Overpopulation thread: how many planets does your lifestyle require?

[Bluegoat]

What the United States should do is to support pro-democracy movements instead of supporting dictators like Chavez and Castro. Zimbwabwe used to be a very prosperous country, but decades of dictatorial mismanagement has caused the country to become an impoverished thug-ocracy.

The US has often supported thugs and dictators who abuse their populace if it supports their own economic interests.

Yes, many populations starve etc because of evil governments, or due to war. However, both of these things are often tied to the political actions of Western nations, who look to their own economic interests, which are often served by those governments and their policies. The US, for example, is unlikely to put much pressure on China over human rights or the environment, not only because of China’s military power, but because they have loaned the US a huge amount of money.

You mention US support of Castro and Cube, which is a bit amusing, given their attitude since the Cuban revolution. Though it is in many ways a very repressive government, it has been much better than the one which preceded it, which was protected by the US as long as it was useful.

Politics and economics and the environment are very hard to separate.

 

[holy_moly]

Fairly distributing resources doesn’t mean the individual doesn’t matter, it means all individuals matter, not just the rich ones. Why should some people have the right to a disproportionate share of the planet?

They can win this right by force, but is it moral?

I think it’s a fallacy to think that if I have more, someone else necessarily has less…

 

[Arandur]

Flyingfish, if you’re still around, it may take me some time to get to things (job hunting takes a ton of time, and now we have even more pressure to move).

However, I’m unsure really of what you want me to back up. What of my claims do you think need supporting?

The sufficiency of existing technology, if more widely implemented, is a matter of math and logic. It doesn’t really require anything else.

Did you doubt the population trends that show population peaking and declining during this century?

Did you doubt the economic trends and human innovations that have matched our needs without Malthusian crises? Or the basic principles of economic scarcity, the price mechanism, supply and demand, and the trend to switch to alternatives?

I already did post links to what the pope thinks and some of what the Church has said about the subject, to contradict some of your assertions. Did you need more of those?

I’m just unsure what you wanted me to provide.

 

[flyingfish]

Flyingfish, if you’re still around, it may take me some time to get to things (job hunting takes a ton of time, and now we have even more pressure to move).

That’s fine, I’m in no rush. But maybe when you get around to responding send it to me in PM in case I lose track of this thread (or post to both, in case others are interested as well).

However, I’m unsure really of what you want me to back up. What of my claims do you think need supporting?

Main claim you made that I would be interested in seeing studies about is that modern farming techniques do not deplete soil/cause salinization/are unsustainable in light of limited fossil fuels.

Also you claimed that hydroponics can feed a growing population, but hydroponics also requires resources to run. Does the world have these resources for everyone. (I don’t doubt that Americans can do this, but can Bangladesh or Somalia)?

And last, what would need to happen today for everyone alive today to have our lifestyle. Any scientific treatment of this (like counting the resources to show there is enough for everyone today) will do.

The sufficiency of existing technology, if more widely implemented, is a matter of math and logic. It doesn’t really require anything else.

Right, but also of resources. The world today does not have the resources to send everyone on a vacation to Mars even though we have the technology.

Did you doubt the population trends that show population peaking and declining during this century?

The point is how this is achieved, artificial birth control or NFP.

Did you doubt the economic trends and human innovations that have matched our needs without Malthusian crises? Or the basic principles of economic scarcity, the price mechanism, supply and demand, and the trend to switch to alternatives?

I think there is a limit to human innovation. We’re not infinitely intelligent. I don’t know what our limit is, and hopefully you’re right and we’ll be able to innovate ourselves out of this mess.

I also think we in the West have been insulated from “Malthusian crises”, and it’s easy for us to believe there is enough for everyone when each of us on average gets 5 times our share.

The rest of the world is not so lucky.

I already did post links to what the pope thinks and some of what the Church has said about the subject, to contradict some of your assertions. Did you need more of those?

The Church has never specified what just reasons for the use of NFP are.

 

[Arandur]

Let me see if I can narrow this down a bit more, Flyingfish.

Main claim you made that I would be interested in seeing studies about is that modern farming techniques do not deplete soil/cause salinization/are unsustainable in light of limited fossil fuels.

When I spoke of “modern” techniques, I was referring to such things as seed drilling, contour farming, mixed crop rotations (not strict monoculture), riparian preservation, use of windbreaks, and region-appropriate agriculture (no water-intensive crops in arid areas, agriculture sensitive to soil composition, etc). I was not referring to strict monoculture and vast indiscriminate use of irrigation, artificial fertilizer, and herbicides/pesticides characteristic of many decades-old processes that you and the National Geographic examples decried earlier.

Do you believe these methods are so destructive, still? Yes, they require sophistication and education and are made much more efficient with machinery. As for the “fossil fuel” use of these machines, they are far less than any other sector of fossil fuel use. Do you really believe that our earth cannot accept one drop of fuel to be combusted, or is there an acceptable level of use?
I’ve already covered how current known reserves of petroleum + oil sands far exceed 100 years of projected use. If we transition to primarily electric vehicles, that will become virtually limitless reserves. It IS limitless if we develop waste fuels, like cellulosic ethanol or biodiesel generated from our wastes. These existing technologies, though currently more expensive than less sustainable methods, still demonstrate that these modern techniques are sustainable using existing technology.

