How do they think the food supply can be increased so much?

[mcgowanjm]

Cerrado species face greatest extinction risk
Quote:
A recent study showed that species found in the cerrado ecosystem — a woody grassland and forest transition zone — face the highest risk of extinction of Amazonian plants due to forecast loss in habitat. With cerrado habitat declining at more than 3 percent annually, cerrado species face twice the extinction risk as non-cerrado species.

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0915-cerrado.html
The destruction of the Amazonic forest and unique ecosistems to feed more people is GOOD NEWS TO YOU???????????????????
It is amazing the depths of cornucopian thinking, fucking hell. FUCKING TROLL

I remember much the same was said of australia a few
years back in regards to cotton.

There is a limiting factor here:

1. Bunge should abide by the Federal court ruling in Brazil and immediately stop using native wood from the Cerrado as an energy source in their soy processing facilities.

2. Bunge must respect the Brazilian National Agreement for the Eradication of Slave Labor and stop buying soy from plantations that use slave labor.

These demands are reasonable and achievable and I look forward to a prompt response and prompt action.

Thank you

And you can bet that Bunge knows what it is.

[rangerone314]

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0915-cerrado.html
The destruction of the Amazonic forest and unique ecosistems to feed more people is GOOD NEWS TO YOU???????????????????
It is amazing the depths of cornucopian thinking, fucking hell. FUCKING TROLL

OF is not a troll.

His beau ideal is this:

gideon.JPG (14.33 KiB) Viewed 237 times

(from Star Trek, "Mark of Gideon", one where the entire surface of the planet is covered in people)

[OilFinder2]

>>> The Brazilian Savannah (Cerrado) <<<

From a US perspective, the cerrados equal 26% of the area of the lower 48 states--more than 510 million acres--an area larger than the US east of the Mississippi River, excluding Florida. Only about 60 million ha--about one-fourth of the cerrados--is now economically used. Of that, dryland and irrigated crops cover about 25 million ha. The rest is in pasture.

EMBRAPA, Brazil's agricultural research organization, estimates that another 100+ million ha are suited for modern mechanized crop agriculture. More recently, the USDA estimated that between 145 and 170 million hectares (402 million acres) could be opened for crop production. This means that the agricultural area yet to be opened is more than 25 percent larger than the total crop acreage of the U.S.

Throw in the usual batch of various agricultural technologies and - bingo! - you've got Cornucopia. Not that everyone will be happy with that.

AND THAT IS GOOD NEWS???????????????????????????
Cerrado species face greatest extinction risk

A recent study showed that species found in the cerrado ecosystem — a woody grassland and forest transition zone — face the highest risk of extinction of Amazonian plants due to forecast loss in habitat. With cerrado habitat declining at more than 3 percent annually, cerrado species face twice the extinction risk as non-cerrado species.

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0915-cerrado.html
The destruction of the Amazonic forest and unique ecosistems to feed more people is GOOD NEWS TO YOU???????????????????
It is amazing the depths of cornucopian thinking, fucking hell. FUCKING TROLL

It is amazing the depths of tree-hugger thinking. They would deliberately let millions - even billions - of people die of starvation to save an ecosystem which will far outlast humans anyway. fucking hell. FUCKING TROLL

Care to be one who voluntarily lets himself starve to death to save the cerrado?

[Homesteader]

>>> The Brazilian Savannah (Cerrado) <<<

From a US perspective, the cerrados equal 26% of the area of the lower 48 states--more than 510 million acres--an area larger than the US east of the Mississippi River, excluding Florida. Only about 60 million ha--about one-fourth of the cerrados--is now economically used. Of that, dryland and irrigated crops cover about 25 million ha. The rest is in pasture.

EMBRAPA, Brazil's agricultural research organization, estimates that another 100+ million ha are suited for modern mechanized crop agriculture. More recently, the USDA estimated that between 145 and 170 million hectares (402 million acres) could be opened for crop production. This means that the agricultural area yet to be opened is more than 25 percent larger than the total crop acreage of the U.S.

Throw in the usual batch of various agricultural technologies and - bingo! - you've got Cornucopia. Not that everyone will be happy with that.

AND THAT IS GOOD NEWS???????????????????????????
Cerrado species face greatest extinction risk

A recent study showed that species found in the cerrado ecosystem — a woody grassland and forest transition zone — face the highest risk of extinction of Amazonian plants due to forecast loss in habitat. With cerrado habitat declining at more than 3 percent annually, cerrado species face twice the extinction risk as non-cerrado species.

