[bradleyjg]

There are other places in the world where these crops can be grown. People in those countries will be more than happy to trade us almonds, rice, bananas and the like in exchange for things we are great at producing like software and music.

It's a win-win.

[ffn]

I like to remind you that we, as mere lowly humans, require food grown on a farm to survive a lot more so than we need software or music. If we collapse our agricultural backbone and just willy-nilly decide to depend upon a foreign nation for food, then be prepared to fight a lot more "oil wars" (except for human fuel and not just car fuel).

Furthermore, we'd be putting our trust into the governments and politicians of foreign nations. And, quite honestly, despite all the shit we see about our politicians being corrupt, cheating on their wives, embezzling thousands of dollars a year, letting the rich get away with billions in tax loopholes, being stupid in congress, being radical not-born-in-murica communists, etc., at least keep in mind we at least see them in all their human imperfections (and sometimes less-than-human vices), whereas we have absolutely no idea what the hell goes on behind the closed doors and smokescreens at a foreign government. Politics and power is inherently a very difficult game of balancing flexible compromises and hardline stoicism, not a place for cults of personalities and naive idealism.

As for me, I'd much rather trust the politician who is getting publicly crucified for having told a racist joke 10 years ago, flirted a little too much with some girl not his wife, is a closest homosexual, tweeted something dumb like "#killasians lolwat", or committed some other sensationalist-media-breaking-news-but-realistically-inconsequential-to-his-character "sin" than the perfect politician who has never commit any sin and who no one dares to speak ill against (e.g. today's chairman Xi).

[civilian]

You wrote some jingoist 19th-century bullshit. You're ready to fight in World War 1.

The idea that we need to protect strategic resources is outdated. We continue to do so, at our own detriment. Our sugar costs something like 5x what it costs in the rest of the world, because we place tariffs to keep it from coming in from the Caribbean. We are DESTROYING WEALTH CREATION with this market engineering. It is a tax that we see no benefit from and that is paid to no one.

Increased trade between countries increases stability. Some of my college classmates thought that we were due for a war with China just b/c they're the other huge power. What horseshit--- our mutual trade requires our politicians to play nice and not take any Crassian steps towards war.

If the US actually needed to make sure that we produced all of our strategic resources by ourselves then our economy would be tanked because we wouldn't be taking advantage of factories in BRIC. Do you think we make all the hard drives we would need to sustain a war against the rest of the world?

[eveningcoffee]

Loosing control over rare earth metals played out very well. For China.

Not being able to produce enough wood tanked Soviet Union.

[civilian]

I'm not familiar with the wood theory of the downfall of the Soviet Union. Link? I figured it was their centrally planned economy.

Yeah, so China has most rare earth metals. Are you advocating imperialism and occupation? Do we have evidence that they are managing their resource in an abusive way? (After a bit of reading, it appears that China does have large export restrictions. That market inefficiency is being solved by smuggling. :D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_industry_in_China#Hi... )

[eveningcoffee]

Of course there are multiple factors for collapse of SU but from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_goods_in_the_Soviet_Un...

> By the time of the Soviet Union's collapse at the end of 1991, > nearly every kind of food was rationed. > Non-rationed foods and non-food consumer goods had virtually > disappeared from state owned stores.

Do you think that people were happy about this kind of situation?

China was not the only producer of rare earth metals but they used dumping and by that made production of rare earth metals unprofitable elsewhere. After other producers closed their plants, they started to heavily increase the rare earth metal prices.

[tekknik]

The problem here is that you expect history to indicate future performance. You expect each country to act morally instead of what's in their best (monetary) interest. How are wars fought these days? Sanctions, it has happened in recent history. Now what is a nation to do when a sanction against them on food imports? One thing is for sure, it'll help solve a population problem.

[rhino369]

The Midwest grows enough crops to feed the whole country if some major disaster or famine happened.

[kibwen]

The Midwest is rapidly depleting its own water supply as well.

"About 27 percent of the irrigated land in the United States overlies the aquifer, which yields about 30 percent of the ground water used for irrigation in the United States. Since 1950, agricultural irrigation has reduced the saturated volume of the aquifer by an estimated 9%. Depletion is accelerating, with 2% lost between 2001 and 2009 alone. Once depleted, the aquifer will take over 6,000 years to replenish naturally through rainfall."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

[rhino369]

The core Midwest doesn't depend on that. The great plains do, but Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, etc. don't. You would probably get bored as fuck with corn and soy beans. But it would v feed tons of people if we didn't feed it to cows or gas tanks.

[kangaroo5383]

1. "Software or music" doesn't require water... most of them anyways.

2. Software / data and more modern approaches to agriculture can potentially optimize water usage.

3. startup / company opportunity here, if the policy makers can incentivize the agriculture industry to innovate instead of keeping the old inefficient ways.

