[HN Gopher] The Coming Food Catastrophe
___________________________________________________________________
 
The Coming Food Catastrophe
 
Author : mastazi
Score  : 159 points
Date   : 2022-05-19 19:00 UTC (4 hours ago)
 
web link (www.economist.com)
w3m dump (www.economist.com)
 
| zanethomas wrote:
| I hope no one is surprised that going all-in against Russia is a
| major contributor to the situation. The US needs adults to be in
| charge. Adults still in possession of their faculties.
 
  | hh3k0 wrote:
  | Seems like you don't know the meaning of "all-in"?
  | 
  | That said, if you're desperate for someone to point fingers at,
  | might I suggest Putin's Russia and her war of aggression?
 
| bell-cot wrote:
| Tip from an old geezer: Plant Your Victory Garden Now!
| 
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_garden
 
  | EddieDante wrote:
  | Your local zoning board might object. I live in PA, and one of
  | the neighborhood _vigilantes_ immediately ratted me out to the
  | local government when I started growing corn, squash, and beans
  | in my backyard while raising a couple of chickens for eggs.
 
    | dang wrote:
    | > one of the neighborhood Karens
    | 
    | Please keep that sort of slur off HN. We don't need it here,
    | and you don't need it to make your substantive points.
 
      | OrvalWintermute wrote:
      | > Please keep that sort of slur off HN. We don't need it
      | here, and you don't need it to make your substantive
      | points.
      | 
      | I think that may be an overly heated response.
      | 
      | Given that I have seen the term used as a pronoun applied
      | to multiple genders, sex preferences, races, ethnicities,
      | etc, I see the term as speaking to behaviors, rather than
      | being a pejorative unique to a group. Here are good
      | examples of it being applied across multiple ethnicities
      | and genders [1] & [2] . There is even a transgender karen
      | [3] .
      | 
      | Normally it is applied to people acting improperly, hall-
      | monitor type of behaviors where it is not warranted.
      | Someone maliciously reporting food growing in a backyard
      | meets the definition.
      | 
      | Please don't make decisions based off Wikipedia [4] or
      | dictionary.com [5] redefining a word to meet a specific
      | agenda.
      | 
      | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gncDv1GNF4
      | 
      | [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0msiW0mEVo
      | 
      | [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5Wj9GqsmAI
      | 
      | [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_(slang)
      | 
      | [5] https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/karen/
 
      | jtbayly wrote:
      | Dear dang,
      | 
      | A Karen is no more an inappropriate slur than many other
      | useful words and phrases that are negative, such as goody-
      | two-shoes, busybody, bully, crank, etc.
      | 
      | I don't see how it helps to ban negative words.
 
        | qpqpqpq wrote:
        | It's a misogynistic slur, used in place of calling a
        | women the b-word or a c-word.
        | 
        | Dang is totally in the right to scold people for saying
        | this.
 
      | mrdoe wrote:
      | Really? Whats wrong with calling someone a Karen?!
 
        | dang wrote:
        | It doesn't take much googling to answer that.
 
      | BigBubbleButt wrote:
      | I don't know if the comment was edited or not, but I hope
      | you're not claiming "vigilante" is a slur. I looked up the
      | definition of slur just to be sure and you are technically
      | correct, but I'd say you're abusing language far more than
      | the person you're responding to.
 
        | [deleted]
 
        | jasonlotito wrote:
        | Also, that's the user dang. He pretty much runs HN. I'd
        | assume anything he says in these regards as fact and
        | trust him.
 
        | dang wrote:
        | I certainly hope not. People need to push back when we
        | get things wrong. Luckily for me they are not shy about
        | doing so.
 
        | kiawe_fire wrote:
        | This comment is what leadership looks like.
 
        | dang wrote:
        | It said "Karen" and the commenter edited it.
        | 
        | Edit: I've added the context back by quoting what the GP
        | originally said. I guess one good passive-aggressive
        | stealth edit deserves another.
 
        | countvonbalzac wrote:
 
    | ceejayoz wrote:
    | It also takes well over an acre to support a single person,
    | and that's if you know what you're doing and have the time to
    | manage a garden of that size.
 
      | thangalin wrote:
      | > well over an acre to support a single person
      | 
      | Source?
      | 
      | https://www.thespruce.com/how-many-vegetables-per-person-
      | in-...
      | 
      | > To grow all the food for one person's needs for the whole
      | year requires, for most people, at least 4,000 square feet
      | --though some diet designs are possible that can use a
      | smaller area.
      | 
      | https://permaculturism.com/how-much-land-does-it-take-to-
      | fee...
      | 
      | > A 0.44 acre of land can produce enough vegetables and
      | fruits to meet up with the daily calories needed for one
      | person to feed for a year.
      | 
      | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
      | 1993:
      | 
      | > It is realistic to suppose that the absolute minimum of
      | arable land to support one person is a mere 0.07 of a
      | hectare-and this assumes a largely vegetarian diet, no land
      | degradation or water shortages, virtually no post-harvest
      | waste, and farmers who know precisely when and how to
      | plant, fertilize, irrigate, etc.
 
        | ceejayoz wrote:
        | https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/local-farming-
        | hurt...
        | 
        | > The minimum amount of agricultural land necessary for
        | sustainable food security, with a diversified diet
        | similar to those of North America and Western Europe
        | (hence including meat), is 0.5 of a hectare per person.
        | This does not allow for any land degradation such as soil
        | erosion, and it assumes adequate water supplies.
        | 
        | Cut out meat and it gets better, but not _that_ much
        | better.
 
        | jaegerpicker wrote:
        | Only if you use traditional farming. Hydroponics,
        | Aeroponics, and Aquaponics use far less resources (more
        | startup capital but far less inputs), can grow year round
        | (assuming indoor grows), and has 5-10x the yield per sq
        | ft.
 
      | Johnny555 wrote:
      | You don't have to grow 100% of your food to benefit from a
      | home garden.
 
        | ceejayoz wrote:
        | Sure, but "the coming food catastrophe" implies something
        | more than "I grow some tomatoes in a corner of my yard"
        | as a necessary response.
        | 
        | A garden is great, but it's not gonna solve a global food
        | crisis.
 
        | Johnny555 wrote:
        | The post you're replying to suggests a Victory Garden.
        | While a personal victory garden may not have a big effect
        | on global food supplies, it can absolutely help
        | supplement food for households that are squeezed by
        | higher food prices (which is another side effect of
        | global food shortages).
        | 
        |  _Victory gardens, also called war gardens or food
        | gardens for defense, were vegetable, fruit, and herb
        | gardens planted at private residences and public parks in
        | the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and
        | Germany during World War I and World War II. In wartime,
        | governments encouraged people to plant victory gardens
        | not only to supplement their rations but also to boost
        | morale. They were used along with rationing stamps and
        | cards to reduce pressure on the public food supply._
 
      | Scoundreller wrote:
      | That's why I grow for value and flavour. Base calories are
      | cheap, making them taste good (in a healthy way) costs a
      | lot more.
 
      | adolph wrote:
      | An acre seems excessive. An acre is 43,560 square feet.
      | 
      | "One 4 x 4 Square Foot Garden box (16 square feet) will
      | supply enough produce to make a salad for one adult every
      | day of the growing season." [0]
      | 
      | 0. Bartholomew, Mel. All New Square Foot Gardening, 3rd
      | Edition, Fully Updated: MORE Projects NEW Solutions GROW
      | Vegetables Anywhere (p. 61). Cool Springs Press. Kindle
      | Edition.
      | 
      | https://squarefootgardening.org/
 
      | EddieDante wrote:
      | I just wanted to look out my window and see something more
      | useful than _grass_ , OK? If I got to enjoy a couple meals
      | out of what I grew, so much the better.
 
        | ceejayoz wrote:
        | I've zero objection to "I like gardening" and "I love a
        | home-grown tomato" as reasons to have a garden. I simply
        | don't think it's a meaningful part of a fix to a collapse
        | of the supply chain.
 
    | Johnny555 wrote:
    | Did she object to the chickens or the garden? I suspect just
    | the chickens, rather than your back yard garden.
 
      | EddieDante wrote:
      | She griped about both, the zoning board demanded I get rid
      | of the chickens.
      | 
      | I was tempted to leave their corpses on her doorstep and
      | egg the municipal building as a petty sort of revenge, but
      | that would have been too obvious.
      | 
      | Those chickens were good eating, though, especially with
      | some homegrown corn on the cob and baked beans. The squash
      | didn't work out so well, unfortunately.
 
        | gcheong wrote:
        | What was she griping about with the garden? Chickens I
        | can understand if there are smell complaints. In San
        | Francisco you are allowed to keep them but there are
        | rules about the number you can have and the minimum
        | distance their enclosure can be to any neighbors window,
        | etc. But squash? That's really an odd thing to complain
        | about.
 
        | toolz wrote:
        | backyard chickens don't have a smell, that's only once
        | you start mass producing them in a factory. The same way
        | yours or your neighbors dogs, that produce substantially
        | more feces than a chicken, don't cause neighborhood wide
        | odor.
 
        | gcheong wrote:
        | I was probably just interpreting the ordinance
        | requirements of a minimum distance of 20 feet from any
        | neighbor's door or window as having to do with smell when
        | I read it.
 
        | Johnny555 wrote:
        | My biggest problem with my neighbor's chickens was that
        | they kept getting out an coming over to my property and
        | he'd have to ask me to let him in the back yard so he
        | could take them back home. Never noticed any smells near
        | their coop which was near the property line.
        | 
        | Never really bothered me since they mostly just hung out
        | around the back fence far from my house, but finally
        | another neighbor complained to the city and they had to
        | get rid of the chickens. Chickens are allowed here (up to
        | 10 per property), but have to be kept confined and on
        | your own property.
 
        | skeeter2020 wrote:
        | > I was tempted to leave their corpses on her doorstep
        | and egg the municipal building as a petty sort of revenge
        | 
        | But she's the vendictive over-reacter... Go back and read
        | your entire narative in a day and see if your viewpoint
        | has shifted at all.
 
    | bell-cot wrote:
    | Quite true, and the potential for gardening is quite
    | situational. OTOH, current forecasts of mega-scale hunger,
    | famines, & death look pretty useful, if you wanted to paint
    | such, ah, busybodies, in a rather negative light, and try to
    | get some rules changed.
 
    | barbazoo wrote:
    | What an outdated policy but I've heard of that happening here
    | too, Stratas not allowing people to use their outdoor space
    | to grow any kind of food.
 
      | Scoundreller wrote:
      | At least the FCC protects your ability to put up a
      | satellite dish (and "An antenna that is designed to receive
      | local television broadcast signals.")
      | 
      | If they hated my garden and chickens, they're really gonna
      | hate my 40' Rohn and guidewires!
 
        | ncpa-cpl wrote:
        | > 40'
        | 
        | Is it for shortwave or ham radio?
 
        | JaimeThompson wrote:
        | If they can't have chickens pigs are totally out.
        | 
        |  _I 'm sorry_
 
    | skeeter2020 wrote:
    | Growing a garden and raising livestock are pretty different
    | in practice & impact from my experience. Assuming you
    | voluntarily moved into the zoning and "Karen" objected to you
    | violating them, it's all on you.
 
    | yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
    | > one of the neighborhood vigilantes immediately ratted me
    | out to the local government
    | 
    | Better than your previous phrasing, but try again; if the
    | action that they took was to report you to the government
    | then they are the opposite of a vigilante by definition.
 
      | corrral wrote:
      | The original word (which: I can't keep up, is that _really_
      | bad now? When did that happen, last week?) made more sense,
      | really.  "Vigilante" is way off from it.
 
        | filoeleven wrote:
        | It was always a bad shorthand. The word you are after is
        | "busybody," perhaps with some preceding adjectives to
        | indicate malicious intent.
 
        | komadori wrote:
        | I don't think it's right to co-opt and despoil that name
        | of doubtless many real people, so if there is a pushback
        | against using "Karen" as an insult then I'm in favour of
        | it. That said, this is first time I've seen anyone else
        | say anything against it. Perhaps I also can't keep up?
        | ;-)
 
        | corrral wrote:
        | Yeah, I'm not, like, put out by that one becoming
        | _verboten_ , I'm just surprised at the sudden change.
 
  | sbf501 wrote:
  | This is really hard, I had four 8x4 raised beds (all I could
  | fit) for 5 years. The amount of space and time it takes to
  | produce enough food to replace actual meals for more than just
  | a few times in the summer is absolutely astonishing (unless you
  | like squash all the time). I grew tomatoes, kale, squash,
  | onions, lettuce and peppers. It tasted great, and got some
  | salads and side dishes out of it, but that was about it. And it
  | only yielded from July to August, I had nothing in the winter
  | (except some canned tomatoes that were really good). It really
  | takes a community effort to make this work. Like, plots of land
  | that multiple people tend to. I've seen some cities do this and
  | think it is fantastic.
 
    | Scoundreller wrote:
    | > And it only yielded from July to August
    | 
    | Where are you?
    | 
    | I'm near Toronto, started my seedlings indoors ~6 weeks ago,
    | and already eating small kale leaves and lettuce that's
    | somehow growing in the grass.
    | 
    | A dying apple tree gave me more than I could eat for 2-3
    | months last year. Gonna plant a pear tree in the front yard.
 
      | sbf501 wrote:
      | Middle of Washington state, off I5.
      | 
      | The last few years I planted I got my starts going real
      | early in my basement and we had an early spring and I was
      | over the moon. But I had a few cold springs that didn't
      | warm up until June and had to replant multiple times.
      | Rookie mistakes and bad luck. :)
 
      | hombre_fatal wrote:
      | My parents have a pear tree that came with the lot.
      | Straggly looking creature with barely any signs of life all
      | year, then for a month or two it produces more pears than
      | my parents can eat for the rest of the year.
      | 
      | I love visiting my parents while it's going apeshit. Crisp
      | pears all day.
 
    | TheMerovingian wrote:
    | Consider canning and fermenting some of your food. Also, grow
    | things that can last throughout winter, such as potatoes,
    | carrots, beets, etc. They can last in a cool dark place for
    | months. Broccoli and Okra can be blanched and flash-frozen.
    | Cucumbers can make pickles.
    | 
    | There are tons of good ideas out there about preserving your
    | own food. But, I agree, that a small garden won't take a big
    | bite out of your food needs. You're not trying to become
    | self-sufficient, you're trying to lower your reliance on
    | store-bought food.
 
