Food Security in an Insecure World | Future of Food
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 чер 2024
- Feeding a growing global population is a challenge that spans industries and governments. A panel discusses how research, technology, policy, and engagement with local farmers could help build a comprehensive strategy for improving our food system.
➡ Subscribe: bit.ly/NatGeoSubscribe
About National Geographic:
National Geographic is the world's premium destination for science, exploration, and adventure. Through their world-class scientists, photographers, journalists, and filmmakers, Nat Geo gets you closer to the stories that matter and past the edge of what's possible.
Get More National Geographic:
Official Site: bit.ly/NatGeoOfficialSite
Facebook: bit.ly/FBNatGeo
Twitter: bit.ly/NatGeoTwitter
Instagram: bit.ly/NatGeoInsta
MODERATOR:
Terry Garcia - Chief Science & Exploration Officer, National Geographic Society
PARTICIPANTS:
Dan Glickman - Co-Chair, AGree
Tjada D'Oyen McKenna - Feed the Future, USAID
Danielle Nierenberg - Co-Founder and President, Food Tank
Jack Sinclair - Executive Vice President, Walmart U.S.
At National Geographic's Future of Food forum on May 2, 2014, leading experts gathered to discuss how we can feed a global population set to top nine billion by 2050.
Click here for National Geographic's eight-month series on the future of food:
food.nationalgeographic.com.
Food Security in an Insecure World | Future of Food
• Food Security in an In...
National Geographic
/ natgeo - Розваги
It is a very important world problem, and it need all of countries to work hard
The answer to feeding everyone and how to do it, depends on what paradigm you believe in.
Makes sense. Intriguing.
Thank you!!
This discussion is applicable even at this moment when food crisis is increasing every day.
I support that politics related to food directly affects the politic related to health
and what we digest gonna is obviously affect the health.
Aquaponics is a food revolution in the making. It is a closed water system - there is very little water needed to produce crops and animal protein - that rears fish in a tank in the lower part of the system and the fish produce waste product that supplies organic fertilization for vegetable crops in the upper levels. This system provides the opportunity to sunny arid water restricted climates like Africa to produce vegetables and animal protein in very productive farm where they were not able to do before. It also provides the opportunity for developed nations to provide sustainable local food production varying from home production to commercial supply.
Suggest me measuring parameters or survey of food security only for BPL people
Why don't we focus on ways of encouraging people from every nation to have less children? It makes absolutely no sense, in fact, I'd say it's borderline insanity to actively encourage population explosions whereby everyone born in to this world becomes a person that expects a home, a car and the the 'must-have' accessory of the fleeting moment. It's just not possible. What we need is less people but of better quality in regards to education, morality and understanding. Consumerism will be the undoing of mankind.
If only more people could realize this! I can't explain how appalled I am every time I see poor families with a dozen of children walking naked, hungry and uneducated, blaming the society for not feeding them enough! I am appalled at the family for not being human enough to think and realize what they are doing, as well as at the government which allows, and sometimes even prefers, this level of education!
All responsible organs and governments have the right strategies for global food security, but the only problem is how to implement the policies and decisions. All in all is cooperation, there is no separate entity in the agriculture ecosystem. Identifying local farming is fine, but there must be good cooperation with climate change and surrounding urban communities in case to achieve a balanced and sustainable environment besides the stability of internal social principles.
it's not solve by make conversation it's solve by worked hard
Great video by the way, here is another way of helping planet earth from over exhaustion.... STOP HAVING MANY CHILDERN! I myself don't have any and I'm not planning to... I admire with couples who have got 1 child and can provide her/him with food, education and care, it's just harder to do these things righteously if there are many of your copies in this life.
that's one solution as the earth is technically unable to support such a huge population. Though we already produce enough food for everyone so population size is only one factor, and uneven distribution of food is a much larger problem
To Dan, Why are those ideologies' who can't see the urgency so? To Jack, Why don't you feel it your responsibility to inform consumers but to solely provide a choice of goods.
Take a really close look at supercycles, and the Elliott Wave Principle. We learn by trial and error, again and again, but we are maintaining more steps forward than we take backwards. Human history is filled with huge setbacks that end up resulting in huge leaps in mousetrap engineering! This is a great time to be alive, we are potentially going to inhabit the cosmos! We have to face these challenges with exponential advancement, we have only had airplanes for a little over a century! The real challenge is keeping the setting of our future agendas somewhat democratic, corporations and bankers and politicians have to be tempered, possibly in increasingly exponential ways by society as a whole, Try and develop knowledge of what 'antifragility' is in nature, and how we as humans need to integrate more of it into our abilities to deal with cycles and supercycles, that we really can't live without, but we will survive if we continue to evolve in our reactions to them!
no to greedy corporations.
