
Feeding 10B People Will Require Genetically Modified Food - pseudolus
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-17/feeding-10-billion-people-will-require-genetically-modified-food
======
beat
Earth's population has more than quadrupled in the past century, and yet food
scarcity is farther away than ever, and food prices are cheaper than ever. And
somehow, we did that without GMO. So I'm not convinced that GMO is the _only_
way to solve the modest 25-30% population bump we'll get over the next
century.

(Before you flip out, I'm not saying GMO is a bad thing. I'm saying this is
bad logic.)

edit: _Selective breeding is not GMO_. If your argument is "We've always done
GMO", you're wrong. Would you be willing to ban CRISPR and similar tech and do
it all the old-fashioned way? No? Then GMO is not selective breeding.

~~~
MichaelApproved
> _And somehow, we did that without GMO._

I think you're confused. You probably eat genetically modified food on a daily
basis. It's everywhere.

The question isn't "should we genetically modified food?" because we already
are and have been doing it for centuries.

The question is "which GMO techniques should we use?"

~~~
ksec
>You probably eat genetically modified food on a daily basis. It's everywhere.

I assume that is only if you live in US? GMO Food are near non existent in EU.

~~~
TheCraiggers
Only if you don't count selective breeding as GMO. Which I do. We've
"genetically modified" our food to have greater yields, better taste, pest
resistance, etc. Just because someone in a labcoat wasn't hunched over a petri
dish doesn't mean the genetics aren't being tweaked. The corn we eat today is
all but indistinguishable from what we ate in our past.

Genes are genes, and changes to them are changes to them.

~~~
ksec
>Only if you don't count selective breeding as GMO

Well if selective breeding is GMO then there is nothing on earth that isn't
GMO. We have been doing selective breeding since before age of industrial
revolution.

~~~
TheCraiggers
Agreed, which is why I find the health scare rather silly. Are there arguments
still to be had on the ethics of what we are changing? Perhaps. But the health
risk has been basically proven (as much as anything ever is in science) to be
nonexistent.

------
Retric
Desalination and farming the Sahara could get us to 10B people without
genetically modified food. GMO would on the other hand cost less.

The meat industry also generally gets less competitive as food becomes less
plentiful. Feeding the worlds 600 million cows takes significantly more food
than feeding 600 million people would. Granted not all cattle are fed from
productive farmland, but it’s a common practice.

~~~
pier25
Farming the Sahara would require huge amounts of energy, no?

There is plenty of space but other than that...

~~~
ahje
Luckily, Sahara also happens to be a somewhat decent place for production of
solar energy. The question is, in other words, not if we can, but rather if we
want to throw all those resources at such a project. I suspect the most
difficult task will be to stabilize the region enough for large infrastructure
projects to be viable.

~~~
pier25
Ok, you have electricity, and then what?

How do you get constant massive quantities of nutrients, water, and other
farming supplies? This would require lots of energy.

Don't forget that you'd need greenhouses that can withstand pretty extreme
temperatures, both hot and cold. Manufacturing and transporting those also
requires lots of energy.

Finally, people would have to live there, no? I could be wrong, but I don't
think a small city in the desert, far away from everything and under extreme
weather/temps, would be very sustainable.

~~~
Retric
You don’t need greenhouses, deserts get extreme temperatures because of the
minimal water. As Egypt demonstrates when you irrigate land the temperature
swings stop being an issue.

Essentially as you irrigate near deserts you cause local climate change via
huge amounts of water evaporation and thermal mass. The more land under
irrigation the stronger the effect becomes.

~~~
pier25
Sounds interesting. Do you have any links about that?

~~~
Retric
I don't have a great summery on hand.

 _High desert regions typically have the greatest diurnal-temperature
variations, while low-lying humid areas typically have the least._
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diurnal_temperature_variation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diurnal_temperature_variation)

Soil temperatures under cotton in Egypt:
[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-
agricultu...](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-agricultural-
science/article/soil-temperatures-under-cotton-in-
egypt/07DFCE2559BB77C34B4D3291240E9B7E)

(4) The main effect of irrigation on soil temperatures is to reduce the
amplitude of the daily temperature wave, no sudden change of temperature in
the root zone taking place.

------
whyenot
There is nothing wrong with genetically modified food. People in the US eat it
all the time, even if they don't know it. What annoys me about articles like
this is that they skirt around an obvious solution to this and other
environmental problems: don't let the world's population grow to 10 billion
people. We already know how to do this, and they are things we should be doing
already: empower and educate women, provide better family planning, provide
better healthcare.

