http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/nestle-chairman-climate-change-controversy-peter-brabeck

-- I appeal to the mod concerned to let this application for boycott reside in this forum as the global mod has threatened to ban me for intellectual debate elsewhere as he is fossil fuel inc.

The head of Nestle is making irrational statements concerning the need to ensure climate change doesn't happen too fast yet at the same time advocating action against precaution. THIS IS COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. He is not advocating prevention as better than the cure and should thus be protested against as abusing a priveleged position.

THIS IS A GLOBAL WORLD AND WE ALL HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO LOOK AFTER EACH OTHER.

Nestlé has form. In the early 1980s, they were reported to be aggressively promoting breast milk substitutes in the third world. You know, powder that must be mixed with water. Water in places where we would be told that it isn't safe to drink the water. Breast milk substitutes that were then fed to infants with immature immune systems.

Unfortunately, health workers in the affected countries were so information poor that those who were promoting the substitutes were their primary source of advice. Nobody really knows how many died, but Nestlé profited handsomely.

I've boycotted Nestlé products ever since.

On the upside, Nestlé's behaviour spawned the International Baby Food Action Network and International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes.

And yes, the climate change angle does make this an appropriate topic for this forum.

phew, cos andrei is looking to place his fascist fossil fuel powered foot somewhere!!  8-)

And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 11:58pm:

And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point.

Really brother... go on ....  :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 1:18am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 11:58pm: And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point. Really brother... go on ....  :o

Read the link you posted.

" courts controversy by claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles(first point) and society should focus on adaptation(second point)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 2:48am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 1:18am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 11:58pm: And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point. Really brother... go on ....  :o Read the link you posted. " courts controversy by claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles(first point) and society should focus on adaptation(second point)

I've read the article dood,  :o :o

So, you were about to expand I believe  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o  :-?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:33am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 2:48am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 1:18am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 11:58pm: And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point. Really brother... go on ....  :o Read the link you posted. " courts controversy by claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles(first point) and society should focus on adaptation(second point) I've read the article dood,  :o :o So, you were about to expand I believe  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o  :-?

Ok, I already did, but whatever.
Well whether his idea about climate change being largely natural is right or wrong (personally I think it's right), Brabeck's point that adaption should be societies primary focus is 100% correct.
Because either way, we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and sooner rather than later.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 9:49am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 3:33am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 2:48am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 1:18am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 11:58pm: And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point. Really brother... go on ....  :o Read the link you posted. " courts controversy by claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles(first point) and society should focus on adaptation(second point) I've read the article dood,  :o :o So, you were about to expand I believe  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o  :-? Ok, I already did, but whatever. Well whether his idea about climate change being largely natural is right or wrong (personally I think it's right), Brabeck's point that adaption should be societies primary focus is 100% correct. Because either way, we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and sooner rather than later.

Prevention is better than the cure: only a moron would say we have to adapt to higher temperatures SOONER RATHER THAN LATER if they didn't believe humanity was its cause. You are guilty of the same cognitive dissonance i accused the moron in the op of being  ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 11:21am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:49am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 3:33am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 2:48am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 1:18am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 11:58pm: And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point. Really brother... go on ....  :o Read the link you posted. " courts controversy by claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles(first point) and society should focus on adaptation(second point) I've read the article dood,  :o :o So, you were about to expand I believe  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o  :-? Ok, I already did, but whatever. Well whether his idea about climate change being largely natural is right or wrong (personally I think it's right), Brabeck's point that adaption should be societies primary focus is 100% correct. Because either way, we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and sooner rather than later. Prevention is better than the cure: only a moron would say we have to adapt to higher temperatures SOONER RATHER THAN LATER if they didn't believe humanity was its cause. You are guilty of the same cognitive dissonance i accused the moron in the op of being  ;D

Nope. Even Tim Flannery said it (to paraphrase) "If Co2 production stopped tomorrow, it could take up to 1000 years for the temperatures to drop" SO, what should we do in the mean time? Just sit around and suffer the 'effects' and wait?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 11:25am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 11:21am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:49am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 3:33am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 2:48am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 1:18am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 11:58pm: And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point. Really brother... go on ....  :o Read the link you posted. " courts controversy by claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles(first point) and society should focus on adaptation(second point) I've read the article dood,  :o :o So, you were about to expand I believe  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o  :-? Ok, I already did, but whatever. Well whether his idea about climate change being largely natural is right or wrong (personally I think it's right), Brabeck's point that adaption should be societies primary focus is 100% correct. Because either way, we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and sooner rather than later. Prevention is better than the cure: only a moron would say we have to adapt to higher temperatures SOONER RATHER THAN LATER if they didn't believe humanity was its cause. You are guilty of the same cognitive dissonance i accused the moron in the op of being  ;D Nope. Even Tim Flannery said it (to paraphrase) "If Co2 production stopped tomorrow, it could take up to 1000 years for the temperatures to drop" SO, what should we do in the mean time? Just sit around and suffer the 'effects' and wait?

