Author Topic: Double food production by 2050?  (Read 5747 times)

Offline jerseyboy

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Karma: 28
  • Garden State Prepper
Double food production by 2050?
« on: March 16, 2016, 10:23:06 PM »
So I just saw a commercial for a commercial fertilizer company that started with the "fact" that the world needs to double food production by 2050 to feed the world's growing population. Now their twist was to double density on the same acreage the the need for their fertilizer.

Of course, my thought was to double acreage by everyone growing their own food. But how many times have I heard this is so hard to do.

Has anyone considered population growth in their looking range planning?

How true is their estimate of population growth?

One site I went to said population did double since 1970 (46 years) but that at current rates, it will be another 200 years before it doubles again.

Thoughts?

Jerseyboy

endurance

  • Guest
Re: Double food production by 2050?
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2016, 05:58:59 AM »
Most growth curves that I've seen lately see the population peaking around 8.3-10.1 billion between 2040-2080, then declining based on current demographic trends. Population growth is slowing dramatically now in most of the world. Now whether migration will allow that curve to go higher or help flatten it even faster is up for debate. One theory is that as people see lower child mortality and greater opportunity by investing more into each child rather than seeing them as a labor force, birth rates drop. Another is that people drag their cultures with them and that can mean more surviving babies to reproduction age if the resources of a first or second world society are available.

I just can't see a doubling from 7.4 billion to 14.8 billion, even by 2100 with the changes in demographic trends over the last 20 years.

Offline Chemsoldier

  • Pot Stirrer
  • Moderator On Leave
  • Survival Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 5722
  • Karma: 544
Re: Double food production by 2050?
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2016, 06:29:13 AM »
Most growth curves that I've seen lately see the population peaking around 8.3-10.1 billion between 2040-2080, then declining based on current demographic trends. Population growth is slowing dramatically now in most of the world. Now whether migration will allow that curve to go higher or help flatten it even faster is up for debate. One theory is that as people see lower child mortality and greater opportunity by investing more into each child rather than seeing them as a labor force, birth rates drop. Another is that people drag their cultures with them and that can mean more surviving babies to reproduction age if the resources of a first or second world society are available.

I just can't see a doubling from 7.4 billion to 14.8 billion, even by 2100 with the changes in demographic trends over the last 20 years.
Intrestingly, can an economic system predicated on continuous growth survive a contracting population?  My gut says no.

endurance

  • Guest
Re: Double food production by 2050?
« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2016, 07:46:49 AM »
Intrestingly, can an economic system predicated on continuous growth survive a contracting population?  My gut says no.
And resource depletion at the same time?  Errrm, no. No doubt about it; the next 20 years will look nothing like the last 50 years.

Offline Chemsoldier

  • Pot Stirrer
  • Moderator On Leave
  • Survival Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 5722
  • Karma: 544
Re: Double food production by 2050?
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2016, 08:01:21 AM »
And resource depletion at the same time?  Errrm, no. No doubt about it; the next 20 years will look nothing like the last 50 years.
Thank you, that is an important distinction.  Theoretically, a declining population consuming more and more due to cheap and abundant energy could continue to "grow" in economic terms.

Offline I.L.W.

  • Dedicated Contributor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1004
  • Karma: 203
Re: Double food production by 2050?
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2016, 08:12:16 AM »
The population will not double in that term, but the demand for food will more than double. We still have over a billion people virtually starving today. As you scale up production, you increase the percentage of losses and get diminishing returns in production and economics. This along with increased labor inputs are why you can grow $1000 worth of food in 500²ft, but an acre of mechanically harvested corn yields about $300 profit. Double the planting density or switch to a shorter season cultivar to get more rotations in per year and you deplete the soil faster, increase water requirements, and get lower masses of food relative to the input resources. If you want to double food produced, you basically need to triple the amount grown.

Production is a bell curve with a maximum efficiency. It cannot scale infinitely, the efficiency declines as the input resources are consumed, driving up the costs. We've survived this by adapting techniques which constantly change the product, and thus the required inputs. When soils were eroded and depleted due to overproduction, we saw chemical fertilizers (without which most of the world would be starving right now). That enabled us to put back the basic nutrients on an industrial scale and keep up with demand in spite of the declining fertility of the soils.

Chemical fertilizers however have their limits. Phosphorous is mined (mostly in China and the Middle east), as their demand increases and the mines slow in production, much less will be shipped to the US, Mexico and South America. We're losing minerals in the soil very rapidly as well, and they are not cheaply replaced.

