Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on food scarcity
Population growth and economic development
Food scarcity
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay on food scarcity
The paper rehearses my arguments and provides simple technological solutions to underlying problems that are presented in Soylent Green. The main argument in favor is that the society in Soylent Green is missing a numerous amount of adequate resources that would be deemed necessary for a healthy community. The main argument against solving underlying problems is that not all of these simple solutions will entirely get rid of the problem. The paper attempts to move past this argumentative impasse by asking what humans contribute to the supply side of the economy. Historically, humans have contributed muscle and brains to production, but the quality of the life is progressively degrading. It is argued that this supports the increase in the human …show more content…
population is mainly to blame. It is also argued that a basic income, education, healthcare, water supply, shelter, technology, and a stable economy will guarantee an improvement in the quality of life in Soylent Green. I am a disciple of environmental degradation and I too believe that the overall quality of life has significantly declined.
Soylent Green’s conjecture is that with the increase in human population and lack of energy resources and adequate necessities, the world will turn into a dump and humans will have to start utilizing decomposing organisms and other odd things to produce energy. However, I believe that the underlying problems presented in Soylent Green can easily be solved through simple technological solutions. In a society founded by consumerism, humans are easily persuaded to want more, not because they actually want it or need it, but because of the way society is structured. It is likely that if society continues in such a format, the world will come to starvation, disease, and death, leaving an everlasting legacy and putting the humanity to …show more content…
shame. There are many obstacles that I have seen in Soylent Green. Providing solutions and mitigating changes that will restructure the society will take a great amount of time, but will decrease the impact on the environment. At some point, society will no longer be sustainable and the threat of rising against each other will ensue. How will the people recover and solve issues that have restricted them from carrying on their family name? What will happen to the children? What will become of the economy, the freshwater, primary resources, education, technology, energy, and space? I am advocating several solutions to reconstruct society and rekindle the love that people once had for the environment. As a witness to this major epidemic, it is my responsibility to provide solutions and fix these underlying problems that are presented in Soylent Green. By introducing contraceptives and birth control, distributing resources more evenly, implementing a more sustainable agriculture system, creating more jobs and electing a representative, it will eradicate most if not all of the consequences that humans have created throughout the years. The society in Soylent Green is an abyss of multiple problems that take time and money to fix.
Many people are now forced to sleep on the streets, staircases and on top of each other because of the lack of available space. As a result of this, many adults and children as seen coughing and ill from living in close proximity of each other. The clothes that they wear and the sweat that drips down their faces symbolizes a greater problem than they make it out to be. Detective Thorn is seen trampling on people as they sleep away their problems and how there is a need for a security guy with a gun at the foot of the steps. Through these observations, many can validate the fact that the society in Soylent Green is rather troublesome and in need of reevaluation. To address the problems mentioned above, we first need to address fertility rate. By addressing fertility rate, not only are we saving the lives of humans, but we’re also improving the overall quality of life for the future generation. I suggest capping the amount of children that each couple has and providing radio programs that talk about birth control. A simple technological solution such as introducing birth control and other contraceptives can easily solve this epidemic, but the problem is much deeper than interpersonal relationships. Capping the amount of children that couples have allows for the children to have a greater chance of survival and in turn, the energy needed to take care of fewer children can be
utilized for labor to improve the economy. In addition, by only having two kids per couple, there will be more space in general and more time to be productive. Lastly, by restricting the amount of children per couple, families are further prevented from poverty and actually have money to support their family.
Do these two ideas truly have to go together? It seems the Soylent miracle is also a challenge to the universal system of chew and swallow, where the aesthetic and taste of food are prioritized before its nutritional value. Rob Rhineheart is correct to point out a deficiency in the system, that food has acquired something of a social life to it, creating complications that increase the time, effort, and difficulty of gaining essential nutrients. In “The End of Food,” Lizzie Widdicombe shows us Soylent’s potential as a dream substance, but also presents potential despair in a future with Soylent. With its characteristics, it seems that Soylent could go either way.
...oss’ paper. Therefore, this objection is not sound because the number of naïve people are rapidly dwindling. The second objection stated that one person has no effect on the factory farming industry, so giving up meat is pointless because the industry is too large to feel the effects of someone converting to vegetarianism. I refuted this objection by saying that, yes, one person alone will not make a difference, but when more and more people become vegetarians, the industry will be forced to respond by producing less animals, therefore, preventing more animal suffering. Although these two objections were strong and valid, I believe I was able to successfully defend Norcross’ argument that factory farming is wrong and cruel.
Even though the green revolution has stopped starvation in some parts of the world, it has also caused some. The green revolution was the use of new technology to grow food for the people of the world that started in the 1950’s. These new technologies include such things as Gmo’s, pesticides, fertilizers. The main goal was to stop hunger and make second and third world countries better and not living in poverty. The green revolution raised the amount of food in the world, made the world's population increase at a dangerous rate and harmed and damaged the earth and its people.
...g statistics about the public’s health and make the future seem bleak, “the lifespan is shortening for new American children” (Pastor) and “ one in three children born after the year 2010 will develop type II diabetes” (Pastor). Pastor says that he is shocked by the impact and wants to break away from the cycle created. In his closing statements he convinces the audience to break away from the cycle away as well, by drawing on the seeds he planted with pathos, ethos, and logos. The film was well made and addressed all the issues of “organic” food and well informed the audience of what is occurring. Next time, an audience member goes to the supermarket to buy food they will probably remember what their children will look like in twenty years if they don’t take a more “organic” approach to their lives.