    | wott wrote:
    | You don't need a community effort or astonishingly vast land
    | to grow potatoes :-) What I mean by that is that the choice
    | of stuff you grow matters. Lettuce, peppers (and one might
    | add tomatoes) won't feed you much indeed. They are however
    | indeed interesting in small spaces when you don't expect them
    | to feed you but to provide you nice, fresh extras.
    | 
    | I mean, I produce about 800 lbs of vegetables by spending 20
    | mn a day on it (average on 365 days, which means more at
    | times and nothing at other times). Surely it requires more
    | space that you had. But no motorised tool involved, no
    | fertiliser but a tiny bit of manure (no fancy permaculture
    | tricks either, just traditional beds), no pesticide except in
    | case of emergency like once a year on 10% of the garden, no
    | watering except in case of emergency again, no search of any
    | optimisation (time, space, yield, ...). It isn't a bid deal
    | to get a partial yet significant autonomy; it just gets
    | harder and harder as you want to get close to 100%.
    | 
    | There are stuff you can keep across winter in storage without
    | transformation, like potatoes or cereals (onions, shallot
    | don't do bad either); and stuff that can be kept where they
    | lie, in the ground, like parsnip, sunchoke, and a few other
    | root vegetables; cabbage can stay too, leeks as well. (Of
    | course, it depends on the geographical location.)
    | 
    | Yeah, a base of potatoes + cabbages + onions get you a long
    | way; and they are quite versatile as far as cooking is
    | concerned.
 
      | sbf501 wrote:
      | Agreed! I was just getting into it and trying various
      | things. If I had grown up with family that did it I
      | probably would have had better odds. Also, I've always
      | wanted to try a root cellar, too, but alas, no space for
      | that.
 
    | Merad wrote:
    | 100%. Growing up my parents were hardcore gardeners (arguably
    | smalltime farmers) with about 2 acres of farmland and an
    | additional 2 acres of fruit trees. We'd eat pretty heavily
    | out of the garden from the late spring through the fall, and
    | would have potatoes, apples, canned/frozen goods through much
    | of the winter... but it was an enormous amount of work. In
    | the spring and summer basically any time that it was viable
    | to work in the garden on the weekends or in the evenings, we
    | were out working in the garden.
 
      | wott wrote:
      | > about 2 acres of farmland
      | 
      | That's huge; I haven't seen anything like that, even in the
      | deep country where I grew up, where people (farmers) almost
      | didn't buy anything but grew and processed most of their
      | stuff. Their gardens hardly ever went over a 1/4 of an
      | acre, I'd say, that was already pretty large and provided
      | for filling quite a number of jar of tomatoes and beans and
      | stuff.
      | 
      | Didn't your parents sell anything?
      | 
      | Using 400-500 sq ft, I get enough potatoes for a family of
      | 3. Not that potato is our only staple food, but...
 
  | excalibur wrote:
  | Been practicing since 2020. Never ceases to amaze me how LONG
  | it's taking society to fall apart.
 
    | BitwiseFool wrote:
    | How did society fall apart? "Gradually, then suddenly".
 
    | ezekg wrote:
    | In my experience, it takes a couple years to get a decent
    | garden going. If you're reading and you haven't yet -- start
    | now.
 
      | Scoundreller wrote:
      | I scored free topsoil for my 5gal buckets 2 weeks ago. Good
      | luck scoring that in a decade!
 
  | mbg721 wrote:
  | But I also have Victory Squirrels taking one bite out of each
  | tomato and moving on...
 
    | sophacles wrote:
    | The squirrels are generally not in it for the tomato, what
    | they really want is the water in the tomato. A lot of people
    | (myself included) have eliminated or reduced the problem by
    | having a birdbath or water display near the garden.
 
    | [deleted]
 
    | jahewson wrote:
    | You need to get a Victory Cat.
 
      | corrral wrote:
      | The country folk solution's a Victory .22 and a bored child
      | who can aim OK.
 
      | mbg721 wrote:
      | I actually have two, but the terms of their adoption
      | require that the full extent of the victory be confined
      | indoors. It's a sacrifice I'm willing to make for a
      | kneading cat-doughnut on a cold day.
 
      | aksss wrote:
      | Or literally a Victory air rifle..
      | 
      | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B9bMqnjv2RE
 
    | MrFantastic wrote:
    | It's probably slugs and not squirrels.
    | 
    | Slugs will eat 1/2 a tomato in a night.
 
    | SaintGhurka wrote:
    | That's your livestock.
 
    | Scoundreller wrote:
    | I call those sauce or soup tomatoes.
 
      | namdnay wrote:
      | If you're fast enough you can get the ingredients for
      | tomato sauce and meatballs at the same time :)
 
      | mellavora wrote:
      | edit. sauce or soup meat.
 
  | wyager wrote:
  | These are part of a propaganda strategy to make people feel
  | like they're "helping". They are not an effective or efficient
  | way of improving food availability. If you enjoy gardening as a
  | hobby, that's great, but these are not practical bulwarks
  | against food shortages.
  | 
  | The economies of scale in industrial farming are insane. The
  | ROI on a personal garden is abysmally low, except for herbs and
  | other low-volume plants.
 
    | corrral wrote:
    | It keeps your variety and options up if rationing kicks in,
    | and lets you stretch the rations farther. It's not a
    | replacement for raw calories.
 
    | bell-cot wrote:
    | Try talking to some older folks - who at least heard many
    | first-hand accounts from relatives who both had WWII Victory
    | Gardens, and also gardened food during the Great Depression,
    | out of economic necessity. With a few years' experience doing
    | that, sharing tips and seeds with neighbors also doing it,
    | and memories of being pretty hungry at times in the
    | winter...ordinary people can get pretty damn good at growing
    | a lot of food in a fairly modest-sized garden.
 
      | wyager wrote:
      | Getting good at gardening doesn't allow you to exceed
      | agribusiness land efficiency levels, so we can put a pretty
      | tight cap on how much small home gardens actually helped.
 
        | aksss wrote:
        | Isn't this a bit of a false dichotomy though - solving a
        | (potential) world food shortage or not; being more
        | efficient than industrial farming or not; feeding one's
        | self/family completely via gardening or not gardening at
        | all?
        | 
        | It seems to me that the more people who supplement their
        | food supply with goods that don't depend on imported
        | supply (home or community gardens) lessens demand
        | fractionally on the general supply, which fractionally
        | helps with local pricing and household budgets, both of
        | which are positives.
        | 
        | I'm not sure it's ever been a requirement of victory
        | gardens to be completely autonomous unless ur a hardcore
        | prepper.
 
    | calvinmorrison wrote:
    | > The economies of scale in industrial farming are insane.
    | The ROI on a personal garden is abysmally low, except for
    | herbs and other low-volume plants.
    | 
    | So I read this book called "How Asia Works" which documented
    | the economic transformations of a few different Asian
    | countries.
    | 
    | I was shocked to learn that in a lot of cases, the industrial
    | farming not the huge boon that was expected efficiently a few
    | people can grow things with intensely you can plant small
    | plot farms.
    | 
    | Countries that promoted small-scale household farming instead
    | of moving too soon to large scale farming were more
    | successful, but this was largely because the labor pool can't
    | transition that fast to going from farmers being everyone one
    | in ten overnight.
    | 
    | We live at a time where very few people work in farming, the
    | smallest amount in history. Why can't it slide back the other
    | way?
 
      | wyager wrote:
      | > Countries that promoted small-scale household farming
      | instead of moving too soon to large scale farming were more
      | successful
      | 
      | Promoting small-scale farming and industry lead to
      | widespread poverty and famine in cultural revolution China.
      | 
      | > very few people work in farming, the smallest amount in
      | history. Why can't it slide back the other way?
      | 
      | It _could_ , but this would probably be a pretty bad thing.
      | I guess it depends how many people who currently have fake
      | bullshit jobs transition to being farm workers. My guess is
      | that almost everyone who would go into an expanded ag labor
      | base is currently doing some actually useful work, and we
      | would suffer a severe net decrease in labor output, if we
      | tanked farming efficiency.
 
        | mellavora wrote:
        | > Promoting small-scale farming and industry lead to
        | widespread poverty and famine in cultural revolution
        | China.
        | 
        | In this specific example, there might have been other
        | causes.
        | 
        | In general I agree with you, getting the entire US to "go
        | Amish" isn't viable. Just picking on your example which
        | leaves out some of the details about how the transition
        | was "promoted".
 
      | rmah wrote:
      | It can't slide back because 99%+ of people don't want to
      | live like peasants of 100 years ago. I hope I don't need to
      | explain why having a lot more people spending a lot of
      | their time farming small plots leads to a substantially
      | lower standard of living than an industrial or post-
      | industrial economy.
 
    | Johnny555 wrote:
    | _These are part of a propaganda strategy to make people feel
    | like they 're "helping"._
    | 
    | Depends whether you're gardening for a global food shortage,
    | or to supplement your own use, which I suspect is why most
    | people have home gardens.
    | 
    | A home garden can supply a significant fraction of your food
    | - especially if you do canning or otherwise preserve for
    | winter use.
    | 
    | From the link in the parent post:
    | 
    |  _Fruit and vegetables harvested in these home and community
    | plots was estimated to be 9,000,000-10,000,000 short tons
    | (8,200,000-9,100,000 t) in 1944, an amount equal to all
    | commercial production of fresh vegetables_
 
      | rmah wrote:
      | That's great and all. I think home gardens are great. But
      | the topic is about food shortages in poor nations due to
      | increases in grain prices. Home gardens does literally
      | nothing to help anyone in poor nations who will be going
      | hungry later this year.
 
      | ben7799 wrote:
      | You need to compare 1944 commercial yields vs 2022... the
      | commercial/industrial farmers in 2022 have massive
      | advantages that they didn't have in 1944.
 
      | wyager wrote:
      | > Depends whether you're gardening for a global food
      | shortage, or to supplement your own use
      | 
      | No, the effect on supply is the same.
      | 
      | > A home garden can supply a significant fraction of your
      | food
      | 
      | It takes 5+ acres in a decently arable region with
      | fertilizer to feed one person. By the time you're providing
      | for a significant fraction of your caloric intake, it
      | ceases to be a "garden".
      | 
      | > an amount equal to all commercial production of fresh
      | vegetables
      | 
      | I guarantee this is some misleading bullshit statistic.
      | They've probably selected "fresh vegetables" to mean some
      | very small subset of industrial agriculture, like
      | vegetables that are never canned or frozen.
 
        | Johnny555 wrote:
        | _No, the effect on supply is the same._
        | 
        | well, no, if you're growing for personal use you can make
        | a notable effect on your own supply/food costs. You don't
        | have to solve the global food shortage to benefit from a
        | personal garden and since the global food shortage will
        | drive up prices, the financial benefit is even greater
        | (as long as price increases in things like fertilizer
        | don't eat up your cost savings).
 
        | wyager wrote:
        | You seem to be thinking about this from a personal
        | finance angle instead of an economy-wide production
        | angle.
        | 
        | It doesn't matter if a piece of corn is made in your
        | garden or on a farm. The net effect on the corn supply is
        | identical.
        | 
        | It takes orders of magnitude more input to grow a piece
        | of corn in a garden than on a farm. That had better be
        | offset by the personal enjoyment of the gardener.
 
        | Johnny555 wrote:
        | _You seem to be thinking about this from a personal
        | finance angle instead of an economy-wide production
        | angle._
        | 
        | Yes, I tried to be clear:
        | 
        |  _Depends whether you 're gardening for a global food
        | shortage, or to supplement your own use, which I suspect
        | is why most people have home gardens._
        | 
        | No one's backyard garden in the USA is going to help feed
        | someone in Africa, but even if the global food shortage
        | doesn't mean food shortages in the USA, it's going to
        | drive up prices, and a backyard garden can help offset
        | that household expense.
 
        | wyager wrote:
        | You took specific objection to my comment that victory
        | gardens were to make people "feel like they were
        | helping". I meant this to imply some kind of externalized
        | effect beyond just saving money.
        | 
        | It's also probably wrong that a home garden will net save
        | you money unless you make like $3/hr. Again, unless
        | you're extracting pleasure from gardening.
 
        | Johnny555 wrote:
        | _You took specific objection to my comment that victory
        | gardens were to make people "feel like they were
        | helping". I meant this to imply some kind of externalized
        | effect beyond just saving money._
        | 
        | Yes, that's why I quoted it specifically and clarified
        | that I was talking about a home garden.
        | 
        |  _It 's also probably wrong that a home garden will net
        | save you money unless you make like $3/hr. Again, unless
        | you're extracting pleasure from gardening. _
        | 
        | The people that benefit the most financially from a home
        | garden are already low paid - those are the people that
        | aren't going to struggle to afford food as prices rise.
        | My sister has been gardening for years, a couple years
        | ago she kept a spreadsheet and added up her savings based
        | on retail prices of produce and her "revenue" from her
        | garden (which covers most of the back yard of her 1/2
        | acre lot plus one apple tree) was over $2500 after
        | deducting expenses (excluding labor).
        | 
        | She estimated around 2 hours/day tending the garden for a
        | 6 month growing season, so that's around 360 hours of
        | work, or around $7/hour, which is better than she'd take
        | home working a minimum wage job and in exchange they get
        | all of the organic produce they can eat in the summer,
        | plus a lot of frozen or canned food in the winter. And
        | she ends up giving a lot of it away to friends/family.
        | 
        | For a lot of people here, putting in 360 hours of work to
        | earn "only" $2500 worth of food sounds like a terrible
        | bargain, but for many people in this country, that's a
        | great bargain.
 
        | namdnay wrote:
        | > It takes 5+ acres in a decently arable region with
        | fertilizer to feed one person. By the time you're
        | providing for a significant fraction of your caloric
        | intake, it ceases to be a "garden".
        | 
        | I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that. Is that fudged
        | to account for livestock or waste or something? A single
        | acre is what, 40*100m? That's huge, you could feed a
        | whole family all year on potatoes, peanuts, greens,
        | squash etc
 
        | Kerrick wrote:
        | Here's a good guide from 1917 -- after the Haber process
        | was invented, but before its widespread use in the Green
        | Revolution.
        | https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/ORC00000242/PDF
 
        | jaegerpicker wrote:
        | >>> It takes 5+ acres in a decently arable region with
        | fertilizer to feed one person. By the time you're
        | providing for a significant fraction of your caloric
        | intake, it ceases to be a "garden".
        | 
        | This is incorrect, it takes around 1/2 an acre if it's
        | vegetarian or 1.5 acres including chickens/ducks for meat
        | and eggs. That's using a traditional organic farming. If
        | you use Hydroponics (Plants grown in water with no soil)
        | or Aeroponics (Hydroponics grown in towers) or Aquaponics
        | (Hydroponics with aquaculture, where the fish provide
        | both protein and the fertilizer for the plants) the yield
        | is dramatically higher (5x-10x per sq ft) can be done
        | year round and indoors. It's not a perfect solution, it
        | takes knowledge to setup and run, a very small capital
        | investment for startup, and a constant power source. That
        | said it IS commercially viable, you can already today buy
        | produce produced this way in almost any grocery store,
        | and it's viable for home production. I personally have
        | several systems running in my apartment ranging from off
        | the shelf commercial systems (AeroGarden Back to the
        | Roots...) to custom built aquaponics systems. On a pure
        | dollar level it's more expensive per lb of food, no doubt
        | but within reason I don't care about that. I grow better
        | and fresher food and most importantly I control the
        | supply chain.
        | 
        | We can and should use these kind of technologies to
        | replace as much of the modern agriculture system as we
        | possibly can. No of the this mentions the MASSIVE
        | environmental improvement that switching to these systems
        | would make, which is reason enough to do it.
 
      | lucas_membrane wrote:
      | Commercial production of vegetables, particularly those not
      | considered essential, was artificially low during the war,
      | constrained by government control of allocation of things
      | like materials for packaging and freight cars for
      | transportation, and by no draft exemptions for male workers
      | from the farm to the market.
 
  | timst4 wrote:
  | Here's another tip: Grow a Biointensive Garden
  | 
  | -Use raised beds or Hugelkulture to increase yields. -Use sq
  | foot gardening to plant more in less space -Develop a three
  | stage compost pile. Import food waste from others in your
  | neighborhood if needs be. -Grow year round with cold frames
  | -Use cover crops to enrich soil over winter
  | 
  | Thats how you garden to eat my friends
  | 
  | https://www.amazon.com/How-Grow-More-Vegetables-Possible/dp/...
 
