Need to know????

[rwand1]

You do not feed the world, you may feed part of it but Canada also feeds its fair share of the worlds destitute and impoverished just as do other countries.

Regardless what you think the fact is the world is only so big with finite resources. Mother nature is wounded and will respond as needed to effect healing and will deal accordingly with humankind.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by rwand1

You do not feed the world, you may feed part of it but Canada also feeds its fair share of the worlds destitute and impoverished just as do other countries.

Regardless what you think the fact is the world is only so big with finite resources. Mother nature is wounded and will respond as needed to effect healing and will deal accordingly with humankind.

Raymond, Emotions aside, what are we in danger of running out of?

How do you respond to the following quote?

"Given the current state of agriculture in the world, it could feed
12 billion people with no problem. Or to put it another way: any
child who dies of starvation today is in fact murdered."
Jean Ziegler, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food
(Switzerland)

[rwand1]

Geopolitics simply put. There are governments in thirdworld countries
who do not want their citizens fed for one reason or another, Somolia,
Nigeria, .... Sure we maybe able to feed the 12 billion currently but that is
based on good crop yields. As a farm boy I know that not every crop is gong to be a bumper crop because of weather, insects, and other factors.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by rwand1

Geopolitics simply put. There are governments in thirdworld countries who do not want their citizens fed for one reason or another, Somolia, Nigeria, ....

Exactly! Well done.

There are a lot of bad "actors"(dictators, thugs, and thieves) who head ineffective government systems who care little for the people they rule over except to steal from them and the generous countries who try to to help, to pay for their own lavish lifestyles. .

The problem isn't lack of food or resources. There may be a finite number of people this planet can reasonably support but we are a long way from knowing what that number even is.

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

The problem isn't lack of food or resources. There may be a finite number of people this planet can reasonably support but we are a long way from knowing what that number even is.

Is there anything that is known in your world?

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Is there anything that is known in your world?

Last time I checked 2+2 still equals 4

And jason1 doesn't like it when people disagree with him.

[rwand1]

Michael add one more to those who don't agree with you!

The fact is the food production is not guaranteed to keep up with population growths. The only reason food production is as good as it is is because man has had to invent techologies, chemicals and new farming techniques. We may be self sustaining currently but self sustainment may not be possible for future generations, based on many factors. To deny there are problems is to suggest we are living in Utopia.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by rwand1

Michael add one more to those who don't agree with you!

The fact is the food production is not guaranteed to keep up with population growths. The only reason food production is as good as it is is because man has had to invent techologies, chemicals and new farming techniques. We may be self sustaining currently but self sustainment may not be possible for future generations, based on many factors. To deny there are problems is to suggest we are living in Utopia.

Raymond, you are on a roll as you have stated exactly why world food production has been able to keep up with demand. Your right when you say "self sustainment may not be possible for future generations" but we really don't know yet do we?

Funny thing about need. It provides plenty of motivation for solving the problem.

I never denied there were not problems but let's put our resources into solving the right ones and not wasting them on unproven methods with little or no payoff.

[rwand1]

Man is his own worst enemy. Technology cannot control or repair, or solve every problem. Earth is an island, and its the only island we have. I guess that is why Nasa is looking at Mars and the Moon to colonize.

If you put 50 people on an island and allow no outside interference how many decades before the 50 original people and offspring consume all the resourses of the island?

[Michael Larson]

Raymond, I know the pictures of the earth from the moon make it look small and fragile but that just isn't the case.

We have so many possibilities that haven't been imagined yet.

Aside from perhaps fossil fuels, what resources actually get used up?

[rwand1]

Well we know CO2 is not being used up because we are denuding the planet of trees which remove C02.

We know that the oceans are being depleted of fish, thanks to trawlers scouring the ocean floors.
As coal is consumed we can't replace it.
We cannot replace fossil fuels which are burned/used.
We cannot use deserts to grow food.
We know that irrigation causes alkalinity to increase thus reducing crop yields.
We know that the Ice caps are melting. That amount of ice does not freeze back up in years, it takes centuries.
As water levels increase as documented coastal areas will be lost to the sea, as well as fertile deltas and fish habitats such as corral reefs.
blah, blah, blah....
Other consumables taken from the earth are not renewable in the sense more is being made, recycling only helps stave off the envitable.
blah, blah, blah...

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by rwand1

Well we know CO2 is not being used up because we are denuding the planet of trees which remove C02.

Well not quite. If fact the rate of defoestation is slowing and developed countries are actually icreasing their amount of forests.
http://usinfo.state.gov/af/Archive/2...15-832409.html

Originally Posted by rwand1

We know that the oceans are being depleted of fish, thanks to trawlers scouring the ocean floors.

Yes and as the fish population declines the need for more aggresive management will become more palitable and necessary. However the decline will most likely be ment by a increase in aquaculture.
"The inherent efficiencies of farming versus fishing for the wild catch (hunting) will see a progressive switch from fishing to fish farming. The FAO estimates that the cost of catching fish in the wild, on a global basis, is about 25% higher than the value of the catch. The difference is often made up by government subsidies. Were these to be withdrawn, the economic realities would undoubtedly further stimulate the aquaculture industry." http://www.feap.info/home/FAQ/Answers/ans4_en.asp

Originally Posted by rwand1

As coal is consumed we can't replace it.

