Earth heading for 5 billion overpopulation?

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 21 Jul 2010, 23:00

Totally_Baffled wrote:Good article in the new scientist this week, 30% of all the worlds grain is fed to cattle, only 10% of the calories from grain are fed to humans, the rest is wasted.

Wot, you mean anything up to 60% might be eaten by bankers?

Grizzly Mouse · Post by **Grizzly Mouse** » 24 Jul 2010, 12:54

And without fossil fuels 90% of that grain wont be grown, and without fossil fuel powered machines doing all that work for you your calorie requirements will increase.

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 27 Jul 2010, 12:40

Grizzly Mouse wrote:And without fossil fuels 90% of that grain wont be grown, and without fossil fuel powered machines doing all that work for you your calorie requirements will increase.

Yes - true, but our predicament isn't about no ff's its about declining ff's!(IMO)

The agricutural industry uses tiny amounts in production (machinery, fertilisers, pesticides etc

It will be a long time before there are no ff's being produced, and I would hope we prioritise food!

If we all starve or blow ourselves into extinction it will be because of economics/politics not the physical resources to produce food for hundreds of years yet...

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 27 Jul 2010, 13:43

About half of the energy used in getting food onto our plates is used in the kitchen.

Agriculture will survive peak oil but we might have to eat more raw food

Post by **clv101** » 27 Jul 2010, 13:52

Totally_Baffled wrote:The agricutural industry uses tiny amounts in production (machinery, fertilisers, pesticides etc

Good point. Fossil fuel production could halve, at the same time as fossil fuel's use in agriculture increases.

Also, current agriculture has been tuned for decades to offer the largest yield per man hour. Not largest yield per acre or per litre of water or fossil fuel input. The main reason why our diet is so cereal intensive isn't because they are area, water or energy efficient, it's because they are labour efficient.

It is possible that with scarce area, water and energy - but abundant labour, there could be another agricultural revolution.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 27 Jul 2010, 17:51

I was having just this discussion with my other 1/2 recently, he reckoned Organic couldn't feed as many people as present methods do because there's a slight fall in yield/Ha when a farm goes over to Organic but keeps everything else the same.

For starters, a lot of the fall is temporary: exhausted soil needs rebuilt and after that you get a bit of an improvement. But above all things like crop rotation, more hedges, more perennials etc make for more total yield per Ha, just aren't economic at the mo because of the relative costs of fuel and labour.

Grains are over-rated anyway. We're not really optimised to use them if you ask me.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 27 Jul 2010, 17:58

RenewableCandy wrote:Grains are over-rated anyway. We're not really optimised to use them if you ask me.

This is generally true. Many grains benefit from some kind of pre-processing, such as fermentation or sprouting, both to convert the baddies and release the goodies.

Incorporating ground flaxseed with bread, for instance, neutralises certain unwanted compounds but makes the omega-3 available. Much tastier than flax oil!

Flaxseeds unground and unchewed could be endlessly recycled...

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 27 Jul 2010, 19:31

Beria3 wrote:I have always thought that the powers-to-be will orchestrate a gradual powerdown through unpleasant and not so unpleasant means in the coming decades.

Surely any compationate person would have written "benign and not so benign means"? I just looked up Beria in Wiki and now understand where you are coming from - or should that be 'going to'? Are you third generation or something?

It must amuse you to start these threads off and then watch the self-indulgent hippies argue the eco-equivalent of how many angels can dance on a pinhead.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 27 Jul 2010, 19:55

foodimista wrote:Surely any compationate person would have written "benign and not so benign means"? I just looked up Beria in Wiki and now understand where you are coming from - or should that be 'going to'? Are you third generation or something?

It must amuse you to start these threads off and then watch the self-indulgent hippies argue the eco-equivalent of how many angels can dance on a pinhead.

Wikipedia wrote:Beria was sentenced to death

Do we have the death penalty for PowerSwitch members who upset us?

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 27 Jul 2010, 20:57

Foodimsta, no i am not related to the Soviet KGB kingpin Beria, although i have a admiration for aspects of his work, if he had succeeded Stalin.

Beria was a closet capitalist, a man who despised Stalin (in fact, i pretty certain arranged his death in 1953), and wanted to open up the Soviet Union to the West and free eastern Europe from the brutish tyranny of Soviet socialism.

One of the first things Beria did, as soon as he was free to do what he wanted, after Stalin died, was free the Jewish doctors, open up the political prisions, start the process of liquadating the East Germany experiment (he stunned the E German leadership with his contempt for their plans to 'build socialism') and im sure that if he had continued would have tried a similar thing to Gorbachev and privatise the great Soviet corporations.

Of course, aspects of Beria were extremely unpleasant, a sadist, a mass murderer and a serial rapist.

