How to Solve the Problem of Hunger

[The Avatar 1,088]

Well, this has been on my mind for a couple of days, and I have some free time now, so I figured I'd go ahead and post it. Recently, my english class has been reading the book "The Giver." If you haven't read the book: first, I don't reccomend reading it, as I thought it was written poorly, and lacked details and a good story, and second, the book is about a utopian society where life for the people living there is very controlled and orderly, but safe, efficient, and "perfect." Along with reading the book, we were given the assignment of writing a short 1-2 page report on how we would solve certain problems the United States (as well as other countries) have that could turn the U.S. into a utopian society with the technology we have today. Some of the problems given were hunger, - what I chose - homelessness, poverty, and divorce.

I'd like to get your opinion on the solutions I came up with. I tried to think of solutions that would work, but were also practical, and didn't intervene into the lives of the people too much. I pondered these things, and I think I came up with some good solutions. Feel free to give your opinion, share your ideas, and hopefully we can start an interesting discussion.

These were the solutions I came up with:

• Every house built must have space available for growing produce for the occupant/occupants of the house.
• Every community/city under a population of 500,000 people must have space available for farming
• In cities with populations over 500,000, the rooftops of buildings must be utilized for farming
• Jobs for farming and delivering the crops must be available
• Farmer's markets with fresh produce must be organized and set up in areas of the community/city that are easily accessible
• People without a job/low on money/witout money can apply for food stamps, which can be used for purchasing food

Here is the actual report that I wrote. Keep in mind, I am only in eighth grade, and the report was written to the best of my abilities.

In our population, hunger is a serious problem. People in countries across the globe are going hungry or are starving because of a lack of food. However, by establishing a set of regulations and laws, I believe this problem can be solved. These regulations will provide food for the people through means of farming, delivery, and markets for selling food. With these methods, hunger can be eliminated and our society will move one step closer to becoming the utopian society of the future.

The first step in eliminating the problem of hunger is to create various means of producing food for a community. To do this, every community under the population of 500,000 must have designated space in or around the community for farming. Communities with populations larger than 500,000 must utilize the rooftops of buildings for farming space. New buildings being developed must have flat roofs for farming, and office towers must have certain floors designated for farming only. Every new house built must have space in either the backyard or front yard for growing small quantities of produce if the occupant of the house desires to grow their own crops. These regulations will cover producing food, and will prevent the community from having a scarcity of food.

The second issue that must be addressed is providing food to the population. This issue can be fixed by creating and supporting jobs for farming and delivering the food produced by farms and food manufacturing companies to supermarkets, grocery stores, and farmer’s markets. Routes from other communities should also be established so that foreign goods not produced locally can be sold to the people. Somewhere in the community, easily accessible by the population, space must be designated for a farmer’s market. Here locally produced and imported food will be sold at cheaper prices, so that people with less money will be able to purchase food. For people without money, applications for Food Stamps will be provided for them, so they will still be able to purchase food for themselves.

Yes, I realize I didn't add a proper conclusion. I forgot to do this, and for sharing this with the ST community, a conclusion isn't very important anyway.

Alright, thanks for reading, and I hope to hear some of your ideas. Let the discussion begin.

~ Charles

[Ace3 1,209]

Interesting, I have a couple of questions.

Would nearby communities with small populations (Say about 350,000) share farmland?

How many acres of farmland should be designated to 1,000 people?

Should laws prohibit certain sized buildings from construction if these buidlings will not be designed to hold farm levels?

I found your report quite interesting Charles. I'm in 8th grade to , this is much better than what I could have come up with!

[The Avatar 1,088]

First of all, thanks, my friend!

To answer your questions:

1. Yes, nearby communities with smaller populations would share farmland - until their populations grow enough that they A. Are too large for farming, or B. Need their own sufficient amount of farming space.

2. I'm not sure, maybe others have some ideas...?

3. No, it is not neccessary for all buildings to hold farm levels.

~ Charles

[bluemoose 223]

I think this English assignment greatly limited your angle on the book. I read the book in 7th grade, and from what I can remember from then, It was pretty good. I thought it more about over-"perfecting" society and where that gets us.

