×

我們使用cookies幫助改善LingQ。通過流覽本網站,表示你同意我們的 cookie 政策.


image

It`s Okay To Be Smart, Can Supercrops Feed 10 BILLION People?

Can Supercrops Feed 10 BILLION People?

Today's video is supported by ​Bill and Melinda Gates​

Hey smart people, Joe here.

If you tried to sum up the last 150 years or so in one image, it might be this one:

It's a chart of exponential growth, and it shows that some things change faster over

time.

You could apply it to life expectancy.

Or compound interest.

Or any number of things.

But especially population growth.

But back in 1798 a guy named Thomas Malthus noticed that not everything grows this way.

Population growth was exponential but how much food we grow was not.

This caused people to worry…

Yet, here *we* are today.

Because that collapse didn't happen.

So how did we avoid that disaster?

That answer is important, because people are doing *this* again and

we have a new, even scarier disaster to avoid.

[OPEN]

The first time we defused the population bomb, it was mostly thanks to an agricultural level-up

known as the Green Revolution, and it's a big reason most people in the world have

enough to eat today.

At least for now.

Because even though population growth is slowing down, now we have another new scary line to

deal with: Carbon emissions and climate change.

There will be 2 billion more people on Earth by 2050 and three-fourths will be born where

climate change is going to hit hardest.

And because a lot of the food we grow feeds animals so we can eat them, this much population

growth actually means we'll need this much more crops.

This means farmers need to level up again in order to deal with droughts, floods, and

generalized chaos while still feeding more and more hungry mouths.

In the mid-20th century, Mexico, Africa, and much of South Asia faced starvation.

A book called The Population Bomb predicted famines would kill hundreds of millions of

people.

But luckily science came to the rescue before that could happen.

Researchers, led by a guy named Norman Borlaug, bred new versions of crops like rice and wheat

that resisted pests and gave larger harvests, which kept starvation at bay.

Instead of crossing a few plants together to try for a new variety, Borlaug crossed

thousands and thousands, using crop types from all over the world.

He found a wheat variety that made more kernels per plant, and crossed to make it shorter

so those big heads wouldn't fall over.

Ol' Norman & friends saved about a billion lives in the process.

Yeah, with a B. Somebody give that guy a Nobel Prize!

From the 60s to the 90s, rice and wheat yields doubled in Asia, food got cheaper, and more

people got more calories and avoided dying.

It was such a big deal, One farmer in India even named his child after a life-saving rice

strain: IR8.

How's the next Green Revolution going to work?

Some people think we can hack plant biology to get out of this pickle, using modern genetic

techniques to give plants new traits like drought, disease, and pest resistance.

Genetically modified crops containing helpful genes taken from other organisms are already

common in places like the US and Asia.

But debates over their environmental effects have kept them out of the ground in places

like Europe and Africa.

And while GM crops like pest-killing corn have lowered pesticide use by 90% in parts

of the world, some bugs like rootworms are already developing resistance to the bacterial

toxin inserted into the corn's DNA, proving just how hard it is to stay one step ahead

of nature.

Many people think the next Green Revolution won't require this extreme genetic hacking.

Instead, they believe it'll mean doing things the same way farmers have done them for thousands

of years, just doing them better with modern science.

Farmers have followed this ancient recipe for centuries: Select plants with a desired

trait, cross-pollinate, pick the best offspring, and repeat.

Very slow, and not that precise.

Wouldn't it be better if we could accurately pinpoint desirable traits, and control the

cross-pollinated offspring to speed up this same ancient recipe?

Researchers have sequenced the complete DNA genome of several crop species and done just

that.

In 2006, scientists identified a rice gene called sub1.

It comes from a variety that doesn't give much yield, but it allows rice plants to survive

underwater for weeks.

Cross-pollinate that variety with a more delicious one with a higher yield, and instead of waiting

for them to grow up to see which carry the gene, just screen baby plants' DNA.

Saves months, even years compared to the old way.

And there's no time to waste, because rising sea levels and more frequent floods are one

of the most serious impacts of climate change.

The world's poorest farmers are often on the most flood-prone land, and rice strains

like this could mean the difference between future feast or famine.

Biotechnology like this?

It's just a more high-tech version of what farmers have always done.

These new ways of doing old things are showing a lot of promise, but some scientists think

we should go the other direction and be even more aggressive with how we hack plant biology.

They're trying to play with the biology of photosynthesis itself.

Crops like corn and sugarcane do photosynthesis using 4-carbon molecules, while rice and wheat

use 3-carbon molecules.

And since C4 plants usually require less water and fertilizer, scientists are trying to re

engineer C3 plants piece by genetic piece to make more with less in a hotter, drier

world.

The first Green Revolution saved a billion lives, but it wasn't perfect.

As the same few crop varieties spread around the world, we lost a lot of local food diversity.

Today most of the world eats the same few things.

And in the process many of the world's most vulnerable farmers became dependent on expensive

and enviromentally-contaminating pesticides and synthetic fertilizers.