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| The article actually has four solutions at the bottom. Compared
| to the severity of the problem, all four solutions are
| surprisingly simple. Not necessarily easy, but simple and
| straightforward.
| 
| 1. Stop using so much corn to make ethanol.
| 
| 2. Stop using so much seed oil to make biodiesel.
| 
| 3. Stop feeding so much food to livestock. Bonus: reducing the
| livestock population provides short term calories!
| 
| 4. Break the Black Sea blockade.
 
  | AussieWog93 wrote:
  | >1. Stop using so much corn to make ethanol.
  | 
  | >2. Stop using so much seed oil to make biodiesel.
  | 
  | Easier said than done when there's a global fuel shortage too!
 
    | Scoundreller wrote:
    | Depends on how much energy you put into producing those vs.
    | what else you could have done.
 
    | einpoklum wrote:
    | So,
    | 
    | 5. Stop using private vehicles so much in favor of public
    | transport + bicycles.
    | 
    | Et voila, no more fuel shortage.
    | 
    | ... of course, this is even more easier-said-than-done for
    | the US :-(
 
  | paganel wrote:
  | Re 4., that's doable if the West renounces some of its existing
  | economic sanctions against Russia, the Russians themselves have
  | said as much recently.
  | 
  | It probably won't happen because the West doesn't like to see
  | itself as being involved in the war (in a way similar to what
  | Russia thinks about itself) and will try to resort to "Russia
  | should unlock the blockade purely on humanitarian grounds!",
  | which, of course, is the type of declaration which has no
  | effect during a direct economic war (like the one the West and
  | Russia are now waging against each other, on top of the
  | military proxy war).
 
    | namdnay wrote:
    | What is "the west" exactly? Japan? New Zealand? Finland?
    | Tunisia? A better term would be liberal democracies, but that
    | wouldn't have quite the same "both sides are the same" ring
    | to it, would it?
    | 
    | Russia isn't waging an economic war against anyone. A
    | dictator tried to invade his democratic neighbour, he failed,
    | and now the other democraties are cutting him out of their
    | club
 
      | paganel wrote:
      | Mostly the US, with some UK mixed in.
      | 
      | > A better term would be liberal democracies
      | 
      | If you think "liberal democracies" still carries the same
      | positive vibe across the world that it used to some years
      | ago you are in for a big surprise.
      | 
      | > "both sides are the same" ring to it
      | 
      | They are definitely not the same, they have obviously
      | different values. Again, Putin has said as much, he's the
      | one fighting for a multi-polar world with multi-polar
      | values, so to speak. I think the same holds for Xi, in
      | China.
 
        | filoleg wrote:
        | > _If you think "liberal democracies" still carries the
        | same positive vibe across the world that it used to some
        | years ago you are in for a big surprise._
        | 
        | I mean, I agree that it doesn't carry the same positive
        | vibes that it used to, but it still carries much better
        | vibes than "corrupt authoritarian semi-dictatorships".
        | 
        | To those who might try going "muh western propaganda" on
        | this, save your time. I am speaking as someone who grew
        | up in one of those "corrupt authoritarian semi-
        | dictatorships" and eventually immigrated to a "liberal
        | democracy".
 
        | corrral wrote:
        | "Two cheers for democracy", as usual, to borrow Forster's
        | words.
        | 
        | As he noted, it doesn't merit three cheers. Two, though?
        | Maybe two.
 
        | jiggawatts wrote:
        | Yeah, the gaslighting cracks me up. I too escaped a
        | former Soviet bloc country that Russia invaded in exactly
        | the same way it is invading Ukraine right now.
        | 
        | I now live in one of those "horrible" western democracies
        | where I can tell the Prime Minister that he's an idiot
        | _to his face_ and the worst that'll happen is that he'll
        | laugh at me in a dismissive way.
        | 
        | But these countries are "all the same", right? Right?
 
        | xdennis wrote:
        | > Again, Putin has said as much, he's the one fighting
        | for a multi-polar world with multi-polar values, so to
        | speak. I think the same holds for Xi, in China.
        | 
        | Great pole there! /s The West may have it's problems, but
        | Putin is trying to resurrect the same pole that was led
        | at one point or another by Hitler, Stalin, Mao. The world
        | doesn't need that again.
 
        | mistermann wrote:
        | > If you think "liberal democracies" still carries the
        | same positive vibe across the world that it used to some
        | years ago you are in for a big surprise.
        | 
        | Agree, I would state it as "liberal" "democracies" - this
        | is an opinion of course, but I think if one was to fairly
        | but critically perform an in-depth evaluation, things are
        | not as lovely as they are described to the masses.
 
        | namdnay wrote:
        | > Mostly the US, with some UK mixed in.
        | 
        | That's the opposition to Russia? Hardly, Ukraine's
        | neighbours are doing far more than anyone in London or
        | Washington.
        | 
        | > They are definitely not the same, they have obviously
        | different values
        | 
        | Yes one of them is democracy, the other is dictatorships.
        | One is good, the other is bad. Refreshingly, some things
        | in life are simple.
        | 
        | > he's the one fighting for a multi-polar world with
        | multi-polar values
        | 
        | if he wanted a multi-polar world he'd have let ukraine be
        | a pole. no, he wants a russian world, with himself at the
        | top of it
 
        | paganel wrote:
        | Again, the Russians have said as much what they want.
        | What they understand by "multi-polar world" is the US
        | (and its allies), Russia, China, maybe India, maybe some
        | other regional thingie, like South America/Mercosur maybe
        | (I think by this point they're already branding the EU
        | under "US and its allies", that wasn't always the case,
        | especially around 2003-2005 when Germany and France were
        | against the US intervention in Iraq).
        | 
        | Yes, they would want Ukraine under their sphere of
        | influence, that one has been also made pretty clear by
        | them ever since the USSR was broken up.
 
      | dredmorbius wrote:
      | _The Economist_ is cagey about the definition, but by
      | context it works out to  "America and its allies" (where
      | "America" is "The United States of America".
      | 
      | See e.g., "How the West should respond to China's search
      | for foreign outposts"
      | (https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/05/07/how-the-west-
      | sh...), which uses the phrase "America and its allies"
      | three times.
      | 
      | The US, NATO, NORAD, ANZUS, SEATO, and specific alliances
      | such as the US-Japan alliance, Mutual Defense Treaty
      | between the United States and the Republic of Korea, and
      | the like, would likely be included. In the context of
      | Ukraine and this article, probably the Common Security and
      | Defence Policy (CDSP) of the EU as well.
 
      | tut-urut-utut wrote:
      | I agree Putin is some kind of dictator, but are you really
      | calling Ukraine democracy? Then you can also call North
      | Korea democracy.
 
        | anonAndOn wrote:
        | >are you really calling Ukraine democracy
        | 
        | Isn't it strange how Russian money kept trying to prevent
        | it from becoming so and yet, it kept becoming one?
 
        | jandrese wrote:
        | There is some speculation that the liberal democratic
        | rumblings from Zelenski are what forced Putin to act. I
        | have no illusions that a country with deeply rooted
        | corruption issues like Ukraine can turn on a dime, but he
        | was at least voicing support for the idea. If he managed
        | to root out some of the corruption then Putin would lose
        | the ability to puppet the state entirely, and that's a
        | slippery slope to becoming part of Europe and being lost
        | to Russia forever.
 
    | mmarq wrote:
    | The Russian government has demonstrated beyond any reasonable
    | doubt that it is not a good faith interlocutor. Nobody should
    | take anything they say seriously.
 
      | HappyDreamer wrote:
      | > Nobody should take anything they say seriously
      | 
      | It's almost amazing that the newspapers reprint what Putin
      | says, as if it was something to take seriously. Without
      | explaining to the readers that Putin is trying to
      | manipulate them. -- They're sometimes letting themselves be
      | a megaphone he can use, I think.
 
        | dredmorbius wrote:
        | It took years for the media to reach that point with a
        | recent would-be tyrant.
        | 
        | Though Putin's been headed that way for far longer.
 
    | xdennis wrote:
    | > It probably won't happen because the West doesn't like to
    | see itself as being involved in the war (in a way similar to
    | what Russia thinks about itself)
    | 
    | Ridiculous equivalency. Your boogeyman "the West" didn't
    | attack Russia and doesn't have troops in Russia.
 
    | UnFleshedOne wrote:
    | Another option for #4 is supplying enough long range anti-
    | ship rockets to sink whole russian fleet in black sea. They
    | can't bring in more ships, because turkey is blocking the
    | entrance.
 
      | paganel wrote:
      | And then you have Russian aviation attacking and sinking
      | Ukrainian merchant ships, plus a couple of submarines.
 
        | nradov wrote:
        | Ukraine doesn't have much of a merchant fleet. Most of
        | their exports travel on foreign bottoms. And foreign ship
        | owners are unwilling to risk entering an active conflict
        | zone, especially because they can't obtain affordable
        | insurance.
 
      | [deleted]
 
      | postalrat wrote:
      | Triggering world war 3 would also help reduce the
      | population which could reduce co2 emissions and food
      | requirements. Killing a few birds with one stone.
 
        | spywaregorilla wrote:
        | This doesn't really make any sense though. It changes
        | nothing about the geopolitical reality of what's going
        | on.
        | 
        | If the US sends a merchant ship and a cruiser, what is
        | russia going to do exactly? Try to bomb the ships? They
        | will lose, and get shot down.
        | 
        | Why would it suddenly be WWIII? Is russia really going to
        | say "Well, they shot down our plane so its global
        | thermonuclear war time".
 
        | giantg2 wrote:
        | "Is russia really going to say "Well, they shot down our
        | plane so its global thermonuclear war time"."
        | 
        | That is what they have been threatening...
 
        | spywaregorilla wrote:
        | They threaten everyone and change their mind all the
        | time. It's mostly irrelevant to what they actually do.
 
        | giantg2 wrote:
        | The question was would they really "say" it.
 
        | nradov wrote:
        | Russia might respond with conventional cruise missile
        | strikes against US forces in the region.
 
        | spywaregorilla wrote:
        | Shrug. We're shipping $40B of shit to ukraine. It really
        | doesn't matter.
 
        | Gordonjcp wrote:
        | > Why would it suddenly be WWIII? Is russia really going
        | to say "Well, they shot down our plane so its global
        | thermonuclear war time".
        | 
        | Because Vladimir Putin is currently very very defective.
 
        | spywaregorilla wrote:
        | More like incompetent
 
        | axiosgunnar wrote:
        | I'd rather die trying, than live in a non-free world.
        | 
        | And fyi, whatever arrangement of characters your reply to
        | this statement will consist of, it will not change my
        | stance, so do not bother.
 
        | UnFleshedOne wrote:
        | That's not much different than supplying other kinds of
        | weapons (and anti-ship missiles are on the list anyway,
        | if not from US then from UK).
        | 
        | Also everybody is mostly over nuclear threat I think.
        | When a nuclear country keeps annexing land and threatens
        | you with nukes if you object, you have two options --
        | keep giving up or call the bluff (or assassinate the
        | leadership I guess).
 
        | chrsig wrote:
        | I really wish the last few years didn't make me
        | desensitized to the notion.
 
    | jakewins wrote:
    | Hypothetically, if the west actually wanted to give up
    | sanctions in return for clearing the blockade.. why, in what
    | universe, could they possibly expect Russia to stand by its
    | word?
    | 
    | Russia said for six months they were simply conducting
    | exercises and had no intention of invading whatsoever. Why
    | should anyone believe they would clear the blockade if
    | sanctions lift?
 
      | paganel wrote:
      | If they don't stand by their word then they can re-impose
      | the sanctions, it's as simple as that.
      | 
      | > Why should anyone believe they would clear the blockade
      | if sanctions lift
      | 
      | Because at some point the West will have to sit at the
      | negotiating table with Russia.
 
        | yakak wrote:
        | > Because at some point the West will have to sit at the
        | negotiating table with Russia.
        | 
        | I hope not. I've really taken to the idea that China
        | should manage their connections to the West and hopefully
        | take a lot off the top until Putin is dead.
        | 
        | China not being a democracy doesn't seem to be a problem
        | when it comes to institutional stabilities for managing
        | NK. The US has done a lot worse with some of its dictator
        | client states.
        | 
        | Sure if the Russians want to have another revolution and
        | run new elections or something that's great but trying to
        | get Russia to do something is like pushing against a
        | horse. Lets let China push Russia and see what happens.
 
        | Krasnol wrote:
        | There is no "negotiating table with Russia".
        | 
        | There is a "negotiating table with Putin" but it's far
        | from sure if they'll really have to sit on that table or
        | how long that table will even exist.
 
        | xdennis wrote:
        | > Because at some point the West will have to sit at the
        | negotiating table with Russia.
        | 
        | The whole point is that you can't negotiate with Russia.
        | Ukraine gave away it's nukes by negotiations and Russia
        | isn't keeping its end of the bargain. Russia has to be
        | defeated like the Japanese did or collapse like it tends
        | to do from time to time.
 
        | JumpCrisscross wrote:
        | > _Russia has to be defeated like the Japanese did or
        | collapse like it tends to do from time to time_
        | 
        | This is a dangerous line of play. Subverting Moscow to
        | Beijing seems more realistic and prudent. For all their
        | craziness, North Korea is merely menacing. Not
        | belligerent.
 
