How do I counter this Overpopulation argument?

[kimmielittle]

Wait a year or two after the $USA is not the international standard, inflation is out of control, and re-read and you’ll probably say “That boy is clairvoyant.”.

Not on energy sustainability. You first have to learn the principle

You know, this dialog would be more constructive if you conceded on what points I’m right. I’m really getting tired of YOUR WRONG.

Every time I’ve told you, “you were wrong” I’ve explained why. How much fairer could I be?

 

[wynnejj]

Not on energy sustainability. You first have to learn the principle

What is the point of measuring the caloric value of fossil fuel used
and the caloric value of human effort expended,
subtracting it from the caloric value of your crop yield of an acre, in your model,
unless you are going to use a portion of your crop yield
to replace each gallon of fossil fuel of a given grade of octane
with however many gallons it takes of ethanol gas
that can perform the same amount of work
equivalent to the caloric value of the fossil fuel used ,
thereby sustaining the viabily of your farming enterprise
with a renewable energy source of ethanol gas
with an adequate net capital gain of crop yield
whose caloric value is sufficent to feed the members of your family?

I have a Doctorate in Managing Manure from CAF University,
starting out with a little B.S. degree
continuing on with a P.H.D. (Piled Higher and Deeper).
I must admit that I know next to nothing about sustainable farming,
but you can bet I know my manure
and can spread it with the best of 'em.

 

[kimmielittle]

What is the point of measuring the caloric value of fossil fuel used

Caloric energy expended

and the caloric value of human effort expended,

Caloric energy expended

subtracting it from the caloric value of your crop yield of an acre, in your model,
unless you are going to use a portion of your crop yield
to replace each gallon of fossil fuel of a given grade of octane
with however many gallons it takes of ethanol gas
that can perform the same amount of work
equivalent to the caloric value of the fossil fuel used ,
thereby sustaining the viabily of your farming enterprise
with a renewable energy source of ethanol gas
with an adequate net capital gain of crop yield
whose caloric value is sufficent to feed the members of your family?

1 acre per person Actually, you gave me 1.45 acres ] . Using your acre numbers ALL I have to do is provide calorie (name removed by moderator)ut for ONE person - I have given you evidence as a matter of fact - you even supplied evidence ] that I have produced enough sustainable energy calories to provide for myself - plus 1.5 more peoples needs.

As an added note: I haven’t used / touched my .45 acres.

Since, I’m alone and have a surplus of calories - I can use that surplus for other needs including replacing 10 gallons of gas - however, experience shows, after the ground here is initially broke - I don’t need as much.

**Energy calorie ] expenditure is what we are counting against energy [calorie ] yields. Without your attempted add-ins. **

**Where I got the gas - how much the gas cost - doesn’t change it’s equivalent of 31,500 calories. **

I could have got it from my days off on my 1 acre …working for someone else. Remember I didn’t account for ANY days off - I charged a full 365 days labor and calorie loss of 1000 per day.

I never said the gas ITSELF was renewable / replaceable from my 1 acre …I said the caloric energy expended was accounted.

I have a Doctorate in Managing Manure from CAF University,
starting out with a little B.S. degree
continuing on with a P.H.D. (Piled Higher and Deeper).
I must admit that I know next to nothing about sustainable farming,
but you can bet I know my manure
and can spread it with the best of 'em.

No doubt

 

[Warrior1979]

I did some scanning over the weekend. I found this, which appears to be a relatively honest, unbiased discussion of the issues. It notes some of the difficulties in determining that actually energy (name removed by moderator)uts amongst other issues. Also, even though it favors organic methods, it gives and honest discussion that not much energy is saved by going organic.

organic-center.org/reportfiles/ENERGY_SSR.pdf

It states that on average twice as much energy is (name removed by moderator)ut as output.

 

[kimmielittle]

I did some scanning over the weekend. I found this, which appears to be a relatively honest, unbiased discussion of the issues. It notes some of the difficulties in determining that actually energy (name removed by moderator)uts amongst other issues. Also, even though it favors organic methods, it gives and honest discussion that not much energy is saved by going organic.

organic-center.org/reportfiles/ENERGY_SSR.pdf

It states that on average twice as much energy is (name removed by moderator)ut as output.

