Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday January 11, @04:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the Betteridge-says-"No" dept.

Can We Feed Billions of Ourselves Without Wrecking the Planet?

We are now producing more food more efficiently than ever, and there is plenty to go around for a human population of 7 billion. But it is coming at a drastic cost in environmental degradation, and the bounty is not reaching many people.

Sustainable Food Production, a new Earth Institute primer from Columbia University Press, explores how modern agriculture can be made more environmentally benign, and economically just. With population going to maybe 10 billion within 30 years, the time to start is now, the authors say.

The lead author is ecologist Shahid Naeem, director of the Earth Institute for Environmental Sustainability. He coauthored the book with former Columbia colleagues Suzanne Lipton and Tiff van Huysen.

This is an interesting interview with the author. Do you agree (or disagree) with his conclusions?

Columbia Climate School

[Also Covered By]: Phys.org


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by gawdonblue on Wednesday January 12, @02:23AM (3 children)

    by gawdonblue (412) on Wednesday January 12, @02:23AM (#1211999)

    So "White Africa" is where the Sahara is? More of a light-yellow Africa from my experience.
    And "Black Africa" is the jungly bit? Maybe dark-green Africa. Or is it the savannah part? Then light-green Africa.
    Racists aren't really racist, they just see colour as black-and-white.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 12, @04:01AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 12, @04:01AM (#1212022)

    "Black Africa" and "White Africa" originally came from an explored/unexplored (dark/light) dichotomy, mostly limited by the distance from Europe. That historical definition rooted in exploration is why places like Sudan and the Nile's tributaries are commonly excluded from Black Africa but colonized areas on the southern coast are usually not. It wasn't until later that the usage became more coarse and vulgar to a more racial division instead of a geographical one. Such racial loading (including usage out of South Africa and counter usage in the Middle East) leading to confusion is why the terms have been replaced, but even their replacements carry some historical baggage in use.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 12, @04:36AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 12, @04:36AM (#1212031)

      Had that parenthetical backwards. Unexplored is dark or black and explored is light or white. That is where phrases like "darkest Africa" or "Dark Continent" come from in contrast to "light of civilization" or "bring/shed light" for the opposite.

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday January 17, @08:10AM

        So, during which century did this term decay into referring to absolutely nothing? Were you trying to support the original AC's use of the term, or taking another swipe at it, it's not clear?
        --
        I know I'm God, because every time I pray to him, I find I'm talking to myself.