This was an remarkably ineffective forum. Dan Glickman and Danielle Nirenberg are the only two who provided any hands on information, and the rest of the discussion was in lofty abstracts that those in the World Bank or Monsanto speak in... Abstract, vague goals, cellphones to improve food sovereignty? Empowering women with more education? absolutely, but doing this through the conventional manner of food aid and fertilizer subsides? How does that help the collapsing of our river and ocean systems that billions depend on due to fertilizer runoff?
And I'm sorry, but how do the panelists keep a straight face when Wal-Mart's rep is tooting the horn that Wal Mart is helping small farmers and businesses? Scottish irony I suppose
Slow down populations , problem fixed , economists might disagree but they are only concerned with money . I live in Australia where these kind of people are getting us to take on so many immigrants - in one of the driest countries in the world - its unsustainable . Sustainability should be priority .I now support small farms .
Not a farmer amongst them. Business majors, not Agriculture. Worthless !!!
Except these are the people creating the food shortage for profit. Monsanto, Walmart, Bill Gates employee … these are exactly the people who will profit from the creation of food supply issues and costs going up.
Why do you want more people in the world? If you provide more food there will be more people, and the problem just gets pushed into the near future. Time to reread Rev. Thomas Malthus.
Unfortunately, everything that is against the growth of the human race is considered inhumane! I just wonder how humane it is to bring children into this world when you can't afford to feed them or educate them. Everything is getting more and more out of control because when someone becomes so important and powerful that they have the opportunity to actually change something, they stop caring because the money they start to make offers them more entertaining activities.
i am just finishing the Dan Brown novel,"Inferno", and I am left with a lot more questions than I ever imagined, I suggest you read the book, and join the 'transhumanists' debate. What does the balance sheet of more humans Vs. fewer humans really need to include, what and who is going to set the human and the world agenda going forward? 7 billion people and one Earth, that will have to provide 2 1/2 times the agricultural and resource output that exist now, in the next 30 or 40 years . With the advancing of exponential technology development, and the limitless capabilities of quantum computing becoming a reality, how will we ensure that we don't allow a massive haves vs. havenots society of massive suffering and inequality? Or will we make the great leap forward that will enable us to live in a more symbiotic balanced world that will allow and encourage great leaps in human intelligence, and balanced growth, and the possible exploration and habitation of the cosmos? What if we end up with millions of Einsteins', and in a thousand more generations there is a population of humans that numbers in the trillions? God mind is beyond our current abilities, do we really have the will and the intelligence to challenge it this early in the game, I think not, your thoughts are as valuable as mine though. This I know though, The second law of thermodynamics is a theory that i do not accept at face value. The Universe is gently pulling us, and existence as a whole, into higher states of order and beauty, not a return to chaos as a goal, it would defeat its effort and energy, its efficiency and purpose. We need more Einsteins, not fewer, Peace!
Grid Bandit
Please understand what is meant by the scientific term _Theory_. It's usually misinterpreted - it's not the colloquial thing misunderstood by the masses. In science, a _Theory_ is an explanation for an observed phenomenon (though this may be extended in the realm of quantum mechanics). The explanation (Theory) may not be contradicted by any observation.
The 2nd law of Thermodynamics (and the 0th, and the 1st, and the 3rd) is part of a Theory of Energy and Conservation, much like Gravity is a Theory. We understand germs and biology as well, and we have the Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution, and Germ Theory (based on the Theory of Evolution).
They're all scientific _Theories_, and as such there isn't any evidence against them, they have predictive capabilities (such as where to dig to find fossils of Tiktaalik), there are "laws" based on them, and they are rigorously tested.
Just helping you get the idea.
Rand Huso, I am fully aware of the scientific method and Theory politics. Our modern view of the world and the cosmos is currently skewed by our university system and there are major, major problems in the theory of relativity and quantum physics, and there are massive observable and proven challenges to modern 'Theory', and in a lot more fields than cosmology and physics, social and political theory being the focus of this anonymous video. The theory of Keynesian economics, and the theory of representative democracy, are certainly not free of evidence to the contrary, that the systems that operate on those theories, are corruptible and have resulted in inequality, and have allowed for the evolution of massively powerful New World Orders. Are far as physics and cosmology and understanding the Universe, and the current theories that dominate these fields, try looking into Tesla's theory of the Electric Universe, or study Einstein's paradox he had with quantum entanglement. Or how about Arp's destruction of Hubble's red shift theory? Why do you think J P Morgan spent so much money and effort trying to destroy Tesla's science. It did not allow the Robber Barons to develop their plan for world domination, Tesla's empiricism and his huge discoveries, would have resulted in a very different 20th century, had he been able to market his ideas. Modern theory is not without flaws, and the 21st century will result in the oxcart, not only losing a wheel, but could end up being annihilated .Everything is connected, plots within plots abound, and we do not have a unified theory yet because we still do not grasp the limits our current theories have inflicted on our intellectual evolution..
everybody responsible about inviromaent
They don't know overseas food business, they only mention Peru, Guatemala, Costa Rica, and Honduras, cause they went their on vacation....they pointed the Chinese needs to feed their population, but they didn't mention Chinese are taking world business in food and build infrastructure around the world , ignorants....
all farmers in our country they haven't any respect by goverment
ONE FAMILY NEEDS 1 OR 2 CHILDREN! IF YOU WANT A KINDERGARTEN, GO WORK IN ONE! THAT'S HOW YOU ARE GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM!
