...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Current opinion in environmental sustainability >Epilogue: global food security, rhetoric, and the sustainable intensification debate
【24h】

Epilogue: global food security, rhetoric, and the sustainable intensification debate

机译：结语：全球粮食安全，言论和可持续集约化辩论

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The need to feed nine billion people in 2050 has given rise to widespread debate in science and policy circles. The debate is largely framed in neo-Malthusian terms, and elements of global food security (resilience of the food system, food quantity and quality, right to and access to food) demand equal attention. High-intensive agriculture, which enabled population growth and food for a large proportion of the global population, is often regarded as incompatible with current environmental (and social) sustainability. Because of the often problematic nature of high-intensive industrialized agriculture, sustainable agricultural intensification has been called an oxymoron. Pathways to sustainably intensify agriculture vary from business-as-usual to claims that a radical rethinking of our agricultural production is imperative. Three terms have been coined to differentiate such pathways. Whereas conventional intensification, that is business-as-usual, is uncontroversial (but often considered unlikely to be able to achieve environmental sustainability), the phrases sustainable intensification and ecological intensification both have a complex history. Although one could think that they have similar meanings, the phrases represent very different perspectives in discourses in science and policy circles. The terms Utopians and Arcadians are introduced for adherents of those perspectives. We observe that they both devote insufficient attention to inevitable trade-offs. Agricultural intensification in developing countries was greatly accelerated by the Green Revolution, which largely bypassed sub-Saharan Africa. Discontent with that outcome has led to a plethora of new terms to indicate more successful next steps for sub-Saharan agriculture. Industrialized agriculture as currently practised in developed countries will not provide a universal solution. This epilogue of the special issue and the literature herein show that intense debates on sustainable agricultural intensification are needed. Such debates on intensification demand reflection on the role of scientists with regard to their uses of current and the generation of novel knowledge.
机译：2050年需要满足90亿人口的饮食需求，这引起了科学和政策界的广泛争论。辩论主要是在新马尔萨斯时期进行的，全球粮食安全的要素（粮食系统的复原力，粮食数量和质量，获得食物的权利和获取权）需要得到同等重视。高集约化农业使人口增长和全球大部分人口的粮食获得了增长，通常被认为与当前的环境（和社会）可持续性不相容。由于高强度工业化农业经常存在问题，因此可持续农业集约化被称为矛盾现象。可持续集约化农业的途径从照常营业到声称必须对农业生产进行彻底重新思考的说法各不相同。创造了三个术语来区分这些途径。传统的集约化（照常进行）是没有争议的（但通常被认为不可能实现环境的可持续性），而可持续集约化和生态集约化这两个词都有着复杂的历史。尽管人们可能认为它们具有相似的含义，但这些短语在科学和政策界的话语中代表着截然不同的观点。乌托邦人和世外桃源人是这些观点的拥护者。我们观察到，他们俩都对不可避免的取舍投入了足够的关注。绿色革命大大绕开了撒哈拉以南非洲，从而大大加快了发展中国家的农业集约化进程。对这一结果的不满导致了过多的新术语，这些新术语表明撒哈拉以南非洲地区农业下一步将更加成功。发达国家目前实行的工业化农业将无法提供普遍解决方案。该特刊的尾声和此处的文献表明，需要就可持续农业集约化展开激烈辩论。关于集约化的此类辩论要求反思科学家在利用当前知识和产生新知识方面的作用。

著录项

  • 来源
  • 作者

    Thomas W Kuyper; Paul C Struik;

  • 作者单位

    Department of Soil Quality, Wageningen University, PO Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands;

    Centre for Crop Systems Analysis, Wageningen University, PO Box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, The Netherlands;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号