        | lovich wrote:
        | > Because at some point the West will have to sit at the
        | negotiating table with Russia.
        | 
        | Do they? What does Russia have that will force them to
        | the negotiating table? The damage to this years harvest
        | is already done and the supply chains will likely have
        | figured themselves out by next year
 
        | waiseristy wrote:
        | > If they don't stand by their word then they can re-
        | impose the sanctions, it's as simple as that.
        | 
        | That does not work with the current Russian regime. The
        | only thing removing sanctions will do is allow them time
        | to come up with solutions to mitigate future sanctions.
        | They are not good-faith actors, and only use good-faith
        | solutions to improve their leverage in future deals
        | 
        | For everyone who wants to downvote, go and look how well
        | the sanctions after the 2014 invasion worked. The primary
        | reason why the invasion of 2022 went forward was due to
        | their confidence that they could mitigate the same style
        | of sanctions that went into effect then
 
  | Gordonjcp wrote:
  | 3. If you can figure out how to eat grass, you'll be rich.
 
    | dhc02 wrote:
    | 1. Feed it to a grazing animal. 2. Eat that animal, or use
    | its milk to make food.
 
    | kazinator wrote:
    | Surely, we must know how to do this. I mean, we know how
    | grass-eating ruminants break down the cellulose to obtain
    | energy with various enzymes and whatnot. We could probably
    | invent some kind of exo-stomach to pre-digest grass into an
    | edible state. :)
 
      | Gordonjcp wrote:
      | I guess if you really wanted to, you could take cellulase
      | in the way that people can take lactase to mitigate the
      | effects of lactose intolerance.
      | 
      | How you'd actually get your stomach to brew that up into
      | anything useful in time is anyone's guess, and what it
      | would do to the rest of you is an exercise for the keen
      | experimenter.
      | 
      | We are basically too active and too large to eat grass,
      | even if we had lactase.
 
    | bequanna wrote:
    | 1. and 3. are the same thing: Corn.
    | 
    | The trouble is that it is pretty damn tough to pivot from
    | corn to some crop meant for direct human consumption. The
    | machinery and infrastructure we have in place to grow,
    | transport, and process corn is almost unimaginable in size.
    | 
    | A pivot like this would require incredible gov't subsidies
    | and take decades.
 
      | Gordonjcp wrote:
      | Yes, but feeding cows corn is silly. They can't digest it
      | and you end up with bland greasy inedible meat, and corn is
      | quite hard to grow.
 
      | gus_massa wrote:
      | I like polenta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polenta
      | (yellow corn hot porridge).
      | 
      | Also, my family is from the north of Argentina, so during
      | the holidays there during one or two weeks fresh corn was
      | very cheap. So we ate sweet humita and spicy humita
      | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humita, sweet corn pie and
      | spicy corn pie, also whole fresh corns, and other stuff. We
      | joked that we ate some dish with corn for lunch and some
      | dish with corn for dinner for a week.
      | 
      | Tamale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamale , Corn Tortilla
      | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_tortilla . I guess
      | someone from Mexico can add more recipes. (I think they
      | prefer white corn and we prefer yellow corn.)
 
  | tmaly wrote:
  | I am surprised there are not more calls to end the corn to
  | ethanol subsidies given the cost of food.
 
    | dredmorbius wrote:
    | _There is scope for substitution. About 10% of all grains are
    | used to make biofuel; and 18% of vegetable oils go to
    | biodiesel. Finland and Croatia have weakened mandates that
    | require petrol to include fuel from crops. Others should
    | follow their lead._
    | 
    | From the article.
 
      | ketzo wrote:
      | I think GP means more calls _outside_ this article,
      | particularly in the U.S. where 1) rising food prices are a
      | hot topic 2) we grow a LOT of corn.
 
        | dredmorbius wrote:
        | Fair point.
        | 
        | Though my understanding is that ethanol as a fuel
        | additive is largely an anti-knock lead substitute.
        | Alcohol was the originally-proposed solution, before the
        | creation and adoption of tetraethyl lead. Apparent cost
        | advantages drove the adoption of the latter. True costs
        | proved somewhat greater.
        | 
        | My read is that the "biofuel" branding of fuel ethanol is
        | actually a misdirection, though I don't have a good
        | source on that.
 
  | devit wrote:
  | If they can ship the food to Odessa (presumably by truck or
  | train), it seems like they would be able to ship it to a port
  | in a non-blockaded foreign country instead (e.g. Turkey,
  | Greece, Italy, Poland).
 
    | corrral wrote:
    | It'd take _a lot_ of trucks and train cars to move one ship
    | 's worth of grain. Consider that highways, train lines, and
    | ports don't necessarily have a ton of extra capacity
    | available, for reasons of economy, that upgrading those takes
    | time, and can be hard to finance if the situation is
    | perceived to be temporary (so, may take significant
    | government intervention to make it happen).
    | 
    | Plus, you go to all the effort and expense of doing that,
    | then Russia hits a few important bridges on the Ukraine side
    | of your routes, and now you're back to nearly-zero capacity.
 
      | trhway wrote:
      | Russia has already struck the Zatoka bridge south/west of
      | Odessa, the best/shortest route from Odessa to Danube river
      | and Black Sea ports in Romania.
      | 
      | Most of the trains in Ukraine is electric-pulled. Russia
      | has already struck most of the railway power transforming
      | stations. Ukraine has very limited number of diesel trains.
      | It can't use European ones because of different wheelbase.
      | 
      | Russia has already stolen about 500 000 tons of wheat from
      | Ukraine and delivered it to Assad, its ally in Syria.
      | Russia runs very intensive propaganda campaign representing
      | European help to Ukraine wrt. wheat export as basically
      | Europe stealing the wheat. Its propaganda also celebrates
      | the food prices rising in the "collective West" countries
      | as supposed result of the sanctions, and Russia will do
      | anything to stimulate the rise of the prices in order to
      | foment public push against the sanctions.
 
        | Iwan-Zotow wrote:
        | > Russia has already stolen about 500 000 tons of wheat
        | from Ukraine and delivered it to Assad
        | 
        | Well, no hunger for good people of Syria then
 
        | thghtihadanacct wrote:
        | Right? Check that one off the list (if this actually
        | happened ... Russia cant get anything done right anymore
        | so I dont see that grain making it anywhere).
 
        | trhway wrote:
        | >for good people
        | 
        | yep, as long as you're "good" according to Russia&Assad.
        | Russia is weaponizing the food the way it has weaponized
        | natural gas and oil.
 
    | greenglass wrote:
    | Why would they be motivated to do that?
    | 
    | If I were Ukraine, I would do all I could to exacerbate
    | global food shortages.
    | 
    | If I were the United States, I might consider how massive aid
    | packages interact with various incentives along these lines.
    | 
    | Supposedly the aid is help get around the sea blockade. Every
    | cost is a negotiation.
 
  | perihelions wrote:
  | - _" 1. Stop using so much corn to make ethanol."_
  | 
  | Unfortunately the US is moving aggressively in the opposite
  | direction, to ameliorate the political reaction to fuel prices.
  | 
  | https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-epa-issues-waiver-allow-...
  | 
  | (It's almost the exact inverse of that ancient proverb:
  | societies collapse when elderly men chop down trees for short-
  | term convenience).
 
| lordnacho wrote:
| Sounds like there's a big potential for upheavals similar to the
| Arab Spring. A fair number of countries subsidize food for their
| citizens, and if they can't get their hands on any, there's going
| to be issues.
| 
| I wonder which countries are most at risk? I read somewhere that
| the Arab countries get a lot of Ukrainian wheat.
 
  | elEpHantiaSis wrote:
  | https://www.iceagefarmer.com
 
    | mullingitover wrote:
    | This guy has a vested interest in convincing people we're in
    | for a rough year or two.
 
  | christkv wrote:
  | Any country not self sufficient and with no capital to outbid
  | the other starving nations.
 
  | lawn wrote:
  | Africa and the middle east.
 
  | simonh wrote:
  | That's probably mainly due to low shipping costs due to
  | proximity (in the grand scheme of things). There is scope for
  | substitution with supplies from elsewhere in the world, if
  | those supplies can be freed up from their usual end use.
  | Biodiesel, cattle feed, etc.
  | 
  | Here in the UK restrictions on labelling sunflower oil now mean
  | it's acceptable to adulterate it with other oils. My family has
  | switched to using rapeseed oil where we can (except for deep
  | frying, it stinks). I'd recommend eating less meat even if that
  | means eating more grain products, it's a more efficient use of
  | the resource. For the well off we can weather this just fine,
  | but we can still help by reducing our use of the scarcest
  | resources.
 
    | jtbayly wrote:
    | It's not really as much about freeing up the supplies as much
    | as it is about whether or not the supply chain can _ship_
    | that food from someplace else. From what I 've read, we don't
    | have nearly as much of a food problem as we do a food
    | _shipping_ problem.
 
    | Amezarak wrote:
    | Rapeseed soil is much worse for you.
 
    | leni536 wrote:
    | > Here in the UK restrictions on labeling sunflower oil now
    | mean it's acceptable to adulterate it with other oils.
    | 
    | Do you have a source for this claim? I'm interested since I'm
    | using sunflower oil here in the UK.
    | 
    | Tesco labels its sunflower oil as "pure sunflower oil", it
    | also has an ingredient list of "sunflower oil" [1].
    | 
    | Asda only labels it "sunflower oil", it doesn't have an
    | ingredient list (at least on the website), but it states that
    | the "regulated product name" is "sunflower oil" [2]
    | 
    | From the two the Asda one looks more suspicious, but I don't
    | know what the regulation is. My suspicion is that regulation
    | is for the label "sunflower oil", and Tesco goes out of its
    | way to clarify that it doesn't contain other oils, or
    | otherwise why risk putting "pure" there?
    | 
    | [1] https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/271168790
    | 
    | [2] https://groceries.asda.com/product/cooking-oil/asda-
    | sunflowe...
 
    | namdnay wrote:
    | I'm not sure why sunflower oil is so popular. Olive oil is
    | much nicer for anything that isn't going to be deep-fried,
    | and peanut oil is much better for frying (more saturated fats
    | = more crispiness).
 
      | messe wrote:
      | I'm not sure about where you are, but here in Ireland
      | sunflower oil is about half the price of peanut oil in most
      | supermarkets.
 
    | shagie wrote:
    | Its not (only) a low shipping cost but also includes a
    | "government keeps food prices low".
    | 
    | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-02/war-
    | choki...
    | 
    | > A subsidized flatbread loaf in Egypt sells for the
    | equivalent of about 1 U.S. cent. The country allocates five
    | loaves a day to people in the program and uses the public
    | treasury to compensate bakers for their losses.
    | 
    | > An attempt in the late 1970s by then-President Anwar Sadat
    | to end subsidies on basic foodstuffs triggered riots that
    | left more than 80 people dead, so the government since has
    | resorted to workarounds such as shrinking the size of loaves.
    | 
    | https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/egypt-eyes-
    | bread-s...
    | 
    | > CAIRO, Feb 1 (Reuters) - Egypt is considering replacing a
    | popular bread subsidy with cash payments for the poor to
    | protect the budget from soaring global wheat prices, but
    | domestic inflation and a history of protests could make the
    | government opt for a less ambitious reform.
    | 
    | > Under the existing program, more than 60 million Egyptians,
    | or nearly two thirds of the population, get 5 loaves of round
    | bread daily for 50 cents a month, little changed since
    | countrywide "bread riots" prevented a price hike in the
    | 1970s.
 
| SemanticStrengh wrote:
| crops rate can be doubled by using the antioxidant skq1. It's
| time for humanity to sync with science.
 
| frank_bb wrote:
 
| ProAm wrote:
| Isn't this one of the reasons why farm subsidies exist in the US?
| Paying farmers not to farm so in time of need or emergency we can
| produce more? (In addition to not over farming soil and depleting
| it permanently, keeping the price of food in a range to support
| farmers livelyhood)
 
  | wollsmoth wrote:
  | yeah, we could possibly engage some of that latent capacity.
 
| Melatonic wrote:
| Not a bad article but this is just a short term problem in a
| world with potentially much bigger long term food issues. Mega
| factory farming of monoculture crops covered without rotation or
| though for the health of the soil and environment and the insects
| and birds that support it all is going to really screw us long
| term.
 
| cabirum wrote:
 
  | dmarchand90 wrote:
  | Or maybe dictator-Putin shouldn't have started a savage attack
  | on a sovereign nation?
 
  | mschuster91 wrote:
  | > Now, Europe tries to buy out all grain stock that's left
  | 
  | No. Europe is pretty much self-sufficient for vital crops. The
  | problem is China [1] and the fact that Africa doesn't have much
  | of its own once famous agricultural power left after decades of
  | European and American "donations" - hard to compete against
  | donated products...
  | 
  | [1] https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Datawatch/China-hoards-
  | ove...
 
  | morsch wrote:
  | The EU is mostly self sufficient in terms of grains. In most
  | years, there's a trade surplus, in some years a small deficit.
  | 
  | https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/a1135630-e8e9-4531-a522-23670...
  | 2021/2022 despite the file name
 
    | [deleted]
 
| wavesounds wrote:
| We should stop growing corn for ethanol since it's worse for the
| climate than gasoline[1] and instead use all that land and
| machinery to grow wheat instead.
| 
| 1. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-corn-
| based-e...
 
  | colechristensen wrote:
  | Corn produces 4-6 times the calories per acre as wheat, not to
  | mention farmers and distribution networks would have to spend a
  | whole lot to switch.
  | 
  | Many people are suggesting eating less meat to help potential
  | food shortages, switching corn to wheat actually loses about as
  | much food as feeding corn to cattle. (i.e. a cornfield switched
  | to wheat and a cornfield fed to cattle would result in a
  | similar number of calories)
  | 
  | We indeed should stop producing ethanol, but plenty of hungry
  | people around the world could be just as happy eating corn as
  | wheat.
 
    | Scoundreller wrote:
    | I think it's more like we grow wheat where corn won't grow
    | well.
    | 
    | Saskatchewan isn't going to support a big corn crop, but
    | wheat, pulses and oats do very well.
 
  | ARandomerDude wrote:
  | Won't happen unless the fear of food shortage becomes an actual
  | food shortage.
  | 
  | Ethanol subsidies let farmers already invested in corn grow
  | more corn than they might otherwise sell for food, and
  | politicians get to say they're doing something for renewable
  | energy.
  | 
  | As with so many other things in politics, the good of society
  | isn't the driving factor. Money and talking points are king.
 
    | BitwiseFool wrote:
    | Given the outsized impact the Iowa Caucuses have in
    | presidential primaries, being pro-corn and ethanol is a
    | necessity for any viable candidate.
 
      | sosull wrote:
      | Aren't the Iowa Caucus' days numbered? They've been a
      | complete disaster the last few cycles - it seems to take
      | days/weeks to determine a winner. Their last competently-
      | run caucus was in 2008.
 
  | shadowgovt wrote:
  | How fungible are wheat and corn crops?
 