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0915-cerrado.html
The destruction of the Amazonic forest and unique ecosistems to feed more people is GOOD NEWS TO YOU???????????????????
It is amazing the depths of cornucopian thinking, fucking hell. FUCKING TROLL

It is amazing the depths of tree-hugger thinking. They would deliberately let millions - even billions - of people die of starvation to save an ecosystem which will far outlast humans anyway. fucking hell. FUCKING TROLL

Care to be one who voluntarily lets himself starve to death to save the cerrado?

The depths of your ignorance no longer surprises me. I only read your posts for the entetainment value.

[sparky]

.

mos 6507
" Ask them if they feel they benefit by not starving. Abstract concepts about dependence and future sustainability are trumped by day to day survival. It's easy to collectively blame people for their own misery "

I wouldn't blame a father who cut the last tree to warm his family
or kill the last antelope to feed his kids

This is beyond judgment , certainly beyond mine
no blame , simply compassion for an inevitable outcome
protecting the life of some can threaten the life of many
prolonging a bad situation is not necessarily solving it

Ludi
Africa has some of the most underfed populations
still the continent export millions of tons of cash crops
while food farmers have to compete against an highly subsidized first world agribusiness , they go bankrupt or are chased out to see their land used to grow tobacco , palm oil , cocoa , coffee , jute ...whatever
while foreign banks invest the money of corrupt rulers kept in place by foreign arm sale .

then of course coffee drinking foreigners come to commiserate ,


It used to be the west , but now the Chinese government is gleefully embracing the practice ,
minus the commiseration

I'm no angel and mind my own ,
as much a " victim " of the accident of birth as anyone
definitely with no guilt whatsoever , particularity for Afghan villagers growing Opium .


.









.

[hillsidedigger]

Here we go again, Part #2:

There's a lot of problems with both of those places from an agriculturalists point of view, too far North and too dry, too far South and too wet.

That doesn't seem to be stopping them, does it.







1. The Brazilian cerrado isn't all that wet, it has a wet season and a dry season.
2. They have varieties of soybeans and corn which can be grown in tropical climates.
3. You can grow wheat as far north as the Yukon and Alaska. Other grains grow fine that far north too.

Will any of those places produce very much for more than just a few seasons without huge inputs of fuel and products from fossil fuels?

[eXpat]

It is amazing the depths of tree-hugger thinking. They would deliberately let millions - even billions - of people die of starvation to save an ecosystem which will far outlast humans anyway. fucking hell. FUCKING TROLL

Care to be one who voluntarily lets himself starve to death to save the cerrado?

Defending what cannot be defended. So basic respect for the planet were we live is tree-hugger thinking for you? everything and anything is there for the sole purpose to move your SUV? How can any ecosystem outlast humans if they are intent in chopping it down? What about restraining the numbers of an species (ours) that is using natural resources in an unsustainable way and damaging in the process the equilibrium of the planet that we live in, in an already irreversible manner?. You attack my position as one that would let billions of people die of starvation, tell me, what is the value of yours, that would let humand increase numbers till no virgin land remains, no wild fauna, but pets or cattle?. What about the resources to sustain all that? and why? why is better that we reproduce like a cancer in this planet, what is the virtue of that? Do you jerk off thinking that one day the all the planet could be like Japan or China crowded with people? Is that big your craving for soylent green? Moron.

[rangerone314]

The whole argument about not blaming some guy for cutting down the last tree to save his family from starving is silly.

How about avoiding the whole starving-to-death issue by having the foresight to not have let it get that far to begin with?

Ooops! My bad. Human's don't have foresight.

The basic issue is not about cutting down a tree specifically. How would we feel about that same guy gunning some people down in a bank to get money to feed his family?

I expect ANIMALS to display little or no foresight. I don't see why humans that don't elevate their thinking beyond animals should be treated better than such, as that would be species-ism. Humans aren't better than animals if they don't act better...

[OilFinder2]

It is amazing the depths of tree-hugger thinking. They would deliberately let millions - even billions - of people die of starvation to save an ecosystem which will far outlast humans anyway. fucking hell. FUCKING TROLL

Care to be one who voluntarily lets himself starve to death to save the cerrado?