Local knowledge built from thousands of years of agricultural history was almost lost.

Science made their lives easier, but it also forced them to live a different way.

And in an uncertain future, that might not work.

Like most big scientific problems, the next Green Revolution won't have just one answer.

It will involve old knowledge from people who know their land better than anyone else,

using new science by people at the cutting edge of human progress, and probably a few

crazy, futuristic things we've never tried before

Because to keep up with how fast the world is changing, we have to plant as many ideas

as we can in order to keep on growing.

Stay curious

Hey guys.

This video is made possible by all of our great supporters on Patreon.

This video is also made possible by Bill and Melinda Gates.

I've been thinking a lot about milestones.

And there's one milestone from the last year I can't get out of my head.

When atmospheric carbon dioxide levels hit 415 parts per million in 2019.

I got to visit Hawaii last year when we shot a special PBS series called “Stellar”.

And I could see the Mauna Loa observatory, where they measure the planet's CO2 levels

on the mountain behind me.

I couldn't get it out of my head: We crossed a CO2 threshold our planet hasn't seen for

maybe 3 MILLION years.

It's a milestone I would like to not repeat.

Now that I'm a parent, I know if I don't try as hard as I can to help reverse this

trend now, I'll regret it later.

That's why I keep making climate videos on this channel.

It's why I took a big risk and launched a whole other channel about climate science

called Hot Mess.

Knowing that I'm working hard to help the future keeps me optimistic.

It keeps me focused on more hopeful milestones.

Climate change isn't something that's going to go away on its own.

It is 100% up to us.

And solving it and adapting to it will mean taking big risks, thinking of bold ideas,

like the ones you just heard about.

We have to swing for the fences, or we will come up short.

Big risks we take today can pave the way for future opportunities.

That's why this year Bill and Melinda Gates are sharing reflections on some of the Big

Risks they've taken in global health and education over the last two decades, and why

they'll continue making big bets in climate and gender equality in the next two.

You can hear more about what they're reflecting on, and what big ideas they've got in store,

in this year's Annual Letter.

It always gives me something new to think about, and I hope you'll check it out.

Just check the link down in the description.

Thanks, and see you next time.

Can Supercrops Feed 10 BILLION People? Können Superkulturen 10 MILLIARDEN Menschen ernähren? ¿Pueden los supercultivos alimentar a 10.000 millones de personas? I supercoltivatori possono sfamare 10 miliardi di persone? スーパークロップで100億人を養えるか? 슈퍼작물이 100억 명의 인구를 먹여 살릴 수 있을까요? Kunnen supergewassen 10 MILJOEN mensen voeden? Poderão as superculturas alimentar 10 BILHÕES de pessoas? Могут ли суперкультуры прокормить 10 миллиардов человек? Süper Ekinler 10 MİLYAR İnsanı Besleyebilir mi? 超级作物能养活 100 亿人吗? 超級作物能養活 100 億人嗎?

Today's video is supported by ​Bill and Melinda Gates​

Hey smart people, Joe here.

If you tried to sum up the last 150 years or so in one image, it might be this one:

It's a chart of exponential growth, and it shows that some things change faster over

time.

You could apply it to life expectancy.

Or compound interest.

Or any number of things.

But especially population growth.

But back in 1798 a guy named Thomas Malthus noticed that not everything grows this way.

Population growth was exponential but how much food we grow was not.

This caused people to worry…

Yet, here *we* are today.

Because that collapse didn't happen.

So how did we avoid that disaster?

That answer is important, because people are doing *this* again and

we have a new, even scarier disaster to avoid.

[OPEN]

The first time we defused the population bomb, it was mostly thanks to an agricultural level-up

known as the Green Revolution, and it's a big reason most people in the world have

enough to eat today.

At least for now.

Because even though population growth is slowing down, now we have another new scary line to

deal with: Carbon emissions and climate change.

There will be 2 billion more people on Earth by 2050 and three-fourths will be born where

climate change is going to hit hardest.

And because a lot of the food we grow feeds animals so we can eat them, this much population

growth actually means we'll need this much more crops.

This means farmers need to level up again in order to deal with droughts, floods, and

generalized chaos while still feeding more and more hungry mouths.

In the mid-20th century, Mexico, Africa, and much of South Asia faced starvation.

A book called The Population Bomb predicted famines would kill hundreds of millions of

people.

But luckily science came to the rescue before that could happen.

Researchers, led by a guy named Norman Borlaug, bred new versions of crops like rice and wheat

that resisted pests and gave larger harvests, which kept starvation at bay. які протистояли шкідникам і давали більші врожаї, що утримувало голод на відстані.

Instead of crossing a few plants together to try for a new variety, Borlaug crossed

thousands and thousands, using crop types from all over the world.

He found a wheat variety that made more kernels per plant, and crossed to make it shorter

so those big heads wouldn't fall over.

Ol' Norman & friends saved about a billion lives in the process.

Yeah, with a B. Somebody give that guy a Nobel Prize!

From the 60s to the 90s, rice and wheat yields doubled in Asia, food got cheaper, and more

people got more calories and avoided dying.