    | jeremyjh wrote:
    | This is like asking how fungible are calories. People with
    | the means to mill and cook with wheat flour can probably
    | manage with corn too if the alternative is starvation.
 
      | shadowgovt wrote:
      | I don't mean on the consumption side. I mean on the
      | production side. Do they grow in the same soil? Do they
      | take the same nutrients? Do they have the same water /
      | sunlight / temperature band tolerances?
      | 
      | Looks like that rotation is pretty common but there are
      | some details to concern oneself with.
      | 
      | https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/considerations-
      | whe...
 
        | dredmorbius wrote:
        | Much of it boils down to water and/or irrigation. Maize
        | (corn) likes wetter, wheat can stand dryer. In the US the
        | corn belt starts in Ohio and includes eastern Nebraska,
        | wheat is grown largely on the far western plains.
        | 
        | Wheat is also a viable winter crop --- fall planting /
        | spring harvest for "winter wheat". That typically means 2
        | crops a year (winter + summer), and possibly more.
        | 
        | Rice is the third staple crop, though it wants a _lot_ of
        | water, and tends to be grown in subtropical climates as
        | with China and India.
        | 
        | Other substitutes include barley, oats, millet, etc.,
        | though those are far less prevelant than wheat & maize.
 
        | colechristensen wrote:
        | Corn is a whole lot more productive, if you can grow it,
        | you do. Wheat grows in places you can't grow corn.
 
      | LegitShady wrote:
      | I had read somewhere that the varieties of corn grown for
      | ethanol are not the same as the varieties grown for food
      | but can't find the article now.
 
        | colechristensen wrote:
        | There are special varieties of corn you can grow for
        | ethanol, but you don't have to, the ethanol plants do not
        | require it.
        | 
        | There _are_ required varieties and practices for growing
        | corn intended for direct human consumption (i.e. making
        | cornmeal or breakfast cereal).
        | 
        | Most corn though goes to animal feed, industrial uses
        | (corn starch, syrup, etc), or export.
        | 
        | (source: am a 5th generation corn farmer)
 
        | ncpa-cpl wrote:
        | Hi! Just wanted to ask, are the cultivars or varieties
        | for corn for human food, ethanol and corn for cattle feed
        | different?
 
        | colechristensen wrote:
        | Each seed company provides a large number of options,
        | some of them for specific uses, some of them not so much.
        | 
        | The main differences are days to maturity, resistances to
        | a variety of things, and nutrition content.
 
| closedloop129 wrote:
| Haven't ethanol fuels been introduced to have a buffer for this
| situation? If we don't turn grain and corn into petrol then there
| should be some reserves.
| 
| Additionally, if we stop rising live-stock, where roughly 10
| units of plant create one unit of meat, there should be even more
| calories available.
 
  | elzbardico wrote:
  | If you are not able to digest cellulose, it doesn't matter if
  | it takes 100, 1000 units of plant calories to create one of
  | meat. This criticism against meat only works for grain-fed
  | beef, for grass-fed animals it makes no sense at all.
 
    | throwaway821909 wrote:
    | I suppose it gets more complicated though because in at least
    | some cases, we could plant human-edible food where the grass
    | is and still come out ahead (after taking into account that
    | it's harder to grow pretty much anything than grass)
 
      | Scoundreller wrote:
      | Iunno, I really don't do anything to the apple tree other
      | than trim branches (which I sell or give away to bbqers
      | depending on my mood). Every couple years it yields a huge
      | crop (and some years gets completely defoliated by disease,
      | but I'm lazy and just let nature take its course).
      | 
      | People love non-commercial applewood.
 
  | codefreeordie wrote:
  | Energy is having an even greater supply crunch than food
  | (indeed part of the food shortage is that agricultural inputs
  | can't get delivered in adequate quantities because the energy
  | to transport them doesn't exist).
  | 
  | The energy market is willing to outbid the food market, so I
  | wouldn't expect the conversion of agricultural inputs into fuel
  | outputs to decelerate.
 
    | londons_explore wrote:
    | When people run out of money, they prioritize eating over
    | electricity for the TV.
    | 
    | Eventually, that effect should bring down the amount that
    | energy companies want to pay for corn. But lots of people
    | might starve first...
 
      | dredmorbius wrote:
      | OP is speaking to the _market level_ effective demand.
      | 
      | Someone who's poor and starving will direct _their own_
      | very limited economic purchasing power toward food. But the
      | marketas a whole includes those who are wealthy (far fewer
      | in number, but individually having vastly greater
      | purchasing power), who might prioritise energy purchases
      | generally.
      | 
      | It's not the poor's own food-vs-energy deceisions, but
      | poor-food vs. rich-energy, which are in play.
 
      | codefreeordie wrote:
      | Yes, but rich westerners will keep paying higher prices for
      | gasoline while people in poor places get outbid for basic
      | survival ration.
 
  | kevin_thibedeau wrote:
  | Corn for ethanol production isn't preferred for eating.
 
    | cardamomo wrote:
    | Indeed, there is probably no existing supply chain for
    | whatever is necessary to make this corn fit for human
    | consumption
 
    | dredmorbius wrote:
    | The idea would be to reapportion the acreage, not the crop
    | itself.
    | 
    | Doing that mid-season is of course something of a challenge.
 
  | wyager wrote:
  | > where roughly 10 units of plant create one unit of meat
  | 
  | Those units are not remotely fungible.
  | 
  | Protein quality of plant protein (as measured by PER or other
  | metrics not explicitly designed to favor soy) is horrendous
  | compared to beef.
  | 
  | Much of the plant material fed to cows is also not even
  | slightly edible to humans, like soy meal.
  | 
  | I would rather have 1lb beef than 10lb nominally edible soy
  | extractives (or wheat, or grass, or inedible soy meal, or other
  | inputs to cattle production).
 
    | roflyear wrote:
    | They are comparable in many ways. The fact is it takes more
    | land to make meat than it does to make plants we can eat.
 
      | bryanlarsen wrote:
      | Much of the land cattle are raised on is not suitable for
      | growing crops.
 
        | countvonbalzac wrote:
        | We're not talking about land that cattle graze on, we're
        | talking about land that is used to grow grains that are
        | then fed to cattle.
 
      | wyager wrote:
      | Once again, you are trying to compare units which are not
      | fungible.
      | 
      | There is more land on which you can make meat than land on
      | which you can make plants. Animals can graze on non-arable
      | scrubland, grassland, etc.
      | 
      | Growing staple crops is harder on the land than raising
      | animals. Staple crops deplete soil nitrogen and other
      | nutrients.
      | 
      | Raising crops typically requires massive importation of
      | fertilizer from petrochemical plants, whereas cattle
      | grazing (for example) does not require significant
      | additional petrochemical input.
      | 
      | A classic tale of how animals unfairly take the heat for
      | plants: we often hear about how the amazon is being cut
      | down "for cattle". If you actually look into it, what's
      | happening is that farmers are cutting down the amazon to
      | grow soy for around 3 years, until the soil is totally
      | depleted, at which point they will put some cattle on the
      | land because the cattle can extract value from land
      | destroyed by soy and helps the farmers maintain land
      | claims.
 
    | Scoundreller wrote:
    | Where do other beans/pulses fit in vs meat?
 
      | OrvalWintermute wrote:
      | Some beans can be large sources of anti-nutrients [1] .
      | Because over consumption of anti-nutrient foods can
      | seriously impact your overall health, it is important to
      | think about when getting a balanced diet.
      | 
      | Another example is soy, which has been studied some [2] .
      | The problem is with longterm vegans that consume a huge
      | amount of soy over a long term.
      | 
      | [1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/anti-
      | nutrients/
      | 
      | [2] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/soy/
 
      | wyager wrote:
      | Black beans, for example, have a PER of 0 (unrealistically
      | low) and a PDCAAS of 0.75 (unrealistically high, vs 1 for
      | egg). A realistic comparison can't be reduced to a single
      | scalar, but for my own personal dietary requirements, I
      | would probably want to eat 5-10x as many grams of nominal
      | protein from black beans as from beef. This would be very
      | challenging.
      | 
      | I think some other beans like kidney beans fare somewhat
      | better, although I don't recall numbers. Still not close to
      | mammal meat.
 
    | otikik wrote:
    | > I would rather have 1lb beef than 10lb nominally edible soy
    | extractives
    | 
    | The argument is not "eat soy extractives instead of meat".
    | 
    | It's more like "lunch on veggies 2 or 3 days per week instead
    | of having meat on every meal, including breakfast".
    | 
    | It obviously includes repurposing some of the land used to
    | raise cattle into other things more suitable for direct human
    | consumption. No one is talking about making you eat grass.
 
| 0xbadc0de5 wrote:
| Might also be worth examining the amount of crop grown, then
| subsequently burned in the U.S. Somewhere between 25% to 40% of
| corn in the U.S., up to 20% of agriculture land is devoted to
| ethanol production. If food production is a growing concern, it
| seems strange that so much agricultural production is spent on
| non-food producing activities.
 
  | namdnay wrote:
  | Why "also"? Ethanol production is the number one cause
  | identified in the article..
 
  | Scoundreller wrote:
  | I think it's something like 75% of soy and corn go to ethanol
  | and animal feed (which loses most of the nutrients in the
  | process just to inefficiently concentrate some bits).
 
  | onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
  | Considering that the US alone could feed another 800M people
  | with just the grains that go to feed cattle - the idea that
  | we're going to run out of food any time soon is strange.
 
| t0bia_s wrote:
| Great opportunity for local businesses.
 
| alecco wrote:
| This article is partisan garbage, as usual lately for The
| Economist. Sure, the war had an impact but most of the problems
| were months BEFORE the war.
| 
| Search for "AgInflation" articles from 2021. I know farmers who
| skipped this season due to razor thin profits, suppressed prices
| by governments and major supermarkets, and risk of water
| controls. Would you put $50k of your money for a 10% return with
| a very, very high risk of failure?
| 
| The farmers that did plant, say wheat, are not benefiting from
| the price surge because to minimize risk they sold their harvest
| in advance or sold futures. SPECULATORS that are making a
| killing. Usually hedge funds like Citadel, ETFs by BlackRock, and
| others.
| 
| And in several countries farmers are being blamed for higher
| prices. Governments should've given the sector a bit of help and
| control risks. Help with water management. Help with shrinking
| labor base and increasing costs. But nothing is being done.
| 
| There is a perverse system right now and action needs to be taken
| to heal the sector. But I bet they'll just keep blaming farmers
| and impose price controls or suppression of some kind. Fixing
| farming would take years and populist politicians want magic
| immediate results and shift-blame. So buckle up.
 
  | lifeisstillgood wrote:
  | I am not sure _how_ to do it, but some futures-plus arrangement
  | might improve incentives - say sell your crop as a future, but
  | with a (gov supported) price cap - so if the price goes through
  | the roof the farmer gets a share of the overage.
  | 
  | Not sure how much difference it will make but agriculture is
  | kind of important
 
| daenz wrote:
| The sky is falling and we're all going to die!            Get to
| the end of the story       Subscribe today for just $19.90
| $10/first month.       Cancel at any time
 
  | [deleted]
 
  | InitialLastName wrote:
  | Don't forget:
  | 
  | "We're all going to die" is the default state of reality. What
  | matters is "when" and "how".
 
    | daenz wrote:
    | And "how much money can I make off of telling others about
    | it"
 
  | 8bitsrule wrote:
  | In the past decade I've also noticed the word 'crisis' being
  | used a lot more in less inappropriate ways. I just found, in
  | today's DDG news stories, headlines about a US border crisis, a
  | baby formula crisis, Sri Lanka having a fuel crisis, the
  | Israeli govt. in crisis, a covid crisis in N. Korea, a mental
  | health crisis in Alabama, a gun violence crisis, a cost of
  | living crisis.... and _many_ more.
  | 
  | Methinks journalists need to buy a thesaurus.
 
    | colechristensen wrote:
    | And they're really using the word "crisis" wrong. It's
    | supposed to mean something like a fork in the road, a
    | situation that forces change. Not just "shit is bad right
    | now".
 
    | daenz wrote:
    | They'll use whatever words increase their revenue in the A/B
    | tests unfortunately.
 
  | blowski wrote:
  | Is there any topic on which we're not currently facing a
  | catastrophe? In the last few months I've been warned about
  | impending doom for insects, food, nuclear weapons treaties,
  | democracy, the economy, the internet, space, the environment,
  | the arctic circle, abortion rights.
 
    | colechristensen wrote:
    | Most all of them. As people have gotten safer they have
    | gotten progressively more afraid of the remaining danger.
    | 
    | Doom sells, don't buy it.
    | 
    | Economic cycles, political unrest, diseases, on and on and
    | on, these things always have existed and constantly will ebb
    | and flow, while people will pretend what's happening now is
    | the worst its ever been because grabbing your attention is
    | profitable and gives people the sense that their life has
    | meaning.
    | 
    | We weren't living in an idyllic world _n_ years ago, we 're
    | not living in one now, we won't be living in one in the
    | future. The things that suck just kind of rotate from time to
    | time. Things remain pretty ok.
 
    | edmcnulty101 wrote:
    | Don't forget drought, flooding, gasoline, job bubbles, job
    | collapse, censorship, housing, chip shortages, etc.
    | 
    | Nothing can be just 'news'. Its all framed as a signal of
    | collapse.
 
    | the_third_wave wrote:
    | Not really, no. Panic sells so panic is what is being sold.
    | This is not a new thing as a stroll through the archives (in
    | any language I can read at least - Dutch, English, German,
    | French, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish) will quickly show,
    | especially weather scares have a long and rich history.
 
    | freeone3000 wrote:
    | There once was a boy keeping watch. He cried out "Wolf!
    | wolf!" And the villagers came, and saw the wolf was quite far
    | away, and not a danger yet.
    | 
    | The next night, the boy cried out "Wolf! Wolf!" And while the
    | wolf was at the gate, it didn't seem to be hurting anybody.
    | After all, the boy and his village were fine still, and there
    | could be benefits to the wolf.
    | 
    | The third night, the boy did not cry wolf. The villagers
    | discovered him dead the next morning next to the village
    | free-range wolf. A great meeting was held, and it was decided
    | that since most people were safe and secure and able to live
    | their lives normally, we must all adapt to the new normal and
    | learn to live with the wolf.
 
      | daenz wrote:
      | Except that story doesn't exist. People felt the need to
      | record the other story (the one you repurposed) instead,
      | and for good reason.
 
    | chaps wrote:
    | The point stands equally true for those catastrophes as well.
 
| pupppet wrote:
| Article photo is pretty badass.
 
  | SKILNER wrote:
  | If you follow The Economist they consistently have very clever
  | artists.
 
