NationStates Jolt Archive

Will vitro meat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat) prevent starvation in the future?

I think it will, and I think it will also be healthier, since the food is basically meat cells multiplying in a vat it hopefully won't be exposed to dangerous chemicals or pollutants. And with scientists saying fish will become extinct in a few decades if we start growing meat of these fish then we will still be able to eat fish meat and hopefully that will eliminate the need to over fish over fished species and possibly prevent their extinction. And as long s there are lots of resources to support a vitro meat project the nations won't starve even if the sea becomes lifeless.And we'd probably have more food to give to unfortunate nations.

Thoughts?

btw I made a thread on this in international incidents.

I think it represents an important mark in the future of cuisine theoretically the possibilities are endless of course world hunger wise this solves nothing since the problem has never been too much food only a lack of money for transport

Oh and stay away from I.I its nothing but hard work and commitment

Oh, absolutely. If you combine it with other things like urban agriculture and genetic engineering, the food potential for this planet becomes effectively limitless. This also has the advantage of greatly reducing water needs, providing more for human consumption and reducing the environmental damage from agriculture that threatens water supplies in many parts of the world.

And, of course, if a significant chunk of the population moves from consuming energy via food to energy from electrical sources, food needs overall are decreased and the overall supply of energy is massively increased.

Well from what I know all thats needed is something to keep the meat alive in, nutrients, a container, a piece of muscle from a living fish, cow, pig ect, and just leave the cells to it. That shouldn't take up much energy.

Oh, absolutely. If you combine it with other things like urban agriculture and genetic engineering, the food potential for this planet becomes effectively limitless. This also has the advantage of greatly reducing water needs, providing more for human consumption and reducing the environmental damage from agriculture that threatens water supplies in many parts of the world.

And, of course, if a significant chunk of the population moves from consuming energy via food to energy from electrical sources, food needs overall are decreased and the overall supply of energy is massively increased.

the problem with food shortage in this country has always been far less about supply and far more about distribution. There is a great deal of food potential on this planet, it's a matter of getting it to the right places.

There are six and a half billion sacks of meat wandering around, more of them overweight than malnourished, and you're worried about starvation?

There's plenty of food available, and the upside being the more of it we eat, the fewer people there are to eat it. We just choose not to.

If its cheap and masss producable it may help end starvation.

I wonder what vegetarians think of meat that has never been part of an animal.

I still haven't gotten over the whole "vat o' meat" thing yet: I'll hold off judgment until I get a more definitive idea of how hormonized/chemically stimulated it is (not very optimistic)

I'm putting this in the same category as the "ground up and glued back together again" style fast food, as far as my own personal menu is concerned.


on a global scale, increasing the total availability of food is a great thing.

in other words, I don't have high hopes for it: http://www.rd.com/content/openContent.do?contentId=33433

According to a study by The Washington Post, since 2000 the government has paid people around the country $1.3 billion a year not to farm. That equates to 40 million acres annually -- "the equivalent of making every farm in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio idle," says Brian Riedl, a senior budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Vat meat sounds hideously, tragically unpalatable. The very best meat is flavoured by the sudden release of hormones as the animal is slaughtered. Without this, it'll be dry and taste like shit. This may be an option for the poorest nations of the world, but the day we stop killing animals in favour of this crap in first world nations is the day I start killing and eating my neighbours.

Well from what I know all thats needed is something to keep the meat alive in, nutrients, a container, a piece of muscle from a living fish, cow, pig ect, and just leave the cells to it. That shouldn't take up much energy.

That's pretty much it. Also, you can engineer the cells themselves to alter their growth rate and composition so that the meat produced can be customized to be like the products produced by animal farming. The potential is effectively limitless.

This is still in development, but it's entirely possible and will definitely be economically competitive with conventional farming once it has been fully developed.

There are six and a half billion sacks of meat wandering around, more of them overweight than malnourished, and you're worried about starvation?

There's plenty of food available, and the upside being the more of it we eat, the fewer people there are to eat it. We just choose not to.

I take it you'll be one of the first to volunteer as a meal?

I don't believe it's going to help fight starvation at all, for the energy you'd have to put into the "meat" production would be better used in growing regular plants.

This is going to end badly, as in "everything you think do or say is in the pill you took today"...

And you don't honestly think that those cells grow without growth hormones, and if you want to go into mass production, you probably need to add antibiotics as well - and if you take a look at today's "food" production, I'd rather not eat that in the near future.