Camila This earth is our birth place & the mother of all humanity plus all the living things which some of human kind have no respect for them at all. Don't you think all of us we do have obligation to respect our mother the one shelter us to have an existence up to date? How do you show respect toward your mother the one gave you birth & to your siblings? Do you guys go there with your children eat all the food she has mas her home leave her by her own to take care of the mas the one counting on other to survive? Do you see where I'm coming from Camila, do you see comparison? It doesn't matter rich or poor we all still depend heavily on this mother earth, some rich people pretend they don't see any problem, because that is the way they became rich to begin with. Some of this people are the Koch brothers, I don't know how possible stupid ones like them became rich to begin with. If you want to be rich you have to be balance make sure your wealth always will grow not sort period of time only, plus you may end up losing your life for it & take all humanity with you. Camila what we need more people with good common sense, start to communicate & take action other wise few stupid ones the ones have the power on their hands, will take wise ones with them to destruction.
Levon Guyumjian Levon, I understand what you are saying, and also that my statement was very extreme. However, what I meant was that we don't need the human population to grow any more. We are exhausting the Earth like never before. What is the point for people to mate irresponsibly when they don't have the means to support their children? This is exactly what leads to hungry and uneducated people. Just think: if one family with a limited budget has 1 or 2 children and if they have 4 or 5 children - in which scenario is the family going to raise happier children? If they spread their budget among 2 or among 5 kids? In which case do the children have a higher chance to eat food of high quality, to wear clothes that are going to keep them warm, and to get good education?
Camila Johnson Camila I'm 100% with you on that, we are in this situation for one reason there are so many countries out there have no rules or regulation, they don't have enough food for them self & keep having more children. Sadly say most of our human kind still living in the dark ages, they see things only through there religious leaders, Islam in this case one major problem, another one are the Catholics & the third one is Hindu religion. This are major religions effecting human kind to grow out of control, they don't offer any solutions however they do encourage multiply fast. Latin woman afraid to stop their pregnancy just for religious reason, no body teaches them how they can protect them self to not get pregnant. There are simple steps schools can take in Latin American countries teach boys & girls how to be responsible not to have unwanted children. Now Islam have another agenda they want to multiply fast to conquer the world, just for that reason Islam is the fastest growing religion on earth. It's very unfortunate among human kind live people with that kind of mentality. In the case all European countries including American continent they have to give people of Islam warning if they try to have more than two children they will be evicted back to their home land, you will see how fast they will get the message. China's two child law should be global not just in China, every country should embrace that law, & US stinky politicians should immediately stop criticizing china two child law.
Camila Johnson I do agree with you on producing less children will help alot. I don't agree with being rich and spending money on 2 children rather than spending less money on 5 children makes them more happy.
It's been shown that people in rich countries tend to commit more sucides. Because without much to work for or much to try and achieve you don't feel happy. We strive to better ourselves in most cases which also is a great source of our happyness.
Levon Guyumjian I totaly agree with the 2 child law for the whole world. There should be a number where we consume a bit less than earth reproduce and that should be the amount of humans we strive to stay at. Right now we consume alomst the worth of 2 planet earths every year in comparison to what it can reprocude over that year. So for every 2 trees we cut down mother nature can only reproduce 1.
Another good thing with the child law that however is very moraly wrong is that most chineese tend to keep only boys. This in turn gives rise to less future children too because there are less woman to get pregnant.
There is however a bad sideeffect of this and that is that in a world with 80% males and 20% females many males live their whole lives without finding a partner and that can lead to high values of unhappyness.
We tend to keep thinking that we are so diffrent from animals. But we are not.
We are extremly similar to many animals and I argue that so many of our daily thoughts and decisions are based on animalistic behaviour.
Why do we get angry? It's not something we control it's because of animalistic behaviour.
Why do we fall in love? It's not something we control it's because of animalistic behaviour.
Why do we socialize? It's not something we control it's because of animalistic behaviour.
Evolution made us stick together to survive and we think we choose so many things but our choises are based on deep inside animalistic behaviour.
