[Newfie]

Well said!

[ralfy]

Repost:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _footprint

The planetary biocapacity is around 12 billion global hectares, or 1.8 global hectares per capita for the 2007 population. The ave. ecological footprint per capita that time was probably around 2.7, which is overshoot.

The former is expected to decrease given the a combination of an increasing population and environmental damage coupled with the effects of climate change. The pressure to increase the latter will take place because of growth required by a global capitalist system.

[KaiserJeep]

KJ, are you a young earther cross? 100,000 years? The urge to procreate? No mate, that one is so primal it's like the turtles, or the chicken & the egg.

Sorry I was not more clear about this. Modern man is about 100,000 years old, a little more. Before then there were three major hominids who interbred, and then at least three more branchings of the hominid tree.

I will not dispute the universality of the urge to reproduce. Turtles, Insects, and the "Kudsu Ape" all feel the same urge.

And NOBODY BETTER COME CLOSE to my organic, shade-grown, sun-dried, medium roast, 100% Kona or there will be He!! to pay!

[SeaGypsy]

Ralfy, the capacity numbers you restate often are based on the status quo, which we here all know can't last. Without getting into complexities, my point is simply that priority investment in long term agriculture could achieve a lot in terms of food security, environmental hand backs/ restoration, the things which might just buy us the hundred years we need to get ourselves into anything like a sustainable global village, pretty much what needs to happen.

[vtsnowedin]

Well it's six below zero here this morning. I've got the wood furnace perking right along and my second cup of coffee in my hand.
Now those that feel we can double food production should fly over to Egypt and Yemen and show um how it's done.

[Newfie]

I fear, from past experience, doubling food production would double population, not improve nutrition or food security.

It would only assure greater misery when it collapses. If you can total misery.

[vtsnowedin]

I fear, from past experience, doubling food production would double population, not improve nutrition or food security.

It would only assure greater misery when it collapses. If you can total misery.

Yes exactly right. Increasing the food supply in a poor backward country causes more harm then good. Better to spend the money on education and infrastructure if government and religious leaders will allow it.

[DesuMaiden]

I fear, from past experience, doubling food production would double population, not improve nutrition or food security.

It would only assure greater misery when it collapses. If you can total misery.

That's correct. Human population increases whenever food production is increased. I think it is in our best interest to not double food production because we certainly don't need twice as many people on this planet.

[SeaGypsy]

Regardless, it is definitely in everyone's interest to reduce the area required for agriculture & be able to re-nature as much area as possible. I am not arguing for doubling food production or population, as I started with, I am playing devil's advocate against Desu's utterly fatalistic position. The future of agriculture & population are in no way set in stone. It is completely realistic to imagine any possibility which exists. One possibility, as much as it is hated, is that population will double again, by use of improved agriculture. Another is that at least some parts of the world might move to relatively sustainable agriculture & land restoration/ nature hand backs. Another is that nothing substantially changes regarding agriculture & we still double our population. The third option is very likely. The assumption that population growth will stop or even slow as the economy grinds down under oil decline, is probably exactly wrong. The idea that if the mainstream economy fails, die off starts tomorrow is also baseless.

Doubling productivity or more, per hectare, is thoroughly possible & could either be a good or bad thing. If the increase in productivity converts to increased population of humans, bad. If it converts to land for nature, good.

Unfortunately this conversation is thoroughly speculative. The species is too stupid apparently to work out how important any of this is. Most of us are focused on the exact opposite end of the economy, we take having enough food for granted, look for opportunities to aquire consumer trend items. Pretty much like children, distracted easily with sweets & baubles.

[Newfie]

And that's about right SeaGypsy.

Insanity is asking the same question over and over, expecting a different answer.

What we "can" do has very little relationship to what we "will" do.

If past performance has any power to predict the future, we are in for some very tough and sour times.

Exactly when and how are the operable questions. Which remain shrouded in mystery.

[KaiserJeep]

And that's about right SeaGypsy.

Insanity is asking the same question over and over, expecting a different answer.

What we "can" do has very little relationship to what we "will" do.

If past performance has any power to predict the future, we are in for some very tough and sour times.

Exactly when and how are the operable questions. Which remain shrouded in mystery.

Exactly right, TEOTWAWKI has never happened before, and will be a surprise to everyone when it arrives.

One sure way to digest your own stomach lining would be to live in fear of it, as Desu clearly is doing.

Simply concentrate on healthy living, get out of debt, and spend time away from the Internet each day.

And always, feed your head. Thinking you finally understand life is after all, a symptom of approaching death.

My Father says that almost the whole world is asleep. Everybody you know. Everybody you see. Everybody you talk to. He says that only a few people are awake and they live in a state of constant total amazement.

[SeaGypsy]

To students of psychology, self actualisation is the pinnacle of success, as well as the basis of real happiness. Not having lots of stuff, money, knowledge, connections, ability to predict the future. Self actualisation. Being, becoming, true to oneself. Having choices in life & being the chooser. There is no other happiness of any depth. On this basis, having a fixed view of the future is an exercise in misery & futility, removing all choices from one's own future is a terrible thing to do to oneself. It's also not much fun for anyone else.

[Newfie]

Well, yes, but some surprises I could do without!

