Billionaire 'Good Club' Talks Overpopulation

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby Penguin » Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:15 am

But not to sound too negative - other farming methods can be pretty good production-wise as well. Its just that we would need to use and develop them too instead of relying on the harmful methods currently widely in use. And these alternative methods do not fit in with the corporate agriculture model as well - nor do they fit for making farmers dependent on agribusiness products (from fertilizers, pesticides to genetically modified terminator seeds)

Like: (I pasted the first page almost entirely, second page at link)
http://allafrica.com/stories/200902270229.html

A key question that is often asked about ecological agriculture, including organic agriculture, is whether it can be productive enough to meet the world's food needs. While many agree that ecological agriculture is desirable from an environmental and social point of view, there remain fears that ecological and organic agriculture produce low yields.

This short paper will summarise some of the available evidence to demystify the productivity debate and demonstrate that ecological agriculture is indeed productive.

In general, yields from ecological agriculture can be broadly comparable to conventional yields in developed countries. In developing countries, ecological agriculture practices can greatly increase productivity, particularly if the existing system is low-input, which is the largely the case for Africa. This paper will focus mainly on evidence from developing countries.

EVIDENCE FROM GLOBAL MODELLING

A recent study examined a global dataset of 293 examples and estimated the average yield ratio (organic:non-organic) of different food categories for the developed and developing world (Badgley et al. 2007). For most of the food categories examined, those conducted the study found that the average yield ratio was slightly less than 1.0 for studies in the developed world, but more than 1.0 for studies in developing countries.

On average, in developed countries, organic systems produce 92 per cent of the yield produced by conventional agriculture. In developing countries, however, organic systems produce 80 per cent more than conventional farms.

With these average yield ratios, the researchers then modelled the global food supply that could be grown organically on the current agricultural land base. They found that organic methods could hypothetically produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without putting more farmland into production.

Moreover, contrary to fears that there are insufficient quantities of organically acceptable fertilisers, the data suggest that leguminous cover crops could fix enough nitrogen to replace the amount of synthetic fertiliser currently in use.

This model suggests that organic agriculture could potentially provide enough food globally, but without the negative environmental impacts of conventional agriculture.

EVIDENCE FROM REVIEWS OF ECOLOGICAL AGRICULTURE PROJECTS

In a review of 286 projects in 57 countries, farmers were found to have increased agricultural productivity by an average of 79 per cent, by adopting 'resource-conserving' or ecological agriculture (Pretty et al. 2006).

A variety of resource conserving technologies and practices were used, including integrated pest management, integrated nutrient management, conservation tillage, agro-forestry, water harvesting in dryland areas, and livestock and aquaculture integration into farming systems. These practices not only increased yields, but also reduced adverse effects on the environment and contributed to important environmental goods and services (e.g., climate change mitigation), as evidenced by increased water use efficiency and carbon sequestration, and reduced pesticide use.

The work built on earlier research, which assessed 208 sustainable agriculture projects. The earlier research found that for 89 projects for which there was reliable yield data, farmers had, by adopting sustainable agriculture practices, achieved substantial increases in per hectare food production - the yield increases were 50 to 100 per cent for rain-fed crops, though considerably greater in a number of cases, and 5 to 10 per cent for irrigated crops (Pretty and Hine 2001).

Disaggregated data show:

- The average food production per household rose by 1.7 tonnes per year (up by 73 per cent) for 4.42 million small farmers growing cereals and roots on 3.6 million hectares.

- The increase in food production was 17 tonnes per year (up 150 per cent) for 146,000 farmers on 542,000 hectares cultivating roots (potato, sweet potato, cassava).

- Total production rose by 150 tonnes per household (up by 46 per cent) for the larger farms in Latin America (average size 90 hectares).

