Overpopulation pure and simple. We abuse and ask too much of this earth. We are our own worst enemy.
13
Overpopulation: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound or cure.
Good people, this is a problem of resources. They are finite. And that's that.
17
Seeing that at least half of all crop production goes to feed animals that are reared for slaughter, surely the answer is for humans to eat more plants instead of dead animals.
17
How about reducing food waste and eating fewer hamburgers?
12
We need to learn how to slow down people having children. We may someday be able to feed them all, but where will we put them all?
19
@AlwaysElegant. Mars, of course!
4
We need GMOs and vaccines and less CO_2.
12
Finally, a NYT article that accurately reflects the working of a key component of Modern Agriculture. Yes, Seedsmen Feed the World!
7
Good luck with this.
Major limitation: we only know the actual functions of 5-10% of all genes in any given crop species.
So, 'pump the brakes' and be patient.
3
@PlayOn "Major limitation: we only know the actual functions of 5-10% of all genes in any given crop species."
Why does that matter? Edward Jenner did not know the function of any genes, or even the existence of genes, when he pioneered the smallpox vaccine. What mattered was that it worked. Same here.
1
I do not understand why the NYT always publishes such articles with no critical analysis. So far there has not been one GMO crop (and this is what these are) that has increased yield or created greater drought tolerance. As noted by the Center for Food Safety, ". . .major studies affirm that inexpensive agroecological farming methods can increase yields as much or more than industrial agriculture systems while also reducing use of chemicals and water, and improving social and economic well- being." (https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/blog/3468/debunking-popular-myths-about-ge-crops-portrayed-in-the-media). We need to keep farmers farming--make it economically viable for them to stay on their land, save their own seeds and reduce the use of harmful chemicals in agriculture.
Whether GMO food are safe to eat is beside the point when GMO crops are damaging the environment in ways we know and ways we have no idea about.
20
The scientific consensus is strongly in disagreement with you.
10
What's the deal with all the population control comments? We have a growing population and some people are trying to come up with solutions to solve some of the problems that this may cause. Who knew that ending world hunger was to just stop having kids? When did the whole world become the Chinese government?
1
The emphasis is on the wrong side of the equation. We should be working toward sustainable human population levels. Educational opportunities for all Women and Comprehensive Family Planning Services would go a long way to reaching that goal.
26
They 'snip out the parts' of their genes that 'might make the plants vulnerable to " diseases, etc..What a chilling sentence..Of course it seems obvious that without their historical gene pool the newly snipped plants will be vulnerable to all the old stuff that used to get them..Please stop playing god with my food, scientists, I haven't enjoyed a tomatoe in years, since you started messing with them..And bananas - please! They are just sugar cones, compared to the filipino bananas of my youth..
16
How odd.
Science frantically works to build a bigger and better product (that may have no relationship to actual plants) while what they have needed for decades is fail-proof birth control, access to free abortion, free vasectomies and tubal ligations and laws in every country for the human right to control one's own reproduction.
Instead there are laws that forbid the use of tax money by poor women in this country, the Hyde rule, and rules for foreign countries to forbid money for the poor women in the woman's country, the Helms rule.
So, we get rid of any choice any female makes...?
In this country abortion - and birth control - are about to become illegal, jailable, a capital crime....
Sorry, but I don't buy all this "concern" about "overpopulation".
I suspect that human "speed breeding" will out pace the "speed breeding" that any poor plant will be forced to do.
"Speed breeding".
Sure, this is all going to work out just fine......
22
How do the nutrients compare in plants that have used speed breeding vs. conventional breeding?
11
Why do we keep talking about measures to accommodate further population growth?! We may already be past a sustainable global population. We need to be prioritizing not only stopping population growth but reducing our numbers. Until that happens, we’re addressing only symptoms (food and water shortages, greenhouse gases, pollution, etc., etc., etc.), not the root cause. Of course these problems must also be directly addressed, but I see little hope if we don’t get a handle on the root cause, global overpopulation. (But population growth is the engine that drives economic growth, so is there really any hope of avoiding environmental catastrophe?)
