After Millennia of Agricultural Expansion, the World Has Passed 'Peak Agricultural Land' (ourworldindata.org) 88
The world produces more food than ever, but the amount of land we use is now falling. From a report: Agricultural land is the total of arable land that is used to grow crops, and pasture used to raise livestock. Measuring exactly how much land we use for agriculture is difficult. If all farms were simply rows of densely-planted crops it would be straightforward to calculate how much land is being used. Just draw a square around the field and calculate its area. But across much of the world, this is not how farming looks: it's often low-density; mixed in with rural villages; in tiny smallholdings that are somewhere between a garden and a farm. Where farmland starts and ends is not always clear-cut. As a result, there are a range of estimates for how much land is used for agriculture.
Here I have brought together the three leading analyses on the change in global land use. Each uses a different methodology, as explained in the chart (in the linked post). The UN FAO produces the bedrock data for each of these analyses from 1961 onwards; however, the researchers apply their own methodologies on top, and extend this series further back in time. As you can see, they disagree on how much land is used for agriculture, and the time at which land use peaked. But they do all agree that we have passed the peak. This marks a historic moment in humanity's relationship to the planet; a crucial step in its protection of the world's ecosystems. It shows that the future of food production does not need to follow the destructive path that it did in the past. If we continue on this path we will be able to restore space for the planet's wilderness and wildlife.
Here I have brought together the three leading analyses on the change in global land use. Each uses a different methodology, as explained in the chart (in the linked post). The UN FAO produces the bedrock data for each of these analyses from 1961 onwards; however, the researchers apply their own methodologies on top, and extend this series further back in time. As you can see, they disagree on how much land is used for agriculture, and the time at which land use peaked. But they do all agree that we have passed the peak. This marks a historic moment in humanity's relationship to the planet; a crucial step in its protection of the world's ecosystems. It shows that the future of food production does not need to follow the destructive path that it did in the past. If we continue on this path we will be able to restore space for the planet's wilderness and wildlife.
Population is probably peaked (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Naw, Agenda 21 [reference.com] is moving forward piece by piece. There are better ways of farming to be more productive but the food is more costly. We're all getting boiled slowly in that pot right now.
There's a lot of challenges to be sure (Score:5, Interesting)
So sure, the 1% are gonna fight against it, but I keep coming back to something a guy in China said: "We are the last generation". Having no or fewer children is the ultimate fuck you to Authority. Because it means they can't threaten your family to bring you in line. There's something truly liberating about having nothing to lose.
Re: (Score:1)
Scarcity creates anarchy which creates an opportunity for elites to react moving the agenda forward at a more rapid pace. The WEF is a prime example of an NGO of elites who wants to reshape the world by such ideas as microchips in medication to insure "compliance" for example. They fly around in their multi-million dollar jets spewing their dogma of world control. They buy politicians and elections; through them can basically wipe out any notion of human or civil rights that you may hold dear.
If you look at
Re: (Score:3)
Scarcity creates anarchy
This doesn't sound true to me. Anarchy is the default state, which then naturally provides opportunity for those with the will to manipulate it into another more personally profitable state, which is presumably why we so seldom see anarchies, and the likelihood becomes smaller as groups grow larger.
Scarcity does create a lot of potential motivations, though, since every problem is an opportunity for someone, usually someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
We have people being murdered for their shoes, [chron.com] let's say now that the perps of that crime were trying to feed their family. Things can get tribal very quickly even in a well-established society.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: There's a lot of challenges to be sure (Score:2)
A family that can afford them.
The 1980s called (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Elon Musk can tell me what to do and I'm gonna do it or he'll destroy my life.
Very dramatic, and also very divorced from reality. Elon Musk hasn't destroyed anyone's life.
The closest I can think of is the shameful incident where he said on Twitter that a guy he didn't like was probably a pedophile. (And then doubled down and then tripled down on the joke.) That guy sued him and he was forced to apologize.
So if you want me to be scared of Elon Musk, please provide a list of all the people he has "destroye
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
again, there's a lot of folks trying to create a theocratic dictatorship with the world's most powerful military right now.
China isn't the most powerful military yet. I assume you're cool with definitions of "theocratic dictatorship" that random people pull out of their asses just to make their opinion sound more important, right?
