Also missing from the article was any discussion of all the wasteful practices we have after crops are farmed. If we're to discuss how we are to feed an extra 2B+ new humans, that discussion should include things like how we can reduce the amount of food that's wasted and how we can vary diet to, for example, rely more on vegetables rather than meats since meat production is incredibly wasteful.
This article feels like a a discussion of weight loss that focuses solely on new trends in exercise while completely ignoring the role of diet. And, worse still, by ignoring that important facet of the problem, it seeks to create a moral justification for practices like GMO that many consider to be an unnecessary risk.
I can understand why the Economist would be biased towards increased production, since that increases GDP and fits into the capitalist notions of constant expansion, but optimization on the other side of the equation will be much better at helping us meet our needs for food in the upcoming century.
This article feels like a a discussion of weight loss that focuses solely on new trends in exercise while completely ignoring the role of diet. And, worse still, by ignoring that important facet of the problem, it seeks to create a moral justification for practices like GMO that many consider to be an unnecessary risk.
I can understand why the Economist would be biased towards increased production, since that increases GDP and fits into the capitalist notions of constant expansion, but optimization on the other side of the equation will be much better at helping us meet our needs for food in the upcoming century.