙏👍

[@PurpleDawn11]

what about biodiversity (companion planting) though? a big problem that agriculture has right now is planting large fields of one crop when it's actually more self sustaining with biodiversity. We could have many small biodiverse farms instead of large one-crop farms. Theres so many factors with gene editing and how it effects the ecosystem since everything evolved a certain way so it works harmoniously with the rest of its ecosystem. We're still not That advanced; gene editing is still a shot in the dark at this point.

[@besmart]

Companion planting becomes difficult to scale at industrial farming levels, but it is definitely a viable and good option. It's very helpful in cases where a companion plant either naturally repels pests, or acts as a pest magnet to keep them off the main crop. But even just rotating monocultures like the 4-crop Dutch method from the 1600s would help reduce fertilizer use, preserve soil, and reduce the development of super pests

[@micahbirdlover8152]

@@besmart I love in our nature 😍 🥰

[@JudgeSabo]

A lot of our crops and landspace right now are used for cattle. A more plant-based diet will also free up a ton of resources.

[@Hans_Peterson]

We should go to plant factories/vertical farming then we can free up agriculture land to be converted back into green space.

[@boboblacksheep5003]

I was waiting for a reference joke for the whole video. And I wasn't disappointed.

[@TheThesport1000]

Honestly, it's ridiculous that the Netherlands wasn't mentioned about improving

[@annikawaltmann7974]

Are you talking about the farmers protests?

[@TheThesport1000]

No I am talking about innovation because the Netherlands is the second largest exporter of agricultural crops behind the USA but, the USA has 270x the land size compared to the Netherlands

[@annikawaltmann7974]

But i also beleve were the second biggest exporter in meat so thats a bit unfortunate. But at least we make enough food haha

[@biboonkwe8265]

We already produce 12 million mouths worth of food, but we end up throwing 4 billion mouths worth of it away.

[@jeiku5314]

That's it. Time for the fourth Agricultural Revolution.

[@jeiku5314]

@Big. J I already do muhahaha

[@bobtuckey2409]

Hi Joe, Bob here. Hopefull and scary at the same time. Thanks!

[@barrymccaulkiner7092]

Every single time I find myself stuck in a long line or traffic I start wondering if thanos was really onto something......

[@unvergebeneid]

Of course you could also be wondering if those urban planners who advocated for better public transport instead of wider streets and urban sprawl were onto something ;)

[@toolbaggers]

Thanos did it randomly. The same problem is inevitable unless the right people are culled.

[@unvergebeneid]

@@toolbaggers Oof, I live in a first world country, so my carbon footprint is way higher than everyone else's. Soooo, how about no?

[@zamundaaa776]

he wasn't. Killing half the population is not a long term (read: decades) solution, it only makes the problem *worse* and it's not even a remotely good short term solution, even ignoring the moral part.

[@WesternAustraliaNowAndThen]

I think the question is, should we continue increasing our population even if we can feed ourselves? The answer should be obvious but it doesn't appear to be because we are failing to act on our population increase. The idea of never ending growth is insane.

[@whom9421]

People will keep having kids even of they themselves are starving, there not much you could do to stop it worldwide

[@haniyasu8236]

We literally already make enough food to feed 10 Billion people. The problem isn't production, it's distribution. Maybe if we stopped having a system that prioritizes making Billionaires like Bill Gates and instead of prioritizing people, we could solve the problem.

[@82MrKanister]

Exactly.

[@matteoalberghini2040]

Only 2 % of crops cultivated go to the human mouth. We need veganism to take over and we all have more then enough food

[@matteoalberghini2040]

@@Lolbringershee they will care, they have to, bezos just donated 10 billion to address climate change. We need to do our best to show people the best way to live, go vegan, try to be as zero waste as possible, use car less and less. Avoid climate change deniers and clean up the streets. The best thing we could do is show people there is a better way to treat the planet!

[@Banzybanz]

Why does the food line stay parallel to the X axis? Crop yeilds keep constantly improving.

[@Rune_tide]

Couldn't we also genetically modify ourselves to require less food or be able to more efficiently process it? I mean, perhaps we should focus on ourselves before we focus on changing the world around us.

[@theGrymer]

I would love the ability to synthesize! Getting recharged by sunrays must be a wonderful feeling and a solution to hunger in Africa :)

[@NetAndyCz]

We can largely do that by altering the microbiome in our guts, no need to even genetically change us.

[@aliasifchowdhury3419]

1There are people who have enough money to buy enough or more than enough food but some portion of the food that is bought is wasted,sometimes less than half sometimes even more than half. 2There are people who don't have enough money to buy enough food 3There are people who have no money AT ALL so they don't even get to buy ANY FOOD IN THE FIRST PLACE All the hype on making plants produce infinite amounts of food....has anybody ever thought of these 3 situations and what they mean in the context of food crisis?

