Oct. 20, 2013
Food vs. Humans
The world produces more food per head of population today than ever before in human history. So is our way of growing and distributing foods fine just the way it is or do we need a new way of doing it? Yes, it should stay the same due to cost factors and the natural aspect of it. According to the Food Timeline if you go back to 1930 you could buy an 18 ounce box of corn flakes for only 38 cents, if you go up to 1990 that same box cost $1.99 on average (Telesco). Then we move to the other side of the topic; no, we need a new way of doing it. The population is growing at a constant rate and so is technology. We are eventually going to have to have new ways of growing and distributing food to sustain the population. And since technology is improving at rapid speeds I don’t doubt that they will come up with a new technology to speed up the process. This paper looks at the pro and the con sides of food and how humans will either change it or keep it the way it is. Pro position Yes, our way of growing food and distributing it is just fine the way it is. With all the chemicals, hormones, fertilizers, and other rotten things being done to our present day crops farmers have no intentions of changing their ways of producing food. It is becoming an issue that is being ignored. They are starting to put our water resources in danger, but people keep trying to find ways to overcome these issues without changing how things are done ("agriculture and food security"). With the way that we are producing food now not only are the farmers struggling to keep up but also is the soil that they use, we are losing soil 17 times faster than it regenerates causing the use of more fertilizers to replenish the soils nutrients ("Food Miles"). The majority of the people that agree that our way of growing food and distributing it should stay the same are people that eat strictly organically. The ways that the food is grown organically is all natural without pesticides and chemical fertilizers. In a perfect world this would be the perfect way to sustain the food that we need but that’s just not possible because by growing the food naturally they come in smaller quantities when they are distributed. So in this case nothing would change regarding the methods of growing and distributing ("Can Organic Farming Feed Us All?"). By changing the way that we grow and deliver our food supply that would mean that it would cost more money for farmers and food distribution centers to supply the amount needed. Even if technology changed and the way the food was transferred became even more efficient that doesn’t mean prices would stay the same. Fast production does not always mean better prices. The cost of maintaining farms is huge and the commercial markets are always trying to find ways to charge more money for their products. People are always changing what they have a taste for too so it makes it difficult for consumers to meet everyone’s demands without a rise in cost coming with it (Telesco).
Con Position No, we need a new way of producing and delivering food. The agricultural resources and technology needed to feed growing populations are available. Agriculture does not lack resources, it lacks policies to ensure that food is produced where it is needed and in a manner that sustains the lives of the rural poor ("agriculture and food security"). We can do that if we come up with new strategies for sustaining food. For example wheat, a fairly huge industry crop, is starting to come down to if we can continue to grow enough wheat with the rising demands of milk and meat. You need to feed the animals plus the wheat we consume as well. We could achieve this by creating larger cropping areas, more livestock, and more fishing vessels (Gillis). With the population growth, though, means a decline in the area of cropped land due to the need for housing. So with that