We also know that chemical fertilizers only further degrade the soils, creating dependence on them. Look at food prices today vs 10 years ago... vs 20 years ago... 30 years ago... It's well above inflation.

1986 to 2016
$1.00 USD in 1986 had the same value as $2.16 today.
A bushel of apples (roughly 40lbs) from the average US grocery store in 1986 cost about $4... 10¢/lb
Today the average retail cost is about $2/lb or $80 a bushel.

Flour today is about 50¢/lb vs 20¢/lb in 1986 (that's only a little ahead of inflation, but still significant, and only because the US government subsidizes the hell out of it with tax money)

The US bureau of Labor Statistics has a good break down on historic prices.

We're going to run out of money before we run out of food. The costs keep going up, which drives smaller margins for producers who stop farming and seek other employment.

We're already long past the economic tipping point for food in the US and most of Europe. We'll keep importing it and raising taxes to subsidize it, but that's just prolonging the inevitable. However, as the change is gradual, there is time to decentralize food production. Start a garden, plant some fruit trees etc. As prices rise, I think more and more people will naturally gravitate to that practice, just for the luxury of having fresh fruit without spending $20 more at the grocery store. It won't be a catastrophic crash of the food system as many predict, especially with the Internet to guide many newcomers. I can acknowledge the problem but still remain optimistic. Nothing motivates change like hunger and bankruptcy, lol. I have faith that people will figure this out all on their own, just as every one of us here has. 

People in the cities or small apartments will just have to lower their standards of living to accommodate increased food prices. They've willingly done this since the 1930's, and city populations are still growing in spite of the increased cost of living. If anything bad happens, it will happen there first, and frankly I don't give a shit, lol. Everyone needs food, water and shelter, it only makes sense to live where those things can be procured directly (which is why I moved out of the desert). They either understand the problem and accept it, which is a choice they are entitled to make, or they're clueless and an evolutionary dead-end for mankind, so in true permaculture fashion, the problem (starvation) becomes the solution. That may seem cold, but forces of nature are not know for their sentimentality, lol.

Offline jerseyboy

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Karma: 28
  • Garden State Prepper
Re: Double food production by 2050?
« Reply #6 on: March 18, 2016, 09:30:10 PM »

1986 to 2016
$1.00 USD in 1986 had the same value as $2.16 today.
A bushel of apples (roughly 40lbs) from the average US grocery store in 1986 cost about $4... 10¢/lb
Today the average retail cost is about $2/lb or $80 a bushel.

I can remember apples costing $0.33 per pound for pick your own in 1994 and now a honeycrisp costs $2.99/lb at the grocery store. Maybe that is an "apple and orange" comparison though :)

Jerseyboy

Offline RuggedCyclist

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Karma: 29
  • Capitalist hippie
    • Boulder Stonecraft
Re: Double food production by 2050?
« Reply #7 on: March 19, 2016, 01:04:32 AM »
And resource depletion at the same time?  Errrm, no. No doubt about it; the next 20 years will look nothing like the last 50 years.

Flour today is about 50¢/lb vs 20¢/lb in 1986 (that's only a little ahead of inflation, but still significant, and only because the US government subsidizes the hell out of it with tax money)

The US bureau of Labor Statistics has a good break down on historic prices.

We're going to run out of money before we run out of food. The costs keep going up, which drives smaller margins for producers who stop farming and seek other employment.

We're already long past the economic tipping point for food in the US and most of Europe. We'll keep importing it and raising taxes to subsidize it, but that's just prolonging the inevitable. However, as the change is gradual, there is time to decentralize food production. Start a garden, plant some fruit trees etc. As prices rise, I think more and more people will naturally gravitate to that practice, just for the luxury of having fresh fruit without spending $20 more at the grocery store. It won't be a catastrophic crash of the food system as many predict, especially with the Internet to guide many newcomers. I can acknowledge the problem but still remain optimistic. Nothing motivates change like hunger and bankruptcy, lol. I have faith that people will figure this out all on their own, just as every one of us here has. 

People in the cities or small apartments will just have to lower their standards of living to accommodate increased food prices. They've willingly done this since the 1930's, and city populations are still growing in spite of the increased cost of living. If anything bad happens, it will happen there first, and frankly I don't give a shit, lol. Everyone needs food, water and shelter, it only makes sense to live where those things can be procured directly (which is why I moved out of the desert). They either understand the problem and accept it, which is a choice they are entitled to make, or they're clueless and an evolutionary dead-end for mankind, so in true permaculture fashion, the problem (starvation) becomes the solution. That may seem cold, but forces of nature are not know for their sentimentality, lol.