~~~
beat
We're already doing those things. If you dropped the birth rate 50%, the
population would _still_ grow for the next few decades. Why? Because the
primary cause of population growth today isn't high birth rates - it's
increased life expectancy.

If you want to control the population, you'll have to resort to more old-
fashioned means, like banning antibiotics and vaccine and the occasional
genocide.

------
imvetri
Nobody solves the problem from its roots. Population control would solve most
of the problems, unless and until that happens, human population will be seen
as a cattle field for the minds at the top.

~~~
MichaelApproved
That's like saying " _lungs are the root of a smog problem._ "

A growing population isn't a problem. How that population behaves is the
concern.

There are plenty of resources on this planet to sustain more people. How the
population uses and shares those resources is what needs to be addressed.

~~~
manicdee
I don’t see how “population is the root of the food availability problem”
compares to “lungs are the root of the smog problem”. Can you elucidate?

------
throwaway13337
Those of you arguing for population control should think of the methods
governments have used in the past to do so. Is this what you have in mind?
Scary.

Birth rates will decline when a level of poverty in an area goes down to below
replacement levels. This happens everywhere measured.

Here's an unpopular idea: I like bring alive. I think most people do. I'm glad
that there are many people on this planet living. I know that the environment
suffers because of it but I'd rather have more people.

We humans can meet the challenges of our population on earth though the world
will be changed for it.

~~~
JaceLightning
You can still have people: just have fewer kids later in life. Governments can
encourage people not to have kids by reducing tax breaks for families with
more kids.

~~~
throwaway13337
China's one child policy did essentially that - financially encouraged people
to have less children and the result was the murder of female babies. So many
that there is an alarming amount of boys versus girls today: 118.06 boys to
every 100 girls born (measured in 2010).

Remember that high birth rates are only a problem in poverty.

~~~
hycaria
Because all cultures have sex discrepancies and a tolerance to infanticide so
that would be the outcome everywhere on earth ?

And how can it be a problem only in poverty ? Doesnt the average American
consume like ten fold what the average Indian does ?

~~~
hk2001
> Because all cultures have sex discrepancies and a tolerance to infanticide
> so that would be the outcome everywhere on earth ?

Most do. And is abortion infanticide? Because abortion is widely accepted
across the first world, and can result in the same thing.

> And how can it be a problem only in poverty ? Doesnt the average American
> consume like ten fold what the average Indian does ?

Yes, which is the point. Those who say "population control" is the answer are
essentially saying "make third world countries with less consumption but
higher birthrates change, not first world countries with low birthrates and
high consumption". The US actually have stable, ideal birth rate currently.
And I doubt even the most delusional population control advocate thinks
reducing the US birth rate by 10 fold (from somewhere a little above 2 to .2)
is a good idea (though I could be wrong). And many first world countries are
even lower to the US, to the point its actually creating major societal
problems (like Japan and Sweden). What the above commenter is trying to say is
that as poverty levels go down, birth rates drop to replacement level or
below.

So essentially to say "population control" is the ideal solution is to say
make the areas of the world with high birth rates (largely developing nations,
mostly in Africa) stop having children, rather than improving the consumption
patterns and efficiency of those of us living in the first world.

Seems problematic to say the least.

------
rayiner
The last time we revolutionized agriculture to feed a growing population, we
gave the scientist responsible a Nobel Prize: [http://www.asianews.it/news-
en/The-man-who-saved-India-from-...](http://www.asianews.it/news-en/The-man-
who-saved-India-from-famine:-Norman-Borlaug-16336.html).