200 hundred years is a long time to come up with a solution Raymond.

"Worldwide, coal is the most abundant of the fossil fuels, and its reserves are also the most widely distributed. Estimates of the world's total recoverable reserves of coal in 2002 were about 1,081 billion sort tons. The resulting ratio of coal reserves to production exceeds 200 years, meaning that at current rates of production (and no change in reserves), coal reserves could in theory last for another two centuries. The distribution of coal reserves around the world varies notably from that of oil and gas, in that significant reserves are found in the United States and the Former Soviet Union (FSU) but not in the Middle East. The United States with 26 percent and the FSU with 23 percent account for nearly half of global coal reserves. China (12 percent), Australia (8 percent), Germany (7 percent), South Africa (5 percent), and Poland (2 percent) also have significant amounts of the world's recoverable coal reserves."http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/coalreserves.htm

Originally Posted by rwand1

We cannot replace fossil fuels which are burned/used.

[quote=rwand1] See above. Not to mention the untapped oil reserves available.

Originally Posted by rwand1

We cannot use deserts to grow food.We know that irrigation causes alkalinity to increase thus reducing crop yields.

We may not need to if we are already to feed 12 billion with current technology.

Originally Posted by rwand1

We know that the Ice caps are melting. That amount of ice does not freeze back up in years, it takes centuries.

Seems there is some dispute about that.
"Some computer models show that increased global temperatures will partially melt polar ice sheets, such as those in Greenland, and raise sea level. Others show that rising temperatures will result in increased snowfall and expand the size of the ice sheets..."
http://capo.typepad.com/report_from_...es_junk_s.html

Originally Posted by rwand1

As water levels increase as documented coastal areas will be lost to the sea, as well as fertile deltas and fish habitats such as corral reefs.

The latest from the IPCC indicates the the "projected"(computer models) increase in sealevels is now less than it was in 2001's report.http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/pr...ipcc_ar4_.html

Originally Posted by rwand1

blah, blah, blah....

blah blah blah indeed.

Originally Posted by rwand1

Other consumables taken from the earth are not renewable in the sense more is being made, recycling only helps stave off the envitable.

What never gets recycled in some form?

Originally Posted by rwand1

blah, blah, blah...

Again,blah blah blah indeed.


----

[rwand1]

Thats a good article about forests, but it only says destruction of forest cover has slowed.

As to fish farming that site could be considered to be bias because its produced by the aquaculture industry. You cannot farm all fish species and as an example Salmon farming has caused all sorts of problems to the natural species one of which is fish lice, amongst other concerns.

As to ocean levels well again just a slow down, but the trend continues in sea level increases.

As to recyclying there are many things that aren't being recycled, but rather just sent to land fill for disposal. Such as newspaper, metals, chemicals, glass...

Sure these scenarios may not really affect you or me in our lifetime but will affect at some future date the rest of the populace. I choose to be proactive and help in whatever small manner I can.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by rwand1

Thats a good article about forests, but it only says destruction of forest cover has slowed.

Yes and that developed countries are leading the way in reforestration. Wouldn't it make sense to promote stable governments that can then develope their economies so that they too can reforest?

Originally Posted by rwand1

As to fish farming that site could be considered to be bias because its produced by the aquaculture industry. You cannot farm all fish species and as an example Salmon farming has caused all sorts of problems to the natural species one of which is fish lice, amongst other concerns.

Yes, I included that to show that ther is a view other than some form of population reduction. (Frankly, if true overpopulation does happen it's likely that some type of plague or true famine will thin the population "naturally". (not meant to be brutal, just realisic)

Originally Posted by rwand1

As to ocean levels well again just a slow down, but the trend continues in sea level increases.

The point is that the models being used may still not give us an accurate idea of what "might" happen. Sea levels hae been ,much higher in the past. Which level is the correct one?

Originally Posted by rwand1

As to recyclying there are many things that aren't being recycled, but rather just sent to land fill for disposal. Such as newspaper, metals, chemicals, glass...

I don't think most metals are landfilled. ther was too much energy put into minng refining and producing them not to make them worth recycling into new product. Newprint is recycled though I doubt it's cost effective. Pulp trees are easy and cheap to produce. Besides newsprint isn't likely to survive much longer.

Originally Posted by rwand1

Sure these scenarios may not really affect you or me in our lifetime but will affect at some future date the rest of the populace. I choose to be proactive and help in whatever small manner I can.

As do I. But let's spend what it takes it in the best ways possible that are not driven by emotional appeals using pictures of polar bears and starving children as "proof" of a supposed problem that we have any real control over.

I am for cost effective solutions for real problems.

[Michael Larson]

Stop eating meat and save the planet


""Arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products," writes Noam Mohr in a report for EarthSave International.
Changing one's diet can lower greenhouse gas emissions quicker than shifts away from fossil fuel burning technologies, Mr. Mohr writes, because the turnover rate for farm animals is shorter than that for cars and power plants."
STORY LINK