    | CamelCaseName wrote:
    | The Economist is the only news publication I pay for, I do
    | wish they were more economics focused (as opposed to
    | politics, though of course the two are fundamentally
    | intertwined).
    | 
    | Any other publications (paid or free) I should be looking at?
 
      | namdnay wrote:
      | really? at least 50% of any given issue is concentrated on
      | business/eocnomics. A few weeks back half the magazine was
      | a deep dive into the expanding role of central banks
 
      | systemvoltage wrote:
      | https://www.spectator.co.uk/
      | 
      | Also UK-based.
 
  | xwdv wrote:
  | At first I merely skimmed and didn't think much of it, then
  | after reading your post I looked closer. The horror.
 
| 88840-8855 wrote:
| I am refusing to agree that it is all "Putin's fault". The war is
| his decision and is not to understand from the normal Western
| position. However, it is the decision of the West to sanction
| Russia and to
| 
| 1) accept increasing energy prices
| 
| 2) accept a lower fertilizer production
| 
| 3) break up supply chains even further
| 
| 4) accept the refugee crisis, the costs of entering this war as a
| proxy combatant, sending tens of billions to not let the enemy
| win
| 
| 5) ... and ultimately win and accept the even worse consequences:
| pouring billions into a corrupt Ukraine to rebuild it, deal with
| a terrible unbalanced post-war society (women who came to the
| West will stay, men will find no women in UA after the war; young
| people will stay in Europe, while UA population will be much
| older on average after the war) and finally a Russia crisis that
| could be something like the "crazy 90s 2.0" or a Russia that
| broke into many unstable post-Russian republics.
| 
| I am saying this as a person with UKRANIAN ROOTS.
| 
| The West has decided to fight for some "Western values" and now
| all people living here have to accept the costs and long-term
| consequences.
 
  | vorpalhex wrote:
  | No society is ideal, but it is better to help a flawed country
  | than to let a war monger who is violating sovereignty norms act
  | freely.
  | 
  | Real life is not a series of choices between good and bad - it
  | is a series of choices between bad and worse.
 
    | 88840-8855 wrote:
    | We had the chance to open up and help substantially during
    | the crazy 90s when the post-Soviet economies dropped GDPwise
    | to the 1960s/1970s levels, average male life expectancy
    | dropped by 10-12 years, life-savings were destroyed,
    | criminals became ultra-rich and were welcomed in Zurich, New
    | York and London with open arms. We did not.
    | 
    | We had the chance to open the EU and NATO towards the Russian
    | in the 00s, even when the Russian came crawling to the Berlin
    | Bundestag and suggested to draw a path towards this direction
    | and were rejected hardly.
    | 
    | We had the chance for a compromise, e.g. through the Normandy
    | format when ALL relevant parties agreed more or less except
    | the Americans.
    | 
    | This all does not make the invasion right, but it is not as
    | one-sided as the propaganda is showing it here right now. And
    | this is why agree with your statement that real life is not
    | not as simple as "good" and "bad", it is all just bad - on
    | all sides.
    | 
    | And just another anecdote. As we are originally from Ukraine,
    | I went down to the border with friends, money and cars and
    | helped people at the border to make the right decisions. We
    | mainly focussed on people withough language skills, old
    | people and people with very very very little money. I had the
    | chance to speak to hundreds of Ukranians crossing the border
    | to the EU. 90% DO NOT CARE who "rules" them. They have their
    | dreams, hopes, they have their apartments, their jobs, their
    | pets, friends, homes... they just want this war to be over -
    | even if Putin "wins".
    | 
    | When watching Western news and reports I dont see those
    | opinions represented in the same way I experienced them when
    | talking to people. I see stories about values and democracy
    | and other philosophical stuff - and when they show Ukranians
    | then it is not those who I have met.
    | 
    | Where is the opinion of the normal folks that I have met: the
    | war should end asap, no matter who wins. Instead I feel
    | spoon-fed that we HAVE TO PAY THE PRICE for $VALUES. And then
    | you speak to people who have absolutly NO CLUE and NO
    | RELATION to either Ukraine or even Russia and they are so
    | opinionated and SOOOO SURE about the things that must be done
    | and the price that has to be paid.
    | 
    | I feel very frustrated and I stopped telling people about my
    | experience at the border or here when volunteering and
    | ACTUALLY speaking to the REAL people.
 
      | dotopotoro wrote:
      | > the war should end asap, no matter who wins
      | 
      | One part of me agrees with this. War is the worst (as far
      | as i know from books and tv).
      | 
      | The other part of me thinks: That is how Germany expanded
      | half a century ago, getting resources for ww2. (thug
      | perceives the pacifist as a weakling and an easy
      | opportunity to profit). Ukraine has a lot of natural
      | resources, part of the reason for the war.
 
| [deleted]
 
| sydthrowaway wrote:
| It is clear that Putin needs to go. By any means necessary.
 
  | perardi wrote:
  | I am a Putin hater through and through...
  | 
  | ...but be reallllll careful thinking through the consequences
  | of "any means necessary", because a lot of those means end in a
  | huge escalation of the conflict which further reduces access to
  | minerals and food. (And, like, human lives.)
 
  | throwaway0x7E6 wrote:
  | what then?
 
    | megous wrote:
    | http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-05.htm Article 81
 
  | MaanuAir wrote:
  | And? What's the rest of the plan?
  | 
  | I hear people saying that, but this is very short term with no
  | sustainable strategy.
  | 
  | Just genuinely pointing out he could be replaced by worse
  | options, and you need to plan against it as well.
  | 
  | There is the guy, the system he built, the persons he chose to
  | put in place, all incentivised to continue.
 
    | megous wrote:
    | I'm pretty sure this fear of change at the helm is something
    | all dictators will happily project out ("look, without me
    | there will be chaos or worse"). It's likely not true. It's
    | really impossible to predict what will happen once Putin is
    | gone.
    | 
    | He'll die anyway sooner or later, and there will be a
    | struggle for power regardless. Russia has a constitution, and
    | article 81 describes how to get a new president via
    | elections.
    | 
    | Current paranoid leader is waging major war and isolating the
    | country, so it's hard to say what could be worse for the
    | world. Maybe mobilization in Russia, but that may be a tough
    | call for any newcomer.
 
    | dotopotoro wrote:
    | You are right. Add to that, the constant and persistent info
    | flow from russian media and incentives to "say the right
    | things", which raised whole generation.
 
  | [deleted]
 
  | wmeredith wrote:
  | "All we have to do is put a bell on the cat's neck."
  | 
  | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belling_the_Cat
 
| xwdv wrote:
| If you have gluten intolerance there's nothing you should be
| worried about? Or are these grains necessary for growing meat?
 
  | kn0where wrote:
  | If there's a wheat shortage, people will be eating more rice
  | than usual.
 
  | Miner49er wrote:
  | First off, the people that mainly will be affected are the poor
  | in poor countries. Most in developed countries will probably be
  | fine.
  | 
  | That said, the rise in these grains will likely spill over to
  | other foods, as people turn to substitutes for their calories.
 
  | notacoward wrote:
  | Don't forget substitution effects. As it turns out, grains are
  | pretty fungible. (Yes, it's nice to be able to use that word in
  | its normal context for once.) As wheat becomes too expensive,
  | demand for others will increase and their prices will spike as
  | well. So yes, gluten intolerant folks will be significantly
  | affected as well.
 
  | kpennell wrote:
  | I think shortage of grain makes for a global food shortage,
  | which causes tons of problems.
 
| Comevius wrote:
| What nobody understands is that this is not happening strictly
| because of the war or the drought, but because of the fragility
| of the global food system, which simply cannot bear any shocks.
| 
| https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/2/02...
| 
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1712-3
| 
| https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/19/banks-...
| 
| We either fix this or we simply won't have a global food system.
 
  | rjbwork wrote:
  | I reiterate my comment from a few weeks ago as applicable to
  | this new context.
  | 
  | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31181311
  | 
  | In this case, the slack is obvious. And it has once again been
  | wrung from the supply chain in the name of efficiency (aka more
  | profits), under the grand delusion that there will never be bad
  | lean times.
 
  | commandlinefan wrote:
  | ... but the only fix is going to mean higher prices.
 
    | Zenst wrote:
    | Though that's not going to fix it, just burry those who are
    | already on the edge financially.
 
  | husainfazel wrote:
  | What you're missing is that the global food system is under
  | attack by bad actors.
  | 
  | 1. The US Treasury drew up the list of economic sanctions
  | against Russia and Belarus. Then they pressured the compliant
  | EU to follow. The sanctions no surprises had a predictable
  | impact on global grain/fertilizer and energy supply prices. The
  | US basically sanctioned themselves and the global economy.
  | 
  | 2. Meanwhile China was hit by terrible flooding last year and
  | faces record low yields for crops so they are now desperately
  | converting baseball courts and roads because their farmers
  | can't get seeds and fertilizers. Do you know why? Because
  | they're stuck on cargo ships sitting off the coast of Shanghai
  | which has been locked down under the bizarre "Zero Covid"
  | quarantine. This is conveniently being done during planting
  | season when they're already facing a huge shortfall. End result
  | - they are importing more and increasing the global grain/food
  | price further.
  | 
  | 3. Whilst China gets hit by flooding, the reverse weather
  | pattern (La Nina) is causing droughts in places like Argentina
  | and Paraguay which produces the majority of the food in South
  | America. So thanks again to our sanctions against Belarus and
  | Russia, we can't get fertilizer to those countries. Similarly
  | 35 African countries get food from Russia/Ukraine and 22 of
  | them get fertilizer from there so the end result is famine in S
  | America and Africa.
  | 
  | 4. In Europe, the EU's "Green Agenda" deal means the Italian
  | government can't provide more state aid to the farmers. In
  | Germany, they want to phase out agriculture because of
  | greenhouse gas emissions so they've stopped farmers who want to
  | grow more food. At the same time, the sanctions are making
  | covid-induced food shortages dramatically worse.
  | 
  | So you have well timed global food disasters which are
  | amplified by our sanctions whilst back home:
  | 
  | a) "On Friday, April 8, 2022, Union Pacific informed CF
  | Industries without advance notice that it was mandating certain
  | shippers to reduce the volume of private cars on its railroad
  | effective immediately. The timing of this action by Union
  | Pacific could not come at a worse time for farmers. Not only
  | will fertilizer be delayed by these shipping restrictions, but
  | additional fertilizer needed to complete spring applications
  | may be unable to reach farmers at all. By placing this
  | arbitrary restriction on just a handful of shippers, Union
  | Pacific is jeopardizing farmers' harvests and increasing the
  | cost of food for consumers."
  | 
  | Not only are they preventing urea and UAN from getting to
  | farmers during the crucial planting season but they're also
  | stopping DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fluid). DEF is used to control
  | emissions in diesel trucks, without it engines can't run. So
  | they're ensuring a complete shutdown of the supply chains
  | across the United States at the same time.
  | 
  | b) "EPA will allow a 50% increase in corn-based biodiesel and
  | ethanol fuel mix for the summer"
  | 
  | Before Covid even began, we had the "Renewable Fuel Standards
  | Act" which mandates annually RISING targets for the production
  | of corn for ethanol fuel blends. This add major price inflation
  | for food. Now the EPA is mandating another increase in corn
  | ethanol for fuel at the same time as when we have astronomical
  | fertilizer prices due to sanctions we imposed AND we're
  | blocking domestic fertilizers being shipped by rail... that's
  | going to send corn prices through the roof and the government
  | knows this very well.
  | 
  | and I'm not even going to touch on all the poultry that USDA
  | are ordering to be destroyed because of "Bird Flu".
  | 
  | As I said in my other comment, it's not by accident or pure
  | back luck - it's by design.
 
    | [deleted]
 
  | [deleted]
 
  | haltingproblem wrote:
  | Any article with the term "Global Production Ecosystem (GPE)",
  | financialization, sustainability, biotic homogenziation (!) and
  | translational corporations should not qualify to be published
  | in nature. They mean so many things that they don't mean
  | anything (tm).
  | 
  | This article has _all_ of them. This is topical doom-mongering,
  | which always works for clicks, but speaks nothing to substance.
 
  | beardedetim wrote:
  | I think it is but it's worth asking ourselves: is a global fold
  | system worth the trouble we have to go through?
 
  | mrtksn wrote:
  | I wouldn't argue against the research but to me, the "global
  | food system" is much more robust than I imagined.
  | 
  | We stayed in our homes for months en mass without prep time and
  | prior warning and the food availability barely changed. We are
  | creatures that need to eat multiple times a day and yet we can
  | stay in our homes for months and get fed just as well.
  | Therefore I'm not very worried about the management of the food
  | production and distribution, we are extremely good at it.
  | 
  | Thanks to the global nature of it, things move quickly and even
  | though a problem in one location can be felt everywhere we
  | don't end up with millions of deaths in that location. I'm
  | really not onboard with "localize everything" motto because
  | everything being local means catastrophic consequences at local
  | issues.
  | 
  | What scares me is something biological or ecological happening
  | at global scale. Something that takes at least 6 months to fix
  | for example.
 
    | Comevius wrote:
    | We are extremely good at it is your take when 900 million
    | people don't get to eat even in times of abundance?
    | 
    | If our food system can't take a little bit of war and drought
    | imagine how will it fare when production starts falling.
    | Climate change is happening at global scale, and we must be
    | able to coordinate and innovate on a similar scale to be able
    | to handle it.
    | 
    | Instead we have a spontaneously formed a shitty system. Most
    | people are ignorant of this. Some pretends that isolation is
    | the solution, let's Brexit it, some are blaming ethanol
    | apparently. There is no shortage of bad takes on this, but
    | the fact remains that we suck at this.
 
      | rmah wrote:
      | The people who go hungry are the ones who are NOT well
      | connected to the global supply chain.
 
      | mrtksn wrote:
      | The system is unfortunately exclusionary of some parts of
      | the world due to extreme conditions at those places - which
      | are much worse than a single war. It's more like decades of
      | never ending wars and extreme droughts. Africa's problem
      | isn't that they don't know how to code and as a result make
      | less money and can't afford food, the troubles there are
      | much much bigger and as a result they are outside of the
      | supply chain we have.
      | 
      | And yes, by global event that scares me is exactly the
      | climate change.
 
  | namdnay wrote:
  | > What nobody understands is that this is not happening
  | strictly because of the war or the drought, but because of the
  | fragility of the global food system, which simply cannot bear
  | any shocks.
  | 
  | Your logic seems strange: "he didn't die because of a car
  | crash, he died because his car didn't resist being smashed into
  | a tree"
  | 
  | Sure, any system could be made more or less fragile, and you
  | could argue that making it less fragile would have lessened the
  | impact, but you can't say that "this is not happening because
  | of the war" - of course it is
 
  | bell-cot wrote:
  | _Literally_ , untrue - LOTS of people understand. But like the
  | people who understood that launching a space shuttle when the
  | ambient temperatures were running far, far below the absolute
  | minimum spec. for the SRB's...
 
