Joined: May 26, 2004 Posts: 1190 Location: Zoorope
Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 5:42 am Post subject: "Oh, but they're already starving!"
Yesterday I was talking to a friend about peak oil, agricultural, and the die off, he simply answered to me: "Oh, but there are already 4 billions people starving!"
Cynical, I thought at first. But then I began to question myself. Some years ago I was in Egypt: out of the cities, in the farmlands, the main transport is donkey. They use some diesel waterpumps, but most are hand-powered. And I'm talking of Egypt, not the poorest of the poorest. In Africa, out of the cities, they don't even have electric grid. In Latin America, they buy food on open markets, from close farmers.
This is the people we think are "starving": they simply get what they basically need.
End of oil. The egyptian farmer will keep on farming with his donkey and hand waterpump. The Africans will keep on without lights. The Latins will keep on buying at the local market as they did from centuries.
So: who's going to really starve? Who's going to face the overpopulation/food problem? Who's going to fight for that single potato, when the tons of potatoes from abroad will stop coming?
I've read "Eating fossil fuels" by Pfeiffer. Guess WHO is eating fossil fuels? All the data and statistics are about Western World: the so-called "third world" didn't enjoy any Green Revolution.
When we'll be forced to live on one-potato-a-day diet, 4 billions people won't even see the difference. But we'll do. Guess who is going to get the die-off?
The dieoff will hit the third world hardest. They will be the first to be unable to afford oil and typically have little to no global influence. The west can afford to give up a lot before we start to starve. Third world people who are just getting by have no slack.
While the rural third world population may not see radical changes, the majority of the third world population is in massive sprawling cities. These cities- ALL cities- are dependant on fossil fuels for survival.
Joined: Apr 17, 2004 Posts: 984 Location: Tulsa, Ok
Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:16 pm Post subject: Good point Barbara
You make a good point that some of us understand. When people already live on next to nothing. Do not use fertilizer derived from natural gas. Transport by animal to market, etc. They will not be hit much at all.
The starving people who get food from the donations of other countries will be hard hit. Every person who is reliant on Ammonia based fertilizer for their food. Where ever they are from. Will be hurting for food.
I haven't personally been in one of these countries but I understand exactly what you are saying. You have shown great wisdom and understanding in what you have passed on to us.
Psychologically, the United States is in for the biggest, biggest shock anybody can imagine.
In many ways, this is the real problem. I.E., if we as a group reacted to this situation calmly, maybe, just maybe we could figure out mulitple solutions that would allow us to have a planned powerdown, where we could still maintain 2500-3000 calorie a day diet and basic healthcare etc . .
But I highly doubt that is how we will react to it.
Joined: May 26, 2004 Posts: 1190 Location: Zoorope
Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 4:22 am Post subject:
I wish to drive your thoughts on this:
- China people are very used to obey without questioning. If their govt says "Ok, go bycycling and eat ants, the oil is over" then they'll do it without saying a word.
- Arab countries will do what they didn't since Ottoman Empire: they'll join together, and use the remaining oil for themselves.
- Africa doesn't depend on foreign food as much as you can think. Foreign food is just a very small percentage of what they get. And chemical fertilizers today are simply too expensive for most of them.
- Latin America is very rich: they have oil, gas, and most of all they have resources for agricolture. And a lot of land.
Of course, all these people will suffer from oil depletion. But nearly as close as WE'll do. Democracies teach people to question govt, but also we get used to "freedom" which, for most of us, means consuming without any stop from the govt.
Remember Argentina? The banks closed doors, and people couldn't get their savings anymore. What if that happens in US or EU? A revolution.
- China people are very used to obey without questioning. If their govt says "Ok, go bycycling and eat ants, the oil is over" then they'll do it without saying a word.
I think you're mistaken. One of the Chinese characters for "food" also means "rebellion." China has had problems with starvation in the past, and it's often led to civil insurrection. China is very aware of this. Keeping their huge population fed is their #1 priority. (Hence the brutal one-child policy.) And they are very petroleum dependent. They use tons of fertilizer to keep their food production up. I think they might very well choose to go to war rather than let their people starve.
Quote:
- Arab countries will do what they didn't since Ottoman Empire: they'll join together, and use the remaining oil for themselves.
If we let them. Oh, we won't go to war to take their oil away from them. It will be to combat terrorism, or to liberate the oppressed, or to protect Israel, or some such excuse. And we'll justify taking over the oil fields by claiming that they're ruining them with their outdated technology. We're really helping them, since our spiffy new technology will allow more extraction and prolong the life of the oil fields.