Re: (Score:2)
China isn't the most powerful military yet.
China is neither the most powerful nor a theocratic dictatorship. In fact, it is neither theocratic nor a dictatorship. WinXi the Pu isn't running that whole country any old way he likes.
On the other hand, Republicans have tried to overthrow democracy, and a 2/3 catholic majority has been put in charge of deciding what is constitutional already. It's not hard to imagine their end game, and it looks a lot like a Margaret Atwood novel.
Re: (Score:2)
China is neither the most powerful nor a theocratic dictatorship. In fact, it is neither theocratic nor a dictatorship. WinXi the Pu isn't running that whole country any old way he likes.
On the other hand, Republicans have tried to overthrow democracy, and a 2/3 catholic majority has been put in charge of deciding what is constitutional already. It's not hard to imagine their end game, and it looks a lot like a Margaret Atwood novel.
I was replying to this ridiculous comment:
assuming we don't descend into a theocratic dictatorship birth control and general effects of modernization will lead to a shrinking human population. That'll mean less farm land in use. Assuming we don't kill ourselves with nukes or climate change or general stupidity (again, there's a lot of folks trying to create a theocratic dictatorship with the world's most powerful military right now... ) we're on track for that Star Trek style Utopia we've all been pining for.
The poster claiming that repealing a shit law is driving us to a theocratic dictatorship was foolish and without merit. China is was closer to being a theocracy than most western countries (my opinion and more than happy to discuss). However, these comments show that we likely won't agree:
Republicans have tried to overthrow democracy, and a 2/3 catholic majority has been put in charge of deciding what is constitutional already.
. You confuse a part for the whole. Stop trying to decide who is good and evil based on the talking points handed to you. Do you honestly believe that "Republicans have tried to
Re: (Score:2)
You confuse a part for the whole. Stop trying to decide who is good and evil based on the talking points handed to you. Do you honestly believe that "Republicans have tried to overthrow democracy"?
Yes. That's what the evidence shows.
If so, then you are giving yourself an excuse to deride, ignore, and imprison a large percentage of the country.
Giving myself? I didn't attempt a coup.
Same with your irresponsible Catholic comment. I'm not Catholic, but Pelosi and Biden are, so is that your point?
Pelosi and Biden are fascist shitstains too. Pelosi is protecting insider trading (and the even worse things congress does where they not only act on insider information, they are the insiders) and Biden is doing his level best to avoid keeping his economic campaign promises, because corporate interests don't want him to. There are real differences between the parties though, and let's not pretend there aren't. They just aren't in au
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. That's what the evidence shows.
I'll call your bluff. Prove that "Republicans have tried to overthrow democracy". Are you talking about the small group of dip-shits on January 6th that "attacked" the capital with flags and chants while security held the doors open for them? I think the morons who tried to smash open the doors of the Supreme Court to prevent the appointment of a Justice is equal. I didn't accuse those people of insurrection because I'm not a partisan fool.
If so, then you are giving yourself an excuse to deride, ignore, and imprison a large percentage of the country.
Giving myself? I didn't attempt a coup.
Willful ignorance is still ignorance. Explain the coup attempt to me
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about the small group of dip-shits on January 6th that "attacked" the capital with flags and chants while security held the doors open for them?
If you don't know that ever more information about Republican insiders being involved in that process is coming to light as the Jan 6th committee investigates, then you're hiding from the news.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I assumed he meant America. The Republican Party is quite religious and bases policy on Christian dogma. They don't have much respect for democracy either and half of them seem to think the Democrats already stole it anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The Republican Party is quite religious and bases policy on Christian dogma. They don't have much respect for democracy either and half of them seem to think the Democrats already stole it anyway.
Those are your opinions. They are also talking points that address a fringe minority of conservatives. Those talking points were handed to you and you happily regurgitate them as if they're facts.
Should liberals be judged by their fringe constituents? We could judge liberals by the Summer 2020 riots if that is how this works. Hell, the liberal leadership stoked those flames of that national embarrassment (if you ask, I'll be happy to source that info for you, from CNN and MSNBC no less). Federal buildings
Re: (Score:2)
The Republican Party is quite religious and bases policy on Christian dogma. They don't have much respect for democracy either and half of them seem to think the Democrats already stole it anyway.