Another huge problem is that there is no offal, bones, fat or skin involved in the process, which basically restricts our meat diet to dry steak (without gravy, since the stock requires bones) should we switch to an all vat-meat economy. Yuck.

I take it you'll be one of the first to volunteer as a meal?

Bite me.

Genetically engineer it to achieve the same effect. It's hardly difficult to do so once you have the cells growing; in fact, with some progress in the field we could eventually exceed conventional food in terms of quality, taste, and nutrient content.

I sincerely doubt it. Sincerely. So much so, in fact, that I'll personally shoot myself in the eye with a shotgun if you prove me wrong.

Something needs to die for meat to taste good.

but the day we stop killing animals in favour of this crap in first world nations is the day I start killing and eating my neighbours.

well if you can get some samples of the neighbours you technically can eat them whilst not eating them thus saving on the whole “should I eat them or the kids first?”

Isn’t technology marvellous

Grow them; if there's a market for them, people are going to buy it. All of them contain cells, and it would be just a matter of engineering the cells to produce them. As a matter of fact, you could probably produce them with other forms of meat to approximate the structures of an animal.

At what point does it cease to be a vat of meat and become an animal itself?

Vat meat sounds hideously, tragically unpalatable. The very best meat is flavoured by the sudden release of hormones as the animal is slaughtered. Without this, it'll be dry and taste like shit. This may be an option for the poorest nations of the world, but the day we stop killing animals in favour of this crap in first world nations is the day I start killing and eating my neighbours.

But its a part of an animal(muscles mainly) grown in a lab so wouldn't it taste nearly as good as the actual thing?

Vat meat sounds hideously, tragically unpalatable. The very best meat is flavoured by the sudden release of hormones as the animal is slaughtered. Without this, it'll be dry and taste like shit. This may be an option for the poorest nations of the world, but the day we stop killing animals in favour of this crap in first world nations is the day I start killing and eating my neighbours.

Genetically engineer it to achieve the same effect. It's hardly difficult to do so once you have the cells growing; in fact, with some progress in the field we could eventually exceed conventional food in terms of quality, taste, and nutrient content.

But its a part of an animal(muscles mainly) grown in a lab so wouldn't it taste nearly as good as the actual thing?

No. Taste is 90% fat, and chemical reactions with the muscle tissue in combination with hormones present in the meat. In vitro meat has zero fat, meaning it has zero taste.

Another huge problem is that there is no offal, bones, fat or skin involved in the process, which basically restricts our meat diet to dry steak (without gravy, since the stock requires bones) should we switch to an all vat-meat economy. Yuck.

Grow them; if there's a market for them, people are going to buy it. All of them contain cells, and it would be just a matter of engineering the cells to produce them. As a matter of fact, you could probably produce them with other forms of meat to approximate the structures of an animal.

well if you can get some samples of the neighbours you technically can eat them whilst not eating them thus saving on the whole “should I eat them or the kids first?”

Isn’t technology marvellous

Cannibalism causes mad cow disease.

But its a part of an animal(muscles mainly) grown in a lab so wouldn't it taste nearly as good as the actual thing?

only if you manage to also synthesize the hormones and bathe them in it.

Bite me.

Will do. *chomp*

No. Taste is 90% fat, and chemical reactions with the muscle tissue in combination with hormones present in the meat. In vitro meat has zero fat, meaning it has zero taste.

well I'm sure something can be put in the liquid the meat grows in thats 100% safe that simulates the hormones and fat.

And secondly if the world begins to starve due to the extinction of fish that was predicted by scientists not too far back taste won't matter, people would start eating to stay alive rather to feel good.

I sincerely doubt it. Sincerely. So much so, in fact, that I'll personally shoot myself in the eye with a shotgun if you prove me wrong.

Well, 15-20 years from now or whenever it comes to market, we'll have to see.

Something needs to die for meat to taste good.

I doubt regular farming will die out; the kind of meat that's going to be displaced is the stuff for regular consumption that is pretty bland to begin with. I mean, the finest cuts are probably still going to come from animals.

only if you manage to also synthesize the hormones and bathe them in it.

Hey why not?

Will do. *chomp*

Like pork?

Will vitro meat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat) prevent starvation in the future?