Thanks for the link

I don’t think I agree with your assessment “It states that on average twice as much energy is (name removed by moderator)ut as output”] of what it’s conclusions state.

From your link:

V. CONCLUSIONS
Organic farming systems significantly ** reduce the fossil energy (name removed by moderator)uts** in
production and also improve several aspects of agriculture’s environmental
performance compared with conventional farming systems.

This SSR reports several key findings:

• Fossil energy (name removed by moderator)uts in organic corn production were 31 percent** lower**
than conventional corn production, and the energy (name removed by moderator)uts for organic
soybean production were 17 percent **lower **than conventional soybean
production.

• No commercial nitrogen was used in the organic corn and soybean
production systems.

• No synthetic pesticides were used in the organic corn and soybean
production systems.

• Soil erosion was significantly reduced in the organic production
systems compared with the conventional production systems, thus
conserving nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium.

• Water resources were conserved in the organic production systems
compared with the conventional production systems.

• Corn and soybean organic farming system-yields during drought years
were 30 percent and 50 percent higher than the conventional corn and
soybean-yields, respectively.

• Soil organic matter in the organic farming systems was 54 percent
higher than in the conventional farming systems.

• The organic corn farming system collected 180 percent more solar
energy than the conventional corn farming system.

• The organic beef grass-fed system required 50 percent less fossil
energy than the conventional grain-fed beef system.

 

[Warrior1979]

Thanks for the link

I don’t think I agree with your assessment “It states that on average twice as much energy is (name removed by moderator)ut as output”] of what it’s conclusions state.

From your link:

I have no idea why you bolded the above. Did you even read the link?; see page 6.

 

[kimmielittle]

I have no idea why you bolded the above.

Because your assessment doesn’t match SSR’s conclusions?

Did you even read the link?; .

Where do you think I got SSR’s conclusion I posted

see page 6

Can you point out what on page six 6 ] supports your assessment. please?

If The SSR supported your assessment why does it find /make these conclusions? These are contrary to what you have said.

Page 34

V. CONCLUSIONS
Organic farming systems significantly reduce the fossil energy (name removed by moderator)uts in
production and also improve several aspects of agriculture’s environmental
performance compared with conventional farming systems.

This SSR reports several key findings:

• Fossil energy (name removed by moderator)uts in organic corn production were 31 percent lower
than conventional corn production, and the energy (name removed by moderator)uts for organic
soybean production were 17 percent lower than conventional soybean
production.

• No commercial nitrogen was used in the organic corn and soybean
production systems.

• No synthetic pesticides were used in the organic corn and soybean
production systems.

• Soil erosion was significantly reduced in the organic production
systems compared with the conventional production systems, thus
conserving nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium.

• Water resources were conserved in the organic production systems
compared with the conventional production systems.

• Corn and soybean organic farming system-yields during drought years
were 30 percent and 50 percent higher than the conventional corn and
soybean-yields, respectively.

• Soil organic matter in the organic farming systems was 54 percent
higher than in the conventional farming systems.

• The organic corn farming system collected 180 percent more solar
energy than the conventional corn farming system.

• The organic beef grass-fed system required 50 percent less fossil
energy than the conventional grain-fed beef system.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Kimmie,

You have raised some interesting challenges to the “arable land” and “non-arable land” issue.

If we are raising food for human consumption, AND if we “evaluate” [for the lack of a better word] what is raised on our little half hectare, using the caloric content of the food, then that opens up a whole 'nuther set of calculations:

In order to till the soil and plant the seeds / tend the trees and bushes, and fertilize the food crops and harvest the crop, we can either do the work by hand and use night soil … all of which expends human caloric energy …

OR … we can use “concentrated energy” … petroleum products.

We can use a tractor to till and to plant. We can use NPK fertilizers manufactured in a factory located on non-arable land … using natural gas and electricity [which may derive from nuclear power (using uranium mined in non-arable land) or derived from coal (mined in non-arable land) …

So we can use non-arable land to produce food.

We can build greenhouses … the glass is produced from sand from non-arable land … and the heat to melt the silica into glass can come from electricity [again from coal or nuclear] or from natural gas-fired furnaces.

And we can site the greenhouses in places where the land is non-arable.

We can use intensive cultivation (such as greenhouses) or we can use non-arable land with drip irrigation.