[ralfy]

Ralfy, the capacity numbers you restate often are based on the status quo, which we here all know can't last. Without getting into complexities, my point is simply that priority investment in long term agriculture could achieve a lot in terms of food security, environmental hand backs/ restoration, the things which might just buy us the hundred years we need to get ourselves into anything like a sustainable global village, pretty much what needs to happen.

The reason why the status quo won't last is given in my second paragraph. It also explains why there will likely be no move towards sustainability, as the type of economy we have involves investments in what is profitable, not in what is important.

[SeaGypsy]

Touché!

[jedrider]

Population growth is like gardening: Sometimes, the plants/trees just need a good trimming

[vtsnowedin]

Regardless, it is definitely in everyone's interest to reduce the area required for agriculture & be able to re-nature as much area as possible. ....
......The assumption that population growth will stop or even slow as the economy grinds down under oil decline, is probably exactly wrong. The idea that if the mainstream economy fails, die off starts tomorrow is also baseless.

Doubling productivity or more, per hectare, is thoroughly possible & could either be a good or bad thing. If the increase in productivity converts to increased population of humans, bad. If it converts to land for nature, good.

....
........

Baseless? I suppose it would depend on how complete the breakdown in the economy was. If there is no food on the store shelves what will the billions of urban dwellers in the world do other then starve to death?
Do you really believe that total world food production can be doubled yet again? Consider that the USA currently averages 160 bushels per acre of corn on 95 million acres planted. Do you plan on getting yields of 320 bushels peer acre or to find another 95 million acres of land as good as what is presently planted and as well watered? The same goes for wheat at 47 bushels per acre average on 56 million acres .some of it dry land at 16 bushels per acre and some irrigated at 90 bushels per acre.
Other crops are oats at 61 bu/a .soybeans at 44b/a on 77.5 million acres, rice at 7000lb/a .and safflower at 1100 lb/a
I suppose you could stop growing cotton on 8 million Acres and 800 lb/a but then you would have no clothes to wear and be the Emperor .
All this with heavy inputs of fossil fuel derived fertilizers and chemical herbicides and insecticides. Remove that and yields will drop like a stone.
Someone will surely say stop raising beef and sheep and use that land but that land is not irrigated and rough and best suited for grazing. Switch it to crops and your back at the 16 bushels per acre of dry land wheat or even less.
No I don't see doubling yield in the USA or anywhere else for that matter as we have already exported the green revolution over a decade ago and no country has any vast expanse of tillable land sitting idle.
http://www.farmanddairy.com/top-stories ... 64445.html

[SeaGypsy]

Go back to the top of the page VT.
The inefficient systems which currently feed us, use a small percentage of resources being used in total. Much more efficient systems exist & if the priority were given to implementation, the resources required could be substantially less, with substantially more output. The degree of failure of systems will determine whether or not a defatted economy will emerge & whether it will prove to be sustainable. A total collapse means distribution is mostly history. A gradual collapse, which is so far the reality, gives time & impetus to reprioritise.

The idea Desu is screaming about, we are all about to die from lack of resources, is quite naive.

[vtsnowedin]

Go back to the top of the page VT.
The inefficient systems which currently feed us, use a small percentage of resources being used in total. Much more efficient systems exist & if the priority were given to implementation, the resources required could be substantially less, with substantially more output. The degree of failure of systems will determine whether or not a defatted economy will emerge & whether it will prove to be sustainable. A total collapse means distribution is mostly history. A gradual collapse, which is so far the reality, gives time & impetus to reprioritise.

The idea Desu is screaming about, we are all about to die from lack of resources, is quite naive.

Do you mean this post of yours?

Postby SeaGypsy » Wed Jan 14, 2015 10:01 am
The last time I checked, primary agriculture makes up only 3% of G20 GDP. This 3% of GDP is what keeps food on the table. Add logistics up to about 20% of 15% total logistics, all up growing & distribution is 10% of the economy. The medical systems of most G20 countries are 15%+. So food & medicine, the things which are essential to keep everyone alive as long as possible, amount to 25%, including massive waste in both sectors. So the other 75% can go down the toilet, no famine, no deprivation of medical essentials, tomorrow. That is without reforming either. A massive agriculture revolution could really triple yields. The medical systems could be hugely improved. The main existing economy might be completely screwed, but this does not make either agriculture or medicine impossible. Lots of digits get wiped, like chalk from a blackboard, we start over. It's not actually that radical.

Lots of things asserted there with nothing for back up. Triple yields ?? How? get rid of "massive waste" again how? Do you think those involved aren't working the problem every day. Do you think agricultural waste that people carry on about is not re purposed recycled and composted. Is it even truly waste? Even if it is what can be done to reduce it ?

[SeaGypsy]

Sorry VT rushing here.
A point I haven't mentioned is that the USA & other major food exporters don't need to grow more food. Their customers need to become much more self sufficient. If you see how agriculture varies when moving through developing countries, its not surprising that its cheaper to ship in carbs to supplement local fresh produce than to develop sufficient local carb production. Much of Africa is in semi permanent hunger, not because of lack of resources, but through destabilisation of agriculture across many of the most important food production areas. Over breeding is a side issue which of course hogs the stage when there are starving kids involved. Farmers going broke by having their equipment continually stolen, being unable to insure or borrow, not headline grabbing stuff, but deadlier than Ebola.