I think it will, and I think it will also be healthier, since the food is basically meat cells multiplying in a vat it hopefully won't be exposed to dangerous chemicals or pollutants. And with scientists saying fish will become extinct in a few decades if we start growing meat of these fish then we will still be able to eat fish meat and hopefully that will eliminate the need to over fish over fished species and possibly prevent their extinction. And as long s there are lots of resources to support a vitro meat project the nations won't starve even if the sea becomes lifeless.And we'd probably have more food to give to unfortunate nations.

Thoughts?

btw I made a thread on this in international incidents.
This will not particularly prevent starvation. The world already has enough food to feed its entire population. The problem is political will - the west is so evil that it does not see this as a particularly important matter.

the problem with food shortage in this country has always been far less about supply and far more about distribution. There is a great deal of food potential on this planet, it's a matter of getting it to the right places.

Glad you mentioned it. If a country had a small piece of living meat and the transportation services kept it alive during it's trip then with vitro technology they can let the meat grow in their labs and then use a sample of that meat to grow in another lab and then repeat the process until there are labs growing tons of meat for the nation.

At what point does it cease to be a vat of meat and become an animal itself?

When it has a nervous system, brain and functioning organs, presumably.

This will not particularly prevent starvation. The world already has enough food to feed its entire population. The problem is political will - the west is so evil that it does not see this as a particularly important matter.

Luckily Asia is slowly rising up to the most powerful region on earth, and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt they'll embrace this.

Cannibalism causes mad cow disease.

don't be silly nobody knows what causes mad cow disease hence the need to avoid buying British at all costs!

*notices everyone noticing me*

I always figured human had more of a beef taste.

Nah, we taste like sweet pork.

I always figured human had more of a beef taste.

This generation of humans tastes like poison because of all the cheap food (aka plastic with chemicals) we have to eat. Thats another reason I endorse vitro meat, you can get the real deal without the need of raising the animal.

I always figured human had more of a beef taste.

Run the machines have got the taste of blood! (http://blog.wired.com/tableofmalcontents/2006/11/robot_identifie.html/)

Like pork?

I always figured human had more of a beef taste.

I always figured human had more of a beef taste.

I've heard pork, although I'd prefer beef. I suppose few people actually know...

Anyway, I don't think volunteering would be the best way to do it; more "eat or be eaten". That'd inject a bit of much-needed life-or-death competition into the Human race.

I've heard pork, although I'd prefer beef. I suppose few people actually know...

And those that do probably won't say.

Anyway, I don't think volunteering would be the best way to do it; more "eat or be eaten". That'd inject a bit of much-needed life-or-death competition into the Human race.

All the more reason for cybernetics...good luck eating me when I'm made of titanium. For that matter, I won't eat either, so I'll kind of be removed from the equation entirely.

Cannibalism causes mad cow disease.

Actually it causes Kuru. :D
It was first observed in New Guinea. It's also called the Laughing sickness.
Fun huh?

The suffering makes the steak jucier.

Run the machines have got the taste of blood! (http://blog.wired.com/tableofmalcontents/2006/11/robot_identifie.html/)

We will hunt you down sooner or later...

In vitro meat's effectiveness in fighting famine depends on the culture medium. The muscle cells don't create themselves, they need food to grow. Ever heard of Quorn? (The meat substitute). It comes from a mould grown in fermentation vats. Using mould for food was initially hailed as the next big thing to fight famine, but it needs sugar to grow. So the question you need to ask there is "Can we get the culture medium in a cost effective way?" Looking at Quorn, the answer is a definite no if the supermarket prices are anything to go by. And especially as they'll be using sugar a lot more to produce ethanol in the future, pushing prices up further. Food doesn't appear from nowhere, so that question needs to be answered before I'm convinced that in vitro meat is the magical cure-all.

Your solution to famine struck nations crippled by poverty being expensive labs seems a bit of cognitive dissonance.

Hell, I figured it would be used in developed nations, not poor ones.

Glad you mentioned it. If a country had a small piece of living meat and the transportation services kept it alive during it's trip then with vitro technology they can let the meat grow in their labs and then use a sample of that meat to grow in another lab and then repeat the process until there are labs growing tons of meat for the nation.

but you presume that countries that don't have the technology or cash flow to adequatly grow and transport wheat are going to handle sophisticated laboratories to process this?

Countries where people are starving have that condition because they are broke. How can a country, that lacks the funds for basic infrastructure to keep its people from starving miraculously afford this sophisiticated equipment?

Your solution to famine struck nations crippled by poverty being expensive labs seems a bit of cognitive dissonance.