Can we agree on any of that? What do you still doubt, have a problem with, or require backup on with regard to farming techniques?

Also you claimed that hydroponics can feed a growing population, but hydroponics also requires resources to run. Does the world have these resources for everyone. (I don’t doubt that Americans can do this, but can Bangladesh or Somalia)?

Hydroponics physical resources required are: greenhouse structures, water, nutrients, energy (IF sunlight is being supplemented; it is not strictly necessary).

1. Greenhouse structures are the most expensive component. They can be constructed of cheap polyethylene sheets over wood, plastic, or metal frames, or can be glass or polycarbonate. All of these are widely available resources. You may not like petroleum-based products, but they do not use a very significant portion of available resources, some can be synthesized artificially, and there are alternatives (glass, made from the most abundant mineral on the planet–silica).
2. Water requirements are often 90% less than other forms of agriculture when used efficiently, so hydroponics actually vastly reduces water required for agriculture.
3. Nutrient delivery is also much more efficient than in other forms of agriculture. They are most efficiently generated by chemical processes, but an innovator in India seems to have found a method of producing nutrient solutions organically. This is being explored by other sources as well.
4. Energy (name removed by moderator)ut is not required, but can increase yields or permit local cultivation of many crops well outside their normal survival zones and year round. Technology exists today to convert entirely to sustainable, non-polluting energy forms, so again, carrying capacity/sustainability is quite possible under current technology.

And last, what would need to happen today for everyone alive today to have our lifestyle. Any scientific treatment of this (like counting the resources to show there is enough for everyone today) will do.

My response depends on what you will accept. If you require that the American average lifestyle must be provided in the same static means and proportions by which it is supplied today, like many enviros do, I will say your expectation is totally unrealistic and there is no point in responding.

If you consider trends and available current technology, then we must assume that energy needs can be provided 100% with clean, renewable sources, removing energy from concern in the equation. We must assume that food can similarly be produced, due to the above mentioned techniques, removing food from concern in the equation. We must assume that recycling technology and proper waste disposal and pollution remediation by currently-available methods is our standard, greatly reducing waste and pollution and harvesting of new mineral resources from concern in the equation. We must consider the availability of recycled and renewable or abundant building materials (plastics and metal as reyclable; wood as renewable; stone/clay/concrete essentially unlimited), just about eliminating building materials from concern in the equation.

What are we left with that we are concerned about? A few trace scarce minerals? A small fraction of wastes that must be stored, cannot be eliminated with biodegradable or recyclable alternatives? What do you doubt, what evidence do you still need that we have the technology and resources available for the modern American lifestyle to be made sustainable?

All of that assumes no innovation, just application of currently-available technology and practices.

Would you allow the use of trend calculations in measuring likely rates of innovation and discovery of alternatives?

Right, but also of resources. The world today does not have the resources to send everyone on a vacation to Mars even though we have the technology.

We don’t really have the technology yet to send people to Mars.
I addressed resources above.

The point is how this is achieved, artificial birth control or NFP.

Seems like you’re considering an ideal. Using Catholic moral approaches to NFP permit consideration of ability to provide for children. With each household making that decision based on its available resources, population would naturally be kept in line with resources available to provide for it.

 

[Arandur]

I think there is a limit to human innovation. We’re not infinitely intelligent. I don’t know what our limit is, and hopefully you’re right and we’ll be able to innovate ourselves out of this mess.

We already have the technology. Do you realize that, though homo sapiens has been on the planet some 200,000 years, the pace of innovation has only accelerated? Some 20,000 years of civilization, 200 years of industry, 20 years of the Information Age. It’s a logarithmic acceleration. The world has changed more due to innovation and technology in the past 20 years than in the past 200, maybe even the past 200,000. I suggest to you that your view that humans, created in the image and likeness of God, have a limit to their innovation is incompatible with the Catholic faith. I believe it shows a lack of belief in our creation in God’s image, our subsequent capacity for creation derived from Him, in the scale and magnitude of God’s own creation that we have to utilize, in God’s own infinite being, and in God’s desires for human growth as His children. Put another way, if there could ever be a time when God’s children could not grow, had nothing more to create or explore, it would deny God’s very being.

In addition to being antithetical to the Catholic faith, I believe such a position simply finds all available evidence lined up to the contrary, with none to support it.

 

[Bluegoat]

My response depends on what you will accept. If you require that the American average lifestyle must be provided in the same static means and proportions by which it is supplied today, like many enviros do, I will say your expectation is totally unrealistic and there is no point in responding.

It seems to me though, that it is worth responding to, because that is indeed what many Westerners seem to expect. Not to mention some posters in this thread, who not only think our levels of wealth will need to be maintained, but that they should continue to grow.

