Carolyn Steel: How food shapes our cities
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2009
- www.ted.com Every day, in a city the size of London, 30 million meals are served. But where does all the food come from? Architect Carolyn Steel discusses the daily miracle of feeding a city, and shows how ancient food routes shaped the modern world.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at www.ted.com/translate. Watch a highlight reel of the Top 10 TEDTalks at www.ted.com/index.php/talks/top10
Follow us on Twitter at
/ tednews
Checkout our Facebook page for TED exclusives at
/ ted
only watching this for school...
Same
Anthropology 101
Me too
Same
Same
very nice..she speaks with such humbleness on topics of such importance
I know it was 2009 but seriously? This is the best quality it could be?
ikr
Who else is watching for AP Human Geography?
how do you know >:C
1:13 flashing image warning
There are several cities which have successfully incorporated food production into the urban environment. This does away with much of the transportation and energy costs associated with food distribution. Of course, eating less or no meat or dairy has a huge effect too.
1:14 seizure warning right there, that thing's just came up too suddenly
Who else still smells food to make sure it's good in 2020
So informative and very frightening.
You can create sustainable food systems in pretty much any climate. Permaculturists are 'greening' parts of the desert which were once considered completely inadequate for food production. There are some good videos here on youtube on that regard.
damn, very informative show.
local meat can result in some great benefits - reduction of harmful insects, less pollutive gounds care, increased green space, etc. as well, free range animal fats can contain important nutrients which are absorbed more readily then when found in other areas.
There are ways to drastically reduce the amount of space livestock needs, in fact I believe it was discussed on a previous TED.
I'm always astounded by some people's utter affection for forests, as if they're the only good ecosystem. are hot deserts inherently bad? no. they're naturally occurring, just like grassland, wetlands, jungles, tundra, etc.
Food is the cornerstone for many families, as it should be. No thanks with the nutrient pills. Proper farming methods enrich and nourish the land while creating an abundance of food for people to eat. Remineralized minimally processed organic and biodynamic foods are the key to the future.
You're right, saying it's an addiction is just passing the buck.
It's not that I'm too lazy to figure out how to cook, I'm just too lazy to actually go out and get what's needed to cook, and then to cook it.
It appears that stage 3 depends on events that went on (and are still going on) in China, South Korea, Iran, Thailand, Turkey, Brazil, and other non-European states. So, it's not just Europe. As for the possibility of increasing fertility post-stage 3, the impact of that depends on a) how low did the birth rate get, and b) how great of an increase are we talking about? ...
3. Cheap food and the actions of Monsanto, etc. go hand in hand. Vandana Shiva has explained this better than I can, and it would take more posts here than anyone has patience for anyway, so I encourage you to check out some of her lectures on the interaction between food, agribusiness and poverty.
Who else is here because of mr.Jamsa
yes
If eaten seperately transit time for apples is 12 - 24 hours.
The transit time for meat is up to 72 hours.
If meat and apples are eaten together - up to 72 hours. During this time the apples are fermenting.
I agree with you but at the very least, she's speaking where those who have truly contributed to things like permaculture may soon get a stage like this to state their case.
That was the first time I'd heard permaculture mentioned at a TED talk. I don't care who she is, I'm just glad she's brought it up.
no, the market builds houses on flood plains since its cheap and available, people are suckered into the comfort of "knowing" that the house was built there since it wont get knocked flat by the weather. its the blind leading the blind.
I was responding to a response. It's simple social interaction. when someone says something you respond this prevents a comment section from being a dull wasteland of trolls and fanboys. Debate arises and even something as meaningless as this piece of fluff might actually atone for itself by leading to an interesting conversation or debate.
yay!!! she said mentioned permaculture!!!!
I still don't understand why they haven't had any permaculture specialists on. I submitted a request on TED the site, but I guess they'd need more requests. any one out there who agrees with me, please go to TED . com and submit a request for Bill Mollison, Sepp Holtzer, Geoff Lawton or any of the many others teaching permaculture around the world.