The database on agricultural sustainability (comprising the 286 projects) was re-analysed to produce a summary of the impacts of organic and near-organic projects on agricultural productivity in Africa (Hine and Pretty 2008). The average crop yield increase was even higher for these projects than the global average (79 per cent), representing a 116 per cent increase for all African projects and a 128 per cent increase for projects in East Africa.

For Kenyan projects, the increase in yield was 179 per cent, for Tanzanian projects 67 per cent, and for Ugandan projects 54 per cent. Moreover, all case studies that focused on food production in this research where data have been reported showed increases in per hectare productivity of food crops, which challenges the popular myth that organic agriculture cannot increase agricultural productivity.

EVIDENCE FROM SPECIFIC ECOLOGICAL AGRICULTURE INTERVENTIONS

Data from the Tigray Project in the Tigray Region in Ethiopia, where a project on ecological agriculture has been carried out since 1996, concretely demonstrate the benefits of compost on productivity. Preliminary data collected in 1998 had already shown that using compost gave similar yield increases as chemical fertilisers. Data collected in 2002, 2003 and 2004 showed that, on average, composted fields gave higher yields, sometimes double, than those treated with chemical fertilisers (Araya and Edwards 2006).

In a new paper written for the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), statistical analysis on a larger data set over the years 2000 to 2006 inclusive confirms that compost use in Tigray has increased yields in all the crops analysed (Edwards et al. 2008). In total, data was collected from 974 fields from 19 communities. Grain and straw yield data were obtained for barley, durum wheat, finger millet, hanfets (a mixture of barley and durum wheat), maize, sorghum, teff, faba bean and field pea.

Except for field pea, the compost generally doubled the grain yield when compared to each respective check (crops grown without any inputs). (For field pea, the increase in yield was approximately 28 per cent). The difference was significant (95 per cent confidence limit). The application of compost also increased straw yield compared to the check, but not to the same extent as it increased grain yield.

The use of compost also gave higher yields than the use of chemical fertiliser, though differences in the yields from compost and from chemical fertiliser were not as great as the differences between the use of compost and the check. For sorghum and faba bean the yields from the use of compost and chemical fertiliser were similar. But the yield difference for all the other crops was greater, with that from the compost treatment always higher than that from the use of chemical fertiliser. The results also showed that compost not only increases the overall biomass yield, but also increases the proportion of the grain to straw in the yield.

Since 1998, the Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development of Tigray Region has adopted the making of compost as part of its extension package, and by 2007 at least 25 per cent of the region's farmers were making and using compost. A reflection of the success of this approach is that between 2003 and 2006, grain yield for the region almost doubled from 714 to 1,354 thousand tonnes. Since 1998, there has also been a steady decrease in the use of chemical fertiliser, from 13.7 to 8.2 thousand tonnes.

There are many other specific examples of increased yields following the application of ecological agricultural practices, some of which are summarised below (Hine and Pretty 2008; Parrott and Marsden 2002; Pretty and Hine 2001; Scialabba and Hattam 2002).
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Hairball » Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:56 pm

That's the best news I've heard in ages Penguin.

Penguin wrote:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200902270229.html
On average, in developed countries, organic systems produce 92 per cent of the yield produced by conventional agriculture. In developing countries, however, organic systems produce 80 per cent more than conventional farms.



So, growing a crop of tasty, nitrogen fixing beans every few years on your land almost halves the use of chemical fertiliser. Now an organically farmed hectare in the industrial world can feed more than three bodybuilders who insist on only eating solid food. Or five normal people. And organic farming in the "developing" world adds more than half as much again to yield? That's fantastic.

- The integration of pond fish culture into low-input farm systems with some 2,000 farmers in Malawi increased vegetable yields from 2,700 to 4,000 kg/ha, with the fish ponds producing the equivalent of 1,500 kg/ha of fish and proving a new source of food for households.


From one hectare?! In Africa?! That'd feed 3 bodybuilders right there (although, admittedly, they'd smell like fish). Om nom nom nom nom nom nom.