A lot of environmentalists point out the impossibility of continuing at present levels because they are trying to get people to realize that they, or their children, will have to create some new concept of what “good living” means. But people seem terribly blind at actually accepting the consequences of what that means into their lives. That acceptance is one of the huge hurdles many environmentalists would love to achieve, so I don’t think it is obvious in the way you are implying.

 

[flyingfish]

Can we agree on any of that? What do you still doubt, have a problem with, or require backup on with regard to farming techniques?

I would like to see scientific papers about it, yes. I only asked you because I thought you might already know of a bunch without needing to do the research.

If that’s not the case, and you’d rather not spend the time looking for them, that’s fine.

My response depends on what you will accept. If you require that the American average lifestyle must be provided in the same static means and proportions by which it is supplied today, like many enviros do, I will say your expectation is totally unrealistic and there is no point in responding.

An American average lifestyle, yes (with the houses, electricity, appliances, water, transportation, a diet containing meat) but as you claimed earlier provided with the superior technologies that you said could achieve a good quality of life for every existing human being.

If some of us have to live in one room shacks without electricity and eat nothign but rice every day, that is not enough.

what evidence do you still need that we have the technology and resources available for the modern American lifestyle to be made sustainable?

If any scientists ever did an analysis (numbers and all that) of how much it would require
in terms of resources, and showed we have enough to provide for every human being, I’d like to see that.

But, as I said before, I don’t expect you to spend your time to do research for some internet forum. I just thought you had read such papers in the past and would remember them.

 

[flyingfish]

We already have the technology. Do you realize that, though homo sapiens has been on the planet some 200,000 years, the pace of innovation has only accelerated? Some 20,000 years of civilization, 200 years of industry, 20 years of the Information Age. It’s a logarithmic acceleration. The world has changed more due to innovation and technology in the past 20 years than in the past 200, maybe even the past 200,000. I suggest to you that your view that humans, created in the image and likeness of God, have a limit to their innovation is incompatible with the Catholic faith. I believe it shows a lack of belief in our creation in God’s image, our subsequent capacity for creation derived from Him, in the scale and magnitude of God’s own creation that we have to utilize, in God’s own infinite being, and in God’s desires for human growth as His children. Put another way, if there could ever be a time when God’s children could not grow, had nothing more to create or explore, it would deny God’s very being.

In addition to being antithetical to the Catholic faith, I believe such a position simply finds all available evidence lined up to the contrary, with none to support it.

I don’t see how saying that humans will never be omnipotent or omniscient is contrary to Catholic teaching. That really what it amounts to in my opinion.

Unless we start genetically modifying ourselves at some point, or ehnanching our brains with technology, and for that matter even if we do those things we might still hit a limit. That unless we don’t blow ourselves up first, or screw up the planet to the extent that it becomes unlivable.

 

[Arandur]

I would like to see scientific papers about it, yes. I only asked you because I thought you might already know of a bunch without needing to do the research.

If that’s not the case, and you’d rather not spend the time looking for them, that’s fine.

Much of what I know comes from books, journals, and studies a few years old, so no, I don’t recall sources off the top of my head.

I asked if you doubted still because your criticism seemed focused on old monoculture techniques with indiscriminate chemical use and inefficient water and soil preservation. Those techniques (and, moreover, improper application of them) is what the National Geographic article focused on, and what I presume your criticisms are about. More advanced techniques address soil erosion and nutrient depletion, water conservation, stream and wetlands protection, control of pollution, and reduced-chemical pest management. Do you have studies showing that these are still environmentally harmful?

Consider newer methods of tillage, seed drilling, polyculture, contour farming, crop rotation, and biological controls, all methods that actually increase often yields as well as preserving the environment. Even Western methods of organic farming and other alternatives pursued in agroecology and permaculture produce far higher yields than most of the Third World does. Even in the U.S., organic foods are often only marginally more expensive than others from farming methods that are more chemically-dependent.

An American average lifestyle, yes (with the houses, electricity, appliances, water, transportation, a diet containing meat) but as you claimed earlier provided with the superior technologies that you said could achieve a good quality of life for every existing human being.

I’m confused about your response. I listed the existing technologies that essentially remove or dramatically reduce the environmental concerns for all major sources of consumption in the average American lifestyle: energy use, food consumption, waste generation, construction materials. Did you doubt that those sustainable technologies exist that essentially eliminate those concerns?

If any scientists ever did an analysis (numbers and all that) of how much it would require
in terms of resources, and showed we have enough to provide for every human being, I’d like to see that.

There are statistics here and there of “if everybody used this,” or “if all our energy came from that source,” and similar comparisons of commonly-used technologies to newer, more sustainable ones. I am not aware of an overall calculation that does so, but I do know that the environmentalists that generate such numbers are not using figures based on adoption of sustainable technologies already in existence. They are using static figures comparing current primary sources and outputs and extrapolating that unrealistically to a worldwide application. They’re not interested in calculating adoption of sustainable technologies because they can’t give gloom and doom predictions if they do, and therefore can’t scare people into supporting power grabs for control of economic resources and decisions.