I'm sorry, don't got any links to hand out right now. The source of my claims, is a highly respectable magazine called "Science Illustrated", if that helps on the truthfulness of my claims. But if you still want links, I'll get back to you later and try dig up something, I just don't got the time right now.
They generally have the most natural resources. Resources which when used destroy the forest itself. Cut down forests and you have less wood, no habitat for the animals that lived there, less oxygen that those trees produced, etc.
If you take oil from the middle of the desert you're only misplacing sand.
Same the video won't even load just sitting in class doing nothing
I didn't deny those trends. But a trend doesn't determine an endpoint.
i think it's so sad the amount of people who don't understand this subject. i guess it comes down to things that scare us we choose not to believe. even if you disagree with most of the information presented you must understand the concept that most of us havent a clue of where are food has come from, what has been sprayed on it and how long ago it was picked prior to reaching the grocery store. when is the last time any one of us has purchased a ripe tomato at the store that tasted good.
Madoff worked for the Securities Exchange Commission. This was a man at the top of a government regulatory agency designed to prevent the exact fraud that he himself was committing.
I'm sure that the fact that Madoff was head of the SEC helped bolster the idea that he was a legit investor. Government regulators are always erroneously assumed to be impartial, fair, etc. There's just no reason to assume that though, given that they aren't even held up to competitive standards.
It's true that Europe-descended culture has done as you say. It remains to be seen whether the developing countries will follow suit. You assume education and empowerment of women will be universal, yet there are strong forces currently trying to prevent that.
@jursamaj; That's not necessarily true. The cheap food coming out of industrial production (and the actions of mega food companies) may actually have the long term effect of causing enormous poverty, and aren't sustainable anyway.
Besides which, we only started farming like this about 70 years ago. The world population then was about 2.5B (UN estimate). You're saying that the world at the time couldn't have supported more than 0.6B people.
"The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 births per woman for most industrialized countries ... but ranges from 2.5 to 3.3 in developing countries because of higher mortality rates" --Wiki. It's over 2.0 b/c of infant and child mortality, and women who do not or cannot reproduce for other reasons. Maybe 2.5 is high for Lebanon specifically, but my point about an eventual increase in birth rates still stands.
forests look pretty and are more habitable to us than deserts are. However, i'd say it's *all* beautiful in the long run, so my previous point is pretty well moot.
This may take a few posts to answer, so bear with me.
1. I say 70 years b/c that's when we started using left over explosives from WWII as fertilizer (NPK fertilizers), which are devistating when they run off the farms in rainwater. You might could stretch it to 80 years b/c that's when the US government started actively trying to consolodate farming by encouraging farmers to sell their land to agribusiness.
Google: Poor Nutrition in Pregnancy May Mean Obese Kids
These articles doesn't state exactly what I stated about the bacterias, but I remember those statements from "Science Illustrated" specifically. The article in SI was much longer and went deeper in detail than these articles. And stated other things like that there might be a correlation with poor diet in America 30-50 years ago and today's overweight problems in America.
It's not just monoculture (altho that is a problem). It's also the power of big business (at home and abroad), the well-meaning but misguided public policy of subsidies, the reduction of genetic diversity, the chemicals that make people sick, the dangerous work environment of meat packers, the links to obesity. It goes on and on. I just think we can do better.
I thought her ideas were nonsensical. What was she really saying? That we should all be growing our own food in our back yards? People don't grow their own food because nobody wants to do it. Its hot, sweaty, dirty, and miserable work. Agricultural mechanization is a beautiful thing to anybody who has actually grown anything more than a couple tomatoes and flowers in their backyard.
I ate hot chili Tortillia Chips ;)
Mega corps: Actually, I suspect that mega corporations in general actually are too powerful and reduce productive competition in the long run. But that's just my opinion. They got that way because of the passivity or active support of government in the 20th century. I don't think consumers chose it so much as they didn't notice it until it had already happened, or were fallable and couldn't predict the consequences. Many consumers now are actively pushing against it (vote with you fork).
Population forecast: I actually checked this out on Gapminder (TED is awesome!), and in the last 15-20 years, children per women has gone down as literacy and early education among girls has gone up, all over the world. Rates in different countries vary, and there are outliers, but the trend is there. Equality in education has been and is going up and children per women is going down.
