Migrant watch (merged topic)

Discussion of the latest Peak Oil news (please also check the Website News area below)

Moderator: Peak Moderation

User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13500
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

Post by UndercoverElephant »

johnhemming2 wrote:The problem is that the truth is somewhere in between. Things get harder to handle with increases in population, but it can be coped with (depending upon how much).
See long post above. We have been "coping with increases in population" for the whole of human history. Our failure to realise that the only way to make real progress is to stop those increases in population instead of finding ever more desperate ways to cope with them is at the root of all our problems, from climate change to war.

For example I like to wander around the countryside and don't want to see it all built on apart from the areas reserved for horticulture.
I don't want to see the horticulture either.
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

biffvernon wrote:I don't think orchids are very good to eat! The point is that we have the physical capacity to produce far more food if we switched from non-food to food horticulture, and Iowa could also feed many more people if they adopted intensive horticulture rather than beef production. We do today what is economically viable today but that has little to do with what is technically possible under different economic circumstances.
You didn't even bother to read the stats I linked to, did you?
Iowa has less then four million head of cattle but plants 23 million acres to corn and soybeans and those crops are worth 14 Billion dollars.
How much more horticulture do you want?
woodburner
Posts: 4124
Joined: 06 Apr 2009, 22:45

Post by woodburner »

biffvernon wrote:I don't think orchids are very good to eat! The point is that we have the physical capacity to produce far more food if we switched from non-food to food horticulture, and Iowa could also feed many more people if they adopted intensive horticulture rather than beef production. We do today what is economically viable today but that has little to do with what is technically possible under different economic circumstances.
There is only capacity if production goes into overload, far more food is not sustainable, just as the current production is not sustainable. Sustainable means there is a closed loop production without external inputs, anything else will be limited and will fail when the external inputs run out.

Back in the days of the grasslands of north America, quite a few buffalo wandered around and the grass survived, with the buffalo moving on when they had eaten what was available. Then the white man arrived, when as well as almost exterminating the buffalo he overstocked with european cattle. That and their agriculture wrecked thee grass lands. If the stocking density was right so as not to damage the grass, then it would be possible to have beef, but only if the wastes from the consumers was recycled back to the land. You can't just take. Grass can be processed by cattle then we can eat the cattle, we can't eat the grass. The grasslands was a sustainable ecosystem

Growing whatever plants for direct consumption wont allow feeding of large numbers of people. It is only more efficient if you are feeding the animals on the wrong stuff in the first place. If you feed wheat to animals and then eat the animals, that can support fewer people than feeding the people directly with wheat. (Though wheat is not a good food for humans). If you feed the animals grass, which is what they would have eaten anyway, then eating the animals is a much better way to go as humans can't digest grass. Not only that, but the meat will be a better food than if it was fed wheat.

Humans should be eating offal rather than muscle, as it is more nutritious, but we have been brought up wrongly (brainwashed). This might have been done by producers who kept the offal for themselves and needed a market for loads of muscle that they couldn't otherwise shift.

The thing is, stop thinking of supporting a growing population, and develop a realistic approach.

The reason we have so much immigration now is because, despite politicians rhetoric, they believe in economic growth, nothing else matters. The day will come where, if nothing is done, nature will sort it, and it will not be pleasant.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14290
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

The real problem is that we are controlled in various ways by a group of psychopaths, as Dr Tim Jackson called them at the recent CUSP meeting in Central Hall Westminster, (I had called them mentally ill Kleptocrats in the question he was answering), who desire more and more riches the more they have. We have to get rid of the psychopaths and then we might have a chance of living within a natural ecosystem.

The invention of farming and a static population has allowed the psychopaths to take over the population and their greed has enslaved mankind ever since. It is their greed which has resulted in mankind having to "break its back" to produce food for a rising population. It is their greed which has resulted in us having to fight for more land to control to feed a burgeoning population which in turn is required to fuel their greed.

It is the greed of the psychopaths which has resulted in mankind using up our millions of years in the creation, fossil fuel bank in about three hundred years instead of using it over millennia to ease our work load. It is the psychopaths who have encouraged us to ever greater consumption to increase their riches.

Perversely it is the psychopaths who have given us our current "stuff" rich culture and medical advances. Perhaps they should be controlled rather than wipes out completely.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

vtsnowedin wrote:
biffvernon wrote:I don't think orchids are very good to eat! The point is that we have the physical capacity to produce far more food if we switched from non-food to food horticulture, and Iowa could also feed many more people if they adopted intensive horticulture rather than beef production. We do today what is economically viable today but that has little to do with what is technically possible under different economic circumstances.
You didn't even bother to read the stats I linked to, did you?
Iowa has less then four million head of cattle but plants 23 million acres to corn and soybeans and those crops are worth 14 Billion dollars.
How much more horticulture do you want?
I did look through the stats and assumed that most of the corn (we call that maize) and the soy beans is used for cattle and pig food, or am I mistaken? Is the bulk of it eaten directly by humans?
I'm not saying I want more horticulture - just saying that we could feed more people from the lands of Iowa (and England) if we chose to.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

woodburner wrote: There is only capacity if production goes into overload, far more food is not sustainable, just as the current production is not sustainable. Sustainable means there is a closed loop production without external inputs, anything else will be limited and will fail when the external inputs run out.
Farming is not a closed system. Energy arrives from the sun, water from the rain and that rain is not pure water but contains nitrates and a lot of other minerals when the wind blows from the Sahara. The rocks and subsoil below are constantly weathering, introducing nutrient chemicals to the soil and bacteria fix atmospheric nitrogen. Photosynthesis takes carbon from the atmosphere.