I don’t see how saying that humans will never be omnipotent or omniscient is contrary to Catholic teaching. That really what it amounts to in my opinion.

Unless we start genetically modifying ourselves at some point, or ehnanching our brains with technology, and for that matter even if we do those things we might still hit a limit. That unless we don’t blow ourselves up first, or screw up the planet to the extent that it becomes unlivable.

I think we misunderstood each other.

It sounded to me like you were saying that man would reach a point where he would no longer be able to invent new things (“everything that can be invented has been invented,” a famously false phrase from the industrial age), be able to find solutions to problems, or adapt to his environment. To me that sounds like saying man’s creativity is limited, God’s creation is limited in the ways things can be combined and produced, and man will eventually exhaust God’s possibilities.

If you’re actually saying something about man’s personal power of omniscience or omnipotence, I wouldn’t argue that, but I wouldn’t see the connection to a discussion about the environment.

 

[flyingfish]

I asked if you doubted still because your criticism seemed focused on old monoculture techniques with indiscriminate chemical use and inefficient water and soil preservation. Those techniques (and, moreover, improper application of them) is what the National Geographic article focused on, and what I presume your criticisms are about. More advanced techniques address soil erosion and nutrient depletion, water conservation, stream and wetlands protection, control of pollution, and reduced-chemical pest management. Do you have studies showing that these are still environmentally harmful?

The National Geographic article also claims that:

"Agricultural productivity growth is only one to two percent a year," warned Joachim von Braun, director general of the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington, D.C., at the height of the crisis. "This is too low to meet population growth and increased demand."
…

**In other words, we need another green revolution. And we need it in half the time. **

…

**Many crop scientists and farmers believe the solution to our current food crisis lies in a second green revolution, based largely on our newfound knowledge of the gene. **Plant breeders now know the sequence of nearly all of the 50,000 or so genes in corn and soybean plants and are using that knowledge in ways that were unimaginable only four or five years ago, says Robert Fraley, chief technology officer for the agricultural giant Monsanto. Fraley is convinced that genetic modification, which allows breeders to bolster crops with beneficial traits from other species, will lead to new varie*ties with higher yields, reduced fertilizer needs, and drought tolerance—the holy grail for the past decade. He believes biotech will make it possible to double yields of Monsanto’s core crops of corn, cotton, and soybeans by 2030. "We’re now poised to see probably the greatest period of fundamental scientific advance in the history of agriculture.

…

**So far, genetic breakthroughs that would free green revolution crops from their heavy dependence on irrigation and fertilizer have proved elusive. Engineering plants that can fix their own nitrogen or are resistant to drought “has proven a lot harder than they thought,” ** says Pollan. Monsanto’s Fraley predicts his company will have drought-tolerant corn in the U.S. market by 2012. But the increased yields promised during drought years are only 6 to 10 percent above those of standard drought-hammered crops.

Apparently the people at National Geographic are unaware of technologies that according to you are not only sustainable but more importantly can generate the yield to feed our growing population.

I do not doubt that there are ways to farm without depleting the soil or causing salinization.
The issue here is not whether such methods exist (they do), but whether they can produce the same yields and are affordable.

The high yield genetically engineered plants often simply will not grow without the kind of intensive irrigation that causes salinization, nor will they grow without the fossil fuel based fertilizers and pesticides.

–

As for the capacity of new technologies not yet widely use and not-yet-invented-technologies to provide a good quality of life for our large population, I can’t really agree or disagree with you without seeing figures. Without the actual numbers it’s nothing but speculation and I don’t have an opinion either way.

Hopefully you’re right and it can be done.

 

[mesurman]

About a thousand. My “Carbon Footprint” is bigger than yours. This is a bunch of hooey!!!

 

[Arandur]

The National Geographic article also claims that:

The quote on productivity growth was related to current trends, not what existing methods and technology is capable of, so it is no reflection on our capability to produce.

Apparently the people at National Geographic are unaware of technologies that according to you are not only sustainable but more importantly can generate the yield to feed our growing population.

Apparently they are. That’s not a surprise. There’s a lot of information out there. Journalists, even those on a particular beat like a particular science, have a notorious lack of understanding or acquaintance with the breadth of subjects that even academics find difficult to keep with.

I do not doubt that there are ways to farm without depleting the soil or causing salinization.
The issue here is not whether such methods exist (they do), but whether they can produce the same yields and are affordable.

If you doubt, you should do research. You seem to care about this subject quite a bit, yet you seem unwilling to go beyond a fatalistic assumption that we are doomed unless we reduce our population.

There is some low-hanging fruit in your research that should very quickly address your fears and prove my point: Wikipedia.

Look up “Organic Farming.” The various advanced techniques I mentioned that still take advantage of significant mechanization to reduce labor are not grouped together under one heading as well as organic farming techniques are, and they still require more capital investment than organic farming does.