That's not the case at all. TED is simple a convention where individual people, all over the world, working on independent or global problems of the world, explain to each other what they are doing. The TED prize is awarded to people of fruitful causes.
These are people that believe they can make a difference, and are working with every ounce of their power to do so. You perceive the world as "going to hell in a handbasket", so that is how you interpret TED's purpose.
Meat takes a few days to pass through the intestines, and we don't have the strong acids in our stomach to digest meat like the carnivores have.
So yes, it does rot inside.
Furthermore, the government actually prevents the freedom of information more than any private business or industry could, using its monopoly on force and perceived legitimacy to enforce laws like copyrights and patents, laws which are routinely abused to prevent the active spread of information.
Ah, you must distinguish between the results of the food and the results of the food companies' actions. Separate issues.
And why aren't they sustainable? (Not necessarily the current details, just the industrial scale)
70 years? The 1st steam tractors came out about 1850.
British wheat bushels/acre:
1720: 19
~1750: 21-22
1840: stabilized at 30
this women is very smart and she has some correct views on food. Today we dont eat as fresh as we would like.Fresh food has been replaced by Mcdonalds, burgerking and kentucky fried chiken. We dont eat as a family. Now we feed our kids ramen noodles like its a major food group. And the amount of Msg = Monosodium Glutimate is rediculus. Msg should be banned just as food additives and food coloring should also be banned due to high blood pressure and diabetes and most cancers today.
If you eat an apple and a steak together, you will poop them both out simultaneously.
The speed at which any eaten material travels through our intestinal tract is the same, regardless of what it is.
Our intestines are not multi-lane highways.
Wonderful talk.
Yes, toxic. As in, you brought up the example of someone polluting on a piece of property and then selling it to have someone build a school on top of it. I was referring to the incident with Hooker Chemicals. You know, real world examples, the stuff you don't seem to be able to provide. The school board demanded that the company sell them the land and built a school on top despite Hooker's stipulation that one could not be built on it in the deed. Go watch the damn video that I posted.
(And just in case you couldn't care less about India, consider how agribusiness is undermining classic agriculture in the US. Monsanto is carrying on a campaign against farmers who don't buy their GM seeds by accusing them of theft and suing them. That hurts the US's ability to prevent famine b/c it reduces the genetic diversity, which means that one super bug can kill all corn in the country.)
2. The use of fossil fuels *in moderation* is sustainable for many years to come. The trouble is that the West doesn't use fossil fuels in moderation, in agriculture or out of it.
Moringa & Mexican tree spinach might be the meat of the future, haha.
I like the start of her presentation but the solutions were very vague, it just said treat food better. I think some of the solutions to focus on are:
1) eat more locally so you waste less energy on transportation.
2) Eat less meat because meat cost more land and water than any other food group (not sure how you accomplish this) Rationing might be the only way but god knows Americans will never go for that... perhaps better food education??
3) Eat communally instead of individually
Like many such people, she states that we should get away from industrial farming.
Unfortunately, they don't get that without that scale of farming, at least 90% of the world's population must go!
New studies show that overweight is caused mainly by how much food the mothers eat during pregnancy. Eating too little food will cause the baby to be born with bacterias that break down fat much more efficient than normal. This is the main cause why some people can eat almost all the food they want and don't ever get fat, while others have to eat diets to drop weight. You're prejudice is uncalled for.
Monsanto's accusations highlight one of the problems of industrial farming: mega food companies have too much power. Farmers have been steadily put out of business since the Depression. That in itself isn't a world-ender. Problem is, food companies are now pushing to stop farmers from using seeds produced on their own land. Those farmers are put out of business by legal fees b/c of Monsanto's lawsuits. I think farmers should have the option of heirloom seeds.
Anthropology 101 REPRESENT!!!
If Lebanon's stats go from 1.89 children (2006) to 2.5 (a good, solid replacement rate), then that's still not going to increase the overall population.