BUT YOU DON'T BELIEVE MAN CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE REMEMBER  :o :o :o :o :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 11:51am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 11:25am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 11:21am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:49am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 3:33am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 2:48am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 1:18am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 11:58pm: And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point. Really brother... go on ....  :o Read the link you posted. " courts controversy by claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles(first point) and society should focus on adaptation(second point) I've read the article dood,  :o :o So, you were about to expand I believe  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o  :-? Ok, I already did, but whatever. Well whether his idea about climate change being largely natural is right or wrong (personally I think it's right), Brabeck's point that adaption should be societies primary focus is 100% correct. Because either way, we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and sooner rather than later. Prevention is better than the cure: only a moron would say we have to adapt to higher temperatures SOONER RATHER THAN LATER if they didn't believe humanity was its cause. You are guilty of the same cognitive dissonance i accused the moron in the op of being  ;D Nope. Even Tim Flannery said it (to paraphrase) "If Co2 production stopped tomorrow, it could take up to 1000 years for the temperatures to drop" SO, what should we do in the mean time? Just sit around and suffer the 'effects' and wait? BUT YOU DON'T BELIEVE MAN CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE REMEMBER  :o :o :o :o :o

True, I don't but you do. And the need for adaption is still the same, whether or not climate change is natural or man made.

As an example, when a bush fire is heading for your house, you evacuate (that's adaption) and hope the firies can stop it before it destroys your house (that's mitigation). Sitting in your house expecting the fire to be stopped is dangerous and possibly lethal.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 12:10pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 11:51am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 11:25am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 11:21am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:49am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 3:33am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 2:48am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 1:18am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 11:58pm: And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point. Really brother... go on ....  :o Read the link you posted. " courts controversy by claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles(first point) and society should focus on adaptation(second point) I've read the article dood,  :o :o So, you were about to expand I believe  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o  :-? Ok, I already did, but whatever. Well whether his idea about climate change being largely natural is right or wrong (personally I think it's right), Brabeck's point that adaption should be societies primary focus is 100% correct. Because either way, we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and sooner rather than later. Prevention is better than the cure: only a moron would say we have to adapt to higher temperatures SOONER RATHER THAN LATER if they didn't believe humanity was its cause. You are guilty of the same cognitive dissonance i accused the moron in the op of being  ;D Nope. Even Tim Flannery said it (to paraphrase) "If Co2 production stopped tomorrow, it could take up to 1000 years for the temperatures to drop" SO, what should we do in the mean time? Just sit around and suffer the 'effects' and wait? BUT YOU DON'T BELIEVE MAN CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE REMEMBER  :o :o :o :o :o True, I don't but you do. And the need for adaption is still the same, whether or not climate change is natural or man made. As an example, when a bush fire is heading for your house, you evacuate (that's adaption) and hope the firies can stop it before it destroys your house (that's mitigation). Sitting in your house expecting the fire to be stopped is dangerous and possibly lethal.

PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN THE CURE: if you live in the bush you're an idiot!!

Forestry people live far away from trees... idiots don't take precautions and you're obviously talking about an idiot!

I'm not an idiot brother: you are!

secondly: you have never heard the word "NOMENCLATURE" before have you??

  :D :D Dood, you're an insane character who hates the children: you've been cornered as such for years!!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 9:49am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 3:33am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 2:48am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 1:18am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 11:58pm: And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point. Really brother... go on ....  :o Read the link you posted. " courts controversy by claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles(first point) and society should focus on adaptation(second point) I've read the article dood,  :o :o So, you were about to expand I believe  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o  :-? Ok, I already did, but whatever. Well whether his idea about climate change being largely natural is right or wrong (personally I think it's right), Brabeck's point that adaption should be societies primary focus is 100% correct. Because either way, we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and sooner rather than later.

