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.
Calliso said:
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.
Click to expand...
Watch “The Deadliest Catch” … all that crab comes from the Bering Sea. Not much coral up there. And your lobster comes from around the Grand Banks.

Many of these critters are a billion years old and have survived all sorts of devastation. Somehow I don’t think that a one degree per century change in temp is going to make much difference.

Africa was under water at one point (as was Montana). And the Sahara Forest had lakes and trees.
 
I just wanted to say that I tuned the OP out after the same tired, hackneyed old Wal-Mart comments that I hear on MSNBC all the time.
 
Al_Masetti said:
Watch “The Deadliest Catch” … all that crab comes from the Bering Sea. Not much coral up there. And your lobster comes from around the Grand Banks.

Many of these critters are a billion years old and have survived all sorts of devastation. Somehow I don’t think that a one degree per century change in temp is going to make much difference.

Africa was under water at one point (as was Montana). And the Sahara Forest had lakes and trees.
Click to expand...
Well, then there’s the Nebraska desert, the Ozark ocean and the Kansas mountains.
 
After looking at many so many countries like Bangladesh, India, and Nigeria, it is clear that we need population control in some form. Population control really should not have anything to do with condoms or abortion, but on erasing the subsistence lifestyle with more urbanization and quality farming.
Bangladesh is a clear example of where urbanization could really stave off more population growth. It is about the size of Iowa, yet it houses 150 million people, and could bloom to 200 in the next few decades. The number of births are not caused by unwanted babies, but clearly wanted babies. 2/3 of the population basically subsist on the extensive rice paddies, and they are in constant search for more labor just to be able to feed themselves. This creates a self destructive cycle where more people are born to farm, which means more food has to be farmed. The only way to fix this is mass scale urbanization and removal of the subsistence lifestyle that dominates places like Bangladesh, Java, and India.

As for the food supply: We are in no danger of running out of land to feed the population of the world. Japan has a tiny amount of farm able land, about 7-8 thousand sq miles, yet it achieves almost total food security through efficient farming. We, in the U.S, could feed ourselves on just one Midwest states grain, and we’d probably have plenty to spare. So any problems and food shortages are due to just bad luck, generalally stupid practices in current farming, and too much reliance on subsistence farming. These can all be solved in time, and should have no bearing in population control discussions.
 
zjl56 said:
After looking at many so many countries like Bangladesh, India, and Nigeria, it is clear that we need population control in some form. Population control really should not have anything to do with condoms or abortion, but on erasing the subsistence lifestyle with more urbanization and quality farming.
Bangladesh is a clear example of where urbanization could really stave off more population growth. It is about the size of Iowa, yet it houses 150 million people, and could bloom to 200 in the next few decades. The number of births are not caused by unwanted babies, but clearly wanted babies. 2/3 of the population basically subsist on the extensive rice paddies, and they are in constant search for more labor just to be able to feed themselves. This creates a self destructive cycle where more people are born to farm, which means more food has to be farmed. The only way to fix this is mass scale urbanization and removal of the subsistence lifestyle that dominates places like Bangladesh, Java, and India.

As for the food supply: We are in no danger of running out of land to feed the population of the world. Japan has a tiny amount of farm able land, about 7-8 thousand sq miles, yet it achieves almost total food security through efficient farming. We, in the U.S, could feed ourselves on just one Midwest states grain, and we’d probably have plenty to spare. So any problems and food shortages are due to just bad luck, generalally stupid practices in current farming, and too much reliance on subsistence farming. These can all be solved in time, and should have no bearing in population control discussions.
Click to expand...
I agree, generally, with everything you have said. I might add, however, that whether it is urbanization or improved standards of living which may or may not be due to urbanization, clearly people in the “First World” are facing serious population decline, and soon. It may well be that even an urban population or one with a high living standard has a “subsistence” population replacement requirement that only differs from that of, say, Bangladesh, in the numbers. Only a percentage of any population is capable of working productively. Those members must support all the rest. No one, to my knowledge, has really figured out just how many productive people is required, in a “First World” environment, to support the remainder of the population. Since stable, or even increasing population numbers seems to do no harm in a First World environment, it seems to me one should not be too quick to resort to population reduction as a “cure” for resource utilization, the true future level of which is always speculative, particularly in age in which technological change is robust and rapid.
 