Pay attention to this section in particular: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_agriculture

Productivity and profitability
A 2006 study suggests that converted organic farms have lower pre-harvest yields than their conventional counterparts **in developed countries (92%) **and that organic farms have higher pre-harvest yields than their low-intensity counterparts in developing countries (132%). The researcher attributes this to a relative lack of expensive fertilizers and pesticides in the developing world compared to the intensive, subsidy-driven farming of the developed world. Nonetheless, the researcher purposely avoids making the claim that organic methods routinely outperform green-revolution (conventional) methods.[21] This study incorporated a 1990 review of 205 crop comparisons which found that organic crops had **91% of conventional yields.**22] A major US survey published in 2001, analyzed results from 150 growing seasons for various crops and concluded that organic yields were 95-100% of conventional yields.[23]

Lotter (2003:10) reports that repeated studies have found that organic farms withstand severe weather conditions better than conventional farms, sometimes yielding 70-90% more than conventional farms during droughts. A 22-year farm trial study by Cornell University published in 2005 concluded that organic farming produces the same corn and soybean yields as conventional methods over the long-term averages, but consumed less energy and used zero pesticides. The results were attributed to lower yields in general but higher yields during drought years.[24] A study of 1,804 organic farms in Central America hit by Hurricane Mitch in 1998 found that the **organic farms sustained the damage much better, retaining 20 to 40% more topsoil and smaller economic losses at highly significant levels than their neighbors.**25]

On the other hand, a prominent 21-year Swiss study found an average of **20% lower organic yields over conventional, along with 50% lower expenditure on fertilizer and energy, and 97% less pesticides.**26] A long-term study by U.S Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists concluded that, contrary to widespread belief, organic farming can build up soil organic matter better than conventional no-till farming, which suggests long-term yield benefits from organic farming. [27] An 18-year study of organic methods on nutrient-depleted soil concluded that conventional methods were superior for soil fertility and yield in a cold-temperate climate, arguing that much of the benefits from organic farming are derived from imported materials which could not be regarded as “self-sustaining”.[28]

While organic farms have lower yields, organic methods require no synthetic fertilizer and pesticides. **The decreased cost on those (name removed by moderator)uts, along with the premiums which consumers pay for organic produce, create higher profits for organic farmers. Organic farms have been consistently found to be as or more profitable than conventional farms with premiums included, but without premiums profitability is mixed (Lotter 2003:11). **Welsh (1999) reports that organic farmers are more profitable in the drier states of the United States, likely due to their superior drought performance.[29]

In 2008 the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) and UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) issued a report which stated that “organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and that it is more likely to be sustainable in the long-term”.[30] The report assessed 114 projects in 24 African countries, finding that “yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used” and that soil fertility and drought resistance improved.[31]

There’s more elsewhere in the article, demonstrating that organic farming can contribute greatly to enduring and even counteracting climate change. It is very low in capital requirements, as well, which makes it viable for the Third World. There are many extensive efforts to train and deliver these techniques all around the world, further increasing the viability of adoption.

Working off static, pessimistic case absolutes, a 10% reduction for conversion of developed world to organic but a 30% increase for conversion in the developing world yields at least a 20% increase in the food supply. Considering that the vast majority of agricultural land under cultivation is in developing countries, even the short term productivity increases from organic farming to the worldwide food supply would be tremendous, and would be greater than that 20%.

Will you now concede my point that the food supply is not a problem in terms of existing technologies’ ability to provide?

 

[Arandur]

The high yield genetically engineered plants often simply will not grow without the kind of intensive irrigation that causes salinization, nor will they grow without the fossil fuel based fertilizers and pesticides.

And yet the National Geographic authors you cite here reference “many scientists and farmers” who believe that GMOs are heading in the direction of less dependence. Genetic knowledge and technology has advanced enormously in just a few years, so it’s a reasonable hope.

–

As for the capacity of new technologies not yet widely use and not-yet-invented-technologies to provide a good quality of life for our large population, I can’t really agree or disagree with you without seeing figures. Without the actual numbers it’s nothing but speculation and I don’t have an opinion either way.

Why not? You know we have methods of producing clean renewable energy. You know we can recycle most durable materials and compost most others. You know there are such things as sustainable forestry and fuels derived from wastes. You know certain construction materials are virtually unlimited in their availability, whether because they can be sustainably produced (like wood), recycled, or are ridiculously abundant (like stone and glass and clays/brick).

 

[flyingfish]

Working off static, pessimistic case absolutes, a 10% reduction for conversion of developed world to organic but a 30% increase for conversion in the developing world yields at least a 20% increase in the food supply. Considering that the vast majority of agricultural land under cultivation is in developing countries, even the short term productivity increases from organic farming to the worldwide food supply would be tremendous, and would be greater than that 20%.

Will you now concede my point that the food supply is not a problem in terms of existing technologies’ ability to provide?

Well, even from those things you quoted you picked the things that support your view.

