Archive:000/Crop choices - Revision history

Elie: Elie moved page Crop choices to Archive:000/Crop choices without leaving a redirect: Huge_refactor

2024-10-26T20:29:31Z

Elie moved page Crop choices to Archive:000/Crop choices without leaving a redirect: Huge_refactor

← Older revision	Revision as of 16:29, 26 October 2024
(No difference)

Elie: New template naming (talk page links are now {{tp}} and {{tp2}})

2024-08-30T19:05:03Z

New template naming (talk page links are now {{tp}} and {{tp2}})

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:05, 30 August 2024
Line 131:		Line 131:
	* Interpretation 2: Sugarcane etc. gets higher yields but only because corporations invest more money & [[fertilizer]] into growing it. First-world countries want sugar, and their spending power makes it happen (highly-valued currency). The same economics doesn't care about Africa's grains, because grains can be grown "at home" in rich countries. Perhaps if African grain farmers had more access to resources{{x\|fertilizer? something else? depends on the specific case; this would be a whole topic in itself}}, grains would yield just as many calories as sugarcane.		* Interpretation 2: Sugarcane etc. gets higher yields but only because corporations invest more money & [[fertilizer]] into growing it. First-world countries want sugar, and their spending power makes it happen (highly-valued currency). The same economics doesn't care about Africa's grains, because grains can be grown "at home" in rich countries. Perhaps if African grain farmers had more access to resources{{x\|fertilizer? something else? depends on the specific case; this would be a whole topic in itself}}, grains would yield just as many calories as sugarcane.
	* Interpretation 3: None of this really matters, because the whole crop-choices scenario is too hypothetical, and involves unrealistic dietary choices.		* Interpretation 3: None of this really matters, because the whole crop-choices scenario is too hypothetical, and involves unrealistic dietary choices.
	These interpretations are opposed to each other. The current dataset can't tell us which one (if any) is true. If you have some insight, join the {{~~talk~~}}.		These interpretations are opposed to each other. The current dataset can't tell us which one (if any) is true. If you have some insight, join the {{tp2}}.

Elie: /* Imagined scenario */

2023-05-25T10:18:40Z

Imagined scenario

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:18, 25 May 2023
Line 22:		Line 22:
	Suppose every country grew mostly its top-yielding crops. We don't want a pure monoculture{{x\|as this would probably actually be ''bad'' for yields in the long run}}, but suppose that high-yield crops are grown ''much more often'' than low-yield crops.		Suppose every country grew mostly its top-yielding crops. We don't want a pure monoculture{{x\|as this would probably actually be ''bad'' for yields in the long run}}, but suppose that high-yield crops are grown ''much more often'' than low-yield crops.

	What might the global food supply look like? [[User:Elie\|I]] decided to do some data analysis to find out:		What might the global food supply look like? [[User:Elie\|I]] decided to do some data analysis to find out.
	<tab name="Technical ~~summary~~ of the analysis" collapsed>		<tab name="Technical description of the analysis" collapsed>
	<small>''Using data on average local yields for each crop in each country:''</small><br />		<small>''Using data on average local yields for each crop in each country:''</small><br />
	'''For each country:'''		'''For each country:'''
Line 48:		Line 48:

	For a detailed breakdown by country, see [[/per_capita\|this page]].		For a detailed breakdown by country, see [[/per_capita\|this page]].


	==Awkward findings==		==Awkward findings==

Elie at 10:16, 25 May 2023

2023-05-25T10:16:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:16, 25 May 2023
Line 18:		Line 18:

	==Imagined scenario==		==Imagined scenario==
			Using only existing crop land (no [[deforestation]]):

	Suppose every country grew mostly its top-yielding crops. We don't want a pure monoculture{{x\|as this would probably actually be ''bad'' for yields in the long run}}, but suppose that high-yield crops are grown ''much more often'' than low-yield crops.		Suppose every country grew mostly its top-yielding crops. We don't want a pure monoculture{{x\|as this would probably actually be ''bad'' for yields in the long run}}, but suppose that high-yield crops are grown ''much more often'' than low-yield crops.