I'm glad I'm ahead of the curve on making that change... I'm going to be 41 in 20 years. That's like the middle of your life isn't it?

How different will the world really be by then?

Food shortages and virtual reality devices with a direct neural linkage? That actual sounds really plausible to me.

Offline I.L.W.

  • Dedicated Contributor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1004
  • Karma: 203
Re: Double food production by 2050?
« Reply #8 on: March 19, 2016, 05:29:05 AM »
Quote
How different will the world really be by then?

How different in 20 years? More than you think, but not in the ways most of us will imagine.

VR still has some hurdles. People need to be convinced to strap a display to their faces. It won't be mainstream until the displays are reduced in weight and size. Advances in Graphene should allow that to happen in 20 years, but it won't be an immediate change, it'll be a slow growth technology.

AR shows more promise for day-to-day living. Rather than you going into a virtual world, the virtual world becomes part of the real world. Micro-computers built cheaply into common devices, and able to interface with one another will surround you with access to information. An LED lightbulb/LiFi extender which screws into a standard socket will be outfitted with a microphone and speaker, and connected to the internet. You speak to a virtual assistant (like Siri, Google, Alexa etc) and get information back, either spoken or delivered to your phone, TV etc. Smartphones may be supplanted by watches as voice interfaces improve and connect to external displays like a TV.

More data will be "in the cloud". Media Ownership will change as "access rights" tied to an individual. If you buy access to "Star Wars Episode 18", it's available on any device you're near, with your watch or phone serving as the authentication. That's how they'll get around account sharing, you'll need to be physically present with a uniquely hard-coded authentication device.

"Direct neural linkage"... probably not. More likely such applications would be driven by predictive behavior algorithms. IR cameras can see things like heart rate and blood pressure from across the room already. Imagine a video game which uses this, along with your facial expression, blink rate, and general body language to build a profile on what excites you, or triggers a specific emotion, then adapts the gameplay or storyline to maximize the emotional impact. Imagine commercials which do the same, lol.

Back on topic, food shortages... Probably not much different than we have today. It's going to be lower quality food, and more costly, but it will be available (in the US at least). It'll be marketed as "healthy", but people's concept of healthy food is so screwed up they can be convinced that anything is healthy. Some people focus on the "bad" stuff. First it was sodium, then MSG, cholesterol... now we're' attacking gluten. Others focus on the "good stuff", vitamin content minerals, enzymes, proteins, though they really have no idea how much they're getting of any of these, and more isn't necessarily better. People who view their food in terms of good and bad (which is the way it's taught and marketed) will be too confused to understand any of it, but they'll think they understand it, lol.

I foresee "Sin Taxes" for people producing "unhealthy foods". This will not be a visible tax at the consumer level. It'll take the form of a subsidy for "organic growers". They get a reduced tax burden (which we still pay for of course), but very quickly the tax burden on producers is increased so those with the subsidies are within a few years paying what they were before and everyone else continues paying more. Rather than calling it a tax, it will be extolled as a bipartisan effort to curb obesity and diabetes, while helping small farmers by reducing their taxes.

That gives you a good insight into our political system. It's basically 3 Card Monty, and we're the suckers. Everyone follows their card... Donald Trump is the King of Diamonds, Hillary Clinton the King of Clubs... but it doesn't matter which card you follow, you still get F*ked at the turn. The more you love or hate one of the cards, the less attention you pay to the dealers. I expect that to continue for the same reason people get duped into streetside card games, it's exciting and they believe against all rationality that they might walk away a winner if they pick the right card. If anything, they'll up the stakes.

Will the next 20 years be better or worse... we'll have to wait and see. Surely we'll fix some social problems, and we'll create all new ones.

endurance

  • Guest
Re: Double food production by 2050?
« Reply #9 on: March 19, 2016, 10:14:30 AM »
These little luxuries, like electricity, motorized transportation, groceries stores, the interweb; they all rely on incredibly complex systems to continue running. It would take next to nothing to destroy the reliability of all of the above. As competition for diminishing resources grows, the pressure my be for technological solutions, but the energy and complexity to actually impliment them is not sustainable. We're more likely to have 1800s technology in 20-50 years than to follow the technology curve of the last 50 years. Sure, there may be pockets of technology in our lives, but a world with virtual reality in our daily lives in 20 years, I just don't see it.