Not only this but there's a really big input -> output problem. This meat just doesn't magically grow in a vat any more than we can lock you in a room and pull you out two years later and expect you to be fine.

It needs energy, it needs food. Ever see the matrix? Know the problem with that movie? They were using humans for energy, but the human body consums more energy than it produces. How is this going to be the great solution to world hunger if it takes more calories to grow the food than the food can generate?

It's basic conservation. The meat simply can not contain more chemical energy than went into it. The meat can not be a higher calorie count than what you used to make it.

the problem with food shortage in this country has always been far less about supply and far more about distribution. There is a great deal of food potential on this planet, it's a matter of getting it to the right places.

To add to this, a further problem is the destruction of domestic sustainability in terms of food production. Many nations are being pressured to turn to cash crops rather than foodstuffs in order to 'boost development'. In turn, you have the bizarre situation where cotton (for example) has replaced onions...and the cotton is sold abroad to pay for imported onions.

Luckily Asia is slowly rising up to the most powerful region on earth, and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt they'll embrace this.

Awesome! You are the fount for the hive-mind that is Asia? From now on, I will direct all my questions related to Asia to You, Oh Great One.:rolleyes:

The most efficient method of ensuring a balanced caloric intake involves no meat whatsoever.

The three sisters: beans, squash and corn. All your proteins, complex carbs and assorted nutrients. Not only that, but grown together, these three crops revitalise the soil they are grown in, making it unnecessary to rotate crops.

Plus, you don't need a god-damned lab to create your Frankenstein (and inefficient) meat.

Plus, you don't need a god-damned lab to create your Frankenstein (and inefficient) meat.

I don't buy the "oh my god it's genetically altered!" scariness. Genetic modification of food has been going on since the first tribesman went "hmm, I wonder if I mate my biggest bull with my biggest cow I'll get big calves".

Now it's done in a lab.

OK, big deal. I am not overly concerned with the fact that it's lab made. I am concerned with its efficiencies, especially when discussing how it will help global hunger.

Now I'm not concerned with efficiencies in general, takes a whole lot more food to grow the cow than meat you get from it. Meat is inefficient in terms of calories. That doesn't concern me. But when you're talking about global hunger, calorie count is what matters, more than ANYTHING else. It could be gruel, as long as it has vitamines and calories.

To add to this, a further problem is the destruction of domestic sustainability in terms of food production. Many nations are being pressured to turn to cash crops rather than foodstuffs in order to 'boost development'. In turn, you have the bizarre situation where cotton (for example) has replaced onions...and the cotton is sold abroad to pay for imported onions.

This is not only a bad thing. THe question that has to be asked is, by converting their onion fields to cotton, selling the cotton, and buying onions do they have either:

1) the same amount of onions they would have had cash left over?

or

2) more onions than they would have had?

If either of these conditions are true, then it is perhaps more efficient for them to make and sell cotton. If at the end of the day the end result is either more revenue, or more food, this is a good thing.

I will also note I have a degree in international political economies and the comparative problems and merits of an Adam Smith style of comparative benefit trade is what I wrote my honors thesis on so...tread into this topic with me at your own risk.

I don't buy the "oh my god it's genetically altered!" scariness. Genetic modification of food has been going on since the first tribesman went "hmm, I wonder if I mate my biggest bull with my biggest cow I'll get big calves".

Now it's done in a lab.

OK, big deal. I am not overly concerned with the fact that it's lab made. I am concerned with its efficiencies, especially when discussing how it will help global hunger. I am concerned, not because of the form in which it produced, necessarily, but rather because there is already a disconnect between many humans and their food source.

Where does food come from? The supermarket.

Not understanding, or even considering how, where and under what circumstances our food is produced leads to many problems. It allows us to turn a blind eye to environmental pollution, when we simply do not consider how directly that pollution impacts us via our food. It allows us to turn a blind eye to the conditions the producers of food work in.

Growing meat in a vat, to me, is simply an extension of this disconnect, no worse, no better...but concerning, yes.

Now I'm not concerned with efficiencies in general, takes a whole lot more food to grow the cow than meat you get from it. Meat is inefficient in terms of calories. That doesn't concern me. But when you're talking about global hunger, calorie count is what matters, more than ANYTHING else. It could be gruel, as long as it has vitamines and calories. I think what irks me most is the idea that technology must save us from hunger. Yes, technology can help...but traditional foodstuffs are still superior to whatever odd "meat-in-a-vat" or "inserting-pig-genes-into-rice" oddness that is going around lately. Yet, the problem is phrased as though the food itself is the issue...and as you, and others have pointed out...that is not the case.

