 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Origin >
Living Forever >
Food For Thought
Permanent link to this article: http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0326.html
Printable Version |
|
| |
|
Food For Thought
Ten-year-old college student David Dalrymple recently spoke at the International Food Policy Research Institute's "Sustainable Food Security for All by 2020" Conference, sharing some suggestions about solutions to world hunger and regulation of food and drugs. This paper, written months before his presentation, has some of the ideas he shared at the conference.
Originally published on KurzweilAI.net September 27, 2001.
Thank you very much. It is a pleasure and an honor to be here. Since I only have ten minutes to talk about such a vast field, I'll only touch on a few of my ideas.
First, I'd like to recognize the importance of common sense. I read in Matt Ridley's Genome that Pioneer, the world's biggest seed company, was developing a genetically engineered product destined to help starving people -- a product where a gene from brazil nuts was introduced into soya beans. After quite a bit of testing of this product, someone thought to question if the few people worldwide who have an allergy to brazil nuts might also be allergic to this new product, and sure enough, it seems they would be. It was estimated that no more than two people per year could possibly die from the release of the product while hundreds of thousands suffering from malnutrition worldwide could be saved. The project to get this product to market was immediately terminated because of this small risk of mortality. Now, it seems to me if people aren't willing to accept this risk to use this product, they could at least allow it to be used in other nations where the people using it would starve to death anyway and have nothing to lose and everything, including weight, to gain if the product is consumed there.
I'd like to point out that bees killed 41 Americans in 1993 before the so called killer bees had much of a presence in America, which means bees kill more than 20 times the number of Americans this product would likely kill if introduced to the USA. Are people rushing to make bees extinct? No, indeed, we have insect pathologists working to rid honey bees of disease because one-third of the US food production depends on bees as they pollinate flowers that turn into fruits and vegetables, plants, and trees. Americans also eat about 275 million pounds of honey each year. Had the soya bean product been part of our diet for many years already, we would not suddenly pull it off the market because two Americans died a year. To do so would simply lack of common sense.
Second, I know that the IFPRI is working to protect the environment, and my next suggestion is: don't use so much packaging on food! Many of the food products that we have bought are only half full. The other half of the container is more garbage to dump in the trash. Even if it goes into recycling, energy, probably from non-renewable resources, is used at the plant. Although I understand the purpose, extra marketing is not a good compromise for environmental safety. In addition, it costs money (at the factory) and other non-renewable resources, namely cardboard, to create these oversized boxes of food. This money could have been spent on food, unless the following mission of the IFPRI succeeds.
Third, I agree with the IFPRI that world food prices should be lowered. Perhaps we should even go back to bartering. If country one is good at making wheat, and country two is good at making flour, if they start bartering, they can have bread for everyone. At the very least, countries with starving people must learn to produce something of value, which they can trade for food. It is unlikely that the inherent value of food will decrease. However, the value of countries' major exports can change. Suppose we define a new currency called a food dollar, representing the cost of a meal.
Fourth, I want to suggest we look into the possibility of cultivating food either under water or on water or both. 72% of the Earth's surface is covered by water, versus only 28% by land. We only grow food directly on the land, so we are using but one level of farming. Oceans are miles deep and so can introduce a third dimension and potentially have a far greater area to farm. One idea for doing this would be by using underwater domes to grow food. We could blow a hole in each dome, put a pipe through the hole, and seal up the hole, with the pipe still in it. We'd run the pipe up above the surface of the water to a pump. We'd pump all the water out. Then, we'd send pill-shaped transport mechanisms to this place, carrying a few farmers and seeds to create a new farm. With some technological innovation (which we have plenty of) we could transport harvested crops back up the pipe to refineries on land, or underwater themselves. This would allow abandonment of current farms for living space. Much land is sparsely inhabited, and we may have surplus food, even after feeding all their fill, except for super-hungry Americans, who eat twice their fill (If the Chinese decided to live like the Americans, there would not be enough food for either country, even if all other food is surrendered to them).
