Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Ludi wrote:How will the people afford the equipment, fertilizers, etc? These modern methods cause farmers to go into debt, ruining or, even ending, their lives.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mallika-c ... 87457.html

It might be more effective to end the Food Race rather than perpetuate it.


http://www.ishmael.org/Education/Writings/kentstate.cfm

Wise words. +1

Ludi wrote:
It might be more effective to end the Food Race rather than perpetuate it.

thats a great idea, but who is going to die first then? I mean somebody gotta stop eating right?
I wonder if they would have prefered to get shot instead.

.

Simple prohibit any export of food , a country has to feed itself ...period ...

it certainly would bring a bit of sanity to the affairs of men

if the Afghan villagers had to grow food instead of 90% of the world opium production

All of it under the military protection of the alliance

I said make them value wheat instead .

They do Shaitan work raising Shaitan crop ...and Shaitan pay back an hundredfold

.

so what, no more bananas then? No coffee,no chocolate, no spices?

.


.......You eat it .....you grow it

.......You wear it ...you make it

.

The same people who say food must increase by 70% by 2050 also say oil production will increase by 70% by 2050

yet most here think oil production will drop by at least 70% by 2050.

sparky wrote:mos
" ...If the people we're sending aid to don't starve as a result, I'd say they benefit."

think about it , do they really ?

.

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 but while there has been an accumulation of mistakes and bad cultural traditions there are a great many people who were just kind of cursed by being born in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unlike Ebeneezer Scrooge, I'd like to maintain some compassion for those people. That doesn't mean I'd let them raid my fridge, of course, but it doesn't mean I think they are a useless statistic either.

sparky wrote:.


.......You eat it .....you grow it

.......You wear it ...you make it

.

I haven't seen you posting much about your own growing and making efforts. Looking forward to seeing more details in the Planning Forum!

I think food supply MIGHT be able to increased by quite a bit.

Unknown factors are the effects of global warming and man-made desertification (caused by deforestation, etc) like in Africa and water-depletion like in Lake Meade and in India.

If the food supply COULD still be increased significantly taking these factors, into account, the question remains WILL food supply be increased, considering peak oil and higher fuel costs and inflation will result in higher food costs, hence theoretically you might be able to feed people but they won't be able to afford rice and will be eating clay like in Haiti.

OilFinder2 wrote:>>> 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

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.

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

eXpat wrote:

OilFinder2 wrote:>>> 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?

OilFinder2 wrote:

eXpat wrote:

OilFinder2 wrote:>>> 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.

.

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 .


.









.

OilFinder2 wrote:Here we go again, Part #2:

hillsidedigger wrote: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?

OilFinder2 wrote: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.

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...

eXpat wrote:

OilFinder2 wrote: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!

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.