The diminished, superstitious minds of today, however, condemn the new
generation of scientists who are doing the exact same thing.

~~~
manicdee
Because we are realising there are limits to growth, and the cost of ever-
expanding deforestation is visible in ways it never was before.

------
neotokio
That's a brilliant solution, what a shame that is also part of a problem.

GM crop is by definition commercial crop, half of Indian agricultural problems
are because of death of local farming vs conventional farming (think energy
costs, supply chains effectiveness, technology dependence and lack of
biodiversity which hits food chain hard).

Why are we exactly fixed on GM crop but not on better food management
policies, promotion of local farming and climate-related tech (ie.
irrigation)? Is it because GMO has clear profit margin where above mentioned
(and many more) doesn't?

One can argue even about selective breeding which also has its own costs
(fragility of a given genetics), but GMO should, by rule, be heavily limited.

~~~
kaitai
I think this brings up some important points.

I'm not "against GMO" because I think it makes frankentomatoes that will eat
us, or because I think that gene modification is intrinsically unhealthful.
I'm (sort of) against GMO because genetically modified organisms are
controlled by profit-focused corporations who lock farmers into a financial
system that disadvantages them and promotes heavy use of brand-name herbicides
that are not good for the surrounding ecosystem. Especially in 2nd/3rd world
countries where people rely more heavily on waterways for water and their
backyards for food, as opposed to the US where we can pay to outsource these
problems, local ability to maintain a healthy environment without paying a
multinational on a yearly contract is essential.

People have been able to plant saved seeds for all of human history. Programs
that prevent the ability to grow your own food for only the cost of labor put
farmers and local areas at a significant disadvantage by eliminating the
possibility of subsistence farming. I know that GMOs are designed to increase
yields -- but that's focused on farming as commodity.

Neotokio's remark about the "clear profit margin" of GMOs is, I think, exactly
on the money.

~~~
beat
That's exactly where I am, too.

Just because GMO can be used to solve human problems does not mean GMO _will_
be used for human problems. It's more likely to solve corporate problems
instead.

------
midnitewarrior
Maybe, if we don't have an abundance of food for 10 billion people, people
will think twice before having more children? The environmental challenges
with our existing number of people are already overwhelming.

~~~
skizm
I don't know nor have I heard of a single couple factoring the environmental
impact of having a child into their decision.

~~~
umeshunni
Not to mention that population growth is generally higher in lower income and
lower educated populations, even within a country.

------
mogadsheu
The adult human body operates at a daily minimum of nutrients to survive, and
adding more bodies to the fray increases the resource load on the planet.

While I personally prefer not to eat GMO food because of the uncertain effects
it has on the body, at the population scale I believe it will eventually
(though we don’t know when) be the case that advances in food efficiency are
needed to withstand higher carrying capacity. I believe we’re already seeing
the effects, with steroid/hormone use in animals, and with GMO crops.

There was an HBS article the pitted Solow’s ideas on technological advancement
against Malthus’ population theory. I think both would agree that if
population continues to rise, efficiency will be a necessity.

------
cascom
The amount of quality farmland in the US that has become tract housing and
strip malls depresses me every time I think about it.

------
manicdee
We could just ensure the population stays below 2B. Education, emancipation of
women, access to contraceptives and abortion, immunisation, and improved
healthcare for new mothers and infants: these are proven time and again to
reduce fertility rates.

There’s no sensible reason to keep using infinite expansion as a measure of
the health of national economies. We should change the goals to improved
access to services, and more even distribution of national wealth (ie: lower
spread between richest and poorest).

When we run out of fresh water, desalination should not be viewed as the
answer but only as an emergency measure. Desalination requires abundant energy
and pollutes the marine environment with over-salinated water. Recycling
sewage I to drinking water only works as long as the equipment is maintained
fastidiously and never breaks.

Rather than producing more food, we should focus on producing fewer people.

------
sleepysysadmin
Ignoring the topic of global warming, one of the things happening is the
northern places like northern canada and russia are melting for the first time
in 30,000 years. There's significantly more growing space.

We also have grow lights, vertical farming, and urban farming. Which will
greatly improve food yields.

Flipside, how many people have heard about gluten sensitivity 10 years ago?
Why are so many people trying crazy diets like vegan, keto, carnivore?
Virtually all of these diets have 1 thing in common, eliminating sugar from
the diet.

Where do we get our sugar? Oh right, pretty much 100% of sugar beets are
genetically modified.

I'm not trying to beat up GMO, but there seems to be something bad in our diet
and perhaps it's these GMO plants.