Al_Masetti said:
Watch “The Deadliest Catch” … all that crab comes from the Bering Sea. Not much coral up there. And your lobster comes from around the Grand Banks.

Many of these critters are a billion years old and have survived all sorts of devastation. Somehow I don’t think that a one degree per century change in temp is going to make much difference.

Africa was under water at one point (as was Montana). And the Sahara Forest had lakes and trees.
Click to expand...
KK I know I took forever to reply to this but I think I need to explain myself better. Most of my post wasn;t really taking about temperature change. It was talking about how the Co2 being absorbed by the ocean is effecting it;s chemistry and effecting many lifes forms in it. I realize though I have a tendency to ramble and forget paragraphs and stuff though so I will try to explain what is going on better this time.

Basically what is happening is the ocean is absorbing a lot of carbon dioxide. When this combines with ocean water it creates carbonic acid and decreases carbonate ions. Which is a key building materiel of marine animals shells. The less carbonate there is the harder it is for marine animals to make and maintain their shells. Their shells will become thing and brittle or maybe even start to dissolve. Though the dissolving thing likely wonlt happen for awhile I think. Also in tests done excess Co2 actually caused squids to asphyxiate and fish embyros and larvae were smaller and less likely to survive.

Now the list of marine animals this effects is pretty large too. Crabs, oysters, lobsters many kinds of plankton, coral of course. Then of course you have to consider the effect this has on the animals that eat these things. For instance plankton sustance many kinds of whales…as well as fish…fish we eat.

Then there is the pteropods of the polar and subpolar seas like the Bering Sea. Tests done showed that the shell of at least one species turned opaque and began to dissolve in waters that are as acidic as their habitat may be by 2100. Now why should we care about that? Well they are apparently a major food source of some pretty big food sources such as salmon, herring, cod, and pollack. The bering sea generates about 30% of the global harvest of seafood.

And even the pteropods food supply is affected as well because they eat amoebas, tiny cruesteans and plankton and many of those things of course have shells.

Now all this on it;s own is bad…but then when you factor in human factors such as large scale commerical fishing and catching of crabs and what not this could be disasterous.

And yes these things have been around for awhile but you must realize being around in one form or another doesn;t mean they can;t go extinct. 😉

Anyway I didn;t get into much detail here because the more I go on typically the more rambley and unclear I get. So anyway if you want to learn more check out this monthes Discover magazine or just research the effects of ocean acidification on the internet and you should find plenty.
 
Hey, not sure if this is relevant, but probably at some point the whole bio-fuels thing will be / has been brought up, and The New Atlantis (from George Weigel’s Ethics and Public Policy Center) had a pretty good article about it:
thenewatlantis.com/publications/in-defense-of-biofuels

And I’ll just add my two cents to this whole population-control issue with a question: who decides? That question is enough to turn me away from any sort of scheme to control population.
 
Telemachus said:
Hey, not sure if this is relevant, but probably at some point the whole bio-fuels thing will be / has been brought up, and The New Atlantis (from George Weigel’s Ethics and Public Policy Center) had a pretty good article about it:
thenewatlantis.com/publications/in-defense-of-biofuels
Click to expand...
Good article. In general I have nothing against bio-fuels and it is ludicrous to suggest the production of them will alter the food supply. There is just too much open land available to believe otherwise.