We can use greenhouses in cold climates if geothermal heat is available in sufficient quantities.

In hilly terrain, we can construct plantable terraces up the sides of the mountains, as people have been doing for thousands of years … thereby converting non-arable land into arable land.

We can grow crops in one area that may not be arable but suited for certain limited agriculture … fast growing trees that do not demand much in terms of (name removed by moderator)ut … palm trees and bananas, for example, but which can be traded for other edible commodities.

There are hundreds of varieties of bananas and many of them just grow wild; HOWEVER, the Gran Nain banana, which is eaten by people in temperate climates, is grown in non-arable soils subject to annual droughts and floods, but it is transportable on refrigerated ships. So the growers use intense irrigation and flood control and artificial fertilizers. Which they have been doing for more than a hundred years; works pretty well in converting non-arable land to arable land and provides useful and profitable employment for tens of thousands of people and winter fresh fruit for people in colder climates.

So I really question whether the limited categories afforded us by the CIA are actually relevant.

 

[Warrior1979]

Because your assessment doesn’t match SSR’s conclusions?

Once again, it’s not my assessment.

Can you point out what on page six 6 ] supports your assessment. please?

Once again, it’s not my assessment.

In order to find the reference on page 6, I went to page 6:

On farms throughout the developed world, considerable fossil energy is
invested in the course of agricultural production. On average in the U.S., about
2 kcal of fossil energy is invested to harvest 1 kcal of a crop. This high degree of
dependence on fossil energy per hectare of crop harvested in America arises
more from how food is grown, coupled with the pursuit of ever-higher yields,
rather than the inherent physiological dependence of major agronomic crops on
energy-based (name removed by moderator)uts. It also reflects a lack of concern and focus on energy use
and efficiency in farm production over the last half century, a period during
which most people took for granted, almost as a birthright, ample supplies of
affordable fossil energy.

If The SSR supported your assessment why does it find /make these conclusions? These are contrary to what you have said.

No they are not. It simply demonstrates that you are not understanding what your are reading. Your simply picking out one part of the link I noted and not putting it in its proper context. One has to look at the big picture, not one segment and view it as happening in a vacuum.

 

[kimmielittle]

Originally Posted by Warrior1979

I did some scanning over the weekend. I found this, which appears to be a relatively honest, unbiased discussion of the issues. It notes some of the difficulties in determining that actually energy (name removed by moderator)uts amongst other issues. Also, even though it favors organic methods, it gives and honest discussion that not much energy is saved by going organic.

organic-center.org/report…ENERGY_SSR.pdf

It states that on average twice as much energy is (name removed by moderator)ut as output.

Let’s look at how you setup this statement:

Also, even though it favors organic methods, it gives and honest discussion that not much energy is saved by going organic.

Then you provided a link:

organic-center.org/report…ENERGY_SSR.pdf

Then you made this statement:

It states that on average twice as much energy is (name removed by moderator)ut as output.

A person reading would, with reason, associate the last statement:

It states that on average twice as much energy is (name removed by moderator)ut as output.

To your first statement:

Also, even though it favors organic methods, it gives and honest discussion that not much energy is saved by going organic.

The last statement refers to conventional farming NOT organic. The point of discussion on page 6 of the PDF - is conventional farming.

Now as to your first statement:

Also, even though it favors organic methods, it gives and honest discussion that not much energy is saved by going organic.

• Fossil energy (name removed by moderator)uts in organic corn production were 31 percent lower
than conventional corn production, and the energy (name removed by moderator)uts for organic
soybean production were 17 percent lower than conventional soybean
production.

• No commercial nitrogen was used in the organic corn and soybean
production systems.

• No synthetic pesticides were used in the organic corn and soybean
production systems.

• Soil erosion was significantly reduced in the organic production
systems compared with the conventional production systems, thus
conserving nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium.

• Water resources were conserved in the organic production systems
compared with the conventional production systems.

• Corn and soybean organic farming system-yields during drought years
were 30 percent and 50 percent higher than the conventional corn and
soybean-yields, respectively.

• Soil organic matter in the organic farming systems was 54 percent
higher than in the conventional farming systems.

• The organic corn farming system collected 180 percent more solar
energy than the conventional corn farming system.

