World population projected to reach 9.6 billion by 2050 – UN report


#1

Now is a great time to get a head start on the future of nutrition.

World population projected to reach 9.6 billion by 2050 – UN report


#2

Frankly I’d be amazed if it took that long… with the rate of lifespan increases, increases in fertility treatments for people who would previously have been simply out of the running for breeding, and the survival rate of defective births always being worked on… it seems to me that we should be on an exponential growth curve at this point.

But what the heck do I know… I just make this stuff up. LOL


#4

No joke @BriBy, made all the more important because if human society does not undertake a massive geoengineering project to rectify the plummeting pH of Earth’s oceans, then by 2050 at the absolute latest (and 2035 at the earliest) we will have lost to extinction the oceanic food-chains that supply 20% of global dietary protein intake because all sea life that relies on carbonate deposition to form a shell or a skeleton will no longer be able to form their structures.


#5

On top of which, climate change will accelerate the mass extinctions already underway on land, change agricultural conditions one way or another all over, and cause populations to have to move. Meanwhile, the monoculture we practice in our agriculture puts entire types of food on a narrow balance. The Cavendish banana’s already at risk, and other species without real genetic variation could always succumb rapidly to a new blight.

And bees. We’ve got to stop poisoning the bees that pollinate so much of what we eat.

Oh, fun times are ahead…


#6

@asympt, a friend of mine made an interesting post elsewhere online about that topic the other day:

Sorry to stir things up, but there are an awful lot of people talking who haven’t been doing any thinking. There are also an awful lot of listeners who believe them. Take this business about honeybees, for instance. I love those dear little fellows of my youth so dearly, but let’s get some facts before claiming that the sky is falling.
1.First off, they are not are our main pollinators. On my walk this AM I saw all kinds of RR track flowers loaded with dozens of species of flying/crawling pollinators. They were everywhere, hundreds and hundreds. Yet, there are loads of people saying ridiculous stuff like (OMG Gasp OMG!!) our whole ability to grow food will crash without honeybees to pollinate the crops.
2.Secondly, they are an invasive species suffering from intense inbreeding. Most of them were brought here between mid-1800’s to 1922. They aren’t native…none of them are native. Bec only a few subspecies were introduced, they have a very limited genetic diversity…( a death knell akin to the hemophiliac mess in British royalty and why we can’t marry our close cousins). Those indigenous bees back home across the Atlantic have a large genome to draw from and thus have developed quality resistance to diseases and multiple mite species. Our bee breeders have made the problem much worse and further paralyzing genome health by using a single queen to produce 42 gazillion offspring. Dumb.
3. Thirdly, almond growers. Yep, one noun, whole sentence. They are some of the biggest culprits in bee abuse. They truck enormous numbers of hives from one massive monoculture to another and try to force our little friends to work their pollinating magic way out of sync with the bees’ natural annual life cycle. They have made the poor bees become the Cinderellas of the insect world.
Now…it’s true that our little buddies are having a rough time of it. It’s true that they are being attacked on multiple fronts. It’s true that we’d like to keep them around. It’s also true that Mother Nature only will put up with just so much. We owe it to her and to our little buzzing friends to learn a little before we go screaming OMG and blaming a single source for the decline of such an abused little creature.

She then cited this:


#7

Sure, a bee monoculture makes no more sense than any other agricultural monoculture. Possibly even less sense.