Both of the world's leading authorities on food distribution (the
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] and the World Food
Programme [WFP]) are very clear: there is more than enough food for everyone
on the planet. The FAO neatly summarizes the problem of starvation, saying
that "the world currently produces enough food for everybody, but many people
do not have access to it." Food is a lot like money: just because some people
have none doesn't mean that there isn't enough of it--it's just spread unevenly.
What do you mean when you say we are producing more food on less land?
Exactly that. Thanks to continuing increases in crop yields, the
world's farmers are harvesting hundreds of millions of tons more
grain each year on tens of millions acres less land than they did in
the 1970s and '80s. For instance, according to USDA figures, the world
was producing 1.9 million metric tons of grain from 579.1 hectares of
land (a hectare is 2.47 acres) in 1976. In 2004, we got 3.1 million metric tons
of grain from only 517.9 hectares of land. This is quite a jump.
This is not to say that we won't possibly need to dedicate more land to
farming in the future. The point is, a rise in population is not always
matched by a rise in the amount of land required to feed that population.
The U.S. government pays farmers not to grow food?
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service's web site, "the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) provides technical and financial
assistance to eligible farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, and
related natural resource concerns on their lands in an environmentally
beneficial and cost-effective manner." What this means is that the
government has created a fund to allow farmers to give their land "time
off" from growing crops. This is done by "renting" the land from the
farmers, so that things like grass and trees can be planted there
instead of crops. This helps prevent soil erosion and encourages
wildlife habitats, and reduces sedimentation in streams and lakes.
The upshot of this is that our nation would never be able to afford to do
this if we were anywhere near maxing out our food growing capabilities.
Our current food surplus means that we are able to give some of our
farmland back to the wild, instead of frantically using it all to feed a
supposedly exploding population.
Lots of places. Northeast Thailand and parts of Brazil, for example,
were once considered inhospitable farming environments. According to
the FAO, these places had disadvantages like "unreliable rainfall
patterns, poor soils and a high population density in the case of
Thailand; and remoteness, soils prone to acidity and toxicity and low
population in the case of the Cerrado [Brazil]."
In both countries, the government was able to help farmers overcome
these obstacles. This was done through methods like better irrigation,
adding nutrients and chemicals to make the soil more suitable for
planting, and finding crops that would adapt well to the local
environment.
This was so effective in the case of Brazil that that country is now
considered an agricultural superpower--largely due to farming on the
"unfarmable" Cerrado.
Theoretically, it wouldn't even require all of Africa. According to a
2009 report published by the FAO, about 400 million hectares of African
savannah are quite suitable for farming--but only 10 percent of that
land is currently cultivated. Called the Guinea Savannah Zone, this
stretch of arable land winds through 25 African countries. And, even
though Africa has a dire history of war and unstable government, things
have recently begun to look up for many of these nations, which means
this land is more likely to be cultivated in the future.
According to the FAO, "Africa is better placed today to achieve rapid
development in agriculture than either northeast Thailand or the Cerrado
when their agricultural transformation took off in 1980 . . . There are a
number of reasons for this: rapid economic, population and urban growth
providing diverse and ample domestic markets; favourable domestic policy
environments, improved business climates in many countries; increased
foreign and domestic investment in agriculture; and the use of new
technologies."
What does this mean? In the short term, fewer starving Africans. In
the long term, possibly an incredible source of food for the rest of the
world.
How does blaming overpopulation for things distract from the real problems?
Since overpopulation isn't the cause of hunger, "fixing" overpopulation
won't fix these problems. In fact, the obsession with overpopulation often
leads to precious aid money being spent on population control rather than
real aid. "Family planning" programs miss the real point, especially in
places like Africa--which is that the people need legitimate, concrete aid.
People who are hungry and thirsty need food and water, not population control.