Those are your opinions. They are also talking points that address a fringe minority of conservatives. Those talking points were handed to you and you happily regurgitate them as if they're facts.
It's just dawned on me that you think people are talking about average Republican supporters when they say this stuff. No, they're talking about congresscreeps and the like. They are always citing YHWH as their excuse for doing something abominable. What most people think about the average Republican is what most people in the world think about the average American. Let's not belabor the details here, but they are more likely to think they're dumb than evil. Evil implies understanding. The Republican leader
Re: (Score:2)
The Republican Party is quite religious and bases policy on Christian dogma. They don't have much respect for democracy either and half of them seem to think the Democrats already stole it anyway.
Those are your opinions. They are also talking points that address a fringe minority of conservatives. Those talking points were handed to you and you happily regurgitate them as if they're facts.
It's just dawned on me that you think people are talking about average Republican supporters when they say this stuff. No, they're talking about congresscreeps and the like. They are always citing YHWH as their excuse for doing something abominable. What most people think about the average Republican is what most people in the world think about the average American. Let's not belabor the details here, but they are more likely to think they're dumb than evil. Evil implies understanding. The Republican leadership is evil, the Republicans en masse are just easily led.
You could, can, will, and probably should say the same thing about Democrats. Both parties are provably working for big money before they're working for The People. But the republican leadership for whatever reason is continually attempting to erode personal freedoms of all kinds, where the democratic party is usually "only" trying to prevent you from fighting the influence of the money that they love just as much as anyone else. And they are continually claiming god wants them to do it.
If an idiot like me can think critically, maybe you should give it a shot.
Maybe you should give it a shot.
It's great to see that we actually agree on quite a bit. I do think it's important to specify that you're talking about the leadership of a group instead of speaking about the group by a general term. There are people who consider themselves "Republicans" or "Democrats", so saying republican or democrats are evil is not productive when making persuasive arguments. I fail at it too, but I do think it's important to specify the group you speak about.
The parts that make me bristle (obvious it's a personal pro
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans just stacked the Supreme Court and made abortion illegal, citing religious views that life starts at conception.
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans just stacked the Supreme Court and made abortion illegal, citing religious views that life starts at conception.
Wow, none of that was true. You shoved three lies into one sentence. I'm not even annoyed, I'm truly impressed. The Supreme Court didn't make abortion illegal. They're repealing Roe v Wade which was a shit law and legislation by judicial order. Now states will decide the fate of such laws. It should be a bit easier to let your state know what laws you do and don't want. You could even petition your state legislature to allow the citizens of the state to vote on abortion laws. Sounds like democracy to me. In
Re: (Score:2)
There are no IPCC scenarios in which we kill ourselves, so climate change is out. We're having a war in Ukraine right now, and everyone is super careful not to trigger nuclear exchange by accident. This and the same thing between India and Pakistan show that even in pretty extreme scenarios, nuclear exchanges appear to be out of the picture.
That leaves general stupidity, like not procreating enough, which leads to resource starvation, cessation of progress and rolling back of much of the human civilization.
Re: Population is probably peaked (Score:2)
At some point it is bound to happen, it is almost a certainty. The only questions are will it happen before or after humans have self-sustaining multi-planetary colonies and can it be contained.
Re: Population is probably peaked (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Life... eh... finds a way." - Dr. Ian Malcolm
Re: Population is probably peaked (Score:3)
So the 1 child policy of China might have been the right solution all the time. The alternative would be Soylent Green.
Re: (Score:2)
"Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." - Spock
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If future humans were screwing it up, then it wouldn't be peak population yet.
Think before posting, people, think!
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, the prediction is world population will peak at around 11 billion people in a few decades. Hans Rosling had a TED talk where he explained that we're already at peak kid and peak 20something. What's happening is the older age brackets are still filling out.
The happy observation is as people get access to decent pediatric health care (that is, health care which keeps children from dying before age 5) and birth control, they seem to universally and spontaneously opt to have about two children. This has h
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of dictatorships and arable land...