	[[User:Elie\|I]] decided to do some data analysis to ~~see what this scenario might look like.~~		What might the global food supply look like? [[User:Elie\|I]] decided to do some data analysis to find out:
	<tab name="Technical summary of the analysis" collapsed>		<tab name="Technical summary of the analysis" collapsed>
	<small>''Using data on average local yields for each crop in each country:''</small>		<small>''Using data on average local yields for each crop in each country:''</small><br />
	'''For each country:'''		'''For each country:'''
	* Each crop is given an amount of land proportional to the ''square'' of its ''yield score.''		* Each crop is given an amount of land proportional to the ''square'' of its ''yield score.''

Elie: /* Using the crop choices to prevent deforestation */

2023-01-31T07:02:47Z

Using the crop choices to prevent deforestation

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:02, 31 January 2023
Line 122:		Line 122:
	The [[#Imagined scenario]] above, the total ''farmland'' stays the same but food ''production'' vastly increases. This was chosen ''only'' for simplicity sake.		The [[#Imagined scenario]] above, the total ''farmland'' stays the same but food ''production'' vastly increases. This was chosen ''only'' for simplicity sake.

	In actual fact, we don't have to increase food production ''that much''{{x\|the existing global food supply [[:File:food-funnel.png\|would be]] more than enough if we didn't waste so much food, and if we didn't feed so much food to farm animals}}. We could use the high-yielding crop choices as a way to ~~use~~ ''less land'' for agriculture. By reducing the demand for [[land]], we could get rid of the economic pressures that cause [[deforestation]]. And besides just forests, it would become easier to preserve wild ecosystems in general.<!-- TALK: I think we should also explore the idea of reducing wild animal suffering, not just preserving nature in its raw (sometimes brutal) form. This is a whole other topic and there's definitely room for it on this wiki. Even in this philosophy, preserving biology still has its benefits, to eventually gather enough scientific knowledge to build [[animal utopias]] on the land we spared from agriculture. -->		In actual fact, we don't have to increase food production ''that much''{{x\|the existing global food supply [[:File:food-funnel.png\|would be]] more than enough if we didn't waste so much food, and if we didn't feed so much food to farm animals}}. We could use the high-yielding crop choices as a way to need ''less land'' for agriculture. By reducing the demand for [[land]], we could get rid of the economic pressures that cause [[deforestation]]. And besides just forests, it would become easier to preserve wild ecosystems in general.<!-- TALK: I think we should also explore the idea of reducing wild animal suffering, not just preserving nature in its raw (sometimes brutal) form. This is a whole other topic and there's definitely room for it on this wiki. Even in this philosophy, preserving biology still has its benefits, to eventually gather enough scientific knowledge to build [[animal utopias]] on the land we spared from agriculture. -->


	==Africa==		==Africa==

Elie at 06:59, 31 January 2023

2023-01-31T06:59:18Z

Show changes

Elie: /* Economics */

2022-09-28T20:20:33Z

Economics

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:20, 28 September 2022
Line 96:		Line 96:

	This would require more [[shipping]] as food would be less local. But still, overall carbon emissions would probably be '''lower''', because of all the deforestation prevented (see above). Keep in mind that ''food transport'' is only a small percent of food's environmental footprint. And it could be smaller still if foods are ''processed'' locally and shipped in their more concentrated forms.		This would require more [[shipping]] as food would be less local. But still, overall carbon emissions would probably be '''lower''', because of all the deforestation prevented (see above). Keep in mind that ''food transport'' is only a small percent of food's environmental footprint. And it could be smaller still if foods are ''processed'' locally and shipped in their more concentrated forms.

			==Africa==

			Of all the continents, Africa currently produces the least amount of [[/per capita\|food crop per capita]]. This is probably a significant cause of Africa's high [[hunger]] rates {{p2\|(although technically it doesn't have to be)\|{{todo}}}}. In the crop-choices scenario imagined, Africa produces 3 times as much food (both in terms of calories and protein). This is achieved by reallocating farmland: less land for grains, more land for sugarcane, chilis, bananas, potatoes, and garlic.
			* Interpretation 1: Africa would benefit from growing more of these high-productivity crops instead of grains. Perhaps there's a historical reason for growing grains - maybe European colonialists thought it was a good idea because grains get high yields in Europe. In that sense, if Africa switched to the other (more productive) crops, it would be a form of [[decolonization]].
			* Interpretation 2: Sugarcane gets higher yields only because corporations invest more money & [[fertilizer]] into growing it. First-world countries want sugar, and their spending power makes it happen (highly-valued currency). The same first-world system doesn't care about Africa's grains, because grains can be grown "at home". So in Africa, grains get regarded as a "peasant crop", and the people who grow them are the poorest farmers and can't afford fertilizer. If it weren't for all this, perhaps grains would yield just as many calories as sugarcane.
			* Interpretation 3: None of this really matters, because the whole crop-choices scenario is too hypothetical, and involves people eating an unrealistically high amount of chili peppers and garlic.
			These interpretations are opposed to each other. The current dataset can't tell us which one (if any) is true. If you have some clues, join the {{talk}}.