Then there are the more or (often) less sustainable inputs added by farmers. Fossil fuel energy derived fertilisers and finite resources of phosphates etc form only part of the inputs.

I have a meadow, the fertility of which I have been trying to reduce so as to promote a better habitat for pretty flowers rather than just grass and the coarser plants. I don't know when last (if ever) this piece of permanent pasture received artificial fertiliser but I've taken a crop of hay off the land and added nothing in return each year for 25 years and there is little evidence of reduced fertility.
woodburner wrote: The thing is, stop thinking of supporting a growing population, and develop a realistic approach.
Without invoking disasters, population is likely to rise by another billion or two before levelling off. The realistic approach is to plan for feeding them all to the same standard of nutrition that you and I enjoy. Any lesser aspiration seems selfish.
woodburner
Posts: 4124
Joined: 06 Apr 2009, 22:45

Post by woodburner »

I don't entirely disagree with your last post, but if all these inputs are arriving from outside, why are there deserts in many places man has inflicted agriculture, and why is the top soil disappearing so fast? I suggest that the system cannot upport the extraction rate of agriculture except at or around subsistence level. But then as Kenneal pointed out greed reigns, and greedy people want more than is sustainable.

One reason your meadow keeps producing is all the airborne nutrients from fossil fuel burning. Another is from all the soil blowing in from the agricultural area around you.

Neither you nor anyone else has any idea where the population will level off. These daft predictions are often made, and they are nothing more than guesses. The only way of feeding everyone to the standard you and I enjoy is to have far fewer people, but throughout history someone goes and mucks it up by being greedy and skews the system for their own naive benefit. There are at least millions if not hundreds of millions of people surviving on very poor nutrition, mostly because of white mans' meddling with the food supply (for monetary gain) and by brainwashing in the guise of religeon.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13500
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

Post by UndercoverElephant »

biffvernon wrote:
Without invoking disasters, population is likely to rise by another billion or two before levelling off. The realistic approach is to plan for feeding them all to the same standard of nutrition that you and I enjoy. Any lesser aspiration seems selfish.
What a pile of crap. The most likely outcome is a population crash.

Your "aspiration to feed 10/11/12... billion humans" is an aspiration to destroy what is left of the wild world because you think present day humans are worth more than both the non-human inhabitants of this planet and future generations of humans. You are not an environmentalist.
User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 10556
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

UndercoverElephant wrote:
biffvernon wrote:
Without invoking disasters, population is likely to rise by another billion or two before levelling off. The realistic approach is to plan for feeding them all to the same standard of nutrition that you and I enjoy. Any lesser aspiration seems selfish.
What a pile of crap. The most likely outcome is a population crash.

Your "aspiration to feed 10/11/12... billion humans" is an aspiration to destroy what is left of the wild world because you think present day humans are worth more than both the non-human inhabitants of this planet and future generations of humans. You are not an environmentalist.
Let's just be clear for a moment that no one knows what's going to happen in the coming few decades.

I think it's most likely that population will rise by another billion or so to ~2030. Basically the mothers of all the new babies to 2030 are already with us. I don't think a population crash is "most likely" before then, possible but not at all likely.

I totally agree that trying to feed 10-12 bn, with the same diets as today, with the same agricultural and distribution practices would (a) likely fail and (b) destroy ecosystems around the world. However I'll make two points; firstly I don't know of anyone who actually wants to see population increase of that order and secondly people can be fed with significantly less impact than is currently the case so I have little time for arguments projecting the current way of doing things decades forward.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14290
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

clv101 wrote:... I don't know of anyone who actually wants to see population increase of that order
I don't think that you know many economists then, Chris! Most of them in this country keep telling us that we need a growing population to continue economic growth.
and secondly people can be fed with significantly less impact than is currently the case so I have little time for arguments projecting the current way of doing things decades forward.
I would agree with that. Less meat, more gardening and more education in the latest techniques of organic gardening and companion planting would feed many more people.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