Offline RuggedCyclist

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Karma: 29
  • Capitalist hippie
    • Boulder Stonecraft
Re: Double food production by 2050?
« Reply #10 on: March 19, 2016, 11:19:11 AM »
These little luxuries, like electricity, motorized transportation, groceries stores, the interweb; they all rely on incredibly complex systems to continue running. It would take next to nothing to destroy the reliability of all of the above. As competition for diminishing resources grows, the pressure my be for technological solutions, but the energy and complexity to actually impliment them is not sustainable. We're more likely to have 1800s technology in 20-50 years than to follow the technology curve of the last 50 years. Sure, there may be pockets of technology in our lives, but a world with virtual reality in our daily lives in 20 years, I just don't see it.

Assuming cheap energy sticks around (big assumption, I know)- I see there being wealthy areas where people have access to amazing technology, and areas that are like Detroit.

If cheap energy doesn't stick around, there will probably be the same dynamic but with less rich cities and more Detroits.

I know that highly complex systems are more likely to fail (that's literally why I drive a 35 year old truck), but the current system is so huge with so much momentum, and it's actually quite loosely coupled for what it is, I don't see it as being that fragile. The thing is there's tens of millions of people actively maintaining the system, all working dynamically to carry it forward.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just think it's less fragile than people think. Otherwise it would have collapsed by now? I guess when you say "destroy the *reliability* of all of the above," I can see that. 99.99% uptime is fragile, 60% uptime isn't.

It won't go away, it'll just suck more.

I just hope people can adapt to changing standards of living. The next 20 years will be sustainable if people would be willing to live a slightly more peaceful life, a little bit more natural, grow a garden and such- but the model of suburbia junk food and waste? I don't see it.
I just hope people don't freak out too much.

But I guess that's why I'm a survivalist isn't it?

Offline FreeLancer

  • Global Moderator
  • Survival Veteran
  • ******
  • Posts: 6085
  • Karma: 771
Re: Double food production by 2050?
« Reply #11 on: March 19, 2016, 05:15:25 PM »
We're more likely to have 1800s technology in 20-50 years than to follow the technology curve of the last 50 years.

I waffle back and forth on this, but I lean toward technology continuing to advance in my lifetime, mainly due to the fact that it appears there will be sufficient fossil fuels to last for that many decades into the future.  I'm not a techno-triumphalist, though, I don't see us living happily ever after in a world of unlimited opportunity, cheap energy, and an absence of conflict and misery.  I actually tend to lean more towards the possibility of a high-tech dystopian future, one where people are willing to sell their souls for an illusion of progress, rather than risking a return to the low-tech, high labor, economies of a 150 years ago. 

Offline RuggedCyclist

  • Survivalist Mentor
  • *****
  • Posts: 805
  • Karma: 29
  • Capitalist hippie
    • Boulder Stonecraft
Re: Double food production by 2050?
« Reply #12 on: March 19, 2016, 08:44:48 PM »
I can 1000% see my generation selling their souls for the illusion of progress. That's such an accurate description of the attitude. But that's what happens when you teach an entire society that they have no souls, doing good is necessary at all costs, and what we say is good is what's really good.

endurance

  • Guest
Re: Double food production by 2050?
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2016, 08:32:33 AM »
I waffle back and forth on this, but I lean toward technology continuing to advance in my lifetime, mainly due to the fact that it appears there will be sufficient fossil fuels to last for that many decades into the future.  I'm not a techno-triumphalist, though, I don't see us living happily ever after in a world of unlimited opportunity, cheap energy, and an absence of conflict and misery.  I actually tend to lean more towards the possibility of a high-tech dystopian future, one where people are willing to sell their souls for an illusion of progress, rather than risking a return to the low-tech, high labor, economies of a 150 years ago.
I bounce back and forth myself on the issue. What works against the status quo for me is the economics going forward. The cheap energy we have now is a blip, IMHO and the funny money is only going to stay functioning for so long before reality hits us again. In the meantime there will continue to be manmade and natural disasters as the ponzi economics falls apart. The money to rebuild New Orleans, the Twin Towers, and the flint water system are barely there now. In some cities they're just not there. Water systems, dams, bridges, highways, water treatment plants and key components of our grid are barely hanging on with a halfassed triage going on every day, sometimes getting it right and saving the day, sometimes blowing it (like Flint and I-35).