• The organic beef grass-fed system required 50 percent less fossil
energy than the conventional grain-fed beef system.

Do not support your statement of:

Also, even though it favors organic methods, it gives and honest discussion that not much energy is saved by going organic.

 

[kimmielittle]

Kimmie,

You have raised some interesting challenges to the “arable land” and “non-arable land” issue.

If we are raising food for human consumption, AND if we “evaluate” [for the lack of a better word] what is raised on our little half hectare, using the caloric content of the food, then that opens up a whole 'nuther set of calculations:

In order to till the soil and plant the seeds / tend the trees and bushes, and fertilize the food crops and harvest the crop, we can either do the work by hand and use night soil … all of which expends human caloric energy …

OR … we can use “concentrated energy” … petroleum products.

We can use a tractor to till and to plant. We can use NPK fertilizers manufactured in a factory located on non-arable land … using natural gas and electricity [which may derive from nuclear power (using uranium mined in non-arable land) or derived from coal (mined in non-arable land) …

So we can use non-arable land to produce food.

We can build greenhouses … the glass is produced from sand from non-arable land … and the heat to melt the silica into glass can come from electricity [again from coal or nuclear] or from natural gas-fired furnaces.

And we can site the greenhouses in places where the land is non-arable.

We can use intensive cultivation (such as greenhouses) or we can use non-arable land with drip irrigation.

We can use greenhouses in cold climates if geothermal heat is available in sufficient quantities.

In hilly terrain, we can construct plantable terraces up the sides of the mountains, as people have been doing for thousands of years … thereby converting non-arable land into arable land.

We can grow crops in one area that may not be arable but suited for certain limited agriculture … fast growing trees that do not demand much in terms of (name removed by moderator)ut … palm trees and bananas, for example, but which can be traded for other edible commodities.

There are hundreds of varieties of bananas and many of them just grow wild; HOWEVER, the Gran Nain banana, which is eaten by people in temperate climates, is grown in non-arable soils subject to annual droughts and floods, but it is transportable on refrigerated ships. So the growers use intense irrigation and flood control and artificial fertilizers. Which they have been doing for more than a hundred years; works pretty well in converting non-arable land to arable land and provides useful and profitable employment for tens of thousands of people and winter fresh fruit for people in colder climates.

So I really question whether the limited categories afforded us by the CIA are actually relevant.

Well Said!!!

 

[Holly3278]

I think you will find the following website to be of good use in counteracting “overpopulation” arguments:

pop.org/

Also, even if the world is indeed becoming overpopulated, would that really justify the use of contraception or abortion? No, it would not! Let’s say that a town has limited space to build houses and such and the population is booming and the town is quickly running out of space for the people. What would be the ethical solution to such a problem? Would it be to run around shooting people in the head and sterilizing people so that there is more space??? No! The ethical solution would be to innovate and create more space by doing such things as tearing down existing housing sections of the city and building high rise apartments and such so that there is more room for people! But what if the town is also running out food? Well, the ethical solution to that would be to innovate and find ways to grow more food! Regardless of whether or not overpopulation is a reality, that still does not justify immoral actions such as the use of contraceptives or abortion!

 

[kimmielittle]

I think you will find the following website to be of good use in counteracting “overpopulation” arguments:

pop.org/

Hiyas Holly

I have used those excellent links.

Instead of challenging what has been pointed out on those links…They get dismissed as being presented in cartoonist fashion.

Also, even if the world is indeed becoming overpopulated, would that really justify the use of contraception or abortion? No, it would not! Let’s say that a town has limited space to build houses and such and the population is booming and the town is quickly running out of space for the people. What would be the ethical solution to such a problem? Would it be to run around shooting people in the head and sterilizing people so that there is more space??? No! The ethical solution would be to innovate and create more space by doing such things as tearing down existing housing sections of the city and building high rise apartments and such so that there is more room for people! But what if the town is also running out food? Well, the ethical solution to that would be to innovate and find ways to grow more food! Regardless of whether or not overpopulation is a reality, that still does not justify immoral actions such as the use of contraceptives or abortion!

 

[Warrior1979]

Once again, I’m simply spewing out information contained in the link. Start with page 3.