- The high mountain regions of Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador are some of the most difficult areas in the world for growing crops. Despite this, farmers have increased potato yields threefold, particularly by using green manures to enrich the soil. Using these methods, some 2,000 farmers in Bolivia have improved potato production from about 4,000 kg/ha to 10-15000 kg/ha.


10-15 tonnes of yummy spuds from one hectare in "some of the most difficult areas in the world for growing crops." Educating the poor in these ingenius organic growing methods should be the world's top priority.

Why wasn't this story on the front page of every newspaper in the world? Oh, wait, it's because there's an agenda to convince everyone that the world is overpopulated and the influential oil industry doesn't want to halve their cut of everything that everybody eats.

Sorry for not getting back to other criticism of my numbers yet. I didn't know what a hectare was a few days ago. This new learning amazes me!
Many thanks, you're a unique insightful genius Mr. Wells please delete this account so I don't get reminded of an inspirational genius who somehow turned out to be an crypto-"environmentalist"-Fascist. You got AGW all arseways, sorry.
Hairball
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby wintler2 » Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:16 pm

Penguin, it does seem possible that intensively managed polycultures can be made very productive and quite probably sustainable, and remaking agriculture to rely on same is key to reducing hunger. So how do we get the required 10-40?% of workforce to retrain as naturalist farmers? We lack the cultural software to allow such endevours to survive, not least that 9 times out of 10 its not economic to be Green. Land tenure, the basis of money and the focus of taxation all need changing, hip hip hooray!


Hairball wrote:Sorry for not getting back to other criticism of my numbers yet. I didn't know what a hectare was a few days ago. This new learning amazes me!


Maybe try connecting a few dots to your new learning, instead of piling on more bodybuilders: "When I get new information, I change my position. What, sir, do you do with new information" JM Keynes
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby barracuda » Wed Oct 28, 2009 2:20 pm

Wintler, no one is saying that the world is going to magically change itself, or that the benefits of sustainable agriculture will ever be reaped. But let's face it, the alternative - starvation beyond even the global scale we now experience, massive famine, societal breakdown, and peak fucking everything - doesn't sound like a picnic either. So, yes, the world needs to change, but seems to lack the fundamental human character tools and ability to meet the requirements of sustainability. Christ, I can't even quit smoking.

Hairball, your addressing of the numbers above might be augmented by taking into account the research on the health benefits of caloric restriction as a way to theoretically stretch potential food production even further.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Nordic » Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:02 pm

I believe one can look to Cuba for an example of how this can actually work.

When the Soviet Union fell apart, so did their petro-based agriculture, and massive amounts of food importation. After some lean years, they've managed to figure out how to feed themselves.
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Postby Hairball » Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:26 pm

Hay, I'm really very sorry :oops:

I've been aware of the greenhouse effect since I was a kid, I managed to convinced myself that it happening on Earth was a total scam just like 90% of what I read in the papers. And then never bothered to even check if this was the case. I've managed to see the error of my ways. I hope that some of you, and smiths in particular can forgive my ignorance.

In the shadow of my new found enlightenment I can see that's it's just as well you can grow 15,000kg of potatoes per hectare in the high Andes, since this type of land is going to be a good percentage of the total available for agriculture when sea levels rise 50 meters within the next 50 or so years.

Really sorry again. :(
Many thanks, you're a unique insightful genius Mr. Wells please delete this account so I don't get reminded of an inspirational genius who somehow turned out to be an crypto-"environmentalist"-Fascist. You got AGW all arseways, sorry.
Hairball
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 11:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby smiths » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:50 pm

there is nothing to forgive hairball

what was truly unforgivable was someones suggestion that earth could support 1000 billion people :wink:
the question is why, who, why, what, why, when, why and why again?
User avatar
smiths
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby barracuda » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:58 pm

We'll never know, though, will we? Meanwhile, you'll be telling everyone about what you consider impossible while I talk about what might be.

smiths wrote:truly unforgivable


Nothing is unforgivable - but first you've got to forgive yourself.