Fifth, LINCOS (Little INtelligent COmmunitieS) is a project sponsored by M.I.T. that could provide assistance in several ways. LINCOS is a project where computer stations are set up in developing countries for people to be able to experiment with computer technology. Once a citizen masters the computer, he or she may then write software or create devices which can then be sold on the global market as a viable product. Such computer stations would also aid in the educations of citizens by means of educational software and a connection to the World Wide Web. One use for computer education would be to show children whose parents have unfortunately died prematurely how to farm, though obviously this would not be a preferred substitute for human teachers or parents. Technology would be a substantial benefit to those unknown but hard-working craftsmen in developing countries--they could open their own website and begin e-business trading. It would truly open a whole new world.
At first, I myself thought using LINCOS to help starving communities sounded like it might be a childlike and ridiculous idea, but I wrote someone at the MIT Media Lab and he informed me that they are currently working on something very similar.
Also, I would like to mention to you that last but not least, food security is highly related to military activity in the area concerned and that we need to find a way to keep the peace in developing countries.
Those are all my ideas! Thank you very much, and have a good day.
Sustainable Food Security For All By 2020 Conference
| | Join the discussion about this article on Mind·X! | |
|
| |
Mind·X Discussion About This Article:
 |
|
|
 |
Things to consider...
|
|
 |
|
Farming under water?
<br>
<br>
Now, tell me if I'm wrong, but don't plants require sunlight to grow? Last I checked, the bottom of that 72% of the Earth that is under water is mostly devoid of light. So, to make the whole \"farming under water\" idea work would require artifical light, which would, in turn, require energy. So where do you get the energy to power all the lights? Solar power? A battery? A gas powered generator? Or perhaps a hampster on a running wheel? Then again, new technologies can use hydorgen to prudoce a whole lot of energy, so that might work after all.
<br>
<br>
Then again...
<br>
<br>
A lot of land underwater is a long distance down. The pressure is pretty intense near the bottom of the ocean. The dome would have to be very strong to have air on the inside and all the water outside.
<br>
<br>
More than that, the very current of the water would probaly twist any \"pipe\" run from a dome to the surface.
<br>
<br>
Just my two cents... |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Re: Things to consider...
|
|
|
|
Before anyone even continues this discussion on submarine farming, I'd like to just comment that this is obviously just fanciful idea until the technology is advanced enough and there are sufficient funds as to make this process a tangible alternative to simply improving current 'on-land' agricultural methods. With that out of the way, I would just like to address the premise of the Conference in general. I will be careful not to judge David's proposal as I am far from the entitlement to criticize him, being three years older than him and still in middle school. I am not sure if this was already addressed at the conference, but these are just my personal ideas concerning 'World Hunger'.
To begin with, all of the argument's I've heard craft the image that our planet does not have the agricultural capabilities to provide food for all of its residents. Also, there is a popular little phrase I have heard so often to the extent that it seems so unprofound to me, stating that Americans eat twice the amount of food they require while others are starving. Of course this is likely true, but has it been considered why those people are starving? The simple answer is overpopulation. There are many possible reasons for this overpopulation, but one of the culprits I entertain as being the chief offender is the poor government seen in these regions. In fact, I believe that it is _not_ the poverty, starvation, and overpopulation that causes the poor administration of these nations, but all of these plights are the ramifications of bad management.
People in these countries have no social security of any sort provided by their government. Typically in countries with social security benefits, an elderly adult can be confident knowing the fact that they will be able to live without financial worry, _and do not necessarily need their children to provide for them_. Meanwhile, in a country without Social security, the only way to ensure housing, food, and money as an elderly adult is to rely on their children. The more children you have, the more secure your future is. Generally having more [male] children in these regions is advantageous to the success of your family. But of course, when everyone has more children, overpopulation occurs, and we are all familiar with the problems that causes, including starvation. And I propose that this overpopulation is because of the lack of social security. Look at India, Africa, South America, etc. all of these _could be_ examples (unless they are caused by the problems, and are not the cause of the problems, but that is what I am arguing).
Oh man, that was a huge waste of time. Probably no one cares, and my opinion is probably in some way incorrect. I doubt anyone will respond either. I'd rather get a flame than no response. Anyway, I am supposed to be concluding this now'
--Celia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Things to consider...
|
|
|
|
David himself has come back to make a rebuttal, at age 11.
