A Compounding Storm, warns that global food costs could climb 5% in the first half of 2027.
This crisis would serve as cover for whatever additional inflation large producers and grocers can put on top.
Also:
The U.S. has been using its oil reserves to weather shortages caused by the Strait of Hormuz closure. China is doing something similar in the face of a food crisis: It’s leaning on its fertilizer and crop stockpiles.
That places China in a better position — a more resilient position when compared to the U.S. The U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brook Rollins says this makes crop yields a matter of national security.
THIS WAS A STATED GOAL BY THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION! DON’T BE FOOLED BY IT BEING ANHTHING OTHER THAN INTERNATIONAL POLICY CAUSING IT.
Can you provide a link
Don’t need to. Deliberate deregulation of food safety laws, inspections and open bribery when contamination is found has already been seen multiple times.
Our lives are on the line. They are CULLING US.
THEY NEED TO BE GONE BEFORE WE ARE
Ask me a year ago and I could whip it out in a snap. Unsurprisingly, those interviews are difficult to find now.
Maybe I shouldn’t say "stated goal of the heritage foundation. " it was statements made by the members of the HF. They have a magic number of 100m people.
JD Vance is the one who says its most often - “an Ideal (US) population size of 100,000,000”, “100,000,000 bitcoin owners.” KN said that her fentanyl bust saved 75% of America - which would have been 268,000,000 Americans.
Other statememts by the HF members can be paraphrased as "you can’t just execute people on mass, they would revolt. Things like famine, disease, and war are seen as ‘acceptable’ forms of death. "
If i find the time I’ll dive through my profile to find the statements again.
-
Good on you for asking me to back it up.
-
HF is an anti-vice right-wing nationalistic death cult exactly like the Nazis and every other mass murdering regime in history. Don’t look for them saying it directly. Look at their policies. Increasing the prices of imported food. A HEAVY anti-vaccination movement. Gutting the CDC. Attempts at inciting violent resistance with ICE.
-
I might have more luck if I do searches on Project 2025.
The comment contains several different categories of claims that should not be treated equally: Claims about Heritage Foundation goals The Heritage Foundation has published policy proposals, including Project 2025. However, a claim that the organization has a goal of reducing the U.S. population to 100 million people requires direct evidence: an official document, speech, interview, or policy proposal explicitly stating this. Attributing statements by individual members to the entire organization requires caution. Claims about specific individuals If JD Vance or another public figure has stated a preference for a smaller population, the exact quote and context matter. A statement such as “an ideal population size” is not automatically equivalent to a policy goal of population reduction through coercive means. Claims about famine, disease, war, or mass death being “acceptable” This is an extremely serious allegation. It requires direct quotations or documented policies. A policy that has harmful consequences is not automatically proof that the authors intend those consequences. Policy criticism vs. intent It is possible to argue that certain policies (for example immigration restrictions, deregulation, healthcare changes, or foreign policy decisions) may increase risks or cause harm. That argument is different from proving an intention to cause mass death. Logical issue The comment moves from: “Some members support policies I consider harmful” to: “The organization is equivalent to historical genocidal regimes.” That is a very large inferential jump and requires strong evidence. A rigorous evaluation would ask: What exact document or quote supports the claim? Is it an official position or an individual’s opinion? Does the evidence show intended outcomes or unintended consequences? Are there alternative explanations? Strong criticism of an organization can be valid without relying on claims that cannot be directly demonstrated.
No idea why we let chatgpt chat here but fine 😂
… no it doesn’t. And if I used chatgpt you’d know.
No idea why we let people defend a genocidal regime here but fine 😂.
-
Stock up on dried beans, rice. Seriously. It’ll get you through some tough times. When other stuff is hard to get or too expensive it’s a beans and rice night.
It’s not a coincidence that this is meant to occur after the midterms.
