[Don_1]

We can feed the world with no problems whatsoever. We just need fewer people.

That is the answer to most of the world's current problems.


Karsten: You are right to question whether hydroponics can feed the whole world. I doubt it.

MIL: Right again, fresh water for irrigation, commercial and domestic use is finite.

Mazurka: If we are unable to transport food over long distances, we will be forced to source locally. As consumers, we will have no option but to lower our expectations. We must learn that we cannot have that which is not available.

The sooner we embark on a programme of locally supplied produce for local people, the easier it will be on us all when the time ultimately comes when we have no other choice.

[dentstudent]

We can feed the world with no problems whatsoever. We just need fewer people.

BC - I'm not sure that that is right, it's just an obvious solution. The earth as a whole can easily sustain this many people, it's just that the processes and resources aren't evenly spread.

[Mazurka]

One of the beauties of hydroponics is that it can be practised on almost any scale from windowsill to hectares.  This makes it potentially a very effect system within cities, where disused industrial buildings/ warehouses would be an obvious place to start commercially.  As the water is recycled and extra nutrients added to it it uses less water than conventional systems.  It also uses fertiliser more efficiently than conventional systems as there is no run off and the nutrients go directly to the roots.

I guess its principle disadvantage is high set up costs and higher electricity costs (even if grown in polytunnels/ glass houses) electricity is required to circulate the nutrients.  The other disadavantage is that it is difficult to implement in the open as rain etc could upset the system.  However as transportaton  and other inputs such as pesticide and fertiliser become more expensive and energy from biomass/ photovoltaics become more practical, power costs will be reduced and i would suggest that the need for cover/ controlled conditions is outweighed by the significantly greater yield and cropping rate.     

[Karsten (OP)]

So, it sounds to me that hydroponics is a possibility if fewer people have to be fed and electricity is available easily and with fewer limits. Do we have large hydroponic facilities working already? Facilities that supply produce for thousands or (better) hundreds of thousands of people. The fertilizers required for hydroponics are not made based on petrochemicals?

One day we may not have choices and will implement whatever works. I would like to see it working already at a scale that leaves hope that it may work on a global level when we are forced to do it, no matter what the set-up costs.

If we do not use nuclear power, will we be able to create enough electricity to do all this (even if we, hahaha, all begin using CFLs)? We are doing a lot of talking and innovating regarding more efficient household appliances, transportation vehicles, electronic gadgets, etc. but I am getting quite worried about the basics. If fossil fuels are exhausted for most practical purposes, and nuclear power is not implemented, how do we make electricity enough to use hydroponics? That should probably be a new thread though.

[Karsten (OP)]

We can feed the world with no problems whatsoever. We just need fewer people.

BC - I'm not sure that that is right, it's just an obvious solution. The earth as a whole can easily sustain this many people, it's just that the processes and resources aren't evenly spread.

Earth can easily sustain which people? Americans? Europeans? Indians? Ethiopians? I would love to know what life style is sustainable. I doubt it is the American life-style. While I am not worried about our planet, I am worried about the people on it. How good can our lives continue to be if we spread evenly resources and processes around the globe? And how does this "even spread" look like if we take fossil fuels out of the equation?

[JimBob]

I believe that there will be substantial temporary problems - famine war, etc, if these can be called problems, but that the species will survive. The interregnum? Watch out. Dig your survival shelter.

[LeeE]

I'm very strongly inclined to agree with you JimBob.  I do think that the race will survive, so the worst case scenario isn't complete extermination, just the death of several billions of people, mostly the poor.

From the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

"...because no one was really poor — at least no one worth speaking of."

[Karsten (OP)]

So, I fear the answer may be:

Yes, after a major "correction" of numbers of human beings on this planet, we will be able to feed the world when we run out of fossil fuels.