Of course all this is far out, but it's not quite as far out as you might think -- today's technology is up to it. Indeed, plants do need sunlight. Sunlight to submarine farms can be supplied by the same tube used to send food and farmers. (Ever heard of Solatube(r)?) Indeed, any current would twist the tube at such depths. Innovative pod design makes this a non-issue. (Ever heard of the St. Louis Gateway Arch?) Indeed, the dome would need to be very strong. But strong metals alleviate this problem (Ever heard of Alvin?), and by the time these farms will be built, we will have nanotubes 50 times stronger. Indeed, money needs to become available. Global money deficiencies make this a huge problem... (Ever heard of the global monetary recession?)
So if ever a politician decides to increase the national deficit by building underwater farms, there will be more food in the world.
Yours,
David Dalrymple |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Things to consider...
|
|
|
|
So if ever a politician decides to increase the national deficit by building underwater farms, there will be more food in the world. It seems to me you don't understand basic economics, but then again, 99.99% of people don't, so it's understandable. I suggest you read "Capitalism: The unknown ideal" by Ayn Rand or "You can Profit from a monetary crisis" by Harry Browne, or even "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt. Or "Capitalism and Freedom" or "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman.
The government doesn't create wealth. It redistributes it. Production and innovation of individuals and corporations create wealth via productive labor, which includes thought. As the government prints more money, the money is worth less.
There is no surer recipe for disaster than misallocating finances by the use of government force. If governments attempt to cure hunger, the result will be more hunger --force is a poorer tool than cooperation.
Were governments to get out of the way, there would be vastly more trade, and vastly less hunger, as a result. That's what the "bad management" in your speech ought to be referring to. As it stands, you're too vague.
-Jake Witmer
http://freealaska.blogspot.com
http://jcwitmer.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Food For Thought
|
|
|
|
>>WE CARE MORE ABOUT MAINTAINING OUR CURRENT SYSTEM EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW IT DOESN'T PRODUCE ANYMORE MILLIONAIRES THAN COMMUNISN DOES. GREED GREED GREED, WHAT ABOUT THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?
Whoa, hold it right there. Communism fails for that precise reason: greed. thats why our system "produces more millionares": plainly speaking, it produces more. humans are more selfish than idealistic, so any system that taps our greed is going to produce a higher standard of living. Until, of course, say, a singularity raised the intelligence of society causing a shift toward idealism.
but thats another thread.
You can discuss agricultural alternatives all day, but theres no need to, because r+d is always consistent with supply needs, which is always determined by demand, and the the demand is determined by... money. To feed these starving people in a permanent and stable way, you must develop their country. There is simply no avoiding it.
enter Globalization.
But im not talking about Sweatshop Nike globalization, we would need a globalization that is more closely tied to government participation. Something less republican than the world bank or wto.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Food For Thought
|
|
|
|
Indeed. I've thought the same thing. The fittestis what comes along and survives. it doesn't matter if it's engineered. Everything in the future will be engineered, because that's the most efficient way to design things. Engineered (even GA engineered) things will outperform simple evolution.
Nature will ramp up to redesigning itself for survival, primarily from outgrowths of human and machine intelligence (aided human intelligence).
We should already be farming Alaska, but freedom is necessary first. Government primarily functions as a negative and unnecessary check on creativity and performance.
If government were eliminated, there would already be giant cities in Alaska taking advantage of the long growing seasons there with GE crops designed to take advantage of the long growing hours and plentiful land. Moreover, the greenhouse effect could be taken advantage of to expand the summers significantly, especially when coupled with a carefully engineered wind and runoff water generator system, and nanotube solar cells.
Any city should be designed to be modular (like Busckminster Fuller's houses), (like a shopping mall comprised of cells and areas that could be shut down/opened seasonally, connected with walkways that sealed individual cells and wlkways airtight).
This can only happen when people are politically free.
Noone would allow the government to control such an enterprise. Plus, such an enterprise might only be initially cost-covering if the area had more freedom (sexual freedom, contract freedom, gambling freedom) necessary to attract investors in the project.
A voluntary city could work in Alaska, but only if the AK State legislature went totally libertarian first. The initial benefits of a 21/40 libertarian State legislature would be obvious, immediately following the success.
