2,956
edits
Archive:000/Crop choices: Difference between revisions
m
Elie moved page Crop choices to Archive:000/Crop choices without leaving a redirect: Huge_refactor
No edit summary |
m (Elie moved page Crop choices to Archive:000/Crop choices without leaving a redirect: Huge_refactor) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| 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 | What might the global food supply look like? [[User:Elie|I]] decided to do some data analysis to find out. | ||
<tab name="Technical | <tab name="Technical description 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.'' | ||
| Line 46: | 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== | ||
| Line 122: | Line 123: | ||
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 | 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== | ||
| 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 {{ | 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}}. | ||