Lysenko in the USSR had a theory in the 1920s, totally and wildly unscientific, that plants of the same species do not compete against each other for resources. And this meant that in his theory, you could plant crops very closer together and greatly increased crop yields. Completely stupid of course, but he was a firm denier of Mendelian genetics too. Then combine that stupid idea with some of his other stupid ideas, like that you could train spring wheat to b
Re: (Score:2)
First we need to figure out how to make our very productive mode of farming sustainable without relying on fossil fuels to make fertilizer, phosphorus dug from mines, and water pumped from non-renewable aquifers. There are traditional farming methods which are sustainable, but they won't scale to the levels we currently need them to. The question will be if the declining population line will cross the resource consumption line in time?
I think we will need better ways of recovering nutrients and water from
Country Mansions, Theme Parks, Shopping Malls (Score:1)
Because land is much more valuable when chopped up for McMansions...
Fuck the wildlife: PROFIT$
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot golf courses. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes, we have *great* plans for all of that former agricultural land.
Because land is much more valuable when chopped up for McMansions...
Fuck the wildlife: PROFIT$
Er.... if the land was being used for agriculture prior to being developed into McMansions and/or golf courses, the previous owners probably made a deliberate effort to eradicate any actual wildlife there on a regular basis. McMansions & golf courses probably aren't beneficial to wildlife, but let's not pretend the wildlife lived in a green ecotopia bliss back when it was still farmland, either.
Re: (Score:2)
McMansions & golf courses probably aren't beneficial to wildlife
While the golf courses are likely going to eradicate gophers, groundhogs, etc. [youtu.be], the homeowners most likely won't, and it's a fair assessment that neither of them are going to treat e.g. deer as pests and shoot them, like farmers would when the deer show up to eat the crops. So from that point of view, both the golf courses and the McMansions are likely far more beneficial to wildlife than farmland.
We can easily support 1 trillion people on Earth (Score:3)
Food is just calories (carbs and proteins) plus some trace minerals. We can synthesize that. We don't even need plants. Proteins and carbohydrates can be synthesized. It's just fucking organic chemistry. We can cheat using enzymes I suppose. Anyway, I figure civilization evolves in this order:
1. foraging
2. outdoor farming of wild species
3. outdoor farming with cross-species hybridization and artificial selection to produce domesticated crops like rice, corn, and wheat
4. outdoor farming with GMO and gene editing to produce pest resistance and high yield
5. indoor farming under lights
6. genetically engineering cells to produce proteins and carbs in giant vats to
6. Total chemical synthesis.
Each of those steps requires fewer and fewer resources.
On a global scale, our food supply is mostly at step 3 of evolution and transitioning to step 4.
I reckon by the time we get to step 5 or 6, we should have sustainable energy sources like solar and ideally nuclear fusion.
As for 1 trillion on Earth that is easily doable if people stopped being misanthropic. Maybe we'll have to gene edit ourselves to be tolerant of others, or else even a population of 2 is overpopulation because one person would get jealous of the others' continent.
Re: (Score:2)
Indoor farming requires many more resources than outdoor farming. Tech bros are fucking idiots.
He didn't claim we are at #5 yet. Indoor farming currently uses less land, water and nutrients than traditional farming, but it cannot make up for the loss of sunlight. The energy it takes to provide this light is cost prohibitive for most crops. But all it takes in the future is for either land, water, and organic nutrients to become more expensive, or for energy production to become less expensive. One or more of these things happening is plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
greenhouses are a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Other person was talking about the sci-fi biodome type places where you have hundreds of layers so sunlight is blocked unless they are on some automated rotating contraption which uses up power.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, do you need all of the biodiversity in the food supply? Do we need pineapples? I'm not a horticultural expert but I think there are technical ways of solving the productivity issues of indoor farming, shit get some indoor pot growers on the problem! I can't believe that indoor farming would be less beneficial than say crytomining to society and it actually might even pay out better in the long term.
Re: We can easily support 1 trillion people on Ea (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No. It doesn't. Non-STEM people are fools. Reference: https://www.edengreen.com/blog... [edengreen.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's nonsense today, but may well be true one day. Nature can only use randomness while we can direct inquiry, so even though nature's experiments are massively parallel, ours can accomplish ends faster. Nature might well have solved any given problem in some other star system, but it can't get here in time to help us.
We should be both preserving nature and trying to improve upon it, though. If we're so much greater than nature then we should have no need to shit up what we've got anyway. If we're not, then
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We can already do a lot of things more efficiently than nature, and do many things nature literally doesn't appear to be able to do at all (without producing something similar to us.) I'm not spouting anything, this isn't the future, it's reality. Achieving nature's efficiency in this particular area is the future, but if we don't wipe ourselves out first, we'll get there.