On to the topic: the main problems I see are transportation of food to arid/underdeveloped/overpopulated/corrupt places like Africa or India and use of cropland for capitalistic, profit-only crops like ethanol corn. Also, as it is now, the gov'ts might offer incentives to farmers to NOT grow crops to "stabilize" the market.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

What about skyscrapers? If a developer makes a skyscraper for 1,000 with a helipad on the top (so no room for gardening) and a skyfarm (a mid or high rise building that produces food, similar to a high density greenhouse), would that work out OK?

[whiteywhite 15]

i think theoretically if people had to they could go back to farming in their backyards, and maybe some urban farming like in detroit could be uitlized

[The Avatar 1,088]

I think this English assignment greatly limited your angle on the book. I read the book in 7th grade, and from what I can remember from then, It was pretty good. I thought it more about over-"perfecting" society and where that gets us.

On to the topic: the main problems I see are transportation of food to arid/underdeveloped/overpopulated/corrupt places like Africa or India and use of cropland for capitalistic, profit-only crops like ethanol corn. Also, as it is now, the gov'ts might offer incentives to farmers to NOT grow crops to "stabilize" the market.

There would be regulations in place that designated certain farmland for profit, and farmland for food.

What about skyscrapers? If a developer makes a skyscraper for 1,000 with a helipad on the top (so no room for gardening) and a skyfarm (a mid or high rise building that produces food, similar to a high density greenhouse), would that work out OK?

Skyscrapers and other office towers - as their main purpose is for offices - aren't absolutely neccessary for farming space. Large cities rely a lot on imported food, and development destroys farming space, so farming becomes obsolete. But in cities with rapidly-growing, or even just large populations, farming on either the roof or certain floors of skyscrapers and office towers should be enforced in at least some buildings, as cities shouldn't become too reliant on imported food, and it is always good to have a surplus of food, in case of a lack of food in any way. Skyfarms are definitely okay, as well.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

i think theoretically if people had to they could go back to farming in their backyards, and maybe some urban farming like in detroit could be uitlized

There is a lot size problem, especially in urban areas. When I was a kid, the lot I lived on was about 60 feet wide and 200 feet deep and it had a large garden in the back for vegetables, fruit canes and vines. There was still a copious border area for recreational use. These days you are lucky to get a 25 foot frontage and a back yard deeper than 30 feet. Even if all the land not occupied by the house and paved driveway were in use as agricultural land you could not raise enough truck garden stuff to keep you all year.

Just as a matter of interest, the last house I owned sat on a 100 x 150' lot, but the land was leased. It also had a septic system because i was in a rural area. Most of it was in grass with a few flower beds. You could not grow stuff on the septic bed for fear of contamination, which left only a rather poor piece of land, large enough, but not good enough, on which to grow a crop. This whole area was full of evergreens, mostly pines. The soil was acid and very poor. I had a tough time growing grass on it because of the excessive shade, and the trees were protected. This was in a residential park. Next door on both sides were working farms and orchards, and across the road was a sugar bush. Now, how does this sparely populated model fit into yours? The population of the municipality was scarcely 10,000 in an area the size of many small cities in America.

I currently live in a small apartment in a seniors complex in a small town of 1800. This rural area has a very sparse population, is not particularly wealthy, but quite healthy. I am sure it doesn't fit in the book's paradigm.

My question is this: Do you see the dissolution of the cities into semi-rural farming communities rather than aggregation into taller buildings with vertical farming?

For further reference on your subject of Utopian Civilizations, I recommend Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451. Both of these offer different takes on the topic. Another Utopia is the universe proposed by Gene Roddenberry in the Star Trek series. The citizens of the Federation have no money, no real crime, and no poverty. Maybe your class should look at the inner workings of this kind of society.

[Meg 368]

I think this English assignment greatly limited your angle on the book. I read the book in 7th grade, and from what I can remember from then, It was pretty good. I thought it more about over-"perfecting" society and where that gets us.