My major concern is with market distortion that results from massive government subsidies. Supply and demand will determine the economic and environmental viability of bio-fuels. If the government wants to influence the market they should mandate all government owned vehicles use bio-fuels, if and when available. That would create a huge demand, just the sort of demand that drives innovation. The DoD is using just such an approach with their bio-diesel programs.
Telemachus said:
And I’ll just add my two cents to this whole population-control issue with a question: who decides? That question is enough to turn me away from any sort of scheme to control population.
Click to expand...
It should turn us all away from any sort of population-control scheme, especially one with any influence from a government. Unfortunately, to me at least, abortion is just such a scheme. It has little to do with women’s rights, choice, or privacy, and much to do with politically correct thinking about population control amongst the radical left, with many moderates on the left and right taking the bait “hook, line, and sinker.” Just read what our good friend from another thread said about abortion,
40.png
ribozyme:
… I [am] simply saying that I find extreme “concern” for the unborn relatively incompatible with the insouciance regarding the quality of life of the unborn after they are born. I do not see what is so special if that person will be mired in poverty, without access to health care.
Click to expand...
The exact same argument can be, and often is, applied to population control. Unless I can demonstrate value to society, and part of that value is having my mother’s permission to live, then I must sacrifice myself for the common good.
 
Telemachus said:
Hey, not sure if this is relevant, but probably at some point the whole bio-fuels thing will be / has been brought up, and The New Atlantis (from George Weigel’s Ethics and Public Policy Center) had a pretty good article about it:
thenewatlantis.com/publications/in-defense-of-biofuels

And I’ll just add my two cents to this whole population-control issue with a question: who decides? That question is enough to turn me away from any sort of scheme to control population.
Click to expand...
The flip side to that question is, “Who goes?”

And none of those beating the drum for population reduction have volunteered to take early departure.😉
 
vern_humphrey said:
The flip side to that question is, “Who goes?”

And none of those beating the drum for population reduction have volunteered to take early departure.😉
Click to expand...
I do not advocate killing people, I only advocate more birth control.
 
RWMorris said:
Good article. In general I have nothing against bio-fuels and it is ludicrous to suggest the production of them will alter the food supply. There is just too much open land available to believe otherwise.

My major concern is with market distortion that results from massive government subsidies. Supply and demand will determine the economic and environmental viability of bio-fuels. If the government wants to influence the market they should mandate all government owned vehicles use bio-fuels, if and when available. That would create a huge demand, just the sort of demand that drives innovation. The DoD is using just such an approach with their bio-diesel programs.

It should turn us all away from any sort of population-control scheme, especially one with any influence from a government. Unfortunately, to me at least, abortion is just such a scheme. It has little to do with women’s rights, choice, or privacy, and much to do with politically correct thinking about population control amongst the radical left, with many moderates on the left and right taking the bait “hook, line, and sinker.” Just read what our good friend from another thread said about abortion,

The exact same argument can be, and often is, applied to population control. Unless I can demonstrate value to society, and part of that value is having my mother’s permission to live, then I must sacrifice myself for the common good.
Click to expand...
That bothers me about the subsidies too, but the author of that article had a good point in saying that these particular subsidies are actually less than the subsidies given to keep farmers from growing crops and have much more benefit. So, it’s sort of a trade-off in favor of less government intervention. I’m not entirely certain of what he had to say on this point, but it sounds plausible and I’m certainly no purist when it comes to libertarianism.

That article had a particularly good point IMHO about the ideological idea of “envirostasis.” That is, anything we humans do only ends up damaging The Environment, so we need to just stand still and stop doing stuff, especially stop breeding. Humanity qua disease. Scary!

Statements like ribozyme’s are pretty common it seems: a child should only be brought into the world if it is guaranteed to have a good, nay, perfect life. Of course, we know from experience that it is not true. One doesn’t need to have primo education and constant health care to live a good life. My mother was raised in an extremely small house with four other siblings and two parents in Montana, and they all lived to have “good lives” despite being poor as dirt.

