In your subsequent post, “Actually, All Nuclear Famine Papers are Bunk”, you talk about the impressive, year-plus grain stores that farmers rack up each fall. How much does this vary throughout the year? Presumably a nuclear war that struck at the worst possible time (perhaps that May 1 that the Nature paper strategically chose?) would leave us with much reduced food stores.
The Nature paper seems to imply that protein would be the toughest thing to scrounge up in a nuclear winter scenario, rather than raw calories. This is probably less storable than other macronutrients like carbohydrates and fat?
I totally agree that it’s ridiculous to think that people would just plant the same foods over again despite the obviously colder weather. On the other hand, in a post-nuclear-exchange scenario, I would be worried that farmers might not be able to access the normal distribution networks for purchasing new seeds, or that it would be more difficult to repair / replace crucial planting equipment, or that farmers (especially in the third world) wouldn’t have the information/education/experience needed to switch crop varieties successfully. I’d love to read a paper or blog post where someone tried to game out how the negative effects of the war (on equipment, trade networks, etc) and positive effects (of adaptation to colder temperatures by planting different crops) would change the Nature paper’s conclusion, either for worse or better.
Some thoughts:
In your subsequent post, “Actually, All Nuclear Famine Papers are Bunk”, you talk about the impressive, year-plus grain stores that farmers rack up each fall. How much does this vary throughout the year? Presumably a nuclear war that struck at the worst possible time (perhaps that May 1 that the Nature paper strategically chose?) would leave us with much reduced food stores.
The Nature paper seems to imply that protein would be the toughest thing to scrounge up in a nuclear winter scenario, rather than raw calories. This is probably less storable than other macronutrients like carbohydrates and fat?
I totally agree that it’s ridiculous to think that people would just plant the same foods over again despite the obviously colder weather. On the other hand, in a post-nuclear-exchange scenario, I would be worried that farmers might not be able to access the normal distribution networks for purchasing new seeds, or that it would be more difficult to repair / replace crucial planting equipment, or that farmers (especially in the third world) wouldn’t have the information/education/experience needed to switch crop varieties successfully. I’d love to read a paper or blog post where someone tried to game out how the negative effects of the war (on equipment, trade networks, etc) and positive effects (of adaptation to colder temperatures by planting different crops) would change the Nature paper’s conclusion, either for worse or better.