Or lower ones. Just ignoring the dense one for a second Giz and being serious when the climate does change you can't adapt 7.2 billion people because you have to consider not absolutely what the world will support in terms of population at any point in time but what is the capacity for the long term....and it nothing like that number. When population is brought back to that number then a lot of things will resolve themselves.

namnugenot wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:13pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:49am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 3:33am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 2:48am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 1:18am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 11:58pm: And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point. Really brother... go on ....  :o Read the link you posted. " courts controversy by claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles(first point) and society should focus on adaptation(second point) I've read the article dood,  :o :o So, you were about to expand I believe  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o  :-? Ok, I already did, but whatever. Well whether his idea about climate change being largely natural is right or wrong (personally I think it's right), Brabeck's point that adaption should be societies primary focus is 100% correct. Because either way, we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and sooner rather than later. Or lower ones. Just ignoring the dense one for a second Giz and being serious when the climate does change you can't adapt 7.2 billion people because you have to consider not absolutely what the world will support in terms of population at any point in time but what is the capacity for the long term....and it nothing like that number. When population is brought back to that number then a lot of things will resolve themselves.

Hey, we're having a circle party:go find your own!  ;) ;)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 2:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 12:10pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 11:51am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 11:25am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 11:21am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:49am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 3:33am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 2:48am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 1:18am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 11:58pm: And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point. Really brother... go on ....  :o Read the link you posted. " courts controversy by claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles(first point) and society should focus on adaptation(second point) I've read the article dood,  :o :o So, you were about to expand I believe  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o  :-? Ok, I already did, but whatever. Well whether his idea about climate change being largely natural is right or wrong (personally I think it's right), Brabeck's point that adaption should be societies primary focus is 100% correct. Because either way, we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and sooner rather than later. Prevention is better than the cure: only a moron would say we have to adapt to higher temperatures SOONER RATHER THAN LATER if they didn't believe humanity was its cause. You are guilty of the same cognitive dissonance i accused the moron in the op of being  ;D Nope. Even Tim Flannery said it (to paraphrase) "If Co2 production stopped tomorrow, it could take up to 1000 years for the temperatures to drop" SO, what should we do in the mean time? Just sit around and suffer the 'effects' and wait? BUT YOU DON'T BELIEVE MAN CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE REMEMBER  :o :o :o :o :o True, I don't but you do. And the need for adaption is still the same, whether or not climate change is natural or man made. As an example, when a bush fire is heading for your house, you evacuate (that's adaption) and hope the firies can stop it before it destroys your house (that's mitigation). Sitting in your house expecting the fire to be stopped is dangerous and possibly lethal. PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN THE CURE: if you live in the bush you're an idiot!! Forestry people live far away from trees... idiots don't take precautions and you're obviously talking about an idiot! I'm not an idiot brother: you are! secondly: you have never heard the word "NOMENCLATURE" before have you??   :D :D Dood, you're an insane character who hates the children: you've been cornered as such for years!!

'Forestry people' huh? Are they like elves or something?

And abuse because you can't answer the argument is your standard response...

namnugenot wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:13pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:49am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 3:33am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 2:48am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 1:18am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 11:58pm: And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point. Really brother... go on ....  :o Read the link you posted. " courts controversy by claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles(first point) and society should focus on adaptation(second point) I've read the article dood,  :o :o So, you were about to expand I believe  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o  :-? Ok, I already did, but whatever. Well whether his idea about climate change being largely natural is right or wrong (personally I think it's right), Brabeck's point that adaption should be societies primary focus is 100% correct. Because either way, we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and sooner rather than later. Or lower ones. Just ignoring the dense one for a second Giz and being serious when the climate does change you can't adapt 7.2 billion people because you have to consider not absolutely what the world will support in terms of population at any point in time but what is the capacity for the long term....and it nothing like that number. When population is brought back to that number then a lot of things will resolve themselves.