So here we have a 'solution' to a false problem. THAT concerns me.

Growing meat in a vat, to me, is simply an extension of this disconnect, no worse, no better...but concerning, yes.

Environmentally speaking, it's probably a lot better. Intensive animal farming is pretty destructive to the environment, and if we can achieve similar effects with a lot fewer environmental problems (as well as other benefits like safety and quality control), it would be highly beneficial.

But the problem is, of course, factory farming is a developed-world thing. If we're going to use it, we're going to use it for its environmental and economic benefits, not to combat hunger. If anything, it might prolong the problem by putting huge amounts of cheap meat on to the market.


So here we have a 'solution' to a false problem. THAT concerns me.

Most GM foods, which I wholeheartedly support, aren't really designed or necessary to combat hunger. Honestly, a lot of them are designed for economic reasons, and are implemented first and foremost in the developed world. There are some genetically modified crops that are extremely useful in fighting hunger in the developing world (a grain that has enhanced nutrients or a fast-growing tree that requires little or no water come to mind), but many of them are for other reasons.

That's a problem whose roots lie in conditions that we could fix without major investment in things like in vitro meat or genetic modification of plants.

This is not only a bad thing. THe question that has to be asked is, by converting their onion fields to cotton, selling the cotton, and buying onions do they have either:

1) the same amount of onions they would have had cash left over?

or

2) more onions than they would have had?

If either of these conditions are true, then it is perhaps more efficient for them to make and sell cotton. If at the end of the day the end result is either more revenue, or more food, this is a good thing.

I will also note I have a degree in international political economies and the comparative problems and merits of an Adam Smith style of comparative benefit trade is what I wrote my honors thesis on so...tread into this topic with me at your own risk.

The answer in practice has generally been no to both questions. One of the main reasons for this is the cost of farming cash crops. Generally the cash crops are not indigenous to the area, and not resistant to pests and diseases the way domestic crops are, so pesticides and their ensuing costs have to be factored in.

Take tobacco as one example of a cash crop that is very popular. You have the added problem of the fact that handling tobacco without protection is dangerous...it's actually poisoning some of the producers. Cash crops when first planted are generally pretty lucrative, but as they catch on, the supply can outweigh the demand and the returns are lower and lower. Cash crops are also extremely vulnerable to market fluctuations...and in a pinch, you can't eat tobacco.

Domestic food sustainability should come FIRST.

Take tobacco as one example of a cash crop that is very popular. You have the added problem of the fact that handling tobacco without protection is dangerous...it's actually poisoning some of the producers. Cash crops when first planted are generally pretty lucrative, but as they catch on, the supply can outweigh the demand and the returns are lower and lower. Cash crops are also extremely vulnerable to market fluctuations...and in a pinch, you can't eat tobacco

Cotton as well. In fact, in Central Asia there are massive environmental problems because of the focus on monoculture cotton farming during the Soviet era and in to the present. The area's soil, surface water, and much of its water table are contaminated with chemicals and rates of cancer and other diseases are extremely high.

Unlike many food crops, cash crop farming is usually extremely intensive even in the developing world, forcing farmers to spend a fortune on chemicals that not only ruin their lands but also eat up what income they have left to produce a product that might be worthless if the market is oversupplied.

I will also note I have a degree in international political economies and the comparative problems and merits of an Adam Smith style of comparative benefit trade is what I wrote my honors thesis on so...tread into this topic with me at your own risk.

I just read this caveat now...I'm in the midst of a lecture at the moment, so I'll get back to you on this, but I am absolutely ready to tread into this topic with you in more detail. Your honours thesis notwithstanding, I've had 10 years experience working with international and domestic organisations focused on food sovereignty/sustainability. I'm sure I'll be fine.

I think what irks me most is the idea that technology must save us from hunger. Yes, technology can help...but traditional foodstuffs are still superior to whatever odd "meat-in-a-vat" or "inserting-pig-genes-into-rice" oddness that is going around lately. Yet, the problem is phrased as though the food itself is the issue...and as you, and others have pointed out...that is not the case.

So here we have a 'solution' to a false problem. THAT concerns me.

But the thing is, there ARE multiple solutions to that problem. If a country, with poor agriculture can not afford to import food, you can attempt two solutions. Improve their agriculture, or find food that can grow there.