Defending what cannot be defended. So basic respect for the planet were we live is tree-hugger thinking for you? everything and anything is there for the sole purpose to move your SUV? How can any ecosystem outlast humans if they are intent in chopping it down? What about restraining the numbers of an species (ours) that is using natural resources in an unsustainable way and damaging in the process the equilibrium of the planet that we live in, in an already irreversible manner?. You attack my position as one that would let billions of people die of starvation, tell me, what is the value of yours, that would let humand increase numbers till no virgin land remains, no wild fauna, but pets or cattle?. What about the resources to sustain all that? and why? why is better that we reproduce like a cancer in this planet, what is the virtue of that? Do you jerk off thinking that one day the all the planet could be like Japan or China crowded with people? Is that big your craving for soylent green? Moron.

eXpat, do you have any doubt that tropical savanahs will exist a million years from now? I don't. At one point some 300 million years ago, almost the entire planet was covered in a giant ice age. If the planet can recover from that, it can easily recover from whatever humans do to it in the brief time we are here. Contrary to your belief, not even the most starry-eyed cornucopian believes humans will be around forever. Nor do we believe Yellowstone should be paved over with subdivisions and the entire Amazon replaced with Hong Kong and a tropical Iowa. Your argument amounts to reducio ad absurdum. I could just as easily accuse *you* of being a self-hating human who would just love for all humans to go extinct ASAP so that nature could be restored ASAP. In that case, you can start at home and head for the nearest cliff. Or, if you don't want the cerrado to be turned into soybean fields, you can start at home there too, and STOP EATING. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and since I don't see you eagerly starving yourself to death and jumping off cliffs, I will assume you're not a self-hating human, and perhaps you might actually like humans. If that's the case, you cannot expect anyone else to voluntarily starve themselves to death and jump off cliffs any more than you would. So we're back to square one: If you yourself aren't willing to voluntarily starve to death or jump off cliffs to save the planet, and since you don't expect anyone else to do the same, how do you expect to feed all the people who have the same needs as you do?

This is the tree-hugger dilemma: they don't really HAVE a solution for this. If you tell them there are bountiful amounts of usable farmland in Russia and Brazil, they complain that this will enable the feeding of too many people at the expense of nature. But when you tell them the alternative is to let them all starve, they themselves aren't eager to be one of those willing to starve, so why would anyone else do so? Is it OK for you to eat, but not anyone else? What hypocricy!

[rangerone314]

I got an idea. How about instead of starving, they stop making babies they can't support without burning half of the world to the ground. Example, India:
http://countrystudies.us/india/32.htm

India accounts for some 2.4 percent of the world's landmass but is home to about 16 percent of the global population (to be fair 11.7% of arable land but that may change). The magnitude of the annual increase in population can be seen in the fact that India adds almost the total population of Australia or Sri Lanka every year. A 1992 study of India's population notes that India has more people than all of Africa and also more than North America and South America together. Between 1947 and 1991, India's population more than doubled.

The world needs more condoms and less chainsaws.

[OilFinder2]

If someone wants to complain about population growth, that is fine. But if you yourself aren't willing to starve to death to save the planet, you should not be complaining about creating new farmland to feed all the other people who, just like you, don't want to willingly starve to death to save the planet.

BTW, the ice age I referred to above was around ~600-800 million years ago, not 300. Info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenian#Climate

[rangerone314]

If someone wants to complain about population growth, that is fine. But if you yourself aren't willing to starve to death to save the planet, you should not be complaining about creating new farmland to feed all the other people who, just like you, don't want to willingly starve to death to save the planet.

BTW, the ice age I referred to above was around ~600-800 million years ago, not 300. Info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenian#Climate

Why do they have to starve to death instead of making fewer babies, to save the planet?

I'm not a crack addict and I have every right to complain if someone burns down a forest to grow coca.

Maybe the problem is the 3rd world is addicted like crack addicts to unprotected sex without birthcontrol.

[eXpat]

If someone wants to complain about population growth, that is fine. But if you yourself aren't willing to starve to death to save the planet, you should not be complaining about creating new farmland to feed all the other people who, just like you, don't want to willingly starve to death to save the planet.

BTW, the ice age I referred to above was around ~600-800 million years ago, not 300. Info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryogenian#Climate

Why do they have to starve to death instead of making fewer babies, to save the planet?

I'm not a crack addict and I have every right to complain if someone burns down a forest to grow coca.

Maybe the problem is the 3rd world is addicted like crack addicts to unprotected sex without birthcontrol.