Regarding peak oil Beria for me represents the ruthless pragmatism in which the long transition will actually occur, rather than on how we might like it to transition.

So, yeah i do find it midly ironic that posts which elaborate how it will actually evolve (in my opinion), managed depopulation, morphe into rather sweet discussions by well-meaning (and im sure really cool) middle class hippies.

Thats the beauty of this forum, much as i admire the idealism of some of the folk here, i am at heart interested on the realistic probabilities on how societies and of course the most ruthless and predatary circles within the ruling elites will respond to the mutlifaceted challenges to peak oil.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 27 Jul 2010, 21:45

Yeah, but why "3"?

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 27 Jul 2010, 22:00

Yeah, but why "3"?

I have no idea

I suppose what confuses some people here, is that i make a distinction on what i would like to occur and would i think what will probably will occur.

So if i discuss the latter in a rational sense, that doesn't mean i approve/support, merely that i conducting a intellectual process, however morally or political repugnant it may be to some peoples sentivities.

After all, if you can't discuss these type of things on a online forum where nobody knows each other, where can u? (After all, i never discuss peak oil to real people, its a subject best left to the fringes to the internet in my opinion)

p.s. if you are interested in Beria, than these 2 books, which i have read, are great reading.

http://www.DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.com/Beria-Amy-Knight/dp/0691010935

http://www.DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.com/Beria-Father-Insi ... pd_sim_b_5

There are close similarities between Beria and Reinhard Heydrich, a ruthless pragmatist who rose to the top of totalitarian regimes, and who conducted unspeakable crimes and died before they were able to able seize control of the destinys of their respectives superpowers.

Whats this got to do with today? Superficially nothing, but the lessons of that first wave of the Ceasars of the 20th century, poses questions for the 21st century, a great nation like Germany sank into barbaric madness within a decade, it won't take long for America to undergoe a similar transformation in the future, a once great liberal democracy drifting into a brutish miltarised police state run by a ruhless oligarchy; the Berias and Heydrichs of the 21st century...

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 28 Jul 2010, 08:43

Interesting. Thank you.

Beria3 wrote:I suppose what confuses some people here, is that i make a distinction on what i would like to occur and would i think what will probably will occur.

So if i discuss the latter in a rational sense, that doesn't mean i approve/support, merely that i conducting a intellectual process, however morally or political repugnant it may be to some peoples sentivities.

Mentioning no names, I must admit I find it highly amusing when that person reads the words but can't discern the meaning, can't distinguish between descriptions of typical past human behaviour and what the writer's politics are.

On the American political system, there was a plan for a military coup in 1933.

So... who is the Beria of British politics, ready to step into the breach? A Millibrand? Ed Balls? Diane Abbott? William Hague? Vince Cable?

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 28 Jul 2010, 09:18

The hour brings up the man, for decades people have been able to see that we were heading for a crash regarding oil and other resources, but people in politics have been able to put off doing anything, or there wasn't anything to do, or if they tried to do anything they didn't get re-elected like jimmy carter .

At some point this will no longer be able to continue we will be clearly over the peak with two many people.

It would be quite easy to justify to yourself that hmm these people are going to die anyway at some point in the near future why not help things along a bit, or those people over there aren't in my tribe they have resources my tribe want if they are dead my tribe gets them.

beria and heydrich may well have thought what they did wasn't that bad they may have seen themselves as good guys.

A couple of days ago I had to deal with que jumpers at a festival their view was more of a survival of the fittest view , yup those people over there have waited for 2 hours to get on a boat but thats because their chumps in life you have to try to jump ques if you don't hard luck on you .

In many circumstances blagging works and it can be seen to work, heydrich and beria just took things to a higher level or had a more cynical or realistic view of how the world is .

The jumping ques analogy is interesting do que jumpers think they are bad people, for some people jumping ques is their default move for some they que .

For some people they may think well its not fair to take resources from so and so, others think if I can get away with it fine win for me

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 28 Jul 2010, 09:22

Well, Britain is certainly not immune, the 70's were a period of plotting by miltiary and Rightwing circles of a military coup to oust Harold Wilson (which some suspected was a Soviet agent)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Wil ... y_theories

The mainstream media and political establishment have accused Wilson of being paranoid, but there is strongg evidence he wasn't, and the recent disclosure from MI5 that actually they do bug the PM quarters proves at least one aspect of Wilsons paranoia was correct.

Regarding Berias of the UK, good question, nobody obviously comes to mind, and it may be that they could emerge from the military officer corps, whlist at least nominal power will remain within the political class going into the future.

I'm not sure Britain has a history of Ceasars, the UK is more likely to drift into a increasingly elitist, Edwardian style oligarchy of a narrow public-school educated elite of politicicans, mandarins and miltiary officers.