Most GM foods are aimed at that second problem. Corn that can grow in dry, loose soil, plants more resistant to bugs, a whole host of things. Yes ideally we want the country to be able to function in the world economy, but if GM foods DOES provide a stop gap measure and allows for the growing of food, on the cheap, in poor countries, this might help.

Now note I say on the cheap. The reason I criticize this process is not that it might help nations get food they otherwise would not be able to. I am concerned, frankly, because it's not cheap. In order for countries to pay for, staff, supply, and maintain labs to do this they would have to overcome problems that, if they do overcome it, would solve most of the hunger problems in the first place.

I don't question your intellectual capacity. I'm sure you're more than capable.

I question your willingness to slog through the long winded diatribe that will likely result from me if we pursue this topic.
Don't worry, I realise you weren't questioning my capacity. But I'll admit quite freely that sometimes I talk shit about topics I really know little about...and at some point when called on it, have to just throw up my hands until I get further information. This isn't such a topic :)

And you know I love your diatribes.

I'll be back in an hour to slog, quite joyfully, through whatever long-windedness you'd like to unleash.

The answer in practice has generally been no to both questions. One of the main reasons for this is the cost of farming cash crops. Generally the cash crops are not indigenous to the area, and not resistant to pests and diseases the way domestic crops are, so pesticides and their ensuing costs have to be factored in.


This, my dear, is implementation problem. It's about efficiencies of market. Cash crops should be prefered to food crops when, and this is the big catch, it is more efficient to do so.

That's the efficiency economic model. Nations should do what they are most efficient at. If the inverse were true, if the nation COULD grow cotton better than onions, and could, as a result, end up with MORE onions at the end of the day, they should grow cotton.

If the cash crops result in negative efficiency, then it's bad. I disagree that domestic food sustainability should come first. Efficiency should come first. Now sometimes domestic food production IS the most efficient model, and if so, do it. However if it is not, if you're efficient you may end up with more food than if you grew it yourself.

I just read this caveat now...I'm in the midst of a lecture at the moment, so I'll get back to you on this, but I am absolutely ready to tread into this topic with you in more detail. Your honours thesis notwithstanding, I've had 10 years experience working with international and domestic organisations focused on food sovereignty/sustainability. I'm sure I'll be fine.

I don't question your intellectual capacity. I'm sure you're more than capable.

I question your willingness to slog through the long winded diatribe that will likely result from me if we pursue this topic.

This, my dear, is implementation problem. It's about efficiencies of market. Cash crops should be prefered to food crops when, and this is the big catch, it is more efficient to do so.

That's the efficiency economic model. Nations should do what they are most efficient at. If the inverse were true, if the nation COULD grow cotton better than onions, and could, as a result, end up with MORE onions at the end of the day, they should grow cotton.

If the cash crops result in negative efficiency, then it's bad. I disagree that domestic food sustainability should come first. Efficiency should come first. Now sometimes domestic food production IS the most efficient model, and if so, do it. However if it is not, if you're efficient you may end up with more food than if you grew it yourself.

Oh, well damn. I can't really argue all that much with this position:( My biggest beef with many of the systems being imposed on other nations is that they are monstrously inefficient, and rely heavily on subsidies, in particular in regards to transportation.

My argument for domestic food sustainability is due to the fluctuations that cash crops are subject to. What might be most efficient at a certain moment could cease to be efficient if the price crashes. I think it is essential that at the very least, a country be able to mostly feed itself (if at all possible, which, coming from Canada can be kind of a stretch) before turning to volatile cash crops. No doubt, however, you'd factor that into your model of long-term efficiency, so I think I'm deprived of the fodder needed for a full on screaming match here.

And I'm greatly disappointed by that :(

Enough food is produced for every person on Earth to have 2 kg a day. The problem is distribution, not quantity.

Enough food is produced for every person on Earth to have 2 kg a day. The problem is distribution, not quantity.

True. In many cases areas that are undergoing famines will export food to other regions.

True. In many cases areas that are undergoing famines will export food to other regions.

I already replied to that argument. If every nation had this technology only a small amount of meat would need to safely reach that nation in order to start mass producing more meat from the small amount originally given.

I already replied to that argument. If every nation had this technology only a small amount of meat would need to safely reach that nation in order to start mass producing more meat from the small amount originally given.

Increasing the supply and lowering the price are good things and will help the poor but its also true that we have enough food to feed the world currently. Its just that many people can't pay for it.