How do I counter this Overpopulation argument?

[wynnejj]

Here’s an interesting link to double-check whether I’m in the ballpark for global arable acres per person.

nationmaster.com/graph/agr_ara_lan_hec_percap-arable-land-hectares-per-capita
or
nationmaster.com
Click “Statistics” on tool bar
Click “Agricultural” link
Click “Arable land > hectares”
Click “Per Capita” tab where View Data: Totals or Per Capita

The United States has 588.535 hectare of arable land per 1000 people.
USA is #9 in the world for arable hectares per 1000 persons.
A hectare is 2.471 acres.
Works out to 1.45 acres per person in the USA.

 

[kimmielittle]

Here’s an interesting link to double-check whether I’m in the ballpark for global arable acres per person.

nationmaster.com/graph/agr_ara_lan_hec_percap-arable-land-hectares-per-capita
or
nationmaster.com
Click “Statistics” on tool bar
Click “Agricultural” link
Click “Arable land > hectares”
Click “Per Capita” tab where View Data: Totals or Per Capita

The United States has 588.535 hectare of arable land per 1000 people.
USA is #9 in the world for arable hectares per 1000 persons.
A hectare is 2.471 acres.
Works out to 1.45 acres per person in the USA.

Good maths for a city dweller

Seems bleak doesn’t it?

Here’s how country folks measure sustainability… we have this habit of doing so - as our livelihoods demand it.

We measure yield against production costs.

Let’s measure both in calories.

! hand tiller
10 gallons of gas @ 31,000 calories per gallon = 310,000 celeries

My labor @ 1,000 calories per day X 365 days = 365,000 calories I didn’t work near that many days ]

Net Yield over 2,230,000 calories per acre.

-695,000 expended calories

1,535,000 calories gain.

Feeds 2.5 people 2500 calories a day for 365 days on 1 acre of sustainable farming.

Of course, this is 1 person with 1 acre. By your math If I were married more land - more help ]

I have not touched my other .45 of an acre

 

[wynnejj]

Good maths for a city dweller

Seems bleak doesn’t it?

Here’s how country folks measure sustainability… we have this habit of doing so - as our livelihoods demand it.

Really? Country folk have been using this formula for a long time?
Mind if I nose around to my neighboring farmers and see what they say?

Just some preliminary questions, though? Just in case they ask…
What are you growing on your acre that produces that net yield in calories?
Is it a balanced diet? Or just celery?

(You didn’t by some chance multiply 2.5x2500x365 to fudge the number, did you?)

 

[wynnejj]

Here’s an interesting link to double-check whether I’m in the ballpark for global arable acres per person.

nationmaster.com/graph/agr_ara_lan_hec_percap-arable-land-hectares-per-capita

If you go to the bottom, it says: “Weighted average: 223.5 hectares per 1,000 people”
Which converts to 0.5522 acres per person as the weighted average of arable land per person.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I’m thinking that the theoreticals in the math don’t match up with the actual real world.

Otherwise we would have become extinct a very long time ago.

Perhaps do some visiting to actual countries and take a look at how they do their agriculture; how they irrigate and fertilize; what kinds of seed they use.

Visit Niger and Burkina Fasso, two of the poorest countries on earth. Or Somalia. Or Zimbabwe or Zaire or Congo.

Take a look at their agriculture and how their political systems interfere with food and water resources.

Then come on back and tell us about your real world experiences.

 

[wynnejj]

I’m thinking that the theoreticals in the math don’t match up with the actual real world.

Otherwise we would have become extinct a very long time ago.

I take it that what you are saying is that you do not believe that the world’s supply of food produce grown as crops could possibly work out to be 3/5ths an acre per person based on my calculation using the CIA World Factbook figures. And you do not believe the independent figure of slightly less than 3/5ths (0.5522) arable acres per person calculated by nationmasters.com.

When I entered this thread, I totally agreed that “overpopulation” had about as much credibility as the “global warming” scenario. Then someone made the statement that there wasn’t enough land per person to go back to farming societies. So I investigated the idea. What I found is that when you take the total land mass (deserts and all scrub land included) and calculate the total acreage and divide it by the population, you come up with 5.3 acres per person. There is nothing tricky or sleight of hand about the calculation and it eliminates the question of what percentage is arable. It’s simple arithmetic. Couple that with the idea that after all the population control efforts being employed world-wide, there is still a growth rate of 1% that will double every 72 years, then overpopulation issues are truly a concern and not a myth as I see it.