Indeed, for a current cost of less than $1,050,000.00 the entire AK State legislature could be easily converted to libertarianism, electorally.
This would be way cheaper than participating in a back and forth battle in the lower 49 that would eventually end up in a compromised freedom anyway. Plus, were it to be attempted successfully now, we could avoid putting thousands of poor blacks and minorities and a few innocent whites in jail for certain kinds of nonviolent property possession.
If there are any millionaires out there to whom freedom is important RIGHT NOW, feel free to email me at jcwitmer@hotmail.com, ...or just watch and wait.
Alaska will lead the rest of the USA in freedom and technological innovation, in the form of a political Singularity / New Enlightenment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Food For Thought
|
|
|
|
Communism fails because all collectivism is less efficient and less moral than voluntary exchange. It is immoral to demand that people support your ideas, it is moral to ASK them to support your ideas.
Communism is just a powerful state. If the US grows all powerful, all the same things that happen in a communist government will happen here. Just because the US calls itself capitalist doesn't make it so.
Capitalism is free trade. If someone tells you you can't build something, trade, something, etc.. in the name of the collective good (without naming a specific wronged party), then that is collectivism. Collectivism in power is statism. All forms of statism differ only in the tools they use to confuse the people who support them by the default action of NOT OPPOSING them. Statism is the opposite of Capitalism.
For instance, Hitler's nazis killed all kinds of "communist" partisans (and innocent resistors) for not supporting nazism, and Stalin killed all kinds of nazis defectors (and innocent resistors) for not supporting Stalin. These actions themselves were similar. In Italy "We the Living" was banned by Mussolini's fascist government, until that fascist government realized(the obvious) that the movie was anti-state, not just anti-communist.
In the US, our government now strips people of their property with no trial by jury if those people possess certain drugs, have valuable property that powerful bureaucrats covet (eminent domain), possess guns in certain areas, move faster than a certain arbitrary limit on a public thoroughfare, attempt to tell people that stevia is sweet or that small doses of aspirin reduce the risk of heart attack, etc... These are examples of State controls that violate people's rights.
As the stupid and easily misled grow less secure, they allocate more power to the state by voting, which makes them less secure, and restricts information via government controls on speech (while at the same time punishing those who speak, and making it likely that those responsible for such punishment will seek to avoid being named as the enemies of free speech, thus avoiding the likelihood that they will bear the onus --be confronted-- for the damage they've caused).
This is why the state grows to a certain large size and then falls to violent rebellion.
The violent rebellion happens when certain strong and intelligent people decide that the limitations on their success and happiness are less worth bearing than the risk of violent death.
We are fast approaching such a point now, regardless of how noisily the sheep who love the state may bleat.
So yes, the government will "regulate" whether or not we can genetically engineer or redesign our environment, to a point. Then, they will be destroyed (likely at great cost to human life) or stripped of power, and we will do so anyway. This will happen regardless of what the fascists of the Left and Right say or do. It is nature's way.
-Jake |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Food For Thought
|
|
|
|
emohgol = loghome? -Yeah, a little cabin, in Montana, just like the unabomber. Keep your eye on the pea, youre another victim of a tired shellgame.
The problem isn't that we have capitalism, or greed, it's that we DON'T have those things. We have government controlled statism, just like Russia had. We call it a "mixed economy", they called it communism. Either way, it's bogus theft disguised as altruism, neither of which is a legitimate goal.
You need to read Ayn Rand's nonfiction, slowly, and think about what she says. I'd also recommend the book "Why Government Doesn't Work" by Harry Browne, if you want something that is more agnostic about the areas of philosophy which are less clear, and focuses more on economics.
Capitalism isn't the disease it's the cure. Stop being part of the simpleton crowd that misdefines it, and then rails against it. It's tired.
Also, show me an organism with no self-interest, and I'll show you something backwards and unhealthy, that steals for its food. Man shouldn't be like this, but that's what statism is. If you rail against both statism and capitalism (two opposeites), you're railing against reality. Waah. I don't feel like getting out of bed either sometimes, but it's better than starving.
Jake
http://jcwitmer.blogspot.com
http://freealaska.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