29
@B
"...But population growth is the engine that drives economic growth"
And therein lies the problem: uber-capitalism & over-production on steroids--mostly for stuff that is trivial, stupid or totally unnecessary junk. But hey, the shareholders are laughing all the way to the bank.
23
Why does this smell like disaster? Rushing in to where other fear to tread? Plant breeders are fast-tracking genetic improvements in food crops.
Or, is it that food will be the intellectual property of a profit-crazed few?
Malthus was prescient. This little blue ball has a quantity of people exceeding their stable equilibrium point.
19
@Jonathan Jaffe You're late, many plant varieties are already the property of profit-crazed corporations
3
Thank you for your article. The question I have is how to fight climate-change related crop failure:
“Speed breeding can also be combined with gene editing and genomic prediction.”
Is that GMO?
4
Yes, these are all GMO, although each individual technique is slightly different. Conventional breeding methods would be too slow and create a lot of random genetic changes.
3
So we need to spend tons of energy on growing more food faster for a growing population + to make up for Climate change-related food scarcity?
How about reducing those 2 problems, instead of denying them in the first place:
1. The US forbids its foreign aid groups to inform on abortions, even contraception.
2. On top of that it rejects climate science +
3. we hear that about 30-40% of US food is wasted.
Now we experiment with artificial foods that only the richest countries can produce. Since those foods that need 24/7 energy use > and thus accelerate climate change (that they are trying to counteract)
My suggestion: LESS food wasted, LESS population growth
Complete STOP on new fossil fuel infrastructure + MORE renewable energy
35
@msf
Spot on! Why are so many people not seeing the proverbial elephant in the room?
11
The energy/intensive speed-breeding is used to develop the new plants, not to grow them once they are developed.
This is so important for breeding disease resistance. Pathogens can evolve around some resistance traits in 5 years. Breeders need these tools to stay ahead.
Note to those in developed countries that doubt the feed the world line: instead look at the problem in terms of climate change. To give everyone a shot at a middle class diet we need to double our agricultural land or double our productivity. I like hamburgers and rain forests so I'll take my modern crops please.
6
First of all, assumptions about population growth are wrong. Food is far from being the single limiting factor of population increases.
Perhaps most importantly, products currently produced by genetic engineering are inferior in many ways. When breeding plants (or otherwise manipulating genes) there are always trade-offs. Most often increased yields are accompanied by decreased flavor and/or nutritional value.
We'd be better off researching how to limit population growth but it seems republican operatives will take care of it through their war-mongering impulses. War is good for Wall Street so we need to make adjustments to our growth models.
19
There is no evidence showing that genetically engineered food is inferior “ in many ways” or that it tastes better or worse. Each crop whether generated by conventional breeding or more direct genetic manipulation can have either better or worse characteristics. It depends on what you select for.
6
There is a flaw in this thinking. Unless such crops are grown hydroponically (an unlikely prospect in most of the world), the ability of the crops to grow would be limited by the ability of the soil to support such growth. This suggests to me a vast increase in the need for artificial fertilizers and herbicide—something that might lead to ecological problems. In addition, even with fertilizers and herbicides, there is only so much of a store house of essential minerals in the soil. Planting multiple crops in one year would not allow enough time for nature to replenish the soil.
20
@Bob
Many of you seem to be misunderstanding what the article is saying. The use of lights to stimulate the growth of multiple crops is used to hurry the creation of new varieties not to grow crops. The crops would still be grown in the field seasonally as always.
4
@RCD I believe it is you who have misunderstood. The article says lights can be used to stimulate the growth of new seedlings which be readied for planting. NASA experiments show that up to 6 crops of certain grains/beans can be planted in ine season.
3
@Bob
Thanks for your polite response but I have to beg to differ. The entire point of the article is the development of the "speed breeding" technique to develop new disease resistant and more productive varieties. Nowhere does it say that plants are raised under lights for transfer to fields. This would be a foolishly labor intensive and uneconomic process at the scale needed for food production.
3