I agree with that assessment.

On to the topic: Where does climate fit in? or terrain or soil conditions or any of the other things needed for crops to thrive? All things can't grow in all places.

The middle of the United States is some of the best crop land on the planet. and it is relatively sparsely populated. But what about areas like southwestern part of the country where things are dry in a good year and having huge dust storms in a bad one?

I like the idea of setting aside more farmland. We used to have tens of thousands of family farms; now it seems like we have a few dozen corporations instead. Decentralizing food production is an excellent idea.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 9, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Cobraroll 138]

Meet Vertical Farming. Basically, it's a small greenhouse, with another greenhouse on top. And another over that one. And yet a few more. And it's plopped (or grown, whatever flows your boat) in the middle of a city. Crops can grow all year, transport costs are minimal (the bottom floor houses a supermarket), and damage done by vermins are almost non-existant. Weather should be no issue either, neither should climate. Harvest machines are an elevator ride away, and don't rely on powerful motors and being reliant on tough weather/terrain conditions.

It is, however, more expensive than traditional farming, especially in the short run. It would also be extremely energy demanding and require lots of heavy transport along the vertical axis - fertilizers don't go up there themselves.

Still an interesting concept, though.

[Easy Bakes 253]

neither does the soil you would have to replace every so often.

[Meg 368]

neither does the soil you would have to replace every so often.

Would it have to use soil? Since it would be in a controlled environment, couldn't it be hydroponic?

[Easy Bakes 253]

neither does the soil you would have to replace every so often.

Would it have to use soil? Since it would be in a controlled environment, couldn't it be hydroponic?

Dirt is low tech.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Vertical farming is high tech. A variation of hydroponics is aquaponics where fish provide the fertilizer for the plants.

[The Avatar 1,088]

i think theoretically if people had to they could go back to farming in their backyards, and maybe some urban farming like in detroit could be uitlized

There is a lot size problem, especially in urban areas. When I was a kid, the lot I lived on was about 60 feet wide and 200 feet deep and it had a large garden in the back for vegetables, fruit canes and vines. There was still a copious border area for recreational use. These days you are lucky to get a 25 foot frontage and a back yard deeper than 30 feet. Even if all the land not occupied by the house and paved driveway were in use as agricultural land you could not raise enough truck garden stuff to keep you all year.

Just as a matter of interest, the last house I owned sat on a 100 x 150' lot, but the land was leased. It also had a septic system because i was in a rural area. Most of it was in grass with a few flower beds. You could not grow stuff on the septic bed for fear of contamination, which left only a rather poor piece of land, large enough, but not good enough, on which to grow a crop. This whole area was full of evergreens, mostly pines. The soil was acid and very poor. I had a tough time growing grass on it because of the excessive shade, and the trees were protected. This was in a residential park. Next door on both sides were working farms and orchards, and across the road was a sugar bush. Now, how does this sparely populated model fit into yours? The population of the municipality was scarcely 10,000 in an area the size of many small cities in America.

I currently live in a small apartment in a seniors complex in a small town of 1800. This rural area has a very sparse population, is not particularly wealthy, but quite healthy. I am sure it doesn't fit in the book's paradigm.

My question is this: Do you see the dissolution of the cities into semi-rural farming communities rather than aggregation into taller buildings with vertical farming?

For further reference on your subject of Utopian Civilizations, I recommend Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451. Both of these offer different takes on the topic. Another Utopia is the universe proposed by Gene Roddenberry in the Star Trek series. The citizens of the Federation have no money, no real crime, and no poverty. Maybe your class should look at the inner workings of this kind of society.