What I see is, the countries that fall into the demographic trap are a minority (they're mostly in Sub-Saharan Africa), and even the DTM suggests that such states will probably fail and fall into either famine or warfare that will through great tragedy bring the population down again.
let me farm the spot where they took the house down in my neighborhood.
The media isn't impartial because it's a monopoly, or at the very least an oligopoly. That's the point. The FCC's regulations ensure that the market is devoid of competition.
Pollution is a problem of commons. People do not pollute on private property because it hurts the resale value. "Public" property belongs to "no one" (actually, the state, who also owns private property, but that's another topic) and thus there is no incentive to take care of it.
No, some people were taking their money out long before the shit hit the fan. Madoff was simply taking new investor money and giving it to old investors. The old investors thought they were profiting healthily, which naturally made Madoff seem like the man to give your money to.
It's shitty what he did, but the people who gave him their money should have known something with such a return would have a high risk. People thought they were getting rich quick, taking advantage of the system.
I'm just not convinced by this. The lack of data here worries me. This is simply "oh wouldn't it be nice if we had happy cows, happy families, and happy community food." Specialization if a part of economic advancement. the Rural/Urban divide is a part of this and without mega farms we wouldn't be able to feed NEARLY as many as we do now.
Control is never the solution.
I want to live free
Population: By that logic we can't make any predictions and therefore both of our arguments about future populations are invalid. My argument is, given what's happened so far, I predict that the trend will continue. Many countries not in "the West" already are below the birth rate necessary to replace their populations.
What great arguments? She discovered a problem that people don't care about and pointed out solutions someone else came up with that became popular years ago and which she in no way helped implement and still she's acting depressing and self righteous. Give her a gold star for wasting my time.
Rewatch her presentation, she is not saying that we can't feed the world, she is in fact saying that we are doing it badly and inefficiently.
But, of course, your use of an epithet shows me that you really weren't watching it except through your own blinders and wouldn't get it if you did rewatch it.
PS- the contraction is "aren't."
"sustainable for many years to come"...
So, apparently, is the current rate. Just not as many years. How long is long enough?
ask your council, and you may be able to setup a community garden there.
"chemical company puts its waste into underground tanks"
Take the example of Love Canal. ?v=xta4c731F-Y It was the government that created that disaster. Hooker Chemicals tried to do the right thing and was actually forced by the government to sell the property.
Such sad images of the world in the near future
I've been saying that the whole time. But what you're not putting together is that the free market can and would provide better regulation for less cost than the government could through competition.
Standard Oil had already lost 40% of its market share before anti-trust laws were established. Monopolies are notoriously hard to maintain and absolutely impossible to at the monopoly rate without government regulation to prop them up. Government itself is a giant monopoly, backed by force.
If actual Honesty had a demonstrably high market value, what possible need would this world have for Public Relations?
The PERCEPTION of honesty has market value, and managing Perceptions is what Public Relations is all about.
I'm curious, how does a free market protect it's consumers from Snakeoil Salesmen? And don't try to tell me that Snake-oil isn't profitable.
indeed we would.
I'm not saying Communism is a bad idea. I'm just suggesting that we will likely have to develop our technology more, before Communism is truly viable.
In the Startrek universe, Starfleet is essentially a successful Communist state. But where would they be without their technology?
They speak to their computers with natural human language, play in holodecks, travel via transporters, and automated food "replicators" create limitless quality food, tools and materials.
That is actually not true. You should research permaculture and the work of Geoff Lawton, he has done projects greening the desert. The systems created are self sustaining, only needing the initial human effort to create them and then tend them,it mainly requires human labor. You would grow it to feed the local populations and wouldn't need to ship it.
But by that logic, *all* the mega corps are too powerful. But they got that wealth and power because the consumer chose it. How do you propose to alter the basics of economics?
The world has evolved towards specialisation (I think it's a shame she forgot to mention the effects of refrigeration on food transport), in both transport and agriculture. So why is that bad per se? Is it specialisation that causes environmental damage, or something else?
I also found her way of speaking a bit strange; as if decisions about food distribution were made collectively. Even in Rome, that lover of the politic, food was a decentralised affair.