[tokenadult]

"Ricardo's Difficult Idea" is an essay that provides a good online education in economics and why trade makes everyone richer, as demonstrated not just by history but also by mathematics.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm

[dgemm]

Food security is the reason governments stick their noses in an otherwise free market.

[bradleyjg]

Even if we accept that argument, which I think is a little far-fetched given the countries that would need to get on board for a hypothetical food embargo against the US to be effective, there's no national security implications to almonds and there are good substitutes for rice and cotton.

In a real pinch the agricultural production dedicated to ethanol can be redirected to food, and perhaps most importantly even a small shift in the meat/plant balance towards plants creates a huge calorie surplus.

In short, food security looks more like a post hoc rationalization than a good justification for our terrible policy landscape when it comes to agriculture.

[lkbm]

> and there are good substitutes for rice

American culture can replace it with wheat, yes, but if you ever want a case study on government fiddling with a crop for national security reasons, rice is it. Not in the US, but Asia? It's probably on par with oil.

[otakucode]

I think it has more to do with straightforward nationalism. Yes, we could all be sweetening our products with cane sugar and equatorial sugar farmers could be making a great deal of money. But instead we have high tarriffs on sugar cane and subsidies for corn farmers. Why? Because the corn farmers are Americans, and the equatorial farmers are not.

[canvia]

Could it possibly have anything to do with 85% of corn being produced coming from Monsanto seeds?

http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/can-we-feed-our-world-without-mon...

They do spend millions of dollars lobbying the government every year.

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D00000005...

Soy seems to be in a similar situation to corn.

[ethanbond]

Which can also be phrased as "unemployed Americans farmers are burdens on American systems, unemployed equatorial farmers are not."

Not that I don't think the sugar subsidies specifically are nonsense, the structural reasons that food subsidies exist is sound.

[wahsd]

Although I would not consider myself an expert, I know it is far more complicated than you appear to think it is. It is not just the climate, as previously mentioned, or the access to fresh water sources, it is also the fertility and durability of the topsoil. There are significant tradeoffs regarding the productivity and soil durability that lead to depletion or pollution because our demand is far beyond sustainable supply.

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that the human population is far too large and puts far too many demands and strains on nature for anything like sustainability.

So, someone may bring up large scale hydroponics, especially of genetically modified produce, but that is really just another can being kicked down the road, because no matter how many tricks you come up with and how hard you push the pendulum, it will eventually come swinging back with a vengeance, especially the farther it is pushed out of its range.

[JoshuaDavid]

> I know it is far more complicated than you appear to think it is

Agreed, definitely a thorny issue, and there probably isn't a simple fix. And even if the fix were as simple as "cut off subsidies for water-intensive crops", that would itself be hard in today's political climate.

> no matter how many tricks you come up with and how hard you push the pendulum, it will eventually come swinging back with a vengeance, especially the farther it is pushed out of its range.

Source? Human population is supposed to top out around 10-12B, last I checked, and then level out or even drop off a little bit. In a pinch, modern agriculture could probably feed that many, just with today's methods, but that would mean less in the way of meat and resource-intensive foods like almonds.

There are resource scarcities (e.g. oil, fresh water), but food is not really one of them.

[jonnathanson]

"...it is far more complicated than you appear to think it is..."

I apologize if I appeared to be simplifying the issue. That was not my intent and is not the limit of my understanding (though I am certainly no expert, either). But climate is a major limiting factor for other states, even before we get into the nittier grittier details of soil composition and fertility, topography, preexisting transportation infrastructure, and so forth. Totally agree with you that there are a lot more complications and issues involved than just climate, and again, very sorry if I gave the impression otherwise.

[emodendroket]

So what's your suggestion? Unless you're suggesting we just start killing people off I don't see how anyone's supposed to act on the idea that there are too many people.

[phatfish]

The overpopulation myth will be the next political distraction just like the climate change reality.

The fact is even in developing countries -- when women are educated and have access to contraception -- most families have 2 children. This is now becoming a reality, even in developing countries like Bangladesh the fertility rate is something like 2.2. Only Africa has higher fertility rates.

The real problems are with resources, like water, food and energy. When the developing countries become developed, and everyone has a washing machine and fridge, that's when the fun starts.

[emodendroket]

It's also often promulgated as a "we should just let people in the third world die" kind of thing, even though, objectively, first worlders are consuming way more resources. That makes it pretty distasteful to me.

[pkulak]

Yes... Destroying an entire industry in a country is a win win...

[tomswartz07]

It seems that we have the choice of either:

1. Destroying the farming industry 2. Destroying the land entirely, and then destroying the farming industry.

The current situation is proof that the current level of agriculture is unsubstainable.

As a reference, a few quick searches[1] show that it takes:

5.4 gallons of water to grow a single head of broccoli

4.9 gallons of water to grow a single walnut

1.1 gallons of water to grow a single almond

[1] http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-califo...

[wes-k]

I'm a biased vegan but...

