The Global Food Crisis and the Need for Population Control

  • Thread starter Thread starter NYQuestioning83
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ribozyme said:
Do you read the Oil Drum? I do realize the peak oil is a threat to social justice as it prevents us from utilizing poverty reduction strategies.
Click to expand...
What “poverty reduction strategy” are you condoning?
 
KathleenElsie said:
What “poverty reduction strategy” are you condoning?
Click to expand...
I won’t put words in his mouth, but by reading his posts, and those of the people he purports to admire, I would surmise the strategy is to reduce poverty by eliminating the poor.
 
Global warming will definitely not improve food production in Great Britain. If anything, warming will substantially decrease grain production in Britain… Also, the albedo flip now likely to occurr in the Arctic in as soon as a decade could result in an Ice Age for the northern half of Europe because freshwater flooding of the North Atlantic from the massive disintegration of glaciers will prevent warm air from reaching northern and western Europe…

If anything, global warming will have a net negative effect on food production worldwide.
 
We have another Julian Simon devotee. We could fit all of the world’s people in Texas and that would be theoretically possible, but there would be absolutely no possibility for human flourishing if that were to occur. If God really plans for that, I don’t really have much respect for that kind of God. Blind faith is a huge problem, and I think God would want humans to be creative in helping the most number of people achieve a full and free human life…

Already in some of the world’s driest regions, people spend 8-10 hours a day just getting water to drink and use for daily life. I don’t question the dignity of people who find themselves in this struggle, but I do question our collective failure to provide them the education, healthcare, microloans, and FAMILY PLANNING essential for them to stabilize their populations and alleviate the pressure on the natural environment which causes so much suffering in those regions of the world…
 
NYQuestioning83 said:
Global warming will definitely not improve food production in Great Britain. If anything, warming will substantially decrease grain production in Britain… Also, the albedo flip now likely to occurr in the Arctic in as soon as a decade could result in an Ice Age for the northern half of Europe because freshwater flooding of the North Atlantic from the massive disintegration of glaciers will prevent warm air from reaching northern and western Europe…

If anything, global warming will have a net negative effect on food production worldwide.
Click to expand...
You will be able to raise mangoes, pineapples, bananas, coconuts, oil palm, etc., in England if the temp goes up.

Unless global warming causes the temp to go down. Hmmm.

If the sea level goes up, you will be able to raise lobsters and crab.

Of course, the computer models show an increase of one degree per century. [NOT one degree per year.] So, I don’t know how much the climate will change with only one-one-hundredth of a degree increase per year. Or how anyone can even measure temperature changes that small.

Worldwide, the story would be different. Siberia would produce three wheat crops per year. But then again, you would need a LOT of global warming to achieve that … far more than one degree per century.
 
NYQuestioning83 said:
Global warming will definitely not improve food production in Great Britain. If anything, warming will substantially decrease grain production in Britain… Also, the albedo flip now likely to occurr in the Arctic in as soon as a decade could result in an Ice Age for the northern half of Europe because freshwater flooding of the North Atlantic from the massive disintegration of glaciers will prevent warm air from reaching northern and western Europe…

If anything, global warming will have a net negative effect on food production worldwide.
Click to expand...
The last warming period, the Medieval Warm (or Medieval Optimum" had a positive effect on food production. In most of the world, crops grew better, with a longer growing season. Greenland was able to support a Norse colony. The “Four Corners” area of the United States supported a flourshing pueblo culture.

When the Little Ice Age started, it was a catastrophe.
 
when the US stops paying farmers NOT to produce food, I will believe in a global food crisis. most of my neighbors at retirement parks down here are retired farmers, and subsidies (payments for keeping land out of production) are their major source of retirement income.
 
puzzleannie said:
when the US stops paying farmers NOT to produce food, I will believe in a global food crisis. most of my neighbors at retirement parks down here are retired farmers, and subsidies (payments for keeping land out of production) are their major source of retirement income.
Click to expand...
Well when that day comes we will know there is no global warmig as that will be the day hell freezes over.
 
This myth that the U.S. still grows so much food that it has to burn the surplus is a myth-----that ceased completely well over a decade ago…

tristateobserver.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=10121

The wheat and grain reserve for this year is barely enough to feed each American 1/2 a loaf of bread----------

I hate to say it-----but America is probably overpopulated as well…

This doesn’t mean I’m in favor of eliminating people or killing unborn babies or anything like that-----what I am saying is that the Church should not be so blindly pro-natalist. It is wrong to have a large number of children when we will soon have trouble feeding our own population.
 
