Jonathan Foley: The other inconvenient truth

A skyrocketing demand for food means that agriculture has become the largest driver of climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental destruction. At TEDxTC Jonathan Foley shows why we desperately need to begin "terraculture" - farming for the whole planet. (Filmed at TEDxTC.)
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at www.ted.com/translate
Follow TED news on Twitter: / tednews
Like TED on Facebook: / ted
Subscribe to our channel: / tedtalksdirector

[@Garbaz]

Here's my concept to solve this problem:
- Encourage vegetarianism via dialogue or reward. Eating the plants directly is way more efficient than feeding them to animals and consuming the resulting meat.
- Invest into open source GMO technology. The biggest problem with most GMOs is the way companies like Monsanto try to make profit out of them. We need national or international systems to support development of more efficient plants.
- Slow down humanities growth or even reverse it. This is really difficult to do and no country wants to do it because of economical reasons. But it is the most efficient factor we currently have available.
- Discourage mass consumption. Reducing the amount of stuff we consume per person is very effective when done on big scale, but again doesn't work with our economical goals.
One construct to make this work would be some kind of international semi-communistic political system. Organized and carried by a central leadership, which decides on all global matters like the survival of our planet. Local decisions could be carried out by respective sub-governments, sub-sub-governments, etcetera.
This idea for a political system is not new. In 1918 in Germany a similar system were established (--> "Räterepublik"; English: "Soviet republic"), which had quite a lot of problems. Thanks to the difference in scope, the (theoretical) lack of detractors and most importantly the modern ways to communicate (-->"The Internet") many of these problems would be resolved.
This is not fully thought through and worked out, but rather the ideas I developed in my head. I wouldn't intend this to be the final form, but rather a base to build on.
(I am fully aware that what I suggested is impossible to be done [from one day to another.])

[@Garbaz]

***** Would work.

[@Garbaz]

Hans Bär
About the meat: Once "fake" meat is more or less as effective as direct consumption or we find a way to make the "real" meat production efficient enough, I'd consider the problem solved.
Until then we will have to either endure the current meat industry or resign meat consumption partially (/entirely). It doesn't matter to me what the people eat. I just mislike how inefficient our current meat production is.
About the energy: I would consider thinning out the amount of nuclear power plants over time for the sake of sustainability (--> Radioactive waste).
I know this isn't easy or cheap, but will be necessary to preserve our planet in the long run.
Currently the only considerable solution would be to use all kinds of renewable energy sources (e.g. solar), which are sadly not efficient enough (yet), and come with all kinds of problems for themselves.
About technology: I don't see how this policy would impact technological progress. Of course the focus would have to change from "the best" to "the most efficient", but we are currently working towards this anyway and it doesn't seem to decelerate research.

[@purikurix]

Plant based nutrition and problems are almost solved. Less unhealthy palmoil usage will be the final nail.

[@MrSpectastic]

the growing population is a problem too.. more mouths to feed, more competition, less overall quality of life, especially for the third world. nobody seems to be addressing that

[@djagoscott5694]

+Spectastic the third world is where the overpopulation is happening ! i think people have gone and tried to educate them to reduce it but its not in there culture ? you know were all on this planet -we share it -not just for food or money ,were supposed to look after it , and i think those that think there above it and keep on popping kids out with no respect for nature or the environment are ignorant and selfish ! so i agree with you -i live in the country and i would hate to see it destroyed but its coming .

[@nghiatrong8289]

thank vietsub

[@xerotoninz]

Time to dry up the oceans too?

[@Ideaman47]

Where's the inconvenience?

[@fierozio]

You say there is no single solution, but in my view you were scared of using that word: veganism.

[@fierozio]

***** Hi, thank you for your answer. In some ways I agree with you, but in my view there are two distinct (yet, connected) issues here: hunger and pollution/contamination. What you write rather concerns the first thing, but does not address the second. We feed livestock with good nutrients, and they pollute the air with their gases and contaminate the soil (thus, the water sources). Moreover, we double the dumbness by cutting millions of acres of forests to concentrate even more animals. That leads to an even worse natural response to our chemical/natural excesses. If we use Brazilian soy for animals, why not using that to feed people in countries where the soil is not as good, like you mention? I believe it is time to speak up and stop being part of this insanity (hope it is clear, first time I write about these topics in English!)

[@fabsway31]

***** "I speak more of places where crops can't grow easily" ==> I'm wondering how many % of the land is that. My guess is really not a lot... So a vegan diet, for the ones that can do it, would greatly benefits the planet. Of course some part of the world just can't go vegan (poor fishing villages, inuit, masai, food desert etc...) but that's not the one that pollute the most anyway...

[@fierozio]

Yes, that is exactly the point. The poor part is not the biggest cause. And I am obviously not talking about pure survival: when we, "first-world" citizens, enter a supermarket, we simply make a choice (do I want this pink thing or that red one?), based on our preference and our budget.

[@YouPublish]

there is no future

[@YouPublish]

Muna Ali it is okay people deserve this

[@kingkobra1978]

Deb Dulal Dey Humans were doomed the day they started developing brains

[@spijkerpoes]

+Bearded Bard no we were doomed when men started ploughing the fields instead of their wives..

[@LittleCD]

Deb Dulal Dey Population growth is not the issue. It's the consumption of resources and the increasing population that strain these resources that will lead us into ruin

[@casualcadaver]

I don't think he is seeing the big picture . He thinks that these third world countries HAVE to have so many children. I think the governments of places like China , India , parts of Africa should enforce a strict childbirth limit of maybe one or two per woman that way the human species and doesn't overshoot the carrying capacity of the earth . Possibly even here in the U.S because although we have less children, each childs carbon footprint is many times more that of one from the third world .

[@trip.le.threat]

The major issues with birth limits are enforcement, public backlash, and gender imbalance. First, third-world countries aren't even really capable of the kind of widespread policing you're talking about. Second, people HATE it when government controls "private" aspects of life, especially when it starts to infringe on religious beliefs (see also: birth control controversy). Finally, as China's attempt at this shows, the preference for a specific gender makes it likely that over time, more and more people will have trouble finding a sexual partner, resulting in widespread dissatisfaction.

[@bjornharald9522]

guys chill.
here is a convenient truth, WE are all dead by the time this shjit matters. :D
win?