For Africa...you're probably right. Things are so bad over there that without oil, they won't be much worse. People are chronically undernourished in much of Africa. Disease, war, and famine take heavy tolls. Rural Africa may be what the whole world will look like, post-peak.
Quote:
Remember Argentina? The banks closed doors, and people couldn't get their savings anymore. What if that happens in US or EU? A revolution.
Actually, that did happen in the U.S., in the 1930s. The only revolution was the establishment of the FDIC, which insures your bank accounts up to $100,000.
And it happened again, the 1980s. The Savings & Loan scandal. Not only was there no revolution, but we elected two Bushes president, despite evidence that the Bush family was heavily involved.
Joined: May 31, 2004 Posts: 920 Location: Brno, Czech rep., EU
Posted: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:33 am Post subject:
Quote:
I think you're mistaken. One of the Chinese characters for "food" also means "rebellion." China has had problems with starvation in the past, and it's often led to civil insurrection. China is very aware of this. Keeping their huge population fed is their #1 priority. (Hence the brutal one-child policy.) And they are very petroleum dependent. They use tons of fertilizer to keep their food production up. I think they might very well choose to go to war rather than let their people starve.
Erm, Eurasia is currently using 1/11 of US per capita oil. China's oil demand grew only in recent years, and not because of rising population/agriculture demand, but because of growth in other areas of economy and car ownership. Their agriculture can be supplied from local oil sources (and again, fertilizers ARE NOT made from oil).
American farmers produce 16 percent of the world's food supply. A key reason for their productivity is the low cost fertilizer made possible by pipeline efficiency. Many commercial agricultural fertilizers are based on oil by-products.
http://www.aopl.org/about/daily.html _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
The population of the third world didnt get to 5 billion people through sustainable agriculture. Their growth is attributable to fossil fuel at many levels- as well as other depletable resources like water, soil, air, timber, and meat.
The developed world surely uses the lions share of fossil fuels. And we will certainly have a larger shock to "quality of life". After all, we have so much farther to fall.
I dont see the die-off sparing the third world though. 99.9% are not aboriginal people. They are totalitarian agriculture economies like the rest of the world. Their populations are concentrated in cities/slums.
The US/Canada is the breadbasket of the world. Once food gets tight, we'll be concentrating on feeding ourselves. Not to mention scrapping the beef industry. Or maybe converting the beef/pork/chicken grain to horse/oxen grain :D Unless China insists we "owe" them grain and decides to fight over it.....
PLUS, we also have huge resource reserves of oil, and coal. And the most powerful military in the world's history.
hard times ahead. YES.
However, the US will survive as well or better than the rest. All we need is the wakeup call.
REVEILLE!!!! da DUHN dadada, da DUHN dadada, da DUHN dadada dut DAH dah. dutdutdut dut DAH dah, da dutdutdut dut dah dah......
And even if they can import agrichemicals made from natural gas instead of oil by-products...how is it going to get to China? Via windmill?
What is "wrong" in my post? The fact that they are currently importing some fertilizers does not mean they cannot produce them locally. And for natural gas transport you don't need windmills, pipes from Russia are good enough I guess.
It also means they won't be hit so hard. China has long-term contracts with Russia and Iran, both stable oil producers.
Long-term contracts will mean squat when the oil crisis hits.
Quote:
What is "wrong" in my post? The fact that they are currently importing some fertilizers does not mean they cannot produce them locally.
Yes, it does. Believe me, it does. China doesn't just import "some" fertilizer. They are one of the biggest importers in the world. They use four times the fertilizer per hectare that most countries use - because they have to, to support their huge population on their increasingly impoverished soil.
Moreover, independence is very important to China. If they could be self-sufficient in fertilizer, they would be.
Quote:
And for natural gas transport you don't need windmills, pipes from Russia are good enough I guess.
And we all know that pipelines don't take any energy to build.
Don't count on Russia for petroleum. They don't have that much. China sure isn't counting on Russia for oil or gas; they are trying to forge alliances with Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries. In fact, China and Saudi Arabia just signed a big natural gas deal.
Africa and the Far East, I'd say, just going from the numbers. They have the least room to cut back.
Remember also that many of these countries that are living on the edge rely on imports - maybe not all the time, but during bad years. When there's a drought, say. They may export grain one year, import it the next. A million people died in the Ethiopia famine of the mid-'80s, and it would have been a lot worse if the world hadn't rallied to help. Without oil, that "insurance" will be gone.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