~~~
MH15
I find it treacherous to assume that people didn't have gluten insensitivity
in the past. See: cancers existed in the past, but diagnosis and treatment
often wasn't on the table.

~~~
sleepysysadmin
I never said nobody had it, but certainly far more common today than ever
before.

------
blueboo
Vertical farming is about to explode as an industry. Any discussion of planet-
wise nutrition is silly without acknowledging the enormous effect it will
have.

What feeding X0e9 people requires is energy.

~~~
nradov
Vertical farming will never explode because even after accounting for
transportation costs it will still be cheaper to grow staple crops in open
fields with direct sunlight. Only high value specialty produce makes sense for
vertical farming. Even increases in solar panel efficiency and artificial
lighting won't significantly change that equation.

------
imtringued
I don't like the way the thread is going. It's pure bike shedding whether GMO
includes selective breeding or not. Then everyone redefines the word however
they like to strengthen their argument. We might as well replace GMO with
something arbitrary like toilet paper.

"Maybe anti-toilet-paper movements that might lead to believe that they are
not used yet" Now everything sounds ridiculous but no one argued about the
actual problems or advantages.

------
vfc1
There are way too many people on Earth already. There were barely 3 billion
people alive in 1960, now it's over 7.5 billion and going up.

The equivalent of the surface of Africa is already being used for crops and
going up, most of it to feed livestock.

There are projections of fishless oceans in less than 30 years, and we got 12
years to stop global warming. What could go wrong?

------
imtringued
In a world with global monopolies that drive out local farmers in developing
countries through their hyper efficiency, importing GMO food aid from the USA
is obviously required.

If countries were able to produce their own food then GMO food isn't
necessary.

------
patagonia
I find it weird we worry about a “Malthusian” catastrophe still. The theory
being proposed in 1798. What is the Information Age version? That deals with,
“when do we kill the earth by our attempts to get everyone a cellphone?”

~~~
manicdee
We avoided that early catastrophe by using fertilisers sourced from mined
phosphates. We have about 300 years reserves at current consumption rates. If
we double our consumption, we halve the reserve longevity. No amount of
genetic engineering cleverness is going to address the need for onoohsates.

Just because we avoided the early catastrophe doesn’t mean Malthus was wrong.

At some point in the future we need to focus on farming ocean plants that
recover the minerals we have been leaching into the oceans for the last few
hundred years. Once we can close the loop on phosphates we can start talking
about post-industrial-revolution population levels being sustainable.

------
denzil_correa
Here's a thought experiment - assume that you do not have Genetic Modification
at your disposal. Given that, what can you do to ensure you feed 10Bn people?

It's important to understand the challenge before posing a solution.

~~~
manicdee
Take the number out. What can we do to ensure we can feed all the people.
Break it down to the level of consumption per person, and methods we have of
sourcing the inputs and disposing of the outputs. What fresh water, energy and
land area is required per person?

------
tw04
Other than "capitalism needs growth!!111" \- why are we trying to get to 10
Billion people? Shouldn't the objective at this point not be "how do we keep
growing" but - "how do we stop growing"?

Fighting global warming would be a LOT easier if we were encouraging people to
not have 10 kids...

Ahh, good ol hacker news. Downvotes without a single person having a cogent
argument against attempting to limit population growth.

A bus full of people texting on their phones with nobody in the drivers seat
and everyone refusing because "it's not my problem". Instead of addressing the
glaring issue, let's add WiFi to the bus!

~~~
bancars
Honestly? We don’t even have to try. It’s a tragedy of the commons thing: life
forms will reproduce and spread until they die off. Smear some bacteria in a
Petri dish and the same thing happens. A lot of it has to do with reproductive
healthcare (the lack thereof) in developing nations. Basically, people keep
having unprotected sex. Biological reproduction is so fundamental that even if
every nation in the world had a stable government, I’m not sure there’s
anything we could do that isn’t super dictatorship-y. And even then..

It’s pessimistic, yeah, but we don’t have to even try to have babies. People
will keep making that individual choice until we run out of food or energy or
something and lots of people, most likely the poor, die.

~~~
tw04
>life forms will reproduce and spread until they die off

Because they don't have the higher level thinking skills to realize their
reproduction will have negative consequences. That's a horrible reason to not
at least attempt to address the issue.