*wink*
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby smiths » Thu Oct 29, 2009 12:37 am

barracuda i really was only joking, i almost never attach those little yellow things and did so to signify it as a joke
the question is why, who, why, what, why, when, why and why again?
User avatar
smiths
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby barracuda » Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:22 am

That's cool, smiths, I abhor those little fuckers myself.

Image
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby wintler2 » Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:56 am

barracuda wrote:Wintler, no one is saying that the world is going to magically change itself, or that the benefits of sustainable agriculture will ever be reaped.

Actually, i am, cos nothing else will work. Those who chose to keep living in 'no limits' land are choosing their own demise. The rest of us continue the work and play required to co-create a peaceful and sustainable civilisation.

barracuda wrote: ..Christ, I can't even quit smoking.


I've never quite grasped why i should.. isn't mortality a wonderful guarantee of a well earned rest.
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:24 am

George Monbiot: The Population Myth

People who claim that population growth is the big environmental issue are shifting the blame from the rich to the poor

It’s no coincidence that most of those who are obsessed with population growth are post-reproductive wealthy white men: it’s about the only environmental issue for which they can’t be blamed. The brilliant earth systems scientist James Lovelock, for example, claimed last month that “those who fail to see that population growth and climate change are two sides of the same coin are either ignorant or hiding from the truth. These two huge environmental problems are inseparable and to discuss one while ignoring the other is irrational.”(1) But it’s Lovelock who is being ignorant and irrational.

A paper published yesterday in the journal Environment and Urbanization shows that the places where population has been growing fastest are those in which carbon dioxide has been growing most slowly, and vice versa. Between 1980 and 2005, for example, Sub-Saharan Africa produced 18.5% of the world’s population growth and just 2.4% of the growth in CO2. North America turned out 4% of the extra people, but 14% of the extra emissions. Sixty-three per cent of the world’s population growth happened in places with very low emissions(2).

Even this does not capture it. The paper points out that around one sixth of the world’s population is so poor that it produces no significant emissions at all. This is also the group whose growth rate is likely to be highest. Households in India earning less than 3,000 rupees a month use a fifth of the electricity per head and one seventh of the transport fuel of households earning Rs30,000 or more. Street sleepers use almost nothing. Those who live by processing waste (a large part of the urban underclass) often save more greenhouse gases than they produce.

Many of the emissions for which poorer countries are blamed should in fairness belong to us. Gas flaring by companies exporting oil from Nigeria, for example, has produced more greenhouse gases than all other sources in sub-Saharan Africa put together(3). Even deforestation in poor countries is driven mostly by commercial operations delivering timber, meat and animal feed to rich consumers. The rural poor do far less harm(4).

The paper’s author, David Satterthwaite of the International Institute for Environment and Development, points out that the old formula taught to all students of development - that total impact equals population times affluence times technology (I=PAT) - is wrong. Total impact should be measured as I=CAT: consumers times affluence times technology. Many of the world’s people use so little that they wouldn’t figure in this equation. They are the ones who have most children.

While there’s a weak correlation between global warming and population growth, there’s a strong correlation between global warming and wealth. I’ve been taking a look at a few superyachts, as I’ll need somewhere to entertain Labour ministers in the style to which they’re accustomed. First I went through the plans for Royal Falcon Fleet’s RFF135, but when I discovered that it burns only 750 litres of fuel per hour(5) I realised that it wasn’t going to impress Lord Mandelson. I might raise half an eyebrow in Brighton with the Overmarine Mangusta 105, which sucks up 850 l/hr(6). But the raft that’s really caught my eye is made by Wally Yachts in Monaco. The WallyPower 118 (which gives total wallies a sensation of power) consumes 3400 l/hr when travelling at 60 knots(7). That’s nearly one litre per second. Another way of putting it is 31 litres per kilometre(8 ).