[@ThisNameIsBanned]

You can build entire buildings with multiple stages to produce food much more efficient than a simple farm can. This is much more expensive to start but tremendously more effective as the food will be in the place its consumed and not shipped around or wasted. Eternal growth is sustainable in a universe like ours, humanity just needs to expand and find more efficient ways to produce all they need to self sustain. Climate change does not matter in a world that can build massive arcology for its population (which might very well be a thing in 100+ years). The moment we can mass produce these the game is over and we win. Its just a matter to get to that point asap.

[@henrymellard5647]

Societies collapse first

[@TomorrowWeLive]

And what will be the environmental impact of 12 billion people, all of whom will want and feel entitled to a comfortable Western lifestyle? Humans are not the only concern here, and food is not the only factor. How much more wilderness is going to be swallowed up by urban sprawl and farmland? How many more habitats will be destroyed and species go extinct?

[@waytoohypernova]

All of them.. We will conquer the earth and claim it as our own _nature is survival of the fittest and we were the fittest_ *nobody will stop us, no plants, no animals, no famine nor hurricane!* *_WE WILL BECOME THE EARTH. SWALLOWING EACH SPECIES WHOLE AS WE COMPLETE OUR DESTINY AND FINALLY DESTROY THE WORLD_* *_MAHHEHEHEHEHEHEHEH_*

[@jamiehay1027]

*Who needs super crops? Best solution to overpopulation:* Hunger Games.

[@bigmike9128]

Corona virus has entered the chat.

[@NamelessCruiser]

Replace cow farms with more efficient crops and right off the bat you get a burst of productivity. Also, transportation upgrades would probably be another major win. I wonder how genetic modifications and greater crop yields compete with logistic improvements.

[@ChrisGilliamOffGrid]

Cow fields don't erode topsoil, and cows can graze in areas you can't crow crops. Eat more cows.

[@happygimp0]

@@ChrisGilliamOffGrid Grazing is the main cause of topsoil erosion. Pasture is already the leading cause of deforestation, in regions like the amazon rainforest it is accountable for 80% of deforestation. In other regions you need to produce hay for the winter. globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/cattle-ranching

[@SciFactsYT118]

Random fact: 🐍Snakes are true carnivores as they eat nothing but other animals. They do not eat any type of plant material. 🐍

[@JustADioWhosAHeroForFun]

But what about the Plants inside the animals they eat huh?

[@mahied7858]

@@JustADioWhosAHeroForFunmadlad

[@MetallicReg]

@@JustADioWhosAHeroForFun It is actually exactly why you should not feed pet snakes a fish-only diet. Fish does not have all the vitamins that (plant fed) rodents have. Otherwise they get neurological problems.

[@arthas640]

Same goes for some sharks and most felines

[@RandomMe93]

Does crispr allows to edit plants too?

[@rickkwitkoski1976]

Crispr edits DNA. All living organisms AND viruses contain DNA. Oh yeah, SOME viruses have RNA instead.

[@Titanic-wo6bq]

-Big Crops- ❌ -Amazing Crops- ❌ -Super Crops- ❌ *It's Okay To Be Smart Crops* ✔️

[@firstcynic92]

Somebody has been taking animation tips from Terry Gilliam.

[@jadermcs]

It's a huge misinformation to say that something grows exponentially, it is sigmoidal, never exponential.

[@schmuelinsky]

Good point.

[@roxasfrevr]

We have enough food to feed 11 billion. The problem is it isn't profitable to feed everyone sufficiently

[@Aprilys6264]

Why not stop feeding 70 billion animals each year for meat consumption and giving these crops to humans instead ?

[@russell4824]

It's was made possible by corporate greed. Monsanto and other seed companies use genenetic engineering to make better plants, corporate greed dictates 3 improvements: Yield, more crop per acre, this includes pest and drought resistance, volume (larger curnals, Cobb, etc. Self life, grow it in Chile, ship to Norway, and be able to sell it 2 weeks later Appearance, every apple should be round red and No blemishes. Two things they don't care about: Nutritional value, Taste

[@Gothead420]

Yeah, putting all that marketpower into the hands of one huge corporation *surely* works...flawlessly...cough, cough...Monsanto...cough, cough... With ~40%-50% of production going to waste right now, we maybe just shouldn't overproduce.

[@GrimJackal]

We'll need to do both - waste less and produce more efficiently.

[@corujariousa]

We DO NOT have a food production problem! We have a distribution and storage problem. In many countries food is dumped or left to rotten to keep prices at desired levels or due to serious deficiencies in our planning and infrastructure to move those items to where they are most needed. The US is one of the leaders on the wasteful practices. The sole focus on profits is what drives the bogus theme that we need supercrops (produced by Monsanto and others). We need to stop wasting resources and focus to increase the strength of our supply chain. Also, we need to be less greedy.