Book review: Feeding Everyone No Matter What: Managing Food Security After Global Catastrophe, by David Denkenberger and Joshua M. Pearce.
I have very mixed feelings about this book.
It discusses some moderately unlikely risks – scenarios where most crops fail worldwide for several years, due to inadequate sunlight.
It’s hard to feel emotionally satisfied about a tolerable but uncomfortable response to disasters, when ideally we’d prevent those disasters in the first place. And the disasters seem sufficiently improbable that I don’t feel comfortable thinking frequently about them. But we don’t yet have a foolproof way of preventing catastrophic climate changes, and there are things we can do to survive them. So logic tells me that we ought to devote a few resources to preparing.
The authors sketch a set of strategies which could conceivably ensure that nobody starves (Wikipedia has a good summary). There might even be a bit of room for mistakes, but not much.
The book focuses on the technical problems, with the hope that others will solve the political problems. This makes some sense, as the feasibility of various political solutions is very different if the best political strategy saves 95% of people than if it saves 30%.
It’s a bit disturbing that this seems to be the most expert analysis available for these scenarios – the authors appear fairly competent, but seem to have done less research than I expect from a technical book. They may have made the right choice to publish early, in order to attract more support. I’m mainly disturbed by what the lack of expertise says about societal competence.
The book leaves me with lots of uncertainty about how hard it is to improve on the meager preparations that have been done so far.
For example, I expect there are a moderate number of people who know something about rapidly scaling up mushroom production. Are they already capable of handling the needed changes? Or are drastically different preparations needed? It’s hard for me to tell without developing significant expertise in growing mushrooms.
There’s probably an urgent need for a bit more preparation for extracting nutrition from ordinary leaves. In particular, I expect it to matter what kinds of leaves to use. The book mostly talks of leaves from trees, but careless people in my area might include poison hemlock leaves, with disastrous results. A small amount of advance preparation should be able to cause large reductions in this kind of mistake.
Another simple preparation that’s needed is a better awareness of where to look in a crisis. The news media in particular ought to be able to quickly find this kind of information even when they’re overwhelmed with problems.
I’m guessing that a few hundred thousand dollars of additional effort in this area would have high expected value, with strongly diminishing returns after that. I’ve donated a small amount to ALLFED, and I encourage you to donate a little bit as well.
Capitalism appears to already be solving this problem. Several companies are manufacturing microorganisms that can produce nutrients much more efficiently than agriculture: https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/31zo1r/a_future_of_food_and_why_cities_wont_need_much/
>the end result will be a system that produces pure nutrients at up to 220,000 pounds per acre per year (the global record for agriculture is 3,600) at less than 20 cents per pound, all while generating 99% fewer greenhouse gases than conventional farming means.
>To provide what Berry calls “baseline protein nutrition” for every chronically undernourished person on the planet, it would only take the land area of 250 square miles. To provide complete protein nutrition to everyone in the world, it would take the land area of Rhode Island.
Artificial light could be used to feed it without too much additional cost.
Houshalter,
They reject this (page 67) on the grounds that there’s only enough electricity to supply a few percent of global food needs via artificial lighting.
They expect bacteria to be an important emergency food source, but it’s much cheaper to feed the bacteria wood, oil, and/or natural gas.
I presume industry is doing some relevant preparation, but I see no reason to expect industry to develop a complete solution.
Lighting only 250 square miles seems doable. It’s a lot more efficient than conventional agriculture which they measure in the book.
But that’s only in a situation where all sunlight is blocked. if only 70% is taken, then you just need 833 square miles. Which still seems feasible.
Houshalter,
The text that you quoted in your prior message says 250 square miles will provide something that’s way short of world calorie needs.
Pingback: Dirt | Bayesian Investor Blog