HAVE WE REACHED, "PEAK FOOD"?? IT IS IN OUR FUTURE, NO DOUBT IN MY MIND.

Yep, have seen the same things...

Says the native american whose massive inneficiencies allowed for only tiny mobile populations

What a load.
Have any of you people ever actually driven across the US? It's almost all empty space.
Put the effort in and the arable land on this planet could provide pure organic sustenance for a population of 50 billion.
tptb just want you thinking we're living on the edge.

The natives new how to live in balance. The buffalo herds alone would have kept them clothed and fed forever.

We don't have a food shortage problem we have a food wasting problem.

Some things that tick me off is the list of farmers who WILLINGLY accept payment from the goober NOT to farm their land.

Or the ones who plant thousands of acres with useless things like xmas trees, which are cut down before they can do any significant good for the environment and then thrown to the curb like trash. The dead wood is then used to mulch the elaborate flower gardens at the mayors house, if it's used at all.

Or the ones who run sod farms, so people who are too impatient to wait for seed to grow can have the 'perfect instant lawn' (and pay handsomely for the privilege) instead of food gardens.

Removing farming subsidies from big ag farms would be a good start. But the chances of us getting our taxes back from those programs is just not possible.

Still it would be a good start.

Monoculture farming would suddenly see the benefits of polyculture. We'd end up with more variety in the long run. Plus GMOs would no longer be profitable.

Why are you showing me this example? What a silly way of life. They could grow much more food and work less if they could just back off the meat. Truly a sickness.
Animals are not our property, and no matter how 'free' these animals appear, they are not. I have chickens and bunnies. They're not fenced in. I feed them and provide shelter, but never EVER boss them around, prod them, usher them into their coops. They're simply my neighbors, and happy to be so. (And despite what you've probably heard, bunnies thrive outside, and are perfectly capable, when given the opportunity, of staying cool/warm/safe.) The chickens couldn't care less if I take their eggs- but dairy? No. Removing a newborn calf from it's mother, keeping it in an endless cycle of impregnation? Sick. Hunt your own food if you must. Cook it where it's killed so as not to contaminate your living quarters (all common sense to ancient peoples but sadly lost on us.) Animal enslavement enslaves us.

Well, I attempted to have a conversation.

Interesting topic.

Makes you wonder, which countries would stand to benefit from a "peak food" situation?

Did some digging...the biggest agricultural producer in the world is China.

Followed by India and then the US.

But as this website notes about the "agricultural powers" of the world, certain countries have "national constraints", in that they have to feed their own people.

[link to www.momagri.org]

While the US is the 3rd biggest agricultural producer, it's the number 1 agricultural exporter by far.

49% more than the next next biggest country, the Netherlands.

China is the 10th biggest agricultural exporter, but the US exports well over 3 times as much as China-

[link to www.mapsofworld.com]

Anyone who has been outside of major cities in the US realizes how much undeveloped land there is.

The US is probably best poised to benefit economically from a "peak food" situation.

Europe is too dense, China and India need the food for their own people. Not sure why the Aussies aren't significant players in world food exports.

The US, and then Brazil would probably be the other "agricultural power" because they have made it a matter of national policy to become a top world food exporter, but from the latest data, the US exports over twice as much as Brazil.

So the US could be in good shape. "Peak food" could work out for us like "peak oil" did for the Saudis.

I could imagine it would spark a resurgence of interest in rural, undeveloped farmland in the US.

Permaculture/Food Forests/Polyface Farming address this issue nicely. ANd none of them are rocket appliances....

no americania's need to weigh minimum 600-800lbs
keep that gmo corn syrup comin'

News flash, they BS about population numbers just as much as they BS about economic and financial metrics. Actually population statistics are just reported for economic purposes only. It acts as part of the basis for bullshit econmic naratives they use to deceive.

On that note, I will add that developing countries that do not have sophisticated mechanisms of economic subterfuge will inflate their population statistics even more. The reason being, more of their economic output is derived from unskilled or semi-skilled labor. Fib the numbers of warm bodies, you can fib the estimates of your potential economic output and therefore attract more investment from developed countries. What do you think China does? Sure they have some manufacturing but its nowhere near what they claim it is, nor does it have the growth potential that is claimed. I bet their population is not over a few hundred million. Move away from the coast and the country is mostly empty space, including vast deserts.

On the idea of "food forests", it brings to mind something going on where I live in Minneapolis.

Minneapolis has an extensive park system with a chain of lakes and the Mississippi River, one of the most renowned in the country. And there's been an increasing amount of foraging for wild berries and food within the park system.

So the Minneapolis Park Board is considering growing 'edible landscapes' of wild berries and such to encourage urban foraging, and people coming into the parks.

That's a great idea. All public lands within certain boundaries should be converted. If you want to walk in 'nature' just go a bit further afield. The tools are in place to do wonderful things.

It should be mandatory... Shouldn't it?
Here's another example:
[link to www.beaconfoodforest.org]

A person can grow most of their produce in a 10 by 10 garden.

So, I'd say "peak food" will be a problem for about 5 minutes before people learn how to read a book on horticulture and start growing their own food.

Options:

1. Read a book and grow your own food

2. Lute and riot for food

Hmmmmm. Which will people choose?

I totally agree that everyone should grow food.. but I disagree about the 10 by 10 plot being able to account for "most" of their food.

But most yards have much more than 100 sq. feet to grow on. Growing most or all of your own food is no easy task. Many are turned off the the whole idea when they realize a single raised bed can only grow so much.

Plus perennials are the plants with the real payoff. Set it and forget it...

It's not my opinion and it's not open for debate, either. As it's been proven.

There is a book out there (forgot the name) written by a horticulturalist who details how that can be done easily.

Some analysts say there is like 11 to 13 calories of energy in every calorie of food?

Is that sort of calorie wast sustainable?

I wouldn't think so?

Picking, Packing, Storage, Transportation?