Foreseeable Future Essay

This paper is a treatment of a argument between Julian L. Simon. writer of The Ultimate Resource. and David Pimentel et Al. . writers of the article “Impact of Population Growth on Food Supplies and Environment” . The argument centres on the inquiry: “Will the World Be Able to Feed Itself in the Foreseeable Future? ” I will sum up each side’s statement. place the cardinal point over which they most fundamentally disagree. and explicate what I would wish to cognize more about in order to get at my ain place on the issue.

Simon argues that with our present engineering. and with the engineering that is still being developed. the universe will easy be able to feed itself. irrespective of the increasing size of its population. He explains how nutrient production adheres to the jurisprudence of supply and demand: an addition in population and income will bring forth a higher demand for nutrient. For a short clip some nutrients may go scarce. Rising nutrient monetary values due to the scarceness will motivate agronomical research workers and husbandmans to contrive better methods of bring forthing nutrient and hence increase the nutrient production. He emphasizes that this form can merely go on if the agriculturally productive states promote entrepreneurship and economic freedom.

Simon points out that “the capacity of food-factory production has expanded to a grade about beyond belief. ” ( Simon. p. 115 ) . He describes how aquicultural agriculture. which involves indoor. factory-controlled conditions. is more land efficient and produces higher quality produce than traditional agrarian methods. He besides argues that our nutrient supplies are non limited by the sum of sunlight falling on green workss due to the handiness of atomic every bit good as non-nuclear power ( such as solar cells. air current. and ocean currents ) to do visible radiation. Simon besides names other bing engineering. such as bovid growing endocrine and genetically engineered workss. which he predicts “will certainly produce immense commercial additions in the following century. ” ( Simon. p. 117 ) .

In add-on to an addition in the production of field harvests. Simon besides assures us that the universe fish gimmick is quickly increasing. and that aquaculture ( fish agriculture ) has the possible to spread out exponentially. “Land is a little restraint. as catfish agriculture in Mississippi shows ; present methods produce about 3000 lbs of fish per acre. an economic return far higher than for field harvests. ” ( Simon. p. 118 ) .

David Pimentel et Al. differ that the universe will be able to feed itself in the foreseeable hereafter. They point to a diminishing sum of fertile land. fresh H2O. energy. and biological resources needed to supply an equal supply of nutrient. Evidence back uping their claim includes the fact that about tierce of the world’s cropland is no longer being used due to eroding. and that “water deficits are reflected in the per capita diminution in irrigation used for nutrient production in all parts of the universe during the past 20 old ages. ” ( Pimental et al. . p. 122 )

Establishing their projections on studies from the U. S. Dept. of Energy. Pimentel et Al. predict that the U. S. will utilize up all of its ain oil militias within the following 15 or 20 old ages. doing an over-reliance on oil importation. In add-on. Pimentel et Al. point out that if the U. S. population doubles in the following 60 old ages. its cereal and other nutrient imports to most of the other 182 states would hold to be kept at place to run into its ain nutrient supply demands. They warn that an increased demand for nutrient due to physical and biological restraints without an addition in nutrient production will do a dislocation in international trade. “At that point. nutrient importing for the rich can merely be sustained by famishment of the powerless hapless. ” ( Pimentel el al. . p. 123 ) .

The cardinal point over which Simon and Pimentel et Al. disagree is whether or non current and new engineering will be able to back up the universe population’s nutrient demands. Simon contends. “Whether or non population grows exponentially. subsistence grows at an even faster exponential rate ( mostly but non wholly because of population growth. ) And capacity to better other facets of the criterion of life. beyond subsistence. grows at a still faster exponential rate. due mostly to the growing of cognition. ” ( Simon. p. 119 ) .

Pimentel. et al. believe that “improved engineering will help in more effectual direction and usage of resources. but it can non bring forth an limitless flow of those critical natural resources that are the natural stuffs for sustained agricultural production. ” ( Pimentel. p. 124 ) . In other words. people can non do surface soil or H2O. Pimentel et Al. neglect to advert such possible alternate solutions such as aquicultural agriculture or aquaculture.

There are a figure of things that I would desire clarified before I could get at my ain place on this issue. First. I would desire to cognize how much “lag time” is happening or will happen when the demand for nutrient ( or certain sorts of nutrient. such as cereal ) . exceeds the supply. ( “There is ever some slowdown before supply responds to extra demand. which may intend that some will endure. ” – Simon. p. 120 ) . Many people in the development states ARE presently traveling hungry. Will progress in engineering. every bit good as alterations in our societal and economic systems. give us the ability to halt and forestall worldwide hungriness? What would these societal and economic alterations look like?

Another averment by Simon that needs to be discussed further is the cost and dependableness of utilizing unreal visible radiation and atomic power to farm hydroponically. It seems like a promising manner to cover with the increased demand for nutrient. but will the cost for this type of production be excessively high for developing states? How will these states be able to pay for nutrient that is imported to them?

Simon asserts that aquicultural green goods “looks good and gustatory sensations good” ( Simon. p. 116 ) . but will clip turn out it to be as safe and healthy as nutrient grown the traditional manner? ( e. g. NutraSweet. which has been proven to non be wholly safe. vs. sugar. ) . Pimentel et Al. point out the menace to our environment and biodiversity caused by overpopulation. Would a greater focal point on preservation and an attempt to cut down over-consumption and pollution on the portion of developed states make sufficiency of a difference to still hold equal natural resources? ( Is it possible to hold it both ways: technologically advanced/safe nutrient production and of course produced nutrient? )

There besides seems to be a disagreement between Simon’s averment that the one-year fish gimmick is go oning to lift and Pimentel et Al. ’s statement that “Per capita fish gimmick has non increased even though the size and velocity of fishing vass has improved. ” ( Pimentel. p. 125 ) . Pimentel et Al. besides did non turn to the potency of aquaculture or aquicultural agriculture to provide nutrient. or the capableness of engineering to bring forth unreal replacements. even though they were able to garner a big sum of other informations from such reputable beginnings as World Bank and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

In drumhead. I would wish to obtain more factual information refering existent and jutting deficits of natural resources. I need more grounds that aquicultural and unreal nutrient agriculture is more than adequate to run into the demand for nutrient. Finally. I need to further understand the effects that population growing is holding on our environment.