Of course to make a real splash I’ll have to shell out on teak and mahogany fittings, carry a few jet skis and a mini-submarine, ferry my guests to the marina by private plane and helicopter, offer them bluefin tuna sushi and beluga caviar and drive the beast so fast that I mash up half the marine life of the Mediterranean. As the owner of one of these yachts I’ll do more damage to the biosphere in ten minutes than most Africans inflict in a lifetime. Now we’re burning, baby.

Someone I know who hangs out with the very rich tells me that in the banker belt of the lower Thames valley there are people who heat their outdoor swimming pools to bath temperature, all round the year. They like to lie in the pool on winter nights, looking up at the stars. The fuel costs them £3000 a month. One hundred thousand people living like these bankers would knacker our life support systems faster than 10 billion people living like the African peasantry. But at least the super wealthy have the good manners not to breed very much, so the rich old men who bang on about human reproduction leave them alone.

In May the Sunday Times carried an article headlined “Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation”. It revealed that “some of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly” to decide which good cause they should support. “A consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.”(9) The ultra-rich, in other words, have decided that it’s the very poor who are trashing the planet. You grope for a metaphor, but it’s impossible to satirise.

James Lovelock, like Sir David Attenborough and Jonathan Porritt, is a patron of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT). It is one of dozens of campaigns and charities whose sole purpose is to discourage people from breeding in the name of saving the biosphere. But I haven’t been able to find any campaign whose sole purpose is to address the impacts of the very rich.

The obsessives could argue that the people breeding rapidly today might one day become richer. But as the super wealthy grab an ever greater share and resources begin to run dry, this, for most of the very poor, is a diminishing prospect. There are strong social reasons for helping people to manage their reproduction, but weak environmental reasons, except among wealthier populations.

The Optimum Population Trust glosses over the fact that the world is going through demographic transition: population growth rates are slowing down almost everywhere and the number of people is likely, according to a paper in Nature, to peak this century(10), probably at around 10 billion(11). Most of the growth will take place among those who consume almost nothing.

But no one anticipates a consumption transition. People breed less as they become richer, but they don’t consume less; they consume more. As the habits of the super-rich show, there are no limits to human extravagance. Consumption can be expected to rise with economic growth until the biosphere hits the buffers. Anyone who understands this and still considers that population, not consumption, is the big issue is, in Lovelock’s words, “hiding from the truth”. It is the worst kind of paternalism, blaming the poor for the excesses of the rich.

So where are the movements protesting about the stinking rich destroying our living systems? Where is the direct action against superyachts and private jets? Where’s Class War when you need it?

It’s time we had the guts to name the problem. It’s not sex; it’s money. It’s not the poor; it’s the rich.

***

References:

1. Optimum Population Trust, 26th August 2009 Gaia Scientist to be OPT Patron.
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releas ... 6Aug09.htm

2. David Satterthwaite, September 2009. The implications of population growth and urbanization for climate change. Environment & Urbanization, Vol 21(2): 545–567. DOI: 10.1177/0956247809344361.

3. http://www.foei.org/en/publications/pdf ... igeria.pdf

4. For example, Satterthwaite cites the study by Gerald Leach and Robin Mearns, 1989. Beyond the Woodfuel Crisis – People, Land and Trees in Africa, Earthscan Publications, London.

5. http://www.ybw.com/auto/newsdesk/20090802125307syb.html

6. http://www.jameslist.com/advert/5480

7. http://machinedesign.com/article/118-wa ... -boat-0616

8. 15 US gallons/nm = 56.775l/nm = 31 l/km.

9. John Harlow, 24th May 2009. Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation. The Sunday Times.

10. Wolfgang Lutz, Warren Sanderson and Sergei Scherbov, 20th January 2008. The coming acceleration of global population ageing. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature06516

11. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2005. World Population Prospects. The 2004
Revision. http://www.
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Hammer of Los » Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:12 pm

I always assume overpopulation talk originates with malthusian white racialist supremacist eugenicist types with sinister agendas.