I know people are all worried about not having enough resources for everyone, but human population is not that big a factor. There’s economic reasons, social reasons, political reasons… reasons all over the place, for the rising price of food. Just read that article. And it’s all temporary. And if it’s not, who cares: people will live, people will die, people will suffer, people will find joy, life goes on, God is good. Stop trying to make the world safe and just chill out. Christ and solidarity can get us through any crisis, even that of Malthusianism. 😃

Anyone who advocates population control (particularly via abortion) should ask themselves yet another question in addition to the one I asked before: if you would rather be or not be, which would you choose?
 
Telemachus said:
That bothers me about the subsidies too, but the author of that article had a good point in saying that these particular subsidies are actually less than the subsidies given to keep farmers from growing crops and have much more benefit.
Click to expand...
Here in Arkansas, rice farmers (which is to say, agri-business) get literally hundreds of million dollars in subsidies. I had a big rice farmer say, rather aggresively to me, “Do you know what it costs me to raise an acre of rice?”

And I said, “If it costs more than you can sell the rice for on the open market, why to you raise it?”

Why, because the government subsidizes it, of course!!

If we’re going to subsidize something, let’s subsidize a crop that we really need, and is worth more – not less – than it costs to grow.

And let’s put a mechanism into the law that slows and then stops the subsidy when the market is mature.
 
Who Decides? So that means we don’t do anything about humans reproducing far faster than the carrying capacity of the Earth to support them? We do a few things that the Church doesn’t support, but they make a lot of sense and are very popular with women in the developing world. We educate them and their children so that they aren’t beholden to patriarchal traditional authorities, we offer them no-interest Graemen-style microloans so that women can start their own businesses and get some property in their own names, we offer women comprehensive health care including access to birth control, and we ensure access to cleaner water and a healthier natural environment through planned development…

We would not be controllling the population in this case by eliminating any people; but, we would greatly hasten the demographic transition that would stabilize population growth such that the people in a given region don’t overuse the resources in their environment.

Furthermore, birth control is hardly something anathema to tribal peoples who have lived off the land for hundreds of thousands of years… Herbal birth control to prevent conception or ensure miscarriages in times when food and water are scarce has long been vital to the survival of human cultural groups, and for the species as a whole. I frankly also don’t see in the Church’s own history much of a reverence for the “Culture of Life” or whatever----we still have blowhards like Harry Crocker immortalizing the viciousness and greed of the Crusades as some manifestation of God’s Divine Will. This idea that humans had souls from the time of conception was not even believed by the Church’s most important thinker----St. Thomas Aquinas. It has long been thought that a human wasn’t fully human until the point of “quickening.” Perhaps a developmental view of human ensoulment fits with the HISTORICAL understanding of the Church’s understanding about human life. This fetishization of the abortion issues is really something the Church has done that contradicts, more or less, centuries of tradition with Christianity…

I’ll post more on this subject when I get more time…
 
I’m sick of right-wing libertarian idiots saying things about the market-----more impressed by knowledge of ecology, which is now the fundamental issue behind ethanol, that and the hundreds of millions dying of starvation right now…

Zubrin is a total idiot…
 
NYQuestioning83 said:
I’m sick of right-wing libertarian idiots saying things about the market-----more impressed by knowledge of ecology, which is now the fundamental issue behind ethanol, that and the hundreds of millions dying of starvation right now…

Zubrin is a total idiot…
Click to expand...
What an unChristian and bigoted thing to say.

Hate is no substitute for facts and logic.
 
Just because I think Zubrin is an idiot, doesn’t mean I hate him in any way, shape, or fashion. I don’t even know where to begin to debunk that article----there’s just too march to argue with that I could write a book on the subject…

I don’t understand why so many Catholics on this site like that libertarian claptrap… Jesus seems more like a socialist, and that he would have objected quite strongly to capitalism. From each according to his ability and to each according to his need—sharing all things in common as brothers and sisters in the Lord-----that is the Christian philosophy of economics. Capitalism doesn’t fit into that—profits because of the “free market” (there is no free market, there are workers and consumers who add to the profits of an owning class who gets the raw materials for his laborers from raping and pillaging the natural world beyond the needs of basic human sustenance).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top