This myth that the U.S. still grows so much food that it has to burn the surplus is a myth-----that ceased completely well over a decade ago…

tristateobserver.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=10121

The wheat and grain reserve for this year is barely enough to feed each American 1/2 a loaf of bread----------

I hate to say it-----but America is probably overpopulated as well…

This doesn’t mean I’m in favor of eliminating people or killing unborn babies or anything like that-----what I am saying is that the Church should not be so blindly pro-natalist. It is wrong to have a large number of children when we will soon have trouble feeding our own population.
 
This myth that the U.S. still grows so much food that it has to burn the surplus is a myth-----that ceased completely well over a decade ago…

tristateobserver.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=10121

The wheat and grain reserve for this year is barely enough to feed each American 1/2 a loaf of bread----------

I hate to say it-----but America is probably overpopulated as well…

This doesn’t mean I’m in favor of eliminating people or killing unborn babies or anything like that-----what I am saying is that the Church should not be so blindly pro-natalist. It is wrong to have a large number of children when we will soon have trouble feeding our own population.
 
We simply started to pay farmers not to grow crops – saved us the expense of storing surplus crops.

We have plenty of surplus farmland in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). If we need more crops, all we have to do is stop paying farmers not to farm.
 
NYQuestioning83 said:
This myth that the U.S. still grows so much food that it has to burn the surplus is a myth-----that ceased completely well over a decade ago…

tristateobserver.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=10121

The wheat and grain reserve for this year is barely enough to feed each American 1/2 a loaf of bread----------

I hate to say it-----but America is probably overpopulated as well…

This doesn’t mean I’m in favor of eliminating people or killing unborn babies or anything like that-----what I am saying is that the Church should not be so blindly pro-natalist. It is wrong to have a large number of children when we will soon have trouble feeding our own population.
Click to expand...
The CCC grain reserve has absolutely nothing to do with whether the amount of grain production. Even the article points out the low reserve is soley the casue of the 1996 farm bill-not a darn thing to do with production. In fact the Govt still pays farners billions NOT to grow crops

The main problem is the brutal goverments that stave their people for to maintain power. a good example is Burma-after the typhoon they started demanding that countries quit sending food and send money instead. :

YANGON (Reuters) - Myanmar’s junta lashed out at offers of foreign aid on Thursday, criticizing donors’ demands for access to the Irrawaddy delta and saying Cyclone Nargis’ 2.4 million victims could “stand by themselves.”

if"The people from Irrawaddy can survive on self-reliance without chocolate bars donated by foreign countries," the Kyemon newspaper said in a Burmese-language editorial.

…They(the Govt) told us not to make any donations to people begging by the road," one of those held overnight told Reuters. “It is said that our donations will spoil their appetite for hard work. We completely disagree with it.”
 
NYQuestioning83 said:
We have another Julian Simon devotee. We could fit all of the world’s people in Texas and that would be theoretically possible, but there would be absolutely no possibility for human flourishing if that were to occur. If God really plans for that, I don’t really have much respect for that kind of God. Blind faith is a huge problem, and I think God would want humans to be creative in helping the most number of people achieve a full and free human life…

Already in some of the world’s driest regions, people spend 8-10 hours a day just getting water to drink and use for daily life. I don’t question the dignity of people who find themselves in this struggle, but I do question our collective failure to provide them the education, healthcare, microloans, and FAMILY PLANNING essential for them to stabilize their populations and alleviate the pressure on the natural environment which causes so much suffering in those regions of the world…
Click to expand...
See the problem here is not too much population, but a lack of population combined with too much public sector regulation. Lack of population in some areas will not support the infrastructure to get the food and water to the people because there is to many dispersed tribes. In other areas it is not a lack of water- it is bad policies that cause the people to have to search for water.
Code: 
"Every year, 113,000 km^3 of water fall to the earth.  Of this, 72,000km^3 evaporates, leaving a net precipitation of 41,000km^3.  That equals roughly 19,000 liters per person daily, a quite fantastic figure.  Consumption today is about 1,300 liters per person daily, that is, only 6.8 percent of what it could be.
The UN calculates somewhat differently, maintaining that every year we use 8 percent of the water that exists and pointing out that water is a renewable resource, that is it can be used over and over again.  Even though assessments diverge, they agree that what we are using is far from the water available.  The problem is not the amount of water available but the lack of development in poor countries."  -Water for Sale by Fredrick Segerfeldt.
This is a great book on solving the water problem in many countries. He goes on to say that the amount of water available is finite, but it is not the problem of how we are using it, but instead how we are getting it to the people that is the problem.