You seem to have ignored:

The researcher attributes this to a relative lack of expensive fertilizers and pesticides in the developing world compared to the intensive, subsidy-driven farming of the developed world.

The results were attributed to lower yields in general but higher yields during drought years.[24]

On the other hand, a prominent 21-year Swiss study found an average of 20% lower organic yields over conventional,

An 18-year study of organic methods on nutrient-depleted soil concluded that conventional methods were superior for soil fertility and yield in a cold-temperate climate, arguing that much of the benefits from organic farming are derived from imported materials which could not be regarded as "self-sustaining"

And more from the Wiki article you didn’t quote:

A number of critics contest the notion that organic agricultural systems are more friendly to the environment and more sustainable than high-yielding farming systems. Among these critics are Norman Borlaug, father of the “green revolution,” Nobel Peace Prize laureate, who asserts that organic farming practices can at most feed 4 billion people, after expanding cropland dramatically and destroying ecosystems in the process[76], and Prof A. Trewavas.[77]

One study from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency found that, area-for-area, organic farms of potatoes, sugar beet and seed grass produce as little as half the output of conventional farming

n 2008 a study from UN Environmental Programme concluded that organic methods greatly increase yields in Africa and [30] a review of over two hundred crop comparisons argued that organic farming could produce enough food per capita to sustain the current human population; the difference in yields between organic and non-organic methods were small, with non-organic methods resulting in slightly higher yields in developed areas and organic methods resulting in slightly higher yields in developing areas.[21]

That analysis has been severely criticised by Alex Avery, who contends that the review claimed many non-organic studies to be organic, misreported organic yields, made false comparisons between yields of organic and non-organic studies which were not comparable, counted high organic yields several times by citing different papers which referenced the same data, and gave equal weight to studies from sources which were not impartial and rigorous university studies[79].

 

[Arandur]

Well, even from those things you quoted you picked the things that support your view.

You seem to have ignored:

I ignored nothing. I did not use in my summary the more optimistic results.

Now you seem to be on the side of the minority view on the subject, despite the many more numerous studies showing a more optimistic result than I summarized. You asked me for research, I provided some. It clearly supports my view.

Why is that? Seems to me like you really don’t care much about research, logic, or possibilities. You have a certain worldview and agenda of gloom and doom that you want to push as a foregone conclusion, without even considering alternatives.

But for the benefit of others, I’ll show you why what you quoted you really don’t understand and doesn’t support a view counter to mine.

The researcher attributes this to a relative lack of expensive fertilizers and pesticides in the developing world compared to the intensive, subsidy-driven farming of the developed world.

This does not undermine the statistic of 130% yields in developing countries at all. It just explains why it’s different from that in the developing worlds. Apply these methods to developing countries and you still get the increased yields.

The results were attributed to lower yields in general but higher yields during drought years.[24]

Stability in drought years is crucial to supporting populations and avoiding famines. It is the lean years that determine carrying capacity, and if organic farming clearly produces higher yields during the lean years, then it clearly supports a higher population.

On the other hand, a prominent 21-year Swiss study found an average of 20% lower organic yields over conventional,

Yes, in developed countries. Even taking this 20% factor, which is by far the lowest and runs counter to more numerous and extensive studies, you’ve still got an 80% yield in the developed world compared to a 130% yield in the developing world, which nets a large increase. Even if it broke even, you’d have current production levels in a much more sustainable manner, which I would think would make you happy.

An 18-year study of organic methods on nutrient-depleted soil concluded that conventional methods were superior for soil fertility and yield in a cold-temperate climate, arguing that much of the benefits from organic farming are derived from imported materials which could not be regarded as “self-sustaining”

Consider that in a bit more detail, particularly in context of your repeated assertions that “conventional methods” are damaging to the soil. It appears to mean one of two things:

1. Your assertions that “conventional methods” are damaging to soil fertility are false, since organic methods at the least do no harm to the soil (and most studies show that it improves the soil, particularly long term), and if “conventional methods” are better, then they must be a net positive due to the proper application of synthetic fertilizers; or
2. The study is referring specifically to tested soil fertility levels after application of fertilizers, where it is obvious that powerful synthetic fertilizers will yield a greater absolute gain in soil fertility, though they may be bad for long term soil health, and organic methods may not produce quite as fertile soil, even though they may preserve it better.

A number of critics contest the notion that organic agricultural systems are more friendly to the environment and more sustainable than high-yielding farming systems. Among these critics are Norman Borlaug, father of the “green revolution,” Nobel Peace Prize laureate, who asserts that organic farming practices can at most feed 4 billion people, after expanding cropland dramatically and destroying ecosystems in the process[76],

First, this is the guy you effectively demonize every time you attack monoculture, etc. Now you want to restore his credibility? Is he right or is he wrong?
Further, the 4 billion people figure is ridiculous on its face. The world supports over 6 billion people now. That’s with most of the land under cultivation by inefficient Third World practices that would see an increase in productivity with organic farming, by any measure. If only the developed world continues using monoculture techniques, then we see no expansion of the “resource intensive” methods you are against, while the organic methods spread around the world occurs sustainably by definition. That can only lead to an increase in productivity and supportable population, not a decrease.