| sydthrowaway wrote:
| This is Soylent's time to shine.
 
  | [deleted]
 
  | ceejayoz wrote:
  | One of Soylent's primary ingredients is sunflower oil, for
  | which the world's largest producer is (drumroll please)
  | Ukraine.
  | 
  | Guess who's #2, and under major international sanctioning?
  | Between them, they're about 50% of worldwide production.
 
    | stickfigure wrote:
    | I assumed parent was referring to the Green variety. The
    | primary ingredient is... abundant.
 
      | [deleted]
 
      | PebblesRox wrote:
      | I have never been able to understand how Soylent has taken
      | off given the name. And I haven't even watched the movie!
 
    | sudden_dystopia wrote:
    | You should probably avoid seed oils anyway.
 
      | DANK_YACHT wrote:
      | Why? I've heard olive oil is pretty good.
 
        | samatman wrote:
        | Olive oil comes from the fruit of the olive.
 
      | TillE wrote:
      | This aversion to "seed oils" (a totally made-up, arbitrary
      | category) is one of the weirdest health fads I've seen in
      | recent years, and that's saying something.
 
    | Fargoan wrote:
    | We can probably up production here in North Dakota
 
    | windowsrookie wrote:
    | I'm looking at my bag of Soylent right now and sunflower oil
    | is not a listed ingredient. Canola oil is the second
    | ingredient. This is the powder.
 
| doodlebugging wrote:
| From doom-scrolling the Ukraine/Russia war it is pretty obvious
| that Ukrainian farmers have not been idle. Battles are being
| fought in the treelines and along rivers next to plowed and
| planted fields. Hopefully some of these crops are harvested and
| make it to market.
 
  | mschuster91 wrote:
  | > Hopefully some of these crops are harvested and make it to
  | market.
  | 
  | There are unfortunately a lot of problems here which make me
  | seriously pessimistic:
  | 
  | - Ukraine will need a lot of the harvest for itself, given how
  | Russians raided crop silos [1] and what they can't raid they
  | bomb to pieces [2]
  | 
  | - No one knows if Russian operatives didn't poison crop silos -
  | there are a number of poisons that are very stable in the
  | environment and very hard to detect if you don't know what you
  | are looking for, and Russians have proven over and over that
  | they have an awful lot of skill in dealing with poisons
  | 
  | - Russians looted a lot of agricultural machinery, and a lot
  | more got destroyed or seriously damaged - and the Ukrainians
  | repurposed a lot of stuff either to tow off Russian tanks or to
  | convert into technicals
  | 
  | - fertilizer is made of natural gas which is in short supply,
  | which in turn will massively impact yields
  | 
  | - similar to the post-war situation in Yugoslavia, fields will
  | need to be de-mined extensively, and they need to be cleansed
  | off of shrapnel and fuel
  | 
  | - even _if_ there are quantities to export, you need a way to
  | transport them. The railroad track width is different in
  | Ukraine (Russian wide-gauge) and Europe (standard), there aren
  | 't many re-trackable cargo wagons, a lot of rail equipment and
  | bridges got blasted by Russians or by Ukrainians for sabotage.
  | God knows in what state the sea ports are, there has been heavy
  | fighting, not to mention the sea mines that are already causing
  | chaos [3]
  | 
  | All in all it will be years if not decades until Ukraine can be
  | a serious player on the crop market again.
  | 
  | [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/05/europe/russia-ukraine-
  | gra...
  | 
  | [2] https://www.reuters.com/world/exclusive-photos-show-
  | russian-...
  | 
  | [3] https://www.dw.com/en/experts-warn-black-sea-mines-pose-
  | seri...
 
  | throwaway0x7E6 wrote:
  | it would be a crime against Ukrainian people to export that
  | grain though
 
  | morsch wrote:
  | I heard an interview with a farmer in Western Ukraine today.
  | His area isn't immediately affected by the war (as in, no
  | bombs, no mines, no occupation). His stores are still full with
  | the 2021 harvest. The regular route would be via the black sea,
  | but that's blockaded. He has a contract to ship some of the
  | stored grain via train to Poland. But there's very little
  | capacity to store his 2022 harvest.
 
  | codezero wrote:
  | I don't know if it was just propaganda, but I saw several
  | videos of grain being looted by Russian troops and supposedly
  | brought back to Russia.
  | 
  | Even if that's not the case, a live war has to decrease
  | productivity immensely.
 
    | c-smile wrote:
    | > videos... grain being looted by Russian troops...
    | 
    | Oh, that's new. How exactly do they do that?
 
    | usrusr wrote:
    | Last week Russia announced a record harvest for '22. Maybe
    | this is completely unrelated.
 
| smm11 wrote:
| We have an economy that uses food for vehicular fuel.
| 
| We've also politicized a baby formula shortage. Hang onto your
| hats.
 
| husainfazel wrote:
| You would think that with a food catastrophe on the way - the
| current administration's finest minds wouldn't be encouraging
| even higher corn prices (already at a 10 year high in April) with
| this mix of legislative action:
| 
| > Washington announced the EPA will allow a 50% increase in corn-
| based biodiesel and ethanol fuel mix for the summer. On April 12
| the Secretary of Agriculture announced a "bold" initiative by the
| US Administration to increase the use of domestically-grown corn-
| ethanol biofuels
| 
| Or with what I can only call absolutely diabolical sabotage of
| food production:
| 
| CF Industries of Deerfield, Illinois, the largest US supplier of
| nitrogen fertilizers as well as a vital diesel engine additive,
| issued a press release stating that:
| 
| "On Friday, April 8, 2022, Union Pacific informed CF Industries
| without advance notice that it was mandating certain shippers to
| reduce the volume of private cars on its railroad effective
| immediately."
| 
| "The timing of this action by Union Pacific could not come at a
| worse time for farmers. Not only will fertilizer be delayed by
| these shipping restrictions, but additional fertilizer needed to
| complete spring applications may be unable to reach farmers at
| all. By placing this arbitrary restriction on just a handful of
| shippers, Union Pacific is jeopardizing farmers' harvests and
| increasing the cost of food for consumers."
| 
| CF has made urgent appeals to the government for remedy, so far
| with no positive action
| 
| https://news.sky.com/story/cost-of-living-bank-of-england-go...
| 
| Remember when the apocalyptic food crisis happens, it wasn't an
| accident OR bad luck, it was planned.
 
  | [deleted]
 
  | [deleted]
 
  | martincmartin wrote:
  | TFA talks about that. Before the food crisis was in the news,
  | the energy crisis was in the news.
 
  | vimy wrote:
  | It's even worse when you realize biofuel is bad for the
  | environment.
  | 
  | > Third-generation biofuels do not represent a feasible option
  | at present state of development as their GHG emissions are
  | higher than those from fossil fuels. As also discussed in the
  | paper, several studies show that reductions in GHG emissions
  | from biofuels are achieved at the expense of other impacts,
  | such as acidification, eutrophication, water footprint and
  | biodiversity loss. The paper also investigates the key
  | methodological aspects and sources of uncertainty in the LCA of
  | biofuels and provides recommendations to address these issues.
  | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7735313/
  | 
  | > Our study examined data from 2005-2013 during this sharp
  | increase in renewable fuel use. Rather than assuming that
  | producing and using biofuels was carbon-neutral, we explicitly
  | compared the amount of CO2 absorbed on cropland to the quantity
  | emitted during biofuel production and consumption. Existing
  | crop growth already takes large amounts of CO2 out of the
  | atmosphere. The empirical question is whether biofuel
  | production increases the rate of CO2 uptake enough to fully
  | offset CO2 emissions produced when corn is fermented into
  | ethanol and when biofuels are burned. Most of the crops that
  | went into biofuels during this period were already being
  | cultivated; the main change was that farmers sold more of their
  | harvest to biofuel makers and less for food and animal feed.
  | Some farmers expanded corn and soybean production or switched
  | to these commodities from less profitable crops. But as long as
  | growing conditions remain constant, corn plants take CO2 out of
  | the atmosphere at the same rate regardless of how the corn is
  | used. Therefore, to properly evaluate biofuels, one must
  | evaluate CO2 uptake on all cropland. After all, crop growth is
  | the CO2 "sponge" that takes carbon out of the atmosphere. When
  | we performed such an evaluation, we found that from 2005
  | through 2013, cumulative carbon uptake on U.S. farmland
  | increased by 49 teragrams (a teragram is one million metric
  | tons). Planted areas of most other field crops declined during
  | this period, so this increased CO2 uptake can be largely
  | attributed to crops grown for biofuels. Over the same period,
  | however, CO2 emissions from fermenting and burning biofuels
  | increased by 132 teragrams. Therefore, the greater carbon
  | uptake associated with crop growth offset only 37 percent of
  | biofuel-related CO2 emissions from 2005 through 2013. In other
  | words, biofuels are far from inherently carbon-neutral.
  | https://theconversation.com/biofuels-turn-out-to-be-a-climat...
 
  | AnimalMuppet wrote:
  | Because Union Pacific is out to destroy food production?
  | Riiiiight...
  | 
  | Or because the government didn't prevent a stupidity from a
  | private company?
  | 
  | Never attribute to malice...
 
    | germinalphrase wrote:
    | Wasn't there an HN discussion recently about how rail
    | operators were running extremely long trains which are more
    | economically efficient for the operators, but much more
    | likely to derail (causing physical and pollution damage to
    | communities)?
 
    | husainfazel wrote:
    | The man at the very top has warned us about food shortages:
    | 
    | https://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/2022/03/its-going-to-
    | be-...
    | 
    | So why are CF Industries needing to beg the administration to
    | intervene and allow shipments.
    | 
    | https://strangesounds.org/2022/04/fertilizer-giant-cf-
    | indust...
    | 
    | Also ask yourself why Union Pacific is imposing these
    | restrictions?
    | 
    | Maybe it might have something to do with the latest rage in
    | the world financial markets? Blackrock and the WEF set up ESG
    | certifying companies that award ESG ratings and punish those
    | that don't comply. So you have companies forced to push for
    | completely bonkers restrictions and policies because they're
    | mandated to top down:
    | 
    | https://www.up.com/aboutup/esg/index.htm
    | 
    | If sometimes their incompetence lead to a winning situation
    | for us, we could say it's just pure incompetence. But this is
    | anything but incompetence.
 
      | AnimalMuppet wrote:
      | Union Pacific is acting to try to improve their "operating
      | ratio" according to the current management fad that they've
      | fallen prey to.
      | 
      | CF Industries is begging the administration, not because
      | the administration is in a plot to _cause_ this, but
      | because Union Pacific isn 't listening. (And also because
      | the government just had hearings about the incompetence of
      | railroads under the current management fad.) CF is just
      | looking for _some_ lever that will keep UP from damaging CF
      | 's business.
      | 
      | No, I don't think Blackrock or the WEF have anything to do
      | with it. It has to do with Canadian National, and then
      | Canadian Pacific, adopting Precision Scheduled Railroading,
      | and improving their operating ratios by doing so, and every
      | other major railroad (except maybe BNSF) jumping on the
      | bandwagon. But in doing so, UP is driving away some traffic
      | ( _not_ just food- or fertilizer-related), in the hope that
      | net profit will go up.
      | 
      | This has all been building for a decade or so. It's nothing
      | related to the current geopolitical and economic situation.
 
| daenz wrote:
| Meta rant: You know a thread is compromised by sock-puppets when
| "Article photo is pretty badass" is one of the top comments in
| the thread, ahead of criticisms about the article.
 
  | waffle_ss wrote:
  | That's just a typical high noise comment that no longer gets
  | downvoted into oblivion like it used to. It was a top comment
  | due to HN's comment ranking system weighting new comments
  | towards the top for a while.
 
  | [deleted]
 
  | h2odragon wrote:
  | I think its twitter refugees. Give 'em a few days, they'll
  | figure out the differences.
 
    | BitwiseFool wrote:
    | Give 'em a few weeks, this happens every September and it
    | won't last forever. /s
 
| crawfordcomeaux wrote:
| So we have a President Joe, war, food crises, and plague. And
| Google has announced a generalized learning agent.
| 
| Am I the only one starting to think it might be useful to examine
| David Bowie's "Saviour Machine" as cautionary prophecy we're
| actively on track to fulfill?
| 
| Expecting downvotes from those who don't understand this
| neurodivergent approach to life. I invite curiosity as a followup
| to any dismissive feelings arising in the reader.
| 
| ----- "Saviour Machine" lyrics -----
| 
| [Verse] President Joe once had a dream
| 
| The world held his hand, gave their pledge
| 
| So he told them his scheme for a Saviour Machine
| 
| They called it the Prayer, its answer was law
| 
| Its logic stopped war, gave them food
| 
| How they adored till it cried in its boredom
| 
| "Please don't believe in me
| 
| Please disagree with me
| 
| Life is too easy
| 
| A plague seems quite feasible now
| 
| Or maybe a war
| 
| Or I may kill you all"
| 
| [Chorus] Don't let me stay, don't let me stay
| 
| My logic says burn, so send me away , Your minds are too green, I
| despise all I've seen
| 
| You can't stake your lives on a Saviour Machine
| 
| [Bridge] I need you flying, and I'll show that dying
| 
| Is living beyond reason, sacred dimension of time
| 
| I perceive every sign, I can steal every mind
| 
| [Chorus] Don't let me stay, don't let me stay
| 
| My logic says burn, so send me away
| 
| Your minds are too green, I despise all I've seen
| 
| You can't stake your lives on a Saviour Machine
 
  | [deleted]
 
| troymc wrote:
| "Farmers have nowhere to store their next harvest, due to start
| in late June, which may therefore rot."
| 
| In Saskatchewan (where I grew up on a farm), when the grain bins
| get full, some farmers put their grain in shops or sheds normally
| used for storing farm machinery. Others put it in long giant
| plastic bags out in their fields. Others build makeshift plywood
| cylinders on some bare land (such as an already-harvested field).
| In short, farmers will do what they can to protect their
| harvests.
 
  | bryanlarsen wrote:
  | Ad hoc storage in Saskatchewan is for fall harvest and over
  | winter storage. Rot isn't a concern when it is cold and dry.
  | 
  | In contrast Ukraine plants a higher percentage of fall crops
  | harvesting in the summer and has about twice as much rainfall.
  | Ad hoc storage is much more challenging. They'll try, but
  | they'll lose a lot more crop than a Saskatchewan farmer would.
 
| leozoucomms wrote:
 
| abrichr wrote:
| Unpaywalled: https://archive.is/hobUN
 
| leozoucomms wrote:
 
| mbg721 wrote:
| If you're in the West, it doesn't hurt to buy a couple big bags
| of rice from the local Indian market, and have some dried or
| canned beans handy, and cycle through them as you cook. A pallet
| of bottled water and a bag of charcoal don't hurt either. A dumb
| power outage or a downed wire or a tornado or something is much
| more likely than Red Dawn, but you'll still be happy to have all
| that.
 