Well possibly. But even during another mini ice-age, like there was in the 16th to 19th centuries, with today's technology we could probably keep most of the population alive.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:58pm:

namnugenot wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 3:13pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:49am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 3:33am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 2:48am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 1:18am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 11:58pm: And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point. Really brother... go on ....  :o Read the link you posted. " courts controversy by claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles(first point) and society should focus on adaptation(second point) I've read the article dood,  :o :o So, you were about to expand I believe  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o  :-? Ok, I already did, but whatever. Well whether his idea about climate change being largely natural is right or wrong (personally I think it's right), Brabeck's point that adaption should be societies primary focus is 100% correct. Because either way, we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and sooner rather than later. Or lower ones. Just ignoring the dense one for a second Giz and being serious when the climate does change you can't adapt 7.2 billion people because you have to consider not absolutely what the world will support in terms of population at any point in time but what is the capacity for the long term....and it nothing like that number. When population is brought back to that number then a lot of things will resolve themselves. Well possibly. But even during another mini ice-age, like there was in the 16th to 19th centuries, with today's technology we could probably keep most of the population alive.

Depends on how long it lasts, the willingness and ability of those who have to distribute and the spread of technology but ultimately you can't eat technology and at those times you had less than a billion people. You look at events now where there is an impending really bad weather event and the pictures of empty shelves. Now we have 7.2 not 1 so even with willingness and today's technology it's a big ask. We're subject to the same constraints as everything else.

namnugenot wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 4:26pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 3:58pm: namnugenot wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 3:13pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:49am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 3:33am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 2:48am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 1:18am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 11:58pm: And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point. Really brother... go on ....  :o Read the link you posted. " courts controversy by claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles(first point) and society should focus on adaptation(second point) I've read the article dood,  :o :o So, you were about to expand I believe  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o  :-? Ok, I already did, but whatever. Well whether his idea about climate change being largely natural is right or wrong (personally I think it's right), Brabeck's point that adaption should be societies primary focus is 100% correct. Because either way, we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and sooner rather than later. Or lower ones. Just ignoring the dense one for a second Giz and being serious when the climate does change you can't adapt 7.2 billion people because you have to consider not absolutely what the world will support in terms of population at any point in time but what is the capacity for the long term....and it nothing like that number. When population is brought back to that number then a lot of things will resolve themselves. Well possibly. But even during another mini ice-age, like there was in the 16th to 19th centuries, with today's technology we could probably keep most of the population alive. Depends on how long it lasts, the willingness and ability of those who have to distribute and the spread of technology but ultimately you can't eat technology and at those times you had less than a billion people. You look at events now where there is an impending really bad weather event and the pictures of empty shelves. Now we have 7.2 not 1 so even with willingness and today's technology it's a big ask. We're subject to the same constraints as everything else.

I don't believe so. I'm not saying it would be cheap, easy or even terribly tasty. But ultimately doable. Massive hothouses to grow grain crops, or even yeast substitute foods. Hell even algae and some species of seaweed could be cultivated if we had to.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 4:45pm:

namnugenot wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 4:26pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 3:58pm: namnugenot wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 3:13pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 9:49am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 3:33am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 2:48am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 1:18am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 11:58pm: And Peter Brabeck is absolutely correct on his second point, and possibly correct on his first point. Really brother... go on ....  :o Read the link you posted. " courts controversy by claiming climate change is largely down to natural cycles(first point) and society should focus on adaptation(second point) I've read the article dood,  :o :o So, you were about to expand I believe  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o  :-? Ok, I already did, but whatever. Well whether his idea about climate change being largely natural is right or wrong (personally I think it's right), Brabeck's point that adaption should be societies primary focus is 100% correct. Because either way, we will need to adapt to higher temperatures and sooner rather than later. Or lower ones. Just ignoring the dense one for a second Giz and being serious when the climate does change you can't adapt 7.2 billion people because you have to consider not absolutely what the world will support in terms of population at any point in time but what is the capacity for the long term....and it nothing like that number. When population is brought back to that number then a lot of things will resolve themselves. Well possibly. But even during another mini ice-age, like there was in the 16th to 19th centuries, with today's technology we could probably keep most of the population alive. Depends on how long it lasts, the willingness and ability of those who have to distribute and the spread of technology but ultimately you can't eat technology and at those times you had less than a billion people. You look at events now where there is an impending really bad weather event and the pictures of empty shelves. Now we have 7.2 not 1 so even with willingness and today's technology it's a big ask. We're subject to the same constraints as everything else. I don't believe so. I'm not saying it would be cheap, easy or even terribly tasty. But ultimately doable. Massive hothouses to grow grain crops, or even yeast substitute foods. Hell even algae and some species of seaweed could be cultivated if we had to.

They don't send sufficient to places like Africa now when they aren't hard pressed...I can't see even that if a scenario in that sort of vein happened...just saying...not saying something like that is not doable...I just can't see it being done.