One study from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency found that, area-for-area, organic farms of potatoes, sugar beet and seed grass produce as little as half the output of conventional farming

“One” study. This mainly tells us that certain crops work better under “conventional farming” methods than organic, while other studies have clearly shown that organic methods are more favorable for other types of crops.

That analysis has been severely criticised by Alex Avery, who contends that the review claimed many non-organic studies to be organic, misreported organic yields, made false comparisons between yields of organic and non-organic studies which were not comparable, counted high organic yields several times by citing different papers which referenced the same data, and gave equal weight to studies from sources which were not impartial and rigorous university studies[79].

So there’s a criticism of one report out there. Not uncommon or surprising, but hardly conclusive. Other studies exist saying the same thing, and unless a critic hashes it out and shows what it should be, and that is accepted instead, you can’t conclude much.

 

[flyingfish]

This does not undermine the statistic of 130% yields in developing countries at all. It just explains why it’s different from that in the developing worlds. Apply these methods to developing countries and you still get the increased yields.

Yes, in developed countries. Even taking this 20% factor, which is by far the lowest and runs counter to more numerous and extensive studies, you’ve still got an 80% yield in the developed world compared to a 130% yield in the developing world, which nets a large increase. Even if it broke even, you’d have current production levels in a much more sustainable manner, which I would think would make you happy.

Well if it’s only the farms in developing world that lack pesticides and fertilizers that experience the 130% gain, we really need to know what percentage of land is in that category.

fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y3557E/y3557e08.htm If you scroll down about half way there is a chart (titled “Cropland in use and total suitable land (million ha)”) of where the world’s arable land is. Most of it is not an Africa. Latin America, Asia, Industrialized countries have well over half the worlds potential cropland.

How much of that land is farmed using insufficient pesticides and fertilizers?

Whatever fraction would benefit from the 130% gain, it seems that a pretty significant fraction would lose if converted to organic techniques. I personally don’t see the huge net gain that you’re claiming would take place. None of those studies you quoted say that if the whole world converted to organic farming there would be a net increase of yield.

Either way, if we are projected to go up to 10 billion people, that is well over 130% of what we have now.

First, this is the guy you effectively demonize every time you attack monoculture, etc. Now you want to restore his credibility? Is he right or is he wrong?

The green revolution is not about monoculture, a far more important innovation is the heavy use of fossil fuel based fertilizer, machinery, irrigation techniques, and genetically engineered crops. Monoculture is not what made the green revolution possible.

And while the techniques of the green revolution are damaging and unsustainable because of their dependence on fossil fuels and soil destruction, you can’t deny that it enabled us to grow unprecedented amounts of food.

Further, the 4 billion people figure is ridiculous on its face. The world supports over 6 billion people now.

Not through purely organic farming. He is talking about how much could be supported with organic farms. (Nor is everyone in this world well supported, many people live in horrid conditions.)

---

And I suppose I am pessimistic, but only because I would rather be safe than sorry. The optimistic studies you talk about don’t say how many people could be supported if everyone converted to organic farms. They say there would be increases in yield in some cases and decreases in others.

Assuming this type of organic farming is sustainable, Norman Borlaug thinks it could support 4 billion people. Well that’s pretty problematic considering that we’re going to have 10 billion this century.

Maybe we should make an effort to at least stabilize population and even reduce it until we can know for sure that we have the techniques that can sustainably support increased numbers. Seems like a far lesser evil to ask people to limit family size than to end up in a situation where 6 billion people have nothing to eat. (Like say once the fossil fuels run out, and we can’t make the fertilizer and pesticides like we do right now, and have to go without. You said we have 100 years of fossil fuels left like that’s plenty of time. Well in 100 years we’ll have 10+ billion people…)

 

[Arandur]

fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y3557E/y3557e08.htm If you scroll down about half way there is a chart (titled “Cropland in use and total suitable land (million ha)”) of where the world’s arable land is. Most of it is not an Africa. Latin America, Asia, Industrialized countries have well over half the worlds potential cropland.

Wow, you really need to look closer at your source!
The FAO articles linked there extremely strongly support my positions. And you even misinterpreted the chart you’re talking about. That chart shows a tremendous amount more arable land, and it indeed shows that the great majority of it is in developing countries. That was my point–that the great majority of available cropland is in developing countries that could make vast improvements in their agricultural methods, even if they used only sustainable organic methods.

