It’s a brave goal. Some might say ostentatious. As science and technology evolve, the goal does seem lightly more fathomable than before. It comes packaged with a new conundrum, however.

At a philosophical level, we are faced with two very different options.

The first is volume. In order to feed more people, we need to produce more food. The logic is undeniable and rather obvious. So, our scientific inquiry should be focussed on ramping up production, improving yields and fast-tracking growth.

The second is quality. In order to feed more people, we need to produce that which yields the highest nutrient returns. How do we improve the energy efficiency of our consumption? Instead of consuming such high volumes of food that yields little to no energy value, it would make sense to replace this food source with a higher yield alternative.

The solution is likely somewhere on the continuum between the two extremes.

Whatever the answer, we can all likely agree that we will either change our diet and food consumption voluntarily, or availability will force us to do so in time.

You have a third option. Ostrich it. Stick your head in the ground and hope the problem doesn’t blow up until your ultimate demise. (This may be harder than you think with the advances in med tech.) Future generations would not be impressed, but at least your life remained comfortable.

Thought Catalog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s