Efficiencies can be obtained in certain areas; we all recognize it. In other areas it is exceedingly difficult. However, certain things will not change. Net energy will always be negative, fossil fuels will continue to diminish (and their costs increase due to lack of availability). If we don’t have another fuel of similar density to replace fossil fuels, we (name removed by moderator)utting less “artificial” energy into the agricultural process, and yields will diminish accordingly…organic or not.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Once again, I’m simply spewing out information contained in the link. Start with page 3.

Efficiencies can be obtained in certain areas; we all recognize it. In other areas it is exceedingly difficult. However, certain things will not change. Net energy will always be negative, fossil fuels will continue to diminish (and their costs increase due to lack of availability). If we don’t have another fuel of similar density to replace fossil fuels, we (name removed by moderator)utting less “artificial” energy into the agricultural process, and yields will diminish accordingly…organic or not.

The issue of non-availability of future fossil fuels is an utterly bankrupt notion.

We have discovered in the past few years that there is an unlimited supply of natural gas and oil … in the pores / lattice structure of shale rock … trapped about one mile deep … and easily accessible via horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.

Hydraulic fracturing has been used for about 60 years and approximately one million times.

By combining hydraulic fracturing with horizontal drilling and some very high tech 3-D seismic studies, it has now been found that we can access these resources.

And as geologists look at rock structures in other countries, they are finding HUGE natural gas resources in places like off-shore Israel and in Poland. Looks like natural gas and shale oil will actually be dirt cheap and abundant.

Protesters are fighting developing these resources in some places such as upstate New York. But meanwhile everybody else is going as fast as they can.

 

[Warrior1979]

The issue of non-availability of future fossil fuels is an utterly bankrupt notion.

We have discovered in the past few years that there is an unlimited supply of natural gas and oil … in the pores / lattice structure of shale rock … trapped about one mile deep … and easily accessible via horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.

Fossil fuels will always be available. The issue is, and will continue to be, the cost to obtain them, which is increasing over time. When their net energy becomes negative, they cannot be used on anything other than a small scale. Large scale use means larger scale energy (name removed by moderator)ut to obtain the materials.

Also, if one wants to argue proper management of resources, we cannot consider a particular country’s resources as their own. They consideration of dividing the resources amongst the other countries must be considered.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Fossil fuels will always be available. The issue is, and will continue to be, the cost to obtain them, which is increasing over time. When their net energy becomes negative, they cannot be used on anything other than a small scale. Large scale use means larger scale energy (name removed by moderator)ut to obtain the materials.

Also, if one wants to argue proper management of resources, we cannot consider a particular country’s resources as their own. They consideration of dividing the resources amongst the other countries must be considered.

So much natural gas is flooding into the market already, and this is just the beginning, that the market price is pretty much rock bottom.

Other countries are RAPIDLY … as fast as they can … beginning to construct electric-generating power plants that use natural gas.

This has nothing to do with some economic theory. It is a fact that natural gas from shale is abundant and cheap … because even though hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling is more expensive than drilling vertical wells, the volume of gas is overwhelming large.

We are not dealing here with a scarce resource. In the past two years, shale-based natural gas has surprised everyone.

 

[GEddie]

Fossil fuels will always be available. The issue is, and will continue to be, the cost to obtain them, which is increasing over time. When their net energy becomes negative, they cannot be used on anything other than a small scale. Large scale use means larger scale energy (name removed by moderator)ut to obtain the materials.

Also, if one wants to argue proper management of resources, we cannot consider a particular country’s resources as their own. They consideration of dividing the resources amongst the other countries must be considered.

Nope, as long as national sovereignty remains, each country can claim what lies under its subsoil as its own. That’s what nationalization is all about.

One day, national sovereignty will be supplanted by a world government, possibly because of a need for world resource management. But it won’t happen for generations, nor without serious conflict.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

We, the people of the world, have suddenly discovered … in the past two years … that there is SO much natural gas available … that the proposed natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the “south 48” has been canceled.

There is no longer any need to get natural gas from Alaska, because there is so much of it in a long geographic area from North Dakota south to southern Texas, east to Arkansas and up to New York State and then west to Michigan.

And other countries have made similar discoveries.

The age of scarce and expensive energy is OVER.

 

[Warrior1979]

The age of scarce and expensive energy is OVER.

Awesome! I remember that when I pay my oil bill and fill up my car this morning.