You dismiss many great thoughts with a wave of your hand saying that we all must be devoted followers of Simon. The reality is that I have read many of his works as well as the works of people who both agree and disagree with him and you have yet to say specifically what it is that YOU disagree with, other than a brief disregard for market pricing based on ancient history that is not repeating itself.
 
mmyers said:
See the problem here is not too much population, but a lack of population combined with too much public sector regulation. Lack of population in some areas will not support the infrastructure to get the food and water to the people because there is to many dispersed tribes. In other areas it is not a lack of water- it is bad policies that cause the people to have to search for water.
Code: 
"Every year, 113,000 km^3 of water fall to the earth.  Of this, 72,000km^3 evaporates, leaving a net precipitation of 41,000km^3.  That equals roughly 19,000 liters per person daily, a quite fantastic figure.  Consumption today is about 1,300 liters per person daily, that is, only 6.8 percent of what it could be.
The UN calculates somewhat differently, maintaining that every year we use 8 percent of the water that exists and pointing out that water is a renewable resource, that is it can be used over and over again.  Even though assessments diverge, they agree that what we are using is far from the water available.  The problem is not the amount of water available but the lack of development in poor countries."  -Water for Sale by Fredrick Segerfeldt.
This is a great book on solving the water problem in many countries. He goes on to say that the amount of water available is finite, but it is not the problem of how we are using it, but instead how we are getting it to the people that is the problem.

You dismiss many great thoughts with a wave of your hand saying that we all must be devoted followers of Simon. The reality is that I have read many of his works as well as the works of people who both agree and disagree with him and you have yet to say specifically what it is that YOU disagree with, other than a brief disregard for market pricing based on ancient history that is not repeating itself.
Click to expand...
You know I while I agree we could use our water resources MUCH better. But we have to remember with the population thing is that more people means well more people needing water. So too many people in an area can be a utter disater too.
 
Al_Masetti said:
You will be able to raise mangoes, pineapples, bananas, coconuts, oil palm, etc., in England if the temp goes up.

Unless global warming causes the temp to go down. Hmmm.

If the sea level goes up, you will be able to raise lobsters and crab.

Of course, the computer models show an increase of one degree per century. [NOT one degree per year.] So, I don’t know how much the climate will change with only one-one-hundredth of a degree increase per year. Or how anyone can even measure temperature changes that small.

Worldwide, the story would be different. Siberia would produce three wheat crops per year. But then again, you would need a LOT of global warming to achieve that … far more than one degree per century.
Click to expand...
Well of course that is assuming that global climate change wonlt end up in much cooler temperatures for the northern hemisphere. As for Crab and Lobster…I wouldn;t bet on that. See much of the carbon dioxide that we put into the atmosphere about 22 million tons a day and climbing according to an article I read in Discover Magazine Now this is changing the basic ph of the ocean. According to this article according to ice cores the oceans had a ph of about 8.2 for 600,000 years. This has dropped by 0.1 unit. Now I know most people are probably at this point thinking wow gee a whole 0.1 change! :rolleyes: But apparently since ph is measured on the logarithmic scale this is actually a 30% increase in acidity. Also apparently according to a dozen predictions from the international panel on climate change by the end of the century the ph could drop as low as 7.8 a 150% increase since preindustrial times. Long story short low alot of things in the oceans are in deep deep trouble. Coral and the stuff that they secrete that form the coral reefs are in big trouble…heck anything with a shell is in trouble. That means crab, clam, lobster, plankton as well as other things. Then it isn; a big leap to go from realizing that if the things on the lower end of the food chain start dying off then the things that eat them are in trouble too. So that means things like otters, seals, the whales, as well as many of the fish that we eat are in trouble as well. Not to mention in the polar and subpolar regiions of the ocean these things called pteropods are at risk. These things are a food source for Salmon, herring, cod and pollack. And according to the article the berring sea a artic/sub artic part of the ocean supports about 30% of the global harvest of sea food. The program deadliest catch seems to take for the most place here. A couple more sources I found here ioc3.unesco.org/oanet/FAQacidity.html dailyclimate.org/topics/ocean-acidification

Long story short I wouldn;t count on more crab or lobster or more of most/any kind of edible fish.
 
I don’t know about other places, but there is a LOT of land around here that’s in the CRP program. The government pays people pretty well not to grow grain. But that’s not all they do. You can get government money to securely fence in that land you’re not using as well. That’s to keep the neighbor’s cattle from wandering in and eating the grass you don’t use that’s on the cropland you don’t farm.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I don’t know about other places, but there is a LOT of land around here that’s in the CRP program. The government pays people pretty well not to grow grain. But that’s not all they do. You can get government money to securely fence in that land you’re not using as well. That’s to keep the neighbor’s cattle from wandering in and eating the grass you don’t use that’s on the cropland you don’t farm.
Click to expand...
You know the old joke – what’s the title of Agriculture 101 in the College catalog? “Gimme.”

What’s the title of Agriculture 102? “Gimme more.”😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top