Consider these other quotes:
"Detailed analysis shows that, globally, there is enough land, soil and water, and enough potential for further growth in yields, to make the necessary production feasible. Yield growth will be slower than in the past, but at the global level this is not necessarily cause for alarm because slower growth in production is needed in the future than in the past. However, the feasible can only become the actual if the policy environment is favourable towards agriculture. …
…
It seems clear that, even if no more new technologies become available, there is still scope for increasing crop yields in line with requirements. Indeed, if just 11 of the countries that produce wheat, accounting for less than two-fifths of world production, were to bridge only half the gap between their maximum obtainable and their actual yields, then the world’s wheat output would increase by almost a quarter.
…
The study showed that even a techno-logically progressive country such as France is not yet close to reaching its maximum obtainable yield. France could obtain an average wheat yield of 8.7 tonnes per ha, rising to 11.6 tonnes per ha on her best wheat land, yet her actual average yield today is only 7.2 tonnes per ha.
…
The slower growth in production projected for the next 30 years means that yields will not need to grow as rapidly as in the past. Growth in wheat yields is projected to slow to 1.1 percent a year in the next 30 years, while rice yields are expected to rise by only 0.9 percent per year.
…
The latest World Bank projections suggest that the target of halving the proportionof people living in poverty in the developing countries by 2015 can be achieved. "

I could keep on posting the many quotes that support my position, but there’s a ton of information there and I don’t have the space.

Suffice to say that my whole point and the summary of the FAO of the UN is simple: We have PLENTY of capability with current methods to provide food for the projected increases in population, even for a much larger increase. There are localized problems and other distribution problems, but on the whole, food production is absolutely NOT a problem; we can provide for a much larger population.

Read the FAO. I consider debate on agriculture closed. My overall point has been proven.

Whatever fraction would benefit from the 130% gain, it seems that a pretty significant fraction would lose if converted to organic techniques. I personally don’t see the huge net gain that you’re claiming would take place. None of those studies you quoted say that if the whole world converted to organic farming there would be a net increase of yield.

None of them studied a whole world conversion. And where did you learn math? First, I wasn’t even suggesting that areas that can use conventional agricultural techniques (mostly the developed countries) need to switch to all organic, so there need not be any loss. Second, a 10% potential decrease in production in some areas (less than half of the world area currently under cultivation, far less than half of potential arable land) does not destroy a 30% potential increase in production in most areas.

Either way, if we are projected to go up to 10 billion people, that is well over 130% of what we have now.

6.7 billion now, add 30% of that, that’s about 9 billion, without even taking into account the larger area of land that improvement would be on, nor additional land under cultivation, nor the many other assertions of the FAO.

The green revolution is not about monoculture, a far more important innovation is the heavy use of fossil fuel based fertilizer, machinery, irrigation techniques, and genetically engineered crops. Monoculture is not what made the green revolution possible.

Intensive monoculture requires all those supporting technologies. “Monoculture” was a shorthand I used to refer to all those methods of intensive agriculture using external (name removed by moderator)uts and high capital.

And while the techniques of the green revolution are damaging and unsustainable because of their dependence on fossil fuels and soil destruction, you can’t deny that it enabled us to grow unprecedented amounts of food.

Not through purely organic farming. He is talking about how much could be supported with organic farms.

We don’t know the details behind Borlaug’s number–I suspect it’s not well-supported–and the great majority of other studies simply don’t seem to support his comments.

 

[Arandur]

And I suppose I am pessimistic, but only because I would rather be safe than sorry.

Maybe we should make an effort to at least stabilize population and even reduce it until we can know for sure that we have the techniques that can sustainably support increased numbers. Seems like a far lesser evil to ask people to limit family size than to end up in a situation where 6 billion people have nothing to eat. (Like say once the fossil fuels run out, and we can’t make the fertilizer and pesticides like we do right now, and have to go without. You said we have 100 years of fossil fuels left like that’s plenty of time. Well in 100 years we’ll have 10+ billion people…)

Well over 100 years with current, known reserves and techniques and assuming that the vast majority of fossil fuels are still consumed in transportation and energy generation. Well, we’re already transitioning away from those primary uses, more reserves will be found and technology will improve to extract more, more alternatives will be found, and agriculture is already demonstrating other methods not requiring much fossil fuel. The price mechanism, due to scarcity, will drive it all.

But let’s get down to the real issue. How can you possibly think it could be more just or more moral or even somehow easier to do to force people to limit family sizes and end population growth or reduce population, rather than just working towards more sustainability, providing for people better?

Population controls (rather than letting population regulate naturally) ALWAYS involve deliberate monstrous offenses against human dignity, life, and liberty. They ALWAYS involve a grave attack on morality. It’s much HARDER to do than to work to provide for people, and the ONLY way to do it effectively involves terrible evils of forced sterilization, abortion, and infringement of liberty. This is why I am so against it. It is among the most serious of evils ever to face this world, and to even court it like you do is disturbing.

 

[StAnastasia]

Population controls (rather than letting population regulate naturally) ALWAYS involve deliberate monstrous offenses against human dignity, life, and liberty. They ALWAYS involve a grave attack on morality. It’s much HARDER to do than to work to provide for people, and the ONLY way to do it effectively involves terrible evils of forced sterilization, abortion, and infringement of liberty. This is why I am so against it. It is among the most serious of evils ever to face this world, and to even court it like you do is disturbing.

We will certainly reach ZPG at some point, either voluntarily or involuntarily.