One solution to the global food crisis is to reduce the
world’s population. If there are fewer people in the world to feed it follows
that there does not need to be as much food produced.
This
presents many moral problems. For example, who would the burden of lowering the
population fall on? Wealthy countries, like the United States and Germany,
already have declining birth rates and are nearing or are below replacement
level. However, we cannot place the burden of lowering population on people in
less-developed nations. These populations often have high infant mortality
rates and limited knowledge of birth control methods. While education and
medicine can play a large role in fixing these problems, it would be a long and
slow fix. Additionally, many of the high birth rate countries are in rural
areas that are very agricultural. Families here need additional hands to help
out with their farms or businesses. Causing these families to limit the amount
of children they have would cause economic hardship, which in turn would cause
suffering.
Based on
these problems, it does not seem like a reduction in population is a moral
solution to the global food crisis.
A second solution to the global food crisis is to intensify
agriculture. If we can produce more food globally, then we do not have to worry
about the population.
There are many issues that come along with agricultural intensification.
It requires increased inputs like fertilizers and pesticides, which increases
environmental harm. Fertilizers and pesticides can also be toxic to humans and
other animals. These two problems can reduce quality of life and increase
suffering. Another problem that arises with agricultural intensification is the
need for more land. Many agriculturists believe that we cannot sustain the
current and future population with the amount of farmland we have right now.
However, there is not much land left to expand to. Creating new farmland often
requires deforestation, which destroys important environmental habitats.
Additionally, who would be displaced in order to create new farmland? There are
many logistical and moral problems that come along with agricultural
intensification.
However, there are benefits to intensification as well. One
solution seems to be genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. These can
increase yield while decreasing land, pesticide, and fertilizer use. Although
they are very controversial, GMOs have the potential to change the world by
increasing the number of people that can be fed while using the same amount of
land.
While there are some aspects of agricultural intensification
that seem to cause suffering and are not feasible, GMOs seem like a possible,
ethically responsible solution to the global food crisis. If no one is harmed
in the creation or consumption of GMOs, they seem to be a perfect answer to the
current food problem.
A third solution to the global food crisis is not a new
invention like GMOs, but a change in the way we consume food. If wealthier
people consume less, there will be more food available for the hungry. This
does not harm the wealthy and is only beneficial for the people who will be
receiving more food.
This solution seems to be morally acceptable in every facet.
Wealthy people changing their consumption patterns only risk losing some
gustatory pleasure. Additionally, it helps other species as well as humans. If
less meat is consumed so more corn and other grains can be used for food
instead of as feed, factory-farmed meat will be economically impacted and could
possibly be reduced.
The reduction of factory-farmed meat could also open the door
for more local, organic farmers. This would help food be locally available
everywhere instead of needing to be shipped around the world.
All in all, it seems that reducing consumption is a morally
acceptable way to solve the global food crisis. It harms no one and only has
positive potential moral outcomes.
No comments:
Post a Comment