My only problem with population control buffs is the method that they wish to solve the problem - contraception with a backup of abortion and a promotion of homosexual lifestyles.

A better method might be to convert all to good orthodox Catholics and promote the priesthood and religious lifestyles.

 

[kimmielittle]

Really? Country folk have been using this formula for a long time?
Mind if I nose around to my neighboring farmers and see what they say?

If they are “producing farmers” they measure “Yield against production costs”.

Just some preliminary questions, though? Just in case they ask…
What are you growing on your acre that produces that net yield in calories?
Is it a balanced diet? Or just celery?

Oh I see, you don’t understand the free enterprise system. You see, on the days I didn’t work, I joined a co-op and I also gave my time and tithes to food banks…etc.

(You didn’t by some chance multiply 2.5x2500x365 to fudge the number, did you?)

Nope!!!

Don’t need to. Ask your “producer farmer” friends as long as it’s not some hobby - farm ].

2,300,000 calories is low-medium yield for an acre.

 

[wynnejj]

Kimmie: This is a fascinating business model. So you take your Richard Simmon’s calorie counting hand tiller and punch in the apples of calories burned by gasoline and the oranges of calories burned by a human followed by calories expected netted from a one-acre field of whatever (celery), and it decides whether it is going to start for you today.

So if gas prices skyrocket or plummet, how it affects your enterprise doesn’t matter because you are counting the calories that are blowing out your hand tiller’s exhaust pipes. I guess that if I had a B.S. in Managing Manure and continued on to a P.H.D. (piled higher and deeper), then I would fully understand this marvelous agricultural business model.

 

[kimmielittle]

I take it that what you are saying is that you do not believe that the world’s supply of food produce grown as crops could possibly work out to be 3/5ths an acre per person based on my calculation using the CIA World Factbook figures.

Did you attempt to find out what the CIA Factbook defines as “arable land”?

The definition used is land that is under cultivation, or temporarily fallow (for less than five years) – but it excludes abandoned land resulting from shifting cultivation.

Why do you think they omitted this land?

UNFPA???

 

[kimmielittle]

Kimmie: This is a fascinating business model.

I don’t know why it’s fascinating to you. Civilization has used the method of measuring Production Yield vs Production costs since the Dawn of Civilization.

So you take your Richard Simmon’s calorie counting hand tiller and punch in the apples of calories burned by gasoline and the oranges of calories burned by a human followed by calories expected netted from a one-acre field of whatever (celery), and it decides whether it is going to start for you today.

What better way to count? You see, a calorie is a base unit of measurement for energy. You weren’t taught this?

 

[wynnejj]

I don’t know why it’s fascinating to you. Civilization has used the method of measuring Production Yield vs Production costs since the Dawn of Civilization.

What better way to count? You see a calorie is a base unit of measurement for energy. You weren’t taught this?

I didn’t go to an all girl’s school where calorie counting becomes a way of life. I went to a boy’s school where they talk dollars and sense.

 

[kimmielittle]

I didn’t go to an all girl’s school where calorie counting becomes a way of life.

Hmmmm…

They didn’t teach you that a calorie is a base of measurement for energy?

That the energy from a gallon of gas is easily converted to calorie units?

It’s used so you can measure energy from multiple sources.

I went to a boy’s school where they talk dollars and sense.

NOW, this “sense” part - has me wondering

 

[wynnejj]

Kimmie: Your use of calories would make sense if your plow was being pulled by a farm animal. Then the calories expended by the human and animal would have to be replenished by the calories netted from the land. The same number of calories from a gallon of gasoline, when it could be 10 cents a gallon or 4 bucks a gallon, does not make sense in determining whether to fire up your hand tiller to plow the field.

 

[kimmielittle]

Kimmie: Your use of calories would make sense if your plow was being pulled by a farm animal. Then the calories expended by the human and animal would have to be replenished by the calories netted from the land. The same number of calories from a gallon of gasoline, when it could be 10 cents a gallon or 4 bucks a gallon, does not make sense in determining whether to fire up your hand tiller to plow the field.

Actually wrong…

The price of gas does not change the energy produced. It produces the same amount of energy no matter what the cost. That is why calories was used.

Remember we are not talking profit gains - we are talking energy sustainability.

eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=about_btu

Using calories as a unit of measurement - makes a strong case against ethanol.

Answer: One gallon of gasoline has 125,000 Btu of energy. (Btu = British thermal unit and is a measure of energy.)