It was such a big deal, One farmer in India even named his child after a life-saving rice

strain: IR8.

How's the next Green Revolution going to work?

Some people think we can hack plant biology to get out of this pickle, using modern genetic Дехто думає, що ми можемо зламати біологію рослин, щоб вибратися з цієї халепи, використовуючи сучасні генетичні

techniques to give plants new traits like drought, disease, and pest resistance.

Genetically modified crops containing helpful genes taken from other organisms are already

common in places like the US and Asia.

But debates over their environmental effects have kept them out of the ground in places

like Europe and Africa.

And while GM crops like pest-killing corn have lowered pesticide use by 90% in parts

of the world, some bugs like rootworms are already developing resistance to the bacterial

toxin inserted into the corn's DNA, proving just how hard it is to stay one step ahead

of nature.

Many people think the next Green Revolution won't require this extreme genetic hacking.

Instead, they believe it'll mean doing things the same way farmers have done them for   thousands

of years, just doing them better with modern science.

Farmers have followed this ancient recipe for centuries: Select plants with a desired

trait, cross-pollinate, pick the best offspring, and repeat.

Very slow, and not that precise.

Wouldn't it be better if we could accurately pinpoint desirable traits, and control the

cross-pollinated offspring to speed up this same ancient recipe?

Researchers have sequenced the complete DNA genome of several crop species and done just

that.

In 2006, scientists identified a rice gene called sub1.

It comes from a variety that doesn't give much yield, but it allows rice plants to survive

underwater for weeks.

Cross-pollinate that variety with a more delicious one with a higher yield, and instead of waiting

for them to grow up to see which carry the gene, just screen baby plants' DNA.

Saves months, even years compared to the old way.

And there's no time to waste, because rising sea levels and more frequent floods are one

of the most serious impacts of climate change.

The world's poorest farmers are often on the most flood-prone land, and rice strains

like this could mean the difference between future feast or famine.

Biotechnology like this?

It's just a more high-tech version of what farmers have always done.

These new ways of doing old things are showing a lot of promise, but some scientists think

we should go the other direction and be even more aggressive with how we hack plant biology.

They're trying to play with the biology of photosynthesis itself.

Crops like corn and sugarcane do photosynthesis using 4-carbon molecules, while rice and wheat

use 3-carbon molecules.

And since C4 plants usually require less water and fertilizer, scientists are trying to re

engineer C3 plants piece by genetic piece to make more with less in a hotter, drier

world.

The first Green Revolution saved a billion lives, but it wasn't perfect.

As the same few crop varieties spread around the world, we lost a lot of local food diversity.

Today most of the world eats the same few things.

And in the process many of the world's most vulnerable farmers became dependent on expensive

and  enviromentally-contaminating pesticides and synthetic fertilizers.

Local knowledge built from thousands of years of agricultural history was almost lost.

Science made their lives easier, but it also forced them to live a different way.

And in an uncertain future, that might not work.

Like most big scientific problems, the next Green Revolution won't have just one answer.

It will involve old knowledge from people who know their land better than anyone else,

using new science by people at the cutting edge of human progress, and probably a few

crazy, futuristic things we've never tried before

Because to keep up with how fast the world is changing, we have to plant as many ideas

as we can in order to keep on growing.

Stay curious

Hey guys.

This video is made possible by all of our great supporters on Patreon.

This video is also made possible by Bill and Melinda Gates.

I've been thinking a lot about milestones.

And there's one milestone from the last year I can't get out of my head.

When atmospheric carbon dioxide levels hit 415 parts per million in 2019.

I got to visit Hawaii last year when we shot a special PBS series called “Stellar”.

And I could see the Mauna Loa observatory, where they measure the planet's CO2 levels

on the mountain behind me.

I couldn't get it out of my head: We crossed a CO2 threshold our planet hasn't seen for

maybe 3 MILLION years.

It's a milestone I would like to not repeat.

Now that I'm a parent, I know if I don't try as hard as I can to help reverse this

trend now, I'll regret it later.

That's why I keep making climate videos on this channel.

It's why I took a big risk and launched a whole other channel about climate science

called Hot Mess.

Knowing that I'm working hard to help the future keeps me optimistic.

It keeps me focused on more hopeful milestones.

Climate change isn't something that's going to go away on its own.

It is 100% up to us.

And solving it and adapting to it will mean taking big risks, thinking of bold ideas,

like the ones you just heard about.

We have to swing for the fences, or we will come up short. Ми повинні замахнутися на паркани, інакше нам нічого не вдасться.

Big risks we take today can pave the way for future opportunities.

That's why this year Bill and Melinda Gates are sharing reflections on some of the Big

Risks they've taken in global health and education over the last two decades, and why

they'll continue making big bets in climate and gender equality in the next two.

You can hear more about what they're reflecting on, and what big ideas they've got in store,

in this year's Annual Letter.

It always gives me something new to think about, and I hope you'll check it out.

Just check the link down in the description.

Thanks, and see you next time.