We can definitely produce a subset of what we eat through these means already. We're doing it, in fact.
Re: We can easily support 1 trillion people on Ear (Score:2)
We can fix nitrogen via non fossil sources already, via crop rotation. We just can't fix as much. It's possible we'll come up with economically viable industrial processes for producing nitrogen on the forms currently used, but realistically in our lifetimes it'll be plain old rotation and cover crops. Which means severe drops in yields as well, probably back to numbers more like the 1960s. And that's going to undercut the premise of this story.
Realistically I expect to see grain output in the US and Europe
Re:We can easily support 1 trillion people on Eart (Score:4, Informative)
I think a lot of tech people vastly underestimate the scope and scale of modern agriculture.
Want to blow your mind? Try this: Go to Google Earth and pick a spot in the midwest. Pretty much any spot will do. As you start zooming in, you'll notice the state looks oddly pixelated. As you zoom in further, you realize those aren't pixels. Those are all farms..
https://earth.google.com/web/@... [google.com]
Nearly the ENTIRETY of the US midwest is literally covered by farms. Almost all of it. And that's not including smaller agricultural regions elsewhere in the country - the two coastal regions, the south, even Hawaii. It's pretty damned amazing how much farmland is actually used. And while the US is a net food exporter, it can't exactly feed the world by itself.
Now consider for just a moment how many buildings and how much power would be required to move all those farms indoors, to grow things like that in hydroponics, or even in other artificial ways. It's fucking mind-boggling. Yes, the artificial farms would be more efficient, but the sheer scale of the production that would be required is still daunting just to feed our current population.
Also, in regard to the whole "make carbs in vats" thing, I think people are also underestimating the population's attachment to eating actual grown food, rather than a synthesized carb shake. Eating is one of the fundamental pleasures in life, is deeply tied to social bonding, and as such, I don't see people easily giving it up. What we might see is a combination of the two methods, where more processed foods use "manufactured" organics, while grown veggies are still sold for more traditional meals.
I'm not saying it's not possible. I'm just not seeing it in any conceivable timescale that we can realistically predict, or even say for certain that it will actually happen at all. IMO, we're going to be firmly at #4 and just edging into #5 & #6 for a very long time.
Re: (Score:2)
As you start zooming in, you'll notice the state looks oddly pixelated. As you zoom in further, you realize those aren't pixels. Those are all farms. https://earth.google.com/web/@... [google.com]
I see your square pixel farms, and raise you ROUND PIXELS!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Well put. Most people have no idea how much space food takes up. The vast majority of land used by humans is just for food.
Consider a recent /. post on the Good Meat lab grown meat, and how they're aiming for 13,700 tons a year by 2030 with four-story vats.
Sounds like a lot? Not even the slightest. That will offset 3 hours of annual meat consumption in the US (math here: https://veganfidelity.com/flas... [veganfidelity.com] ). That's NOTHING. And that's their ambitious goal for 2030, and likely won't even hit that. We simply c
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just not seeing it in any conceivable timescale that we can realistically predict
As I noted in my post, Tony Seba has predicted [youtube.com] major disruption to dairy agriculture within the next ten years, and disruption to meat agriculture soon after that.
Nearly the ENTIRETY of the US midwest is literally covered by farms.
Tony Seba had an infographic about this, and projected that much of this land will be freed up for other uses in the long run. It's about 51 minutes in.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to reduce the land used for growing cereals for the reasons you describe. It's a lot easier to do it with leafy greens, for a whole bunch of reasons. They lend themselves to vertical aeroponics, in particular, so you can dramatically reduce your square footage. They don't travel well, so producing them near the point of consumption reduces waste while improving freshness. Strawberries can also work well, and some other crops are starting to be grown as they get figured out.
A little less than 25% o
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot #5b - recycling & Soylent Green.
Your analysis is interesting and insightful, certainly accurate on the afferent historical side, numbers 1 through 3, and thoughtfully predictive about the efferent future side of things 4 to 7.
But there is a flaw when you get to 6 & 7.
Genetic engineering #6 requires biological reactors, mainly as living organisms, and total chemical synthesis means ex vivo bioreactions or else conventional synthetic chemistry.