Anybody know stocks for plants pulling nitrogen from the atmosphere and combine it with hydrogen to produce fertilizer powered by renewables? Something tells me they’re going to be a lot more popular soon.
peanuts
Clover has been popular for a long time as an alternative to lawns because it’s low maintenance, drought resistant, fixes nitrogen, and is pollinator friendly, amongst many other reasons. It’s highly underrated
This article seems to list a lot of those benefits:
Better start your compost now.
Korean Natural Farming is cheap and effective. Also lets you add more things to your compost that’d normally cause issues.
Tbh I just be throwing everything in there and if there’s bugs its probably good. I’ve killed a couple composts but this ones been going great since I dumped a bunch of oyster mushroom mycellium in it and keep up on string and turning it.
If most of us had the means of production of food, we’d be having a very different world.
Time to move away from industrial agriculture and towards organic farming methods (see: polyculture, horticulture, agroforestry, permaculture, crop rotation…)
“The efficiency and productivity of industrial agriculture hides the costs of depletion of soils, exploitation of groundwater, erosion, and extinction of biodiversity. Industrial agriculture uses 10 times more energy than it produces. It uses 10 times more water than biodiverse farming with water-prudent crops and organic practices use. In fact, when assessed from nature’s economy, biodiverse, ecological farms have much higher productivity than large-scale, industrial, monoculture farms. The illusion of efficiency is produced by externalizing the ecological costs.” / “…a polyculture system can produce 100 units of food from 5 units of inputs, whereas an industrial system requires 300 units of input to produce the same 100 units. The 295 units of wasted inputs could have provided 5,900 units of food. This is a recipe for starving people, not for feeding them. A common argument used to promote industrial agriculture is that only it and industrial breeding can maintain the increased food productivity needed for a growing population. However, since resources, not labor, are the limiting actor in food production, it is resource productivity, not labor productivity, which is the relevant measure. What is needed is more efficient resource use so that the same resources can feed more people. A 66-fold decrease of food producing capacity in the context of resources use is not an efficient strategy for using limited land, water, and biodiversity to feed the world.” (from the book “Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability, And Peace” by Vandana Shiva)
“Modern industrial farms are built as vast monocultures, with a single crop stretching from horizon to horizon, doused in chemical pesticides and herbicides designed to exterminate all other forms of life. If you’ve ever seen aerial photographs of the American Midwest, you know what this looks like: under capitalist agriculture, the land is reorganised according to a totalitarian logic with a single goal in mind: to maximise short-term extraction. This approach has turned rich topsoils into dust, releasing huge plumes of CO2 from the earth in the process. It’s caused insect and bird populations to collapse, while chemical run-off has killed whole freshwater ecosystems. Fortunately, there’s another way. Intrepid farmers around the world, from Virginia to Syria, are experimenting with more holistic methods called regenerative agroecology. They’re planting multiple crop species together to build resilient ecosystems, while using compost, organic fertilisers and crop rotation to restore life and fertility to the soils. In areas where these methods have been used, crop yields have improved, earthworms have returned, insect populations have recovered and bird species have rebounded. And perhaps best of all, as dead soils recover they are sequestering enormous quantities of CO2 out of the atmosphere. In fact, scientists believe that if we’re going to have any chance of averting climate breakdown, we’ll need to roll out regenerative methods across most of the world’s farmland and pasture. It’s more effective by far than any man-made carbon-capture technology. This is what reciprocity looks like in action. When you give back as much as you receive, it has a multiplier effect on ecosystem health. It revives life. And it’s not just in agriculture that this is happening. Regenerative approaches are being developed in forestry and fishing as well, and in many cases people are drawing on techniques that have long been used by Indigenous communities and small farmers in the global South. Large agribusinesses have been slow to adopt these methods, however – despite the fact that they have been shown to improve the quality of crops and the long-term fertility of the soils. Why? Because it requires time and labour. It requires an intimate knowledge of the local ecosystem. It requires understanding the traits and behaviours of dozens of species, and how they interact with each other. It requires care. When you treat a farm like an ecosystem instead of a factory, you begin a relationship with the land that is inimical to the short-term extractivist logic of agribusiness.” (from the book “Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save The World” by Jason Hickel )