.... People do not have to become vegetarians, but people should consider other meat and food as alternatives. Ultimately, if a majority of people chose organic farms and foods it would put a heavy hit on the meat production business. People will be eating healthier, and they will be doing their healthy part in the ecosystem and that will help to lower greenhouse gas emissions and greatly improve treatment of animals. The prices of organic food just need to come down dramatically for people to buy it. Methane from liquid manure, nitrous oxide from manmade fertilizers, carbon dioxide from machines are why people have put themselves and animals into a dilemma and made it into a never-ending continuous cycle.
Humans are damaging the planet to live comfortably, we must change the way food is distributed worldwide, support local farmers and switch to a healthier diet in order to stop global warming. The current global has been getting better for us humans over the years, from eating bread and eggs 3 times a day in the XV century, now we can eat better than the kings of those times, however the much of the food in not healthy and the global food system still fails in getting food to every individual in the planet and in addition it contributes to the destruction of our world. Ms. Anna Lappe explains how the food system contributes to around 1/3 of the global warming issue in her essay “The Climate Crisis at the End of Our Fork”, while a group of Plos one explains the issues about the export and import of food growth over the last 50 years in the
After reading McKibben and Hurst’s articles in the book Food Matters, both authors present arguments on “industrial farming”, and although Hurst provides a realistic sense on farming, McKibben’s suggestions should be what we think about.
Jared Diamond Argues that the worst mistake in Human History is the invention and widespread introduction of agriculture, because it has created a plethora of social, economic, and health problems for the word. One example of this is when the article states, “Hunter-Gatherers enjoyed a varied diet, while early farmers obtained most of their food from one or a few starchy crops. The farmers gained cheap calories at the cost of poor nutrition.” This illustrates that the author's main argument is that agriculture was the worst mistake in human history because it shows how agriculture has negatively impacted health of both early farmers and people today by creating mass produced bulk crops that are low in nutrition. Furthermore, another example
The 2009 movie Food Inc. describes the major role that food production plays within many lives. This movie revealed that there is a very small variety of companies that consumers purchase their food from. These few companies actually control what is out on the shelves and what we put into our bodies. These companies have changed food production into a food production business. Many of these companies experiment with ways to create large quantities of food at low production costs to result in an enormous amount of profit for themselves. Some of the production cost cuts also result in less healthy food for the population. Instead of worrying about the health of the population, the companies are worried about what will make them the most money.
People seem to be enjoying the current events and influx of knowledge in decision-making and the rise of the modern society that forfeits traditions and culture of the old. He denotes that the nutritional world has been impact negatively. In his article “The Worst Mistake in History of the Human Race” he strongly points that the old ways of practicing nutrition were much between as compared to the current world. The article begins by highlighting the various beliefs which people have long been exposed to since tender ages. For instance, he mentions that people have been taught to understand that various origins of the universe and human creation. He thus compares the same with the changes in the current global society. Yet, the question remains are these changes meant for good or are they a mistake to the human
Genetically modified food’s, or GMOs, goal is to feed the world's malnourished and undernourished population. Exploring the positive side to GMOs paints a wondrous picture for our planet’s future, although careful steps must be taken to ensure that destruction of our ecosystems do not occur. When GMOs were first introduced into the consumer market they claimed that they would help eliminate the world’s food crisis by providing plants that produced more and were resistant to elemental impacts like droughts and bacterial contaminants, however, production isn’t the only cause for the world’s food crisis. Which is a cause for concern because the population on the earth is growing and our land and ways of agriculture will not be enough to feed everyone sufficiently. No simple solutions can be found or applied when there are so many lives involved. Those who are hungry and those who are over fed, alike, have to consider the consequences of Genetically Modified Organisms. Food should not be treated like a commodity it is a human necessity on the most basic of levels. When egos, hidden agendas, and personal gains are folded into people's food sources no one wins. As in many things of life, there is no true right way or wrong way to handle either of the arguments and so many factors are involved that a ‘simple’ solution is simply not an option.
And, because food now comes at a low cost, it has become cheaper in quality and therefore potentially dangerous to the consumer’s health. These problems surrounding the ethics and the procedures of the instantaneous food system are left unchanged due to the obliviousness of the consumers and the dollar signs in the eyes of the government and big business. The problem begins with the mistreatment and exploitation of farmers. Farmers are essentially the backbone of the entire food system. Large-scale family farms account for 10% of all farms, but 75% of overall food production (CSS statistics).
In this paper I will look at the argument made by James Rachels in his paper, The Moral Argument for Vegetarianism supporting the view that humans should be vegetarians on moral grounds. I will first outline the basis of Rachels’ argument supporting vegetarianism and his moral objection to using animals as a food source and critique whether it is a good argument. Secondly, I will look at some critiques of this kind of moral argument presented by R. G. Frey in his article, Moral Vegetarianism and the Argument from Pain and Suffering. Finally, I will show why I support the argument made by Frey and why I feel it is the stronger of the two arguments and why I support it.
Soybeans are a popular legume used to produce soy milk, tofu, soy sauce and other products. Also known as edamame beans, the FDA reports that soybeans may help reduce cholesterol and improve your heart health. Grow your own soybeans to have them fresh from the garden at a fraction of the cost of retail stores.
...veryday foods require a lot of energy and release a lot of greenhouse gases to produce. This is the reason we should stop wasting the foods, consume less meat, and eat more locally grown food.