The issue isn't with "less" or "more" regulation, the issue is with government regulation. The market should be allowed to regulate itself. Instead, we allow this government monopoly to control everything, and when government regulation fails, the convenient solution is "more government regulation!" Which also means higher taxes.
Government doesn't have to compete; it has a monopoly on the services it provides. Get rid of the monopoly and regulation will be more effective.
desert ecosystems are more fragile than you think... anyways, my point is that the idea that the earth should be covered in forests is domineering and unthinking. yeah, I love forests, I live in a temperate zone, but still, we have to understand the importance and beauty of all zones.
Yeah 2050
So close yet so far away.
Paleo baby
No, removing regulation wasn't the problem. Removing *pieces* of regulation while keeping others in place (because the main point of regulations is to erect barriers to entry that limit competition and allow big businesses to retain their share of the market) is the problem. A patchwork of regulations with holes one could drive a Mack truck through is not "de-regulation."
Without government monopolizing regulation, private regulators could compete to provide more effective regulation.
good, now youre starting to get it, its not more or less regulation- there are specific things the govt is doing which is bad and there are alot of things which it is doing which we take for granted that would cause the whole system to implode if we quit doing them.
Now I ain't generalizing this, you're situation may very well be totally different. All overweight people does not necessarily have their mother (or grand mother) to blame for their obesity. And one should be careful about putting blame on anyone for something you can't be sure about.
I belive vertical farming is the future...
@glen58316
to say msg and food coloring should be banned is ignorant. People can educate themselves on those topics, should not be controlled by any one government or group
I don't think there are any solutions in nature. There is only one important law in nature, called cause and effect. Humans look for solutions and the only way solutions come is by changing the direction of the cause and getting the effect in your favor. However, changing the direction of cause might seem infringement on freedom to many human beings. However, humans should realize that nature doesn't really allow them any freedom. It makes us dependent on external things starting with food.
yes it does, move to one of the 'stans if you think less govt is good.
shakespear isnt the literature you got in highschool?
I love when people try to hide from criticism by accusing the other person of what theyre most afraid of being accused of, its so transparent.
Is she saying 2015 or 2050? Because if she said 2015, I don't think much is going to change in 5 years ... Food wise that is.
better than the alternative: hordes of children with no schooling. you arnt just paying for yours, youre paying to live in a society where everyone else has some too.
not that private schools are going to be miraculously better just for being private.
Should be. But too many people are addicted to fast food crap (myself included) for something like the laws against Tobacco to be passed on fast food, anytime soon.
yeah, oversight completely collapsed due to repeals on the great depression era laws in place to prevent just this sort of thing from happening. I would rather have biased oversight with a way of appealing decisions than no oversight at all.
So I should assume that you have read in detail all the books pertaining to the Venus Project and have come to that conclusion? Because, if you ask Jacque it is not communism and there is a LOT of difference.
Well then I have got a new question. Lets say that venus project is communism based on overabundance. People don't have to worry about money anymore because there is just overabundance of everything as things are made not by human labor but by intelligent machines. Food is produced in 50 story green houses and there is just abundance of everything so much as there's no law required anymore. In a situation like that, wouldn't we prefer communism?
Im not quite sure what you mean by regulation, but Im talking about how you cant just put all your toxic chemicals in a pit out back even though thats the cheaper alternative and you cant just sell off your company's assets to a shell company in order to declare bankruptcy to skirt the huge cost of cleaning up that mess you made. how do you know your investment ISNT dropping it all in a pit out back? the truth wants to be free, but its a rare, fragile thing.
the media is not impartial either.
Obviously I don't. Did you read my whole comment?
omg a seziure
No, Meat rotting inside your intestines is an Urban Myth.
Free information is impossible? Look at the internet. Information WANTS to be free.
You're ignoring the fact that businesses cannot compete in a free market without providing economic value to its customers, the consumers. And if a business is trying to subvert the intelligence of its customers, that gives incentive for an honest business to provide real value.
The market is self-regulating. Government "regulations" prop up predatory businesses through barriers to entry.