No, I know as well as anyone that as a city's population grows, there is more demand for jobs, and housing. Stopping this growth would simply mean shutting down the city, and as a SimCity player, I wouldn't want to take that path. As the city grows, the farmland will eventually have to be destroyed, and used for space for developing the city further, whether it be with housing, commercial, or industry. To gradually shift the city from depending on it's own farmland to imported foods, I have developed a system that might (or might not, I'm basing this on limited knowledge) do this. First, as a large part of developing farmland is for housing, there would be regulations in place that limited the amount of residential being built based upon the demand. This is because here in Phoenix, there are many houses being built, and many that have been built on farmland, that nobody lives in because of the horrid housing market. Ergo, farmland is destroyed for houses that aren't being used - it is a waste. So if there is high demand for housing, housing can be built on farmland; but not without the demand. For commercial, the regulations would be less strict. As more residential is zoned, more jobs will be needed, so demand for commercial will increase. Also, as more farmland is destroyed, and the city becomes more reliant on imported food, more businesses for processing/selling that food will be needed, so commercial will be in high demand. Then as more farmland is destroyed for the commercial/industrial, there will be more jobs, and people will be needed to fill the jobs. Then, as demand for residential comes up again, the residential will be zoned, and the cycle starts again.

Now, once the city's population is big enough that the city starts growing up (small offices/apartments) and farming is becoming slim, the city can start with vertical farming/hydroponics. I believe there should always be a balance between imported food and local farming.

I agree with that assessment.

On to the topic: Where does climate fit in? or terrain or soil conditions or any of the other things needed for crops to thrive? All things can't grow in all places.

The middle of the United States is some of the best crop land on the planet. and it is relatively sparsely populated. But what about areas like southwestern part of the country where things are dry in a good year and having huge dust storms in a bad one?

I like the idea of setting aside more farmland. We used to have tens of thousands of family farms; now it seems like we have a few dozen corporations instead. Decentralizing food production is an excellent idea.

I agree with Bluemoose's assesment too, but I wanted to provide a quick synopsis of the book for people who had never read it.

Regarding climate, for places that have climate conditions that inhibit the growth of crops, there is the option of Vertical Farming, as Cobraroll suggested. With Vertical Farming and Hydroponics, the conditions can be controlled, and farming can be done efficiently and effectively no matter the climate or time of year. And on a side note, we have dust storms in "good" years too. In fact, were in one right now.

You should up on allotments and their benefits.

Barbarossa

Yes, allotments are perfectly fine, and would definitely be encouraged.

And to reply to the last few comment regarding Hydroponics: Yes. For cities with larger populations, and cities in dry areas, Hydroponics and Skyfarms would be encouraged.

Sorry about the late reply. Thanks everyone for the comments so far.

EDIT: Also, this is where I got a lot of inspiration for my ideas, in case you'd like a more detailed explanation:

It's from a Discovery Channel Show called Ecopolis. I found it very interesting.

  Edited November 5, 2011 by MamaLuigi945  

[hamsterTK 93]

In the real world the problem of hunger is not the result of an absolute shortage of food but disorganization in the economy. Actually, a lot of food is wasted.

I would say that dense, urban cities are the most sustainable means of enabling a modern lifestyle. Mostly because infrastructure like transportation and utilities become more efficient if they cover less ground and people can trade goods and services more effectively. Density is of course relative, such a urban place need not be extreme like Tokyo to be sustainable. You can have people packed in townhouses and apartments and still have plenty of space for green things. Hell, even London and Brooklyn aren't just concrete.

  Edited November 14, 2011 by hamsterTK  

[Duke87 1,070]

Food stamps are all well and good for people who have their act together enough to realize they need them and avail themselves of the service. But unfortunately these programs tend not to reach the people with the worst problems who need them most (you know, the homeless guys digging through trash cans), because, very often, these people are in the position they are in because they lack the mental wherewithal to properly function in society even as welfare recipients. Most homeless people are not quite right in the head. So, there is a larger problem there that needs dealing with beyond just lack of access to proper food.

With regards to third world nations, humanitarian aid is fine in the short term but ultimately, again, there are broader problems that need solving, often centering around corruption and lack of political stability.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

It is a matter of education (not necessarily literacy). Give a man a fish and you feed him today. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Skills training such as fishing and farming do not require literacy. It does require some will power, and a little freedom on the part of the worker, though.