In the case of the sun being blocked by comet impact, super volcanic eruption, or full-scale nuclear war with the burning of cities, there would be local devastation, but the majority of global industry would function. Most of our energy is not dependent on the sun. So it turns out the biggest problem is food, and arable land would not be valuable. Extracting human edible calories from leaves would only work for those leaves that were green when the catastrophe happened. They could provide about half a year of food for everyone, or more realistically 10% of food for five years.
I also work on the catastrophes that could disrupt electricity globally, such as an extreme solar storm, multiple high-altitude detonations of nuclear weapons around the world creating electromagnetic pulses (EMPs), and a super computer virus. Since nearly everything is dependent on electricity, this means we lose fossil fuel production and industry. In this case, energy is critical, but there are ways of dealing with it. So the food problem still turns out to be quite important (the sun is still shining, but we don’t have fossil fuel based tractors, fertilizers and pesticides), though there are solutions for that.
Extracting human edible calories from leaves would only work for those leaves that were green when the catastrophe happened. They could provide about half a year of food for everyone
What kind of industrial base that will continue to function in the catastrophe’s aftermath do you expect to be able to collect and process these green leaves while they are still green—on the time scale of weeks, I assume?
And what is the advantage over having large stores of non-perishables?
Also, it’s my impression that the biggest problem with avoiding famines is not food production, but rather logistics—storage, transportation, and distribution. Right now the world has more then enough food for everyone, but food shortages in the third world, notably Africa, are common.
In the catastrophe scenario you have to assume political unrest, breakdown of transportation networks, etc.
Governments do it all the time—see e.g. this. Also, in this context feasability is relative—how politically feasible is it to construct emergency-use-only machinery to gather and process leaves from a forest?
I’m also uncertain about the gathering-leaves plan.
On the other hand I could imagine solutions that are easily scalable. If you would for example have an eatable fungi that you could feed with lumber that might be very valuable and you don’t need to spend billions ,
Sorry for my voice recognition software error-I now have fixed it. It turns out that if you want to store enough food to feed 7 billion people for five years, it would cost tens of trillions of dollars. What I am proposing is spending tens of millions of dollars for targeted research and development and planning. The idea is that we would not have to spend a lot of money on emergency use only machinery. I use the example of the United States before World War II-it hardly produced any airplanes. But once it entered World War II, it retrofitted the car manufacturing plants to produce airplanes very quickly. I am targeting food sources that could be ramped up very quickly with not very much preparation (in months, see graph here. The easiest killed leaves (for human food) to collect would be agricultural residues with existing farm equipment. For leaves shed naturally (leaf litter), we could release cows into forests. I also analyze logistics in the book, and it would be technically feasible. Note that these catastrophes would only destroy regional infrastructure. However, the big assumption is that there would still be international cooperation. Without these alternative food sources, most people would die, so it would likely be in the best interest of many countries to initiate conflicts. However, if countries knew that they could actually benefit by cooperating and trading and ideally feed everyone, cooperation is more likely (though of course not guaranteed). So you could think of this as a peace project.
In the case of the sun being blocked by comet impact, super volcanic eruption, or full-scale nuclear war with the burning of cities, there would be local devastation, but the majority of global industry would function. Most of our energy is not dependent on the sun. So it turns out the biggest problem is food, and arable land would not be valuable. Extracting human edible calories from leaves would only work for those leaves that were green when the catastrophe happened. They could provide about half a year of food for everyone, or more realistically 10% of food for five years.
I also work on the catastrophes that could disrupt electricity globally, such as an extreme solar storm, multiple high-altitude detonations of nuclear weapons around the world creating electromagnetic pulses (EMPs), and a super computer virus. Since nearly everything is dependent on electricity, this means we lose fossil fuel production and industry. In this case, energy is critical, but there are ways of dealing with it. So the food problem still turns out to be quite important (the sun is still shining, but we don’t have fossil fuel based tractors, fertilizers and pesticides), though there are solutions for that.
What kind of industrial base that will continue to function in the catastrophe’s aftermath do you expect to be able to collect and process these green leaves while they are still green—on the time scale of weeks, I assume?
And what is the advantage over having large stores of non-perishables?
Also, it’s my impression that the biggest problem with avoiding famines is not food production, but rather logistics—storage, transportation, and distribution. Right now the world has more then enough food for everyone, but food shortages in the third world, notably Africa, are common.
In the catastrophe scenario you have to assume political unrest, breakdown of transportation networks, etc.
To me it seems politically unfeasible to pay for the creation of a multi-year storage of non-perishable food.
Governments do it all the time—see e.g. this. Also, in this context feasability is relative—how politically feasible is it to construct emergency-use-only machinery to gather and process leaves from a forest?
I’m also uncertain about the gathering-leaves plan.
On the other hand I could imagine solutions that are easily scalable. If you would for example have an eatable fungi that you could feed with lumber that might be very valuable and you don’t need to spend billions ,
Sorry for my voice recognition software error-I now have fixed it. It turns out that if you want to store enough food to feed 7 billion people for five years, it would cost tens of trillions of dollars. What I am proposing is spending tens of millions of dollars for targeted research and development and planning. The idea is that we would not have to spend a lot of money on emergency use only machinery. I use the example of the United States before World War II-it hardly produced any airplanes. But once it entered World War II, it retrofitted the car manufacturing plants to produce airplanes very quickly. I am targeting food sources that could be ramped up very quickly with not very much preparation (in months, see graph here. The easiest killed leaves (for human food) to collect would be agricultural residues with existing farm equipment. For leaves shed naturally (leaf litter), we could release cows into forests. I also analyze logistics in the book, and it would be technically feasible. Note that these catastrophes would only destroy regional infrastructure. However, the big assumption is that there would still be international cooperation. Without these alternative food sources, most people would die, so it would likely be in the best interest of many countries to initiate conflicts. However, if countries knew that they could actually benefit by cooperating and trading and ideally feed everyone, cooperation is more likely (though of course not guaranteed). So you could think of this as a peace project.