802.7 gallons of water for one pound of beef

187.969 gallons of water for one pound of vegetables

Agriculture consumes 2/3rds of California's water, most of which goes to growing and feeding farmed animals.

Source: http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=cal/WaterFootprintCalcul... (Used United States for country)

[woud420]

As a biased omnivore, it would probably be a bit more useful to compare the calorie content of 1 lb of beef vs 1 lb of vegetables. I understand the point you're getting at but the bias might be a little bit too strong there.

[wes-k]

Definitely a fair point.

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/Animal-products

shows 10.19 litres/calorie beef vs 1.34 liters/calorie vegetables. Which is an even greater distance than the gallons per pound I mentioned. This obvioulsy can't be right. I will argue that theory wise it makes sense that a plant based diet would use less than a diet consisting of eating animals that ate the plant based diet. The animals are expending energy! You could argue that we can feed animals lower water usage plants than we can feed humans, but does that really make a healthy animal for human consumption?

That said, there are other negatives associated with beef production and consumption :).

Also - not all calories are created equal.

[malkia]

As a meat-loving animal, this made me feeling a bit worse...

What if meat is imported from areas/states/countries where there is no water problem.

And with that, maybe California should open itself to import vegetables/fruits from other states, countries too?

[plorkyeran]

Some completely arbitrary choices for comparison that may or may not be representative:

90% Lean Beef: 798 calories per pound

80% Lean Beef: 1152 calories per pound

Carrots: 186 calories per pound

Potatoes: 354 calories per pound

Using GP's numbers for gallons/pound:

90% Lean Beef: .994 calories per gallon

80% Lean Beef: 1.435 calories per gallon

Carrots: .990 calories per gallon

Potatoes: 1.883 calories per gallon

Much closer than I was expecting. I was also not expecting numbers on the order of magnitude of one calorie per gallon...

[saalweachter]

"Vegetables" are the wrong thing too look at.

Soybeans have about 2000 calories / lb, based on the number Google gives me of 446 calories / 100g. A random website claims soybeans take 200 gallons of water to produce 1 lb, which comes out to about 10 calories / gallon.

That said, you can make huge gains just by switching from beef to pork or chicken. Pork uses about half the resources of beef, per pound, and chicken about a third. Eat your beefs for special occasions, eat chicken and pork if you want every-day meats.

[azinman2]

Not sure I believe the animals are getting most of it in California but either way that's something that can be easily moved out of state. Almonds can't.

[jqm]

Correct. There are only a few areas in the world almonds can be commercially grown. California is one.

Cattle can be grown lots of places.

[slantedview]

Growing water intensive crops like rice in California, which it grows a good deal of, is just stupid. That is an industry which needs to die. I'd argue the same for almonds, which are basically a water intensive cash crop.

[whyenot]

Almonds use 10% of the state's water supply. The irony is that almonds and apricots have been grown in the Santa Clara valley and surrounding areas without irrigration until tech booms led to orchards being pulled out and replaced with office complexes.

[jonnathanson]

That is an interesting and ironic thing to consider. And I think it's probably inevitable that California shifts its crop mix away from things like almonds, even if at one point they had been grown sustainably (and certainly rice, which is patently unsustainable, but easier to draw down from). Olives, for instance, grow very well in California and are a lot less water intensive than almonds and other trees in the stonefruit family. The downside is that trees take a long time to grow to productive maturity, and phasing one species out for another cannot be done overnight. I have no idea if a phase-out of one in favor of the other is already underway, and I would hazard a guess that if it is, it's proceeding glacially. But some sort of phase-out seems essential.

[danudey]

California's water reserves can't sustain the ridiculously wasteful agriculture that Californian farmers have been growing for decades, and a huge amount of California's water use is going towards agriculture to grow almonds, rice, and grapes in the desert.

Those crops are going to have to come from somewhere else pretty soon regardless.

[toufka]

Except when it's inconsistent with its environment in the first place. All the government subsidies in the world can't make water be where it isn't.

[otakucode]

There are many politically active people who would starve the American public to death if necessary to prevent the exportation of riches from the US to foreign nationals.

[tracker1]

The same mega corporations that run agriculture in the U.S. also run most agriculture throughout the world.

[pakled_engineer]

I just read a story the other day how Iranian almond farmers were lamenting the trade sanctions sitting on tons of them while US exporters grabbed their market

[puranjay]

You can pirate software and music, but you can't pirate almonds and rice.

[s73v3r]

We don't want to have to rely on other nations for our food supply.

[toufka]

There seems to be a significant distinction between staples and "food supply" and the high-value specialty fruits/vegetables grown in the central valley.

The US will never need to rely on other nations for their corn, rice, wheat, apples, barley, etc. But if the choice is between destroying our own land and infrastructure or relying on other countries for our kiwis, artichokes, avocados and almonds, then I might actually be okay with eating Mexican avocados (and I think the Mexican farmers might appreciate that too).