This also means that we try to survive no matter what. because surviving is in our nature. We don't try to survive on a global scale because animals don't act that way. We tend to care mostly only for ourselves and the people close to us. Just like a pack of apes would. So in order to survive on a global scale we need to overcome our animalistic behaviour in some areas. This however will never happen I fear. There are to many individuals that do not understand this out there.
nope it doesnt solve the problem.. its not about the population but bcz of the lack of management of resources.. greediness of some people affecting the whole mankind.. if someone put a whole in a passenger boat it affects the whole passengers, right.. intrest of money, pollutions, huge exploiting natural resources, like wise there are so much reasons.. by avoiding these are all its childish to blame on kids... if a baby is born in this world at the same time some one is dying at somewhere in the world..
The answer to global food security is giving everyone cell phones? How far has society abstracted food as a market commodity from the real world? The only two who have anything substantial to say are the women panelists, and between the two the one with world travels and ground level experience has the most pertinent thoughts.
In Africa in the year 1963, at the foundation of the African Union, food security was one of the core objectives. Ethiopia was the hosting country and host of the African Union.
But string of food crisis will affect the very region where the African Union is located corn. Somalia is famous for its hunger crisis.
Despite the arable lands and despite thousands of Organizations on earth, it will appear that the war in Ukraine equate to hunger crisis in Africa because wheat and other cereals and fertilizer come from Russia and Ukraine.
If food security is a core objective and if fertilizer is key to that objective, why since 1963 to nowadays, wheat, other cereals and fertilizer should come from elsewhere when there are arable lands available in Africa?
Why African nations being member states of hundreds of International Organizations such as the Commonwealth, Francophonie, etc none of all these hasn't led via a synergy between all these countries to a fertilizer production plant somewhere on the continent of Africa?
Around 22:20 the gentleman starts talking about the need to offer affordable food of high quality, and how price shouldn't be what determines if one makes the choice to eat healthy or unhealthy. My question is: How can a not so well educated person with a low lifestyle and low criteria for satisfaction and happiness have the knowledge and awareness when it comes to making informed choices? How can the above-mentioned individual know what the difference between high-sodium and low-sodium soup is, and how significant it is?!? What about all the marketing catchy phrases on the pretty cute boxes full of poison? What percentage of the population know what those labels mean and what all chemicals included in the ingredient list mean?? "Cholesterol free", "Healthy for the heart", "Sugar free", "Gluten free", "Fat free", "Natural" .. this is what the average buyer pays attention to: all the useless words made up by the marketing department to make the box more appealing. The sad part is that the stores that sell these poisonous products are completely aware of it; the agencies that set the restrictions for what is allowed to go in the food people consume are aware of it; everybody who is capable of making an educated and informed choice makes the choice to allow, market, and sell food I wouldn't want to give to my pet but, unfortunately, like millions of other people, I am forced to consume it due to it being cheaper. A small box of blueberries at Giant Eagle is about $4 in Ohio. Most people make around $9-10 an hour. You do the math. What's bad is, this is not even the organic version! So instead of buying those blueberries, people will just go get a doughnut for 80 cents and move on. At the end of the day all the unsold and spoiled blueberries will be thrown away. But what matters here is profit, right? However, WalMart is significantly cheaper, so I give them that.
As to GMOs, the theory that people should be given the opportunity to choose between organic and GMO is so absurd to me. Do you even know how many people don't know what GMO means?? On top of that, who would pay premium for organic produce when there are cheaper options in front of you? Even if I want to avoid GMO how am I going to do so when THE PRODUCERS OF GMO ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ANNOUNCE THIS ON THE PACKAGING?!?!? If you don't know what the side effects of GMOs are, simply read this article: www.responsibletechnology.org/10-Reasons-to-Avoid-GMOs I can't believe that so experienced people with so many pompous titles and what not could actually support and tolerate the idea of GMOs!!! Very disappointed! GMOs could cause abnormalities, organ damages, and so on. So I guess we should not try to control the population growth, but instead, encourage and support it, regardless of the fact that people are going to look like cartoon characters in the near future!
To conclude, listening to the answers of these important people whose decisions really could make a change only made me feel more desperate about the situation we're in. Yes, they can speak articulately and persuasively, know how to combine big words in phrases and sentences, but I don't see how that could contribute to anything. There was absolutely no passion or care whatsoever. Probably the only positive thing I heard was that WalMart are trying to have the same price for organic and non-organic. Can't wait to see that!
water water water
"Insecure World", "Food Security",???
They are just talking heads; they contradict themselves all the time' very concerned with how important they are, but most of all state the obvious as to the problems with a fairy wish list of solutions.
Watched in 2X speed. Still feel my time wasted.
Same here, forced to watch it for a school project, but it ended up being a giant waste of time. 14.1 million subscribers and less than 40k views, that says a lot about how useful the information in this video was to the public.
Antinatalism is not a popular idea, but a necessary one. 😅