Then you get more competition for finite resources, the kind of stuff that leads to an Arab Spring uprising. You get shocks to the system, maybe some cyberattacks, maybe some weather, maybe some social uprising and pieces of the system get broken and each time, the money isn't there to fix it right; only enough to patch it for now. That stack of patches can only go so high before they become their own problem.

So that's where my head is today. As usual, I'm probably and hopefully wrong. I'd love to know that my basement full of preps was all just a pain in the ass to move every five years and nothing more.

Offline bcksknr

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 2148
  • Karma: 313
  • Child of the Cold War
Re: Double food production by 2050?
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2016, 11:49:39 AM »
     No matter what may be pleasant to think concerning the future and our ability to adapt, there are limits to growth. You can't put ten pounds into a five pound sack. Humans have a hard time dealing with events that unfold over long timespans. An avalanche, we can get our heads around. The movement of a glacier, not so much. Both are basically the same phenomenon; ice and snow moving downhill. Many things that happen on Earth present themselves in the same way; either rapid and immediate or so slow that we barely take notice. The increasing human population (with stresses on food production), the degradation of the environment (including degradation of human infrastructures), climate change (which is real regardless of the causes), etc. are unfortunately happening at a pace that is barely noticeable. If it hit us all at once in a major calamity folks would take notice and at some time we may hit a "tipping point" that will result in large enough disasters that they can't be ignored, even by the ignorant. Unfortunately, people often don't have the ability to see into the future past the next six pack or paycheck, much less the future inability of this planet to support human life. Also there is that attitude that "I've got mine, I'm going to keep it and I want to get more. I'll be dead and gone when what my generation did or didn't do impacts the future, so the hell with them".   

Offline 11steve11

  • Prepper
  • **
  • Posts: 48
  • Karma: 11
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: Double food production by 2050?
« Reply #15 on: April 12, 2016, 04:35:59 PM »
Food production increase.

I remember my grandparents talking about being young adults during the great depression. One set lived in New York and had a construction business that when times got hard moved their equipment out to middle of nowhere Montana.  They learned to preserve their hunting, fishing, and garden harvests. Life was not easy, they adapted. By the time I came along, I didn't know any different, I assumed everybody lived like this.

My wife was born and raised in Seattle, we moved to middle of nowhere Washington as young adults. Although our life was not as hard as our grandparents, she adapted. Last Sunday, as a family we gleaned seed carrots, are 2 years into our food forest, have a garden that our youngest planted, and have a comfortable 1 year food supply.  We make enough money to buy the stuff at grocery  stores, but choose to create abundance where our lawn used to be.

I agree jerseyboy, personal food production will increase. I don't think it is that hard, as a society, we're just not trained to understand.  There are pockets of young adults like RuggedCyclist, who'd make a food forest on an apartment balcony or a hanging pot garden in their bedroom.  We work with lots of young adults and notice their eating habits, they'll go through hard times and hunger will drive them to change.  The claim from the fertilizer company appears to be a poorly conceived ad; it doesn't sell any more product today nor for the near future.  Why waste the money unless they're trying to justify expansion to investors?

Way to go RuggedCyclist, being a young adult and proactive about your sustainability is excellent; you'll be an example for others as they begin to come around.

We actually have a lot of hope for the future, because hard times tends to bring out the creativity and work in people who decide to survive, and makes them a bit tougher.


Offline bcksknr

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 2148
  • Karma: 313
  • Child of the Cold War
Re: Double food production by 2050?
« Reply #16 on: April 13, 2016, 07:36:15 AM »
     While I agree that there are many among the preparedness community that seek to become as self sufficient as possible, they are far outnumbered by those who "forage, hunt and garden" at the local supermarket. I will admit that I take a rather dystopian view of human nature and the the future in general. If even a large sector of the population tries to grow a significant amount of their own food. there will be an even larger proportion that won't or can't. Barring an immediate "grid down" interruption in the supply chain (which could empty store shelves in three days or less), growing population numbers will mean more demand, higher prices, poorer quality, increased scarcity and more pressure on the environment over time (if there even is technology possible that could meet the demand).
     Countries without access to high tech food production technology, which may also have the fastest growing populations, will probably feel the effects first. These are the areas that already suffer massive periodic starvation. Rapidly increasing climate disruptions, such as rising sea levels, flooding, prolonged drought and violent storm shifts (the beginnings of which we are already experiencing) will ultimately force populations to concentrate in remaining livable and productive areas, putting even more pressure to produce needed food on a shrinking land base.
     Starving populations will not go "peacefully into the night". Almost all conflicts around the world can be traced to inequities in distribution of land and food. Even religion fueled conflict has a "we are better and more entitled than you are" message at it's core. When coastal areas go under, and remember that the ports that handle the world's commerce are almost all on the coastline, the international exchange of vital goods will stop. People who are impacted by loss of agricultural land or the ability to import food from areas still producing a surplus, will not just conveniently die. Even if food insecurity can be slowed in this country by some new technology, there will be envious (and hungry) eyes watching those who still have something to eat.
     There was a nostalgic time when the family farm could provide food for a family, with enough left over to sell or barter for needed goods. The dependent population that relied on those surpluses was much smaller than that of today. The small self-sufficient family farm is almost a thing of the past. To feed today's populations, we need huge factory-like farming operations and assembly line-like distribution systems to keep up. When I stand in a crowded supermarket and realize that all of the customers are essentially modern "hunters and gatherers" looking to bring home something to eat, that they have had nothing to do with the production of, nor could most of them produce even if they had to, I see how fragile food security for the future is.
     Those who prepare for hard times by learning the skills of independent living and food production are to be applauded for their individual efforts, however they should plan on also dealing with the multitudes of the hungry who didn't, wouldn't or can't.   
 