  | sva_ wrote:
  | I recently looked into how much rice I'd need to survive for a
  | year. The results were fairly surprising. A kilogram of
  | uncooked rice only provide you with about 3500 kcal, less than
  | you'd use in 2 days of time (for the average human). So you'd
  | need quite a lot of rice. Beans are similar, they just have
  | more protein (not a complete protein though).
  | 
  | I concluded that while it is definitely advisable to have some
  | number of days/weeks in storage, it doesn't seem feasible to
  | store enough food to last a prolonged period of time (unless
  | you go all-in on prepping, which has its limits). We humans are
  | as successful as we are because we cooperate with other humans,
  | and on our own we're pretty powerless. So fostering community
  | might be the best way to advert crisis.
 
    | vorpalhex wrote:
    | You don't need 2k calories a day in an emergency.
    | 
    | You can survive on 1200-1500 calories a day.
    | 
    | I still don't advise going in 100% on rice as beri-beri is an
    | issue (or heavy metal issues if you go all brown rice).
    | 
    | A good mix of canned goods, dried goods and reliable water
    | will help. Even in a shortage you will probably have some
    | access, but limited access.
    | 
    | I strongly advise against bottled water for emergencies. It
    | is the worst possible solution for cost/size/availability.
    | You can buy 6 gallon aquatainers and fill them with tap water
    | for an easy (and useful for camping) solution. Rotate every
    | six months and you don't need secondary treatment.
    | 
    | Otherwise a food grade 55 gallon drum is $100 and you can
    | fill it from your tap. You will want secondary treatment
    | options if you plan to rotate just every 2 years, and you
    | still need a smaller intermediary vessel.
 
      | Scoundreller wrote:
      | Speak for yourself! I'm biking distance from a lake, so I'm
      | going to focus on having enough bleach around. Bottled
      | water is great... for bottles to do solar disinfection
      | with. Though I guess I should really be worried about an
      | algal bloom... ugh.
      | 
      | 220gal IBCs should be $100 too, but maybe they're more now.
 
    | mbg721 wrote:
    | My assumption is that if I'm trying to survive more than
    | about two weeks, "possessions" are a cute theoretical idea.
 
    | MrFantastic wrote:
    | My friends were talking about his. If a food shortage hits
    | the plan is to consume the perishable stuff while massively
    | cutting calories.
    | 
    | The goal is to reduce excess muscle and reduce the
    | metabolism.
    | 
    | Rip off the bandaid and then the food rationing won't be as
    | uncomfortable.
    | 
    | After a few days of fasting you lose a lot of your hunger.
 
    | walleeee wrote:
    | Right, its always a good idea to have short term reserves but
    | it's way more important to build out local and regional
    | resilience and a less vulnerable, more robust, diverse food
    | supply
 
  | Scoundreller wrote:
  | I wanna add a solar panel. Having 50 or 100w is going to make
  | my life _a lot_ better than 0w.
 
    | mbg721 wrote:
    | If you have the setup where you've got that connected and
    | make it work, that's a great idea. The neighbors next to my
    | building have some on their roof--it's not too different from
    | having batteries for your radio.
 
      | ceejayoz wrote:
      | You can get 100-ish watt solar panels on Amazon
      | surprisingly cheaply, and they're small enough to take car-
      | camping.
      | 
      | https://www.amazon.com/PROGENY-Portable-Kickstand-
      | Flashfish-...
      | 
      | https://www.amazon.com/Jackery-SolarSaga-Portable-
      | Explorer-F...
 
        | psd1 wrote:
        | I've just specced up a system to deliver 1-2 KWh per day
        | off-grid, and there are a lot more parts in the system
        | than just the panels.
        | 
        | Apart from anything else, if you save on costs by
        | sticking at 12v, you run quite high current. That 100w
        | panel can fuck you up.
 
      | Scoundreller wrote:
      | A lot of the grid tied systems don't even support off-line
      | use, but you could always bodge something together during
      | prolonged outages.
 
        | TaylorAlexander wrote:
        | I was just researching this and the new Enphase IQ8
        | microinverters will run without grid power. You are
        | correct though it is common for microinverters to require
        | grid power to operate, which seems pretty surprising!
 
        | lazide wrote:
        | It's usually a safety feature. If there is a downed power
        | line and you lose grid connection, energizing your
        | (otherwise dead) side of the downed lines could easily
        | kill the lineman who comes to fix it.
 
        | TaylorAlexander wrote:
        | Oh certainly it is important to have some kind of cut-off
        | to prevent back-feeding the power lines, but I thought
        | that would just be part of the system design.
 
        | throwaway0a5e wrote:
        | To the breaker on your solar (or genset) the resistance
        | of the neighborhood is gonna look indistinguishable from
        | a short circuit so you'll need to at least disconnect
        | from the grid if you want to power your house. From there
        | your next problem is that solar panels don't handle being
        | overloaded very well so you either need a ton of them ore
        | batteries.
 
        | lazide wrote:
        | It is! The easiest design is to require existing grid
        | stable power and supplement it. :)
        | 
        | Anything else is difficult to do reliably, and would
        | generally require some kind of smart monitoring system,
        | electrically actuated mains rated switch (not easy, cheap
        | or durable it turns out), additional sensors, etc.
        | 
        | The design we're talking about just doesn't output power
        | unless there is an existing sine wave to follow. Pretty
        | foolproof, since anything that provided it would also be
        | the one responsible for electrocuting the worker.
 
        | TaylorAlexander wrote:
        | That makes sense! I guess being new to this it is just
        | counter intuitive to think that you could install a big
        | solar panel system and still suffer power outages. But I
        | see what you mean.
 
        | jandrese wrote:
        | It's for two reasons.
        | 
        | 1. Not killing linemen by backfeeding power
        | 
        | 2. Your appliances don't like brownouts and voltage dips
        | whenever a cloud passes overhead. Try to run a house
        | without a power buffer and you'll burn up power
        | controllers all over your house.
        | 
        | Unfortunately the battery market is extremely tight due
        | to so many car manufacturers trying to switch to BEVs
        | ASAP and stressing the raw materials markets. That and
        | COVID shortages. Prices are very high and availability is
        | usually "8-12 month waitlist".
 
  | MrFantastic wrote:
  | Rice will keep you full but our body requires protein and fat
  | to live. Carbs are optional.
  | 
  | I Olympic lift so I always have whey.
 
  | nosianu wrote:
  | Buy some MREs. They are made to last and to have everything
  | essential for survival.
  | 
  | Shelf life is about 5 years, depending on how it's stored:
  | https://www.mreinfo.com/mres/mre-shelf-life/
 
    | lazide wrote:
    | Make sure to pack some fiber though too! They'll plug you up
    | something fierce if you eat them a lot.
 
  | carom wrote:
  | The whole reason I wanted to take up camping was to understand
  | what I can eat in an emergency situation. Now I own a camping
  | stove, a few fuel canisters, some boil in bag rice, and a few
  | large cans of plain freeze dried chicken and beef. Add in the
  | charcoal BBQ and I'll have a feast the day the power goes out.
 
    | aksss wrote:
    | The benefit of backpacking as a hobby is not only testing
    | gear and learning how to use it, but also having a
    | means/excuse to rotate through an emergency freeze-dried food
    | supply or MREs and/or learn how to forage and hunt/prepare
    | small game. MREs are reasonably cheap, high calorie, long
    | lasting, and if you strip them down to essentials can be
    | reasonable weight. They don't last forever on the shelf, but
    | again, camping/backpacking/kayaking can give you an excuse to
    | cycle out the oldest stuff.
 
  | corrral wrote:
  | Rice will be full of pest insect eggs. They'll hatch after a
  | while (smallish count of months, likely).
  | 
  | You've got to freeze it (to kill the eggs) and then seal it (to
  | keep more pests from getting in) and/or add stuff that'll kill
  | anything that hatches very fast (IIRC diatomaceous earth is
  | popular for this)
  | 
  | Other grains have similar pest problems, plus if it's wheat or
  | similar and ground into flour (not e.g. whole wheat berries),
  | it'll get worse over time from air exposure. Anything with the
  | germ still on/in it will go rancid after a while, and the
  | germ's full of nutrients so you really want that part if you
  | can keep it.
 
    | sva_ wrote:
    | Small (1kg) vacuum-sealed bags should be fine though.
 
      | corrral wrote:
      | Correct--it's doable, it just takes more material and
      | planning than "buy bag of rice, stick bag in dry place in
      | basement". Do that, you'll be sad when you try to use it in
      | a year or three.
      | 
      | The alternative is maintaining a stock but constantly
      | drawing it down & replenishing it, but it gets difficult to
      | maintain a _substantial_ reserve that way, unless you
      | already eat your  "apocalypse" diet most of the time, so go
      | through a lot of the same things you've got in storage even
      | during normal times--say, if you already eat rice & beans
      | 5+ dinners a week. You're capped by the rate at which you
      | go through those things in non-emergency times. Plus it
      | takes some planning and ongoing monitoring/inventorying,
      | which is a non-zero amount of work.
 
        | sva_ wrote:
        | Maybe I'm ignorant of this, but it was my impression that
        | vacuum-sealed white rice should pretty much last
        | indefinitely?
 
        | lazide wrote:
        | If you vacuum seal it with mylar lined bags and some
        | oxygen absorbers, it can last up to 5 years, which is a
        | long time.
        | 
        | Oxygen will get through normal plastic vacuum sealing
        | bags and ruin the taste and eventually nutritional
        | content otherwise after a year or two. Mylar lining stops
        | most of that and the oxygen absorber gets the rest.
        | 
        | The thick bags will also stop rice moths from getting
        | through (they are able to get through most cardboard and
        | thin plastic bags), and the lack of oxygen will stop
        | their eggs from hatching.
 
        | corrral wrote:
        | I'd expect a couple years at least. A quick Google gives
        | common wisdom that you still want anti-weevil measures
        | (bay leaves in the bag, the aforementioned diatomaceous
        | earth) with that method.
        | 
        | My point with that part was just that you have to do the
        | vacuum sealing (unless you're buying a product with all
        | this taken care of, which I'd assume is expensive) and
        | such, at least, which means more equipment and material
        | than simply buying sealed (but not _vacuum_ sealed) bags
        | at the store and putting them on a shelf. Getting grains
        | ready for long-term storage means more than just keeping
        | mice and bugs and water out--you 've gotta worry about
        | oxygen, and about insect eggs already present in the
        | grain, too. Just stuff one might not think of if one were
        | to make the wrong assumptions.
        | 
        | [EDIT] Incidentally, trying to store _all_ one 's
        | calories, at least more than enough for a week or two,
        | might not be the right idea anyway, short of a truly
        | horrible catastrophe like nuclear war--my great-
        | grandparents and grandparents, who lived through the
        | depression and World War II, respectively, didn't seem to
        | be all that in to storing lots of grain. What they _were_
        | into, big time, was _canning vegetables_ , and gardening
        | (to grow stuff to put in the cans). Man, were they ever
        | into canning vegetables. I'd _guess_ that 's the result
        | of some hard lessons about how to make it through hard
        | times--plus, just, times before modern shipping and
        | refrigeration when food availability dropped a whole
        | bunch in Winter.
 
        | giantg2 wrote:
        | "What they were into, big time, was canning vegetables,
        | and gardening (to grow stuff to put in the cans). Man,
        | were they ever into canning vegetables."
        | 
        | Ditto
 
        | corrral wrote:
        | I became aware of the world _just_ as seasonal food
        | availability was becoming a thing of the past--I remember
        | significantly more seasonal variation, but only when I
        | was pretty young--so this really stuck with me growing
        | up. All those colorful jars lined up on shelves, all the
        | gardening, all the boiling-of-jars, et c. All that work,
        | and a can of the same thing was $0.29 at the store.
        | 
        | So I assume they _all_ developed these super-similar
        | habits for really great reasons. And since the ~1960s and
        | earlier were just _normally_ pretty similar to what a
        | significant food shortage would probably look like now
        | (at least in countries that will almost certainly be able
        | to maintain adequate supplies of staples, like the US) it
        | seems to me that might be a good first place to look.
        | Stock up on canned veggies, worry less about the rest of
        | it. Maybe get some chickens and plant some berry bushes
        | (they also _all_ loved keeping a line or two of berry
        | bushes, and it seems like in their generations you just
        | _alway_ kept chickens, if you weren 't smack in the
        | middle of town)
 
        | sva_ wrote:
        | Maybe the misunderstanding stems from a geographic
        | difference. The rice I buy seems to come in an under a
        | co2-atmosphere vacuum sealed bag that costs around $2 (or
        | less on sale) per kg.
        | 
        | > What they were into, big time, was canning vegetables,
        | 
        | My grandmother did this too, after living her childhood
        | through WW2 (in Germany), she used to have a repository
        | of canned vegetables in the cellar. I sometimes talked to
        | her about her rural live in the war-torn country, and she
        | told me about soldiers, and all kinds of people, who
        | would come by in war-time, where food was very sparse.
        | And I think she maintained that sort of hoarding behavior
        | throughout her life, based on the experiences she made as
        | a child.
 
        | corrral wrote:
        | Interesting. Our (my part of the US) rice is mostly sold
        | in small plastic bags (perhaps 1-2kg), or for some brands
        | hard plastic containers; larger amounts come in either a
        | much heavier opaque plastic bag (like pet/livestock feed,
        | when it's not in a lined paper bag of some kind), or a
        | thin clear plastic bag _inside_ a rough cloth bag. If
        | there are already-vacuum-sealed options here, I 've not
        | noticed them.
 
        | sva_ wrote:
        | Reading some other comments, it is also possible that
        | these bags aren't actually vacuum sealed. It is hard for
        | me to tell how much of a barrier you need to get a good
        | sealing, in particular to protect from rice weevils
        | (bugs), which appear to be the biggest issue.
 
    | giantg2 wrote:
    | "diatomaceous earth"
    | 
    | This is also a suspected carcinogen. I'd be careful about
    | putting it on food, even if you do wash it.
 
    | AussieWog93 wrote:
    | What are you talking about? I've kept bags of rice for years
    | without any issues.
 
      | SkyMarshal wrote:
      | What he said is generally true [1], so you must have either
      | stored your rice in an environment that prevented them from
      | hatching, or got lucky.
      | 
      | [1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_weevil
 
| stakkur wrote:
| Grain is at the root of our dietary and other consumption
| problems. Much of farmland is given over to growing corn for
| ---corn syrup and variations to put in processed, artificial
| 'food'.
| 
| We can live better, healthier lives without grain.
 
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-19 23:01 UTC)