	==More considerations==		==More considerations==

Elie: /* Social, economic, and technological factors */

2022-09-28T19:23:45Z

Social, economic, and technological factors

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:23, 28 September 2022
Line 103:		Line 103:
	If a country is geographically big enough, different parts probably have different top-yielding crops (due to different soil/climate/etc). The current dataset doesn't have any info on this - crop yields are only a country-level average.		If a country is geographically big enough, different parts probably have different top-yielding crops (due to different soil/climate/etc). The current dataset doesn't have any info on this - crop yields are only a country-level average.
	====Social, economic, and technological factors====		====Social, economic, and technological factors====
	We can't ''prove'' that the top-yielding crop is always ''better-suited'' for the local region. In some cases, perhaps it just ~~has~~ more resources invested into it~~: Maybe it happens to be grown by richer people (or corporations) which have more access to~~ [[fertilizer]] ~~etc~~. In which case, some currently-less-productive crops could be just as good if given a chance. The current dataset has no info on this.		We can't ''prove'' that the top-yielding crop is always ''better-suited'' for the local region. In some cases, perhaps there are just more resources invested into it, such as [[fertilizer]]. In which case, some currently-less-productive crops could be just as good if given a chance. The current dataset has no info on this.

	==See also==		==See also==
	* [[Food]] - the main page which includes other possible ways to improve the global food supply.		* [[Food]] - the main page which includes other possible ways to improve the global food supply.

Elie: /* Scenario overview */

2022-09-28T19:20:11Z

Scenario overview

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:20, 28 September 2022
Line 6:		Line 6:
	Let's explore a hypothetical scenario in which every country grows mainly its highest-yielding crops.		Let's explore a hypothetical scenario in which every country grows mainly its highest-yielding crops.

	<tab name="Scenario details" collapsed>		<tab name="Scenario technical details" collapsed>
	'''For each country:'''		'''For each country:'''
	* Each crop is given an amount of land proportional to the ''square'' of its ''yield score.''		* Each crop is given an amount of land proportional to the ''square'' of its ''yield score.''

Elie: /* Social, economic, and technological factors */

2022-09-27T02:31:30Z

Social, economic, and technological factors

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:31, 26 September 2022
Line 103:		Line 103:
	If a country is geographically big enough, different parts probably have different top-yielding crops (due to different soil/climate/etc). The current dataset doesn't have any info on this - crop yields are only a country-level average.		If a country is geographically big enough, different parts probably have different top-yielding crops (due to different soil/climate/etc). The current dataset doesn't have any info on this - crop yields are only a country-level average.
	====Social, economic, and technological factors====		====Social, economic, and technological factors====
	~~Perhaps in some cases, it~~'~~s not~~ that the top-yielding crop is ~~actually~~ ''better-suited'' for the local region - perhaps it just has more resources invested into it. Maybe it happens to be grown by richer people/corporations which have more access to [[fertilizer]] etc. In which case, some currently-less-productive crops could be just as good if given a chance. The current dataset has no info on this.		We can't ''prove'' that the top-yielding crop is always ''better-suited'' for the local region. In some cases, perhaps it just has more resources invested into it: Maybe it happens to be grown by richer people (or corporations) which have more access to [[fertilizer]] etc. In which case, some currently-less-productive crops could be just as good if given a chance. The current dataset has no info on this.

	==See also==		==See also==
	* [[Food]] - the main page which includes other possible ways to improve the global food supply.		* [[Food]] - the main page which includes other possible ways to improve the global food supply.