woodburner wrote: One reason your meadow keeps producing is all the airborne nutrients from fossil fuel burning. Another is from all the soil blowing in from the agricultural area around you.
There will be some nitrogen from car exhausts deposited on my field but I guess a rather trivial amount compared to the amount fixed by the clovers and vetches that form a significant part of the sward. I haven't seen a soil blow round here for a couple of decades. The farmers seem to have got the hang of not letting their soil blow away.
woodburner wrote:Neither you nor anyone else has any idea where the population will level off. These daft predictions are often made, and they are nothing more than guesses. The only way of feeding everyone to the standard you and I enjoy is to have far fewer people, but throughout history someone goes and mucks it up by being greedy and skews the system for their own naive benefit. There are at least millions if not hundreds of millions of people surviving on very poor nutrition, mostly because of white mans' meddling with the food supply (for monetary gain) and by brainwashing in the guise of religeon.
I'm not defending white man's meddling but predictions, especially about the future, are always tricky. My forecast of population levelling off after another couple of billion is an educated guess based on sensible thinking and doesn't deserve to be called daft, even if it proves wrong. Your assertion that "The only way of feeding everyone to the standard you and I enjoy is to have far fewer people" is actually another prediction about the future that may or may not prove correct. Being an optimist, I'm backing not correct. To take the other view is likely to promote a self-fulfilling prophesy.
woodburner
Posts: 4124
Joined: 06 Apr 2009, 22:45

Post by woodburner »

We can't feed the current population to "our" standard as it is, let alone if there is another billion.

I'd suggest that phosphorus and water will be two (if not the main) limiting factors.

Any prediction about population, mine, yours or anyone else's, is daft because it is just guessing, you call it an educated guess, but remove the adjective and it remains a guess. Rather like an economist's forecast.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

woodburner wrote:We can't feed the current population to "our" standard as it is, let alone if there is another billion.

I'd suggest that phosphorus and water will be two (if not the main) limiting factors.

Any prediction about population, mine, yours or anyone else's, is daft because it is just guessing, you call it an educated guess, but remove the adjective and it remains a guess. Rather like an economist's forecast.
Technically we can - we have a socio/political system that makes it very difficult.

Phosphorus is an issue but not insurmountable. Fortunately the wise folk at the EU are on the case:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/natres/phosphorus.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/natres/ ... phorus.pdf

Prediction is not daft - it's a useful tool in the planning process. Without it we might not prepare for a shortage of phosphorus and put an effort into dealing with the problem before it is too late.
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13500
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

Post by UndercoverElephant »

kenneal - lagger wrote:The real problem is that we are controlled in various ways by a group of psychopaths, as Dr Tim Jackson called them at the recent CUSP meeting in Central Hall Westminster, (I had called them mentally ill Kleptocrats in the question he was answering), who desire more and more riches the more they have. We have to get rid of the psychopaths and then we might have a chance of living within a natural ecosystem.

The invention of farming and a static population has allowed the psychopaths to take over the population and their greed has enslaved mankind ever since.
Yes and no. Yes, sedentism and farming allowed certain very unhelpful things to take hold, including serious imbalances of wealth and power. In most human societies that have existed since the neolithic revolution, a small number of people had too much power and abused it to become too wealthy, and did not rule in the interests of the people. We should note at this point that the only government of a major nation that has successfully implemented a population control policy is the Communist Party of China.

But we cannot blame the kleptocrats for the fact that the discussion about overpopulation which was so public and obvious in the 60s and 70s has all but disappeared since the 90s and now anybody who tries to point out that our biggest problem is overpopulation is likely to be accused of racism, misogyny or misanthropy. Why did this topic become taboo? Who silenced it?

Well, the kleptocracy was one factor, because their economist lackeys promote the idea that a growing population is the only way to keep the economy growing, but you can't blame the kleptocracy for the fact that people like Biff Vernon regurgitate their growth-propaganda in the name of humanitarianism

What are the other factors? The religious right, especially the protestant anti-abortion US, the anti-contraception Catholics, and many muslim societies, have also contributed.

One of the two worst offending groups have been feminists, who made a sustained and successful effort to re-cast the overpopulation problem according to their "patriarchy" narrative. For them, both the absence of availability of contraception AND population control measures equate to men denying women the freedom of control over their own bodies. So every time anybody tries to talk about overpopulation, the feminists insist that the real issue is "women's reproductive health". Women supposedly have the right to have as many babies as they like, and anything else is male oppression.

The other of the worst offending groups is the intellectual left, the perfect example of which is Biff Vernon. For this group, any mention of overpopulation is met by claims that the problem is really overconsumption in the west (as if the world's poor wouldn't "overconsume" if anybody gave them half a chance) and the legacy of imperialism (as if those who were conquered wouldn't have done the same had they been in a position to do so), and the response should be humanitarian and we just have to hope that overpopulation sorts itself out without anybody having to do anything nasty.

The kleptocracy, for all its evil, is not responsible for the fact that feminism, the religious right and the intellectual left have all got together in an alliance straight from hell to conspire to silence anybody who points out that the real problem is, and always has been, overpopulation and our unwillingness as a species to do anything about it. Apart from the Communist Party of China, who are, of course, roundly condemned for their human rights abuses, especially their treatment of women who had an illegal second child and the fact that they rather like the death penalty.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

Post Reply