Offline 11steve11

  • Prepper
  • **
  • Posts: 48
  • Karma: 11
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: Double food production by 2050?
« Reply #17 on: April 13, 2016, 02:53:51 PM »
bcksknr, I agree that the modern food system appears remarkably delicate. I have lived through several catastrophic events, one many years ago in January where the food and emergency supplies of a major US city were cleared in 24 hours (they didn't last 3 days). We have always lived in areas that in my eyes is full of abundance and opulence. 

What I saw during the emergencies was a very insignificant segment of the population freaks, the VAST MAJORITY do nothing or leave (mostly nothing). What was odd to me was the abundance right in front of them they couldn't see; dead branches on the roads we used for 13 days for heat, light and cooking because we had no electricity; water to drink from the hot water heater and snow to flush the toilet and keep our food cold/frozen, on and on.  Had we really gotten hungry, there were flocks of geese, ducks, pigeons, quail and other game that were ALWAYS approaching humans in parks and parking lots looking for their hand out. Since most ports are near the water, I could have fished too.  Again, the vast majority of people did nothing...even when my lantern on our rented apartment balcony was the only light that could be seen for miles downtown in a major city.

What I see while living a normal life, abundance squandered.  My family gleans, we go through after a harvest and pick up left overs.  We share with friends and family who never want more than they'd buy at the grocery store.  Last year we went to an apple orchard that blew over 1 day before the harvest; like an all you can eat buffet; we ate apples, fermented apples, dried apples, composted apples and yet you'd have thought we were attempting to give people the bubonic plague when offering others apples.  I could say the same for grapes, cherries, asparagus, blackberries, eggs, carrots, hostess snack cakes, hummus, beans, rice, canned goods, sausages & meats, water melons, pears, and the king of all...peanut butter.  They would rather pay for a lot for a little bit at a grocery store than get abundance for free.   I bought cases of delicious oranges for $10 each (25cents a pound) this winter and gave them as gifts to people who I know like oranges; my family ate oranges, the other families ate a few (liked them), threw out the abundance then bought cuties for $3 a pound and told me they didn't taste as good...and threw them out too.  We own several apartment buildings and there are people living there who could really use this abundance, but rarely (if ever) access it.   I work a job with three people who spent more on 2 or 3 ornamental trees than we did on our entire food forest.  These are the same people who drink diet beverages while putting non-fat, no calorie dressing on their lunch salad...I thought the idea was to trade stored human labor (money) for calories (energy).  These people are starving now, what difference does it make if we double the food supply, it is still zero.

The reason why we have such a positive outlook on this is abundance is EVERYWHERE, if people get a little hungry (desire), they will either do nothing or prioritize and get shit done.  I have seen a person only has to be HUNGRY once in their life to learn a valuable lesson...or perish.  I want to add a personal note here about government, ANY government outside of personal government (inside my house); they are a big part of the problem. Teaching people to not provide for themselves is a crime against nature; and I'm not just talking food.

Whew, got a little preachy to the choir there.  Having been connected to my grandparents into my adulthood has given me their perspective of history.  When Italian bankers crashed the markets and plunged Europe into the dark ages, the world didn't end. Other world superpowers have come and gone yet there are people still there (think England).  We'll still be here a hundred years from now, hopefully wiser & stronger over bigger & weaker.