Because the moron thinks he found some valid counter argument to support his consumption dreams. For the record i would gladly starve off in front of the cameras 24/7 if that would stop the disproportionate destruction of nature by morons like you, but it won´t happen, you know why?, because i can do it, and all the people in the forum can go for it but it won´t be change anything because morons like YOU have to have their cozy lifestyle, here is an example, tell me did this:

stop the Vietnam war? here you have people self immolating as you want for an issue less important than the one we are discussing here. What changed? nothing, nothing at all.
So stop trying to change the issue. YOU are the one advocating the destruction of the little virgin land that still remains in this planet to feed even more people.
What about your proposals? what about some voluntary powerdown, from the countries than use more energy and food? what about drastic measures to control population? are you in favor of that? Of course not, i bet you are in the camp that says "eventually population will stabilize for itself" very nice argument. kick the solution to some indefinite future to others take the responsability. And lets keep our way of life, what the hell, i´m not to blame.
Finally the true colours of Shitfinder have appeared eh? nothing will stand in the way to my plasma tv and my disney holidays. Wow, what a pathetic excuse for a human being.

[Pretorian]

If you yourself aren't willing to voluntarily starve to death or jump off cliffs to save the planet, and since you don't expect anyone else to do the same, how do you expect to feed all the people who have the same needs as you do?

Excuse me? i do not expect to feed them at all. It is their problem to find their own alimentation, just as I find mine in the fridge and restaurants. What are they, my children that I have to expect to feed them?

This is the tree-hugger dilemma: they don't really HAVE a solution for this. If you tell them there are bountiful amounts of usable farmland in Russia and Brazil, they complain that this will enable the feeding of too many people at the expense of nature. But when you tell them the alternative is to let them all starve, they themselves aren't eager to be one of those willing to starve, so why would anyone else do so? Is it OK for you to eat, but not anyone else? What hypocricy!

Why would anyone else do so? Nobody asks to starve anybody. Its not like you get to choose. Most of the people who expect to be fed are up for some news very soon . We all compete for resources. The losers will die. And I sure hope they will die before cutting off all the trees.

[OilFinder2]

Why do they have to starve to death instead of making fewer babies, to save the planet?

That wasn't the option I was presenting, that was the one eXpat was giving us. eXpat was telling us we shouldn't plow over the cerrado just to feed some more humans. The alternative would be so have those humans which would have been fed by the crops grown in the cerrado to instead starve to death. If those additional humans don't show up, then we won't need to plow over so much of the cerrado. But if they DO show up, then they will want to eat just as much as you and I, and it will be places like the cerrado which can - and will - feed them.

Maybe the problem is the 3rd world is addicted like crack addicts to unprotected sex without birthcontrol.

[/quote]
As perhaps you know, birth rates in the 3rd world are already falling, and have been doing so for at least 20-30 years. Things like this don't happen overnight. That said, don't just blame the 3rd world, the 1st world had their own population explosion period, too (largely in the 19th century).

[OilFinder2]

Because the moron thinks he found some valid counter argument to support his consumption dreams. For the record i would gladly starve off in front of the cameras 24/7 if that would stop the disproportionate destruction of nature by morons like you, but it won´t happen, you know why?, because i can do it, and all the people in the forum can go for it but it won´t be change anything because morons like YOU have to have their cozy lifestyle, here is an example, tell me did this:

stop the Vietnam war? here you have people self immolating as you want for an issue less important than the one we are discussing here. What changed? nothing, nothing at all.
So stop trying to change the issue. YOU are the one advocating the destruction of the little virgin land that still remains in this planet to feed even more people.
What about your proposals? what about some voluntary powerdown, from the countries than use more energy and food? what about drastic measures to control population? are you in favor of that? Of course not, i bet you are in the camp that says "eventually population will stabilize for itself" very nice argument. kick the solution to some indefinite future to others take the responsability. And lets keep our way of life, what the hell, i´m not to blame.
Finally the true colours of Shitfinder have appeared eh? nothing will stand in the way to my plasma tv and my disney holidays. Wow, what a pathetic excuse for a human being.

You have answered your own question. If you aren't willing to kill yourself to save the planet, or if you aren't willing to let yourself starve to save the planet, then you cannot expect anyone else to. Here you are, eating food just like everyone else, typing words in front of a plasma computer sceen in your home, and yet you are trying to tell us that we shouldn't eat and that we shouldn't engage in consumptive lifestyles. Is there any wonder why so many consider your movement to be a fringe movement?

As for the items on your list, I have nothing against them - but ironically, it's already happening even without any "drastic measures." On this list here for example, you'll discover that per capita energy consumption in the US has been flat or declining for over 30 years. Bet you didn't know that. If it weren't for population growth, we would already be "powering down" without much of a deliberate attempt to do so. This will happen in the rest of the developed world (probably already is happening) and will eventually be followed by the developing world. So the only thing you've got left to complain about is population growth.