But proteins and structural substrate depend on
Re: We can easily support 1 trillion people on Ear (Score:2)
1 trillion serfs and one autocrat
about your 1 trillion people (Score:2)
Summary skips the main point. (Score:2)
There is still plenty of land available for farming and ranching, there is just less need, so not sure where there "peak farm land" is coming from since that peak term is used to indicate that the max production has been reach and there is a lack of the resource, like in "peak oil"
Re: (Score:2)
+1. A lot of land was historically farmed in ways that make zero economic sense when you have food being grown on vast factory farms staffed by industrial robots (if you look at some of the purpose-built machinery used by companies like ConAgra to grow crops like corn and wheat, they ARE literally industrial robots that run with fairly minimal human oversight).
Also, as much as some people like to bitch about McMansions on quarter-acre lots, 99.9% of new construction in cities like Miami is more of a novel,
Great news? (Score:2)
I guess... (Score:2)
... it's time to grow up?
In the USA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What does the USA pay the farmers to not plant? I thought Nixon did away with that system and had them growing tons of subsidized corn which wrecked Mexico's economy for starters...
Agreed (Score:2)
In my area the number of farms has been decreasing for decades. For sale signs are up all over the place as farmers sell their land to developers who will build shit row homes (calling them townhouses doesn't change the fact) devoid of any vegetation save the lawn. Nothing like having your home baked for six to seven months out of the year because there are no trees around (which helps to increase climate change).
Most of these farms were for feed corn so they weren't used for people. But people drink milk
Re: Agreed (Score:1)
We are getting into vertical farms (Score:2)
Just like with the building 100 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Like "Peak Oil"? (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know... (Score:2)
Land use will drop further with factory meat (Score:3)
Tony Seba, and his think tank "RethinkX", are predicting that in the next ten years or so agriculture will undergo a major upheaval as efficient factory processes make milk, meat replacements, and meat.
Just as factories make insulin now, the same technology ("precision fermentation") is making milk protein that was never inside a cow. I bought a pint of ice cream made with factory milk protein... it's for sale at stores near me right now.
Here's a one-hour Tony Seba presentation about the major upheavals coming in the near future. Electric vehicles will disrupt combustion vehicles; robotaxis will disrupt personal ownership of vehicles; renewable energy will disrupt non-renewable; and precision fermentation will disrupt dairy and meat businesses. He has a slide showing just how much land is given over to agriculture that is in support of the meat industry.
Factory production of dairy products and meat replacements or meat will use less water and other resources, and not need as much land. Tony Seba suggests that this will free up the land for other uses.
Note that this disruption will be terrible for existing dairy farmers and meat farmers, but in the long run will be good for the average person.
This is only an hour and is packed with ideas. It's well worth your time to watch. The part specific to agriculture starts around 45 minutes in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj96nxtHdTU [youtube.com]
Note: I wouldn't bet on the graphs from this video being perfect. I wouldn't take out short positions against dairy farmers based on his predictions. But I think the trends are irrefutable. The cost curves on batteries make electric cars inevitable; the cost curves on wind, solar, and batteries make renewable power inevitable; and the cost curves on factory milk and meat make these inevitable.
There will always be a market for natural milk, natural meat, etc. but I do believe these will become niche markets rather than the mainstream.
P.S. He can't be 100% right about everything. For example, he predicts that robotaxis will result in less traffic on the road; Elon Musk predicts the opposite (people will make more car trips with inexpensive robotaxis so there will be more traffic on the road). But I think he's more right than wrong, probably mostly right.
Ag lands peaked two decade earlier (Score:2)
Only ammonia fertilizer kept the production metrics pumping. If you go to the heartland, turn a spade full of earth - you’ll see the topsoil is reduced to the first 2-3” deep.
In my youth those topsoils were black all the way down past 12–14”.
That forest, next to the river (Score:2)
Plenty of land left. Just cut down that forest, next to that river. In south America somewhere. Amazon? Wait, that's the book company. Something like that, anyway.
Reclaim deserts (Score:1)
We already have the technology to reclaim desert areas. Africa has a great big area that could be reclaimed and it would really help the world if it were reclaimed. That's where Hurricanes come over to the Americas. It would also reduce CO2.