Now we need to know how many calories in a Btu. (Caution. At this point you also need to know that there are two units called calories. A calorie is defined as the energy required to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree C. This is also called a gram calorie and is the calorie unit most used in science. A kilogram calorie (or kilocalorie) is the energy required to raise a kilogram of water 1 degree C. This is the unit used on food labels. Here we call it a food calorie and it equals 1000 calories.)

To convert Btu’s to calories we can go to: eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/science/energy_calculator.html
to get the number of calories in 1 Btu. (We are again using a government web site as reference here.)

Answer: One Btu equals 0.000252 million calories which is 0.252 kilocalories.

Therefore, one gallon of gasoline has (125,000 Btu) x (0.252 kilocalories/Btu) = 31,500 kilocalories (food calories)

1 gallon of gasoline = 31,500 food calories

Since adults typically need 2000 to 2500 food calories per day, this means that (at equal efficiencies) in order to replace one gallon of gasoline with corn based ethanol, we must give up about two weeks (12 to 16 days) of food!

home.dejazzd.com/kgard/bcn/calories_in_gallon.html

 

[kimmielittle]

Kimmie: Your use of calories would make sense if your plow was being pulled by a farm animal.

Actually…If I used a mule …the calorie count of producing my energy sustainability yield… goes even lower…Which means a higher sustainability.

 

[wynnejj]

The price of gas does not change the energy produced. It produces the same amount of energy no matter what the cost. That is why calories was used.

Remember we are not talking profit gains - we are talking energy sustainability.

Using calories as a unit of measurement - makes a strong case against ethanol.

I know that the price of gas does not change the energy produced, which was my point. If you are talking about a vegetation based gasoline, then talking about calories makes sense to me. If you are talking about petroleum, it doesn’t - which is what I was talking about. So I assume that the net yield of an acre in calories was referring to the crop used to produce your vegetable based gasoline. OK, I can see your method of calculation as a means of sustainability of ethanol production.

You can’t use that one net yield in calories for an acre of corn(?) to describe an acre of other foods like potatoes or celery, can you? Your calculation seems to be the economics of producing ethanol.

(Rhetorical question: They did this from the Dawn of Civilization? When was the calorie defined exactly?)

 

[kimmielittle]

You can’t use that one net yield in calories for an acre of corn(?) to describe an acre of other foods like potatoes or celery, can you?

Actually, yes… I can.

For two reasons: It makes no difference if corn or potatoes - that is why I measured in calories produced… in my example.

That is also why I used a low-medium yield of calories.

(Rhetorical question: They did this from the Dawn of Civilization? When was the calorie defined exactly?)

That is not what I said. I didn’t claim calories was used as a unit of measurement of energy since the dawn of civilization.

I stated what?

Civilization has used the method of measuring** Production Yield vs Production costs since the Dawn of Civilization.**

Counting energy calories is just one tool civilization / technology has given us to count energy sustainability.

 

[wynnejj]

Actually, yes… I can.

For two reasons: It makes no difference if corn or potatoes - that is why I measured in calories produced… in my example.

That is also why I used a low-medium yield of calories.

Being the calorie counter that you are, you’ve got to realize that if you eat an acre of low-yield medium corn and an acre of low-yield medium potatoes, then you are going to be eating a different net yield of calories. And, think of those tropical places where you can get three or four crops a year as I have been told when my numbers were in question.

Let say that my mixed vegetable garden which produces enough corn to run my hand tiller is not only varied enough to give me the nutritional requirements that I need, but surprisingly comes up with the very calorie count of a textbook case of a low-medium calorie acre. And that acre can produce enough net calorie gain to feed 2.5 people on an acre. Then if global land area divided by population is 5.3 acres per person and 11.61% (=10.57% arable + 1.04% permanent crops) is amount of land usable for growing crops (assuming those rascally UNFPA people didn’t fudge the CIA World FactBook numbers), then a person can only farm about 3/5ths an acre.

That means you really can only feed 1.5 persons (=3/5 * 2.5 persons).

If the growth rate of population is 1% (1.14% for year 2000, I believe) then the population will double in 72 years and, then a baby born today will live to see his allotment of land halve when he/she is 72, producing enough food for only3/4 of a person. Of course, one could marry and get two allotments and feed 1.5 persons. Then that would certainly be self-adjusting as we might have to round down to 1 person and no offspring for the foreseeable future.

Of course, being a city person I could solve the problem by planting high-yield jelly beans with high-high yield calories, in multi-colors so that when I look at my dinner plate and see all the color, I know I’m getting a balanced meal. I’m sure that would feed more persons per allotment of land.