Now, I don't share your environmental doomsday p.o.v. even *with* population growth, but I'll humor you for the time being. To understand why I don't share your view, all you have to do is read the many past predictions of environmental doomsday, and get a laugh at their track record. I'm still waiting for that Dieoff which was supposed to happen in the 70's, and then the 80's, and the 90's . . .

[OilFinder2]

BTW, this is a gross mischaracterization of the cornucopian view:

So stop trying to change the issue. YOU are the one advocating the destruction of the little virgin land that still remains in this planet to feed even more people.

You act as if we are jumping up and down in joy yelling, "Yeah! Rip up that cerrado! Plow over the rainforests! Woohoo!" Cornucopians like nature and wilderness as much as everyone else. The reason why we accept some "destruction" of nature is because:

1. It is necessary to feed a growing human population. As mentioned before, if that population stops growing, then - fine! But if it doesn't, then . . .
2. There is more than enough tillable land and other resources to feed them. And lastly . . .
3. Humans aren't going to be here forever, cornucopia or not. Once we're gone, nature will carry on as it has for a billion years before us. Though nature, too, will eventually disappear once the earth starts to fry up from an expanding sun.

Your time horizon is about a hundred years, maybe 500 or a thousand at the most. Mine is like . . . a billion years. The longer your time horizon is, the more it becomes obvious that nothing we do here on planet earth matters.

[eXpat]

You have answered your own question. If you aren't willing to kill yourself to save the planet, or if you aren't willing to let yourself starve to save the planet, then you cannot expect anyone else to. Here you are, eating food just like everyone else, typing words in front of a plasma computer sceen in your home, and yet you are trying to tell us that we shouldn't eat and that we shouldn't engage in consumptive lifestyles. Is there any wonder why so many consider your movement to be a fringe movement?

There you go again POS, you brought that idea of self sacrifice, to which i already answered but i going to say it again, the immolation of an individual of a group of individuals would do nothing to alleviate the situation, just let the way free for morons like you without any sense of responsability whatsoever.
I must confess that I used to image Shitfinder as a naive tecnocrat, dazzled in his dreams of eternal progress, misguided but honest fighting in denial; well, today i see that i was dead wrong, the real shitfinder is stark naked in front of you all, and all everybody can see is greed, greed and egotism. I´m done with you Shitfinder POS, welcome to my ingore list.

[OilFinder2]

The fact you can only call me names and cannot even begin to address the points I made (such as: a billion years vs. 500 years) makes it plainly obvious you *have* no response to what I said.

But since you like showing pictures I'll do the same and show you one to remind you how ultimately important your little green frogs in the Brazilian cerrado are.



EDIT: BTW you still missed the point about self-sacrifice. It wasn't self-sacrifice to make a political statement, it was self-sacrifice to solve the problem you are proposing needs to be solved. You don't need to light yourself on fire in front of TV cameras to let everyone know how you feel. You are right - nobody cares and it won't make a difference. It WILL, however, make a difference in the amount of resources which are consumed. If everybody killed themselves to save the planet, then the planet would be saved. But you don't want to kill yourself to save the planet, so you cannot expect anyone else to either.

And since you cannot expect anyone else to kill themselves to save the planet, you are going to have to figure out a way to feed all those people.

[OilFinder2]

If you yourself aren't willing to voluntarily starve to death or jump off cliffs to save the planet, and since you don't expect anyone else to do the same, how do you expect to feed all the people who have the same needs as you do?

Excuse me? i do not expect to feed them at all. It is their problem to find their own alimentation, just as I find mine in the fridge and restaurants. What are they, my children that I have to expect to feed them?

No, I do not expect you to feed them. But just as you get your food from the fridge and restaurants, they will want to do the same. Now, where is the food to fill those refrigerators and restaurants going to come from?

Why, from the abandoned farms of Russia and the Brazilian cerrado, of course. It sure isn't going to appear out of thin air.

This is the tree-hugger dilemma: they don't really HAVE a solution for this. If you tell them there are bountiful amounts of usable farmland in Russia and Brazil, they complain that this will enable the feeding of too many people at the expense of nature. But when you tell them the alternative is to let them all starve, they themselves aren't eager to be one of those willing to starve, so why would anyone else do so? Is it OK for you to eat, but not anyone else? What hypocricy!

Why would anyone else do so? Nobody asks to starve anybody. Its not like you get to choose. Most of the people who expect to be fed are up for some news very soon . We all compete for resources. The losers will die. And I sure hope they will die before cutting off all the trees.

If you are right, and you are one of the ones who "expect to be fed," you won't have such a cavalier attitude about those destined to die if you yourself or some people you know are among the "losers" destined to die.