Doesn't everyone?
Hammer of Los
 
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Gouda » Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:04 am

Well, when you've got a group of billionaires - some with demonstrated links to eugenics - all hopped up on Malthus, I'd say that's bad company and bad news.

The lie of their 'concern' is immediately exposed: while their banks, private equity groups and software are deliberately driving growth (and profit and consumption, thus resource pillage) in the two most populous countries on Earth - India and China - they set their sights on Africa to roll out their techno love to help the population. That's just not going to go well. (See, for example, the outbreak of genetically modified suicides in rural India).

Not all overpop talk originates with these types. Take Chris Hedges for example, a guy I generally respect. But his op We Are Breeding Ourselves to Extinction is disappointing to say the least. It's a strike out with the bases loaded, completely whiffing an Eephus pitch.

He writes crap like this for example: "A world where 8 billion to 10 billion people are competing for diminishing resources will not be peaceful."

One, has it ever been peaceful? Two, haven't billions had their resources stolen or poisoned, thus deliberately diminished for ages? Three, his assumption that the root cause of conflict is population rather than the primary drivers of fear, greed, power, consumption, domination, extraction, exploitation, artifice, accumulation and theft - is music to a Rockefeller's ears.

Capitalism/growth (enclosure, privatization), neocolonialism, and the deliberate erosion of democracy - all linked as the root threat - are never mentioned in the arguments of people talking overpopulation, scarcity and carrying capacity.

The powerful pushing 'overpopulation' are really pushing a privatization agenda and the economic strategy of enclosure, masking a Malthusian framework with easy to swallow (and of course, very legitimate) environmentalism. The powerful don't need to be further empowered by our tragic embrace of their framework.

As Iain Boal writes:

Malthus' way of framing the issue of human welfare has triumphed. And I think it's especially important for the Left to understand this. Particularly those who got drawn into politics through concern about the environment, who count themselves as "green". Scratch an environmentalist and probably you'll find a Malthusian. What do I mean by that? What is it to be Malthusian? Well, it's to subscribe to the view that the fundamental problems humanity faces have their roots in the scarcity of the resources that sustain life, because the world is finite and we are exhausting those resources and also perhaps because we are polluting them. Notice how this mirrors the basic assumption of modern economics – choice under scarcity. In his notorious essay published in 1798, Malthus argued, or rather asserted, that population growth, especially of poor bastards, would inevitably outrun food supply, unless the propertyless were restrained from breeding. He advocated that poor people be crowded together in unhealthy housing, as a way of checking the growth of population. Remember, this is the world's very first economist we're talking about here.
In other words, if we look at the history of the world under five hundred years of capitalism, we should be talking catastrophe. Of course we should. It's been one long catastrophe. But we should refuse to do so in Malthusian terms, blaming the state of affairs on overpopulation, poverty, or lack of restraint in the slums of the world. And we should be aware that catastrophism and apocalypse talk are especially congenial to fundamentalists.

-- Specters of Malthus: Scarcity, Poverty, Apocalypse. Iain Boal in conversation with David Martinez
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby smiths » Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:45 pm

the problem that i have with this is that it suggests that population growth is not an issue,

is that what you think gouda,

do you think the earth can support infinite population growth? of course you dont, that would be ridiculous,

so what are the limits?

framing an arguement in terms of finite resources is not malthusian,
its conforming to known physical laws, thermodynamics baby

we are not perpetual motion machines, nor are potatoes or chickens

we require chemical energy which we convert to thermal energy, we produce waste,
without drinkable water we are dead within four days, without food we are dead within forty

it is basic logic to look at the sequence of energy inputs required to produce the inputs that we require to physically survive

honestly, what the fuck are 100 billion people going to be eating? plastic

any theories of societies future that ignore physics are worthless
the question is why, who, why, what, why, when, why and why again?
User avatar
smiths
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 158 guests