I’m going to bed now. (The jelly beans are wearing off, so I’ll probably be able to sleep now.)

 

[excubitor]

I’ve thought about this before and I think others have brought it up in various ways, but here goes:

I do not believe in the whole overpopulation myth or the belief that humans are parasites on this Earth and that we must work to reduce our numbers, etc.

But what would you say to this argument:

The Earth is limited. There is only so much room and resources, etc. Even if it would take 50 billion or 500 billion people or whatever to exhaust the resources, at some point, they would be exhausted. Therefore, at some point we would be required to limit the number of children we are having, and having more people would be unsustainable.

How would you respond?

The earth is enormous. Clearly God made the earth as a temporary habitation for mankind. He has a time frame in mind as to how long humanity will multiply on this temporal globe before he ends the multiplication of the human species and converts the world into a new and eternal earth.
Therefore we can trust God that even if there was no war or disease and every woman had every child destined for her to have without contraception or abortion, that the earth would have the capacity to sustain that population.

However because of greed, mankind has ravaged the earth, turning the middle east and much of Africa from the most abundant food producing regions to being virtually deserts. Ethiopia used to be the breadbasket of the world, but now it is almost a desert and racked with starvation. Also we have horrendous greed and corruption where many nations consume more than they need for a comfortable life at the expense of other nations. We also have corrupt governments who feather their own nests while the people starve.
Overpopulation is a myth which is going to produce a disaster called the Demographic Winter which will see many selfish peoples completely disappear like the ancient Romans did. China is basically doomed. When all these one children get to age 30 they will have two elderly parents to support. There will not be enough resources to run trains or the equipment of civilisation. Nor will they be able to marry because of the dearth of females in their nation.

 

[kimmielittle]

Being the calorie counter that you are, you’ve got to realize that if you eat an acre of low-yield medium corn and an acre of low-yield medium potatoes, then you are going to be eating a different net yield of calories.

Actually wrong…

Calories a unit of energy measurement ] remain the same - That is why we can use it.

What you are trying to say is that different crops produce different calorie yields.

This is true:
BUT what happens? My crop of potatoes becomes more valuable.
We are not discussing values - but units of energy.
To save from getting into this argument trap, I used numbers for a low-medium calorie yield.

And, think of those tropical places where you can get three or four crops a year as I have been told when my numbers were in question.

It is a variable to consider - However, my 2,300,000 calorie units was a single crop.

Let say that my mixed vegetable garden which produces enough corn to run my hand tiller is not only varied enough to give me the nutritional requirements that I need, but surprisingly comes up with the very calorie count of a textbook case of a low-medium calorie acre. And that acre can produce enough net calorie gain to feed 2.5 people on an acre. Then if global land area divided by population is 5.3 acres per person and 11.61% (=10.57% arable + 1.04% permanent crops) is amount of land usable for growing crops (assuming those rascally UNFPA people didn’t fudge the CIA World FactBook numbers), then a person can only farm about 3/5ths an acre.

That means you really can only feed 1.5 persons (=3/5 * 2.5 persons).

Actually wrong…

Can you see where your maths are mistaken, in this above example?

Hint: You’ve tried to reduce the land mass to support your less calorie per acre figures. No matter how you divide the land mass - you don’t reduce the calorie yield of 1 acre. It has no effect. An acre of land still supports 2.5 people needs of calorie energy units.

AND BTW This would grow with professional farmer producers. They have a rate of 40% + more productivity in yields since 1968.

If the growth rate of population is 1% (1.14% for year 2000, I believe) then the population will double in 72 years and, then a baby born today will live to see his allotment of land halve when he/she is 72, producing enough food for only3/4 of a person. Of course, one could marry and get two allotments and feed 1.5 persons. Then that would certainly be self-adjusting as we might have to round down to 1 person and no offspring for the foreseeable future.

This assumes your above maths was correct - it isn’t.

It also assumes every individual farming their allotment of land as a single unit -
It also assumes everyone lives without death. could you provide an example of this? ]

Of course, being a city person I could solve the problem by planting high-yield jelly beans with high-high yield calories, in multi-colors so that when I look at my dinner plate and see all the color, I know I’m getting a balanced meal. I’m sure that would feed more persons per allotment of land.

I suspect this has been your argument all along…BUT it has been answered twice. 1 Joining co-ops 2 Free enterprise allows you to pile your plate in ways you wish. Contrary to belief, Farmers that produce, don’t eat their field corn.