The reality that the world is not producing enough food to satisfy future growth has come home to roost, as Agricultural ministers from the G20 group of nations meet, to try and provide a solution.
As a major food exporter the decisions made in such a forum will be important for NZ producers, and concerns that the middlemen get all the profit from food, many farmers will relate to.
The discussions on whether the use of GM technology to improve our food supply will need to be considered, as one billion chronically malnourished people wait for volumes to increase.
Farm ministers from large economies are likely to establish an international food-stock database this week and agree to reduce some trade barriers in order to combat looming food shortages and yo-yoing prices reports The Australian. Agriculture ministers from the Group of 20 nations gather in Paris tomorrow and Thursday facing a growing problem: Demand for food is outpacing supply, which is increasingly hampered by weather shocks and government intervention. France, in particular, wants to tackle commodity-market volatility as a priority of its G20 leadership.
The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation predicts the world will need to produce 70 per cent more food by 2050 to feed its population. But growth in agricultural production is expected to slow to 1.7 per cent a year in the decade to 2020, compared with an annual 2.6 per cent in the previous decade, according to its latest estimates. That has helped drive up prices and eat into stocks. And with governments quick to intervene in markets, as Russia did when it banned grain exports last year, food markets have become increasingly susceptible to price spikes.
The FAO's food-price index hit a record in February, and the organisation forecast on Friday that average food prices would be 30 per cent higher this decade than in the previous decade. Food-price inflation was blamed for contributing to the unrest that has rocked the Arab world this year, and charities expect the number of chronically malnourished people will top one billion people this year.
Carmel Cahill, an agriculture expert at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said, "There's land in Latin America, Africa and around the Black Sea. …There are huge yield gaps, which can be narrowed by education, irrigation and inputs" such as fertilisers. But for farmers to feel the benefit of higher prices, France argues that speculation in commodity-derivative markets must be regulated. "Rising commodity prices are the main threat to growth," French President Nicolas Sarkozy told a recent conference in Brussels.
Total managed-money investments in agricultural commodities grew to a record $US126 billion but "The people who are the beneficiaries of this situation are not the farmers, they are the middlemen," said Charles Ogang, president of the Ugandan National Farmers Federation.
Export bans are also expected to be on the agenda. They contributed to the 2008 food-price spike, and a Russian embargo on grain exports last summer was a factor in soaring wheat prices earlier this year.
94 Comments
The world does not need to produce enough food to satisfy future increases in demand , David , it need only produce enough to satisfy the current demand . And it does . ..... The sad fact that a billion people are malnourished today is not due to lack of food production .
...... But where does the FAO get this 70 % increase in food production by 2050 figure from ? ..... Has anyone at the U.N. ever got a prediction correct !
The bio-fuels industry is responsible for much of starvation in the world today , and for destruction of pristine rain-forests . What " Gumby " politician was it who thought that growing crops , particularly corn , to convert to ethanol for vehicle fuel was a better idea than growing corn for human or livestock food ....... hint , he's an ex-President of America .
..... without ongoing governmental subsidies the bio-fuel industry would vanish . Food prices worldwide would fall . More affordable grains would lead to fewer starving people . And less pressure to destroy tropical forests for palm oil production .
=====================================================================
The battle lines are drawn : Gummy + the free market + the starving people of planet earth :
vs : Greenpeace / greenies / the US government / the UN
...............: Feed the people , not your SUV's , you toss-pots !
Could I run my SUV on green people...?my my it's a mosh pit here at the night time is it not GBH.....I see you are keeping yourself amooosed no end and clocking the bonus points like a pinball machine......i'll bet your having a dandy time of it me old roistered oyster.......into the fray once more .....I'm off to drug my wife and give her a liberal spray with the mortine once asleep......I gotta get the bugs out.;....mutant corn eating ones....
goodnight GBH...do get some rest.
Hullo Count : sorry I mist ewe ! ....... I was trolling along Quezon Street in my un-environmentally friendly SUV , when I espied the lads BBQ'ing a sliver of pig's liver over the coals ........ washed down with lashings of the bubbly Pilsen ....... ahhhhh , hoppy daze my friend !
..... Gummy has had a rare old day here at interest.co.nz , biffing out the green-bait , and watching the blob-fish hook on ....... such fun !
Sea ewe in huwebes ( Thors Day ) ...... and good luck with the gigantic mutant flesh-eating corn bugs ........ do you know the way to steven's cave ? .. Pop them in a taxi , Gummy will pick up the tab !
...... Yoiks & Tally-Ho ....... dagnabit , where's ma fecking ankle biting corgis ?
The battle lines are drawn : Gummy + the free market + the starving people of planet earth :
vs : Greenpeace / greenies / the US government / the UN
...........
The idea that the free market will manage population, resource depeltion or town planning and lead to long term prosperity would be true if the free market were not a subset of the worlds eco-system (rather than the other way around).
I think they have the problem the wrong way round. There are too many people on the planet and until contraceptives are freely available and promoted in the dirt poor countries, we will continue to see massive increases in population in the areas which are least able to sustain them. The Vatican has a lot to answer for in this regard.
Fresh water & food are not in any shortage . But they are not evenly distributed .
Climate change , if it is occurring , may lead to greater crop production , not less .
Species have always been going extinct , with or without human causality , it simply is what happens .
There is no shortage of oil , nor of other fossil fuels .
The industrial world is far less polluted in 2011 than is has been since the industrial revolution began . There still is pollution , but much much less than previously .
Poor living standards have always been with us . But the " poor " now have a gigantically better living standard than the " poor " of previous generations ... . Even " poor " people today have fresh water , electricity , a refridgerator , a car !
....... the world ain't perfect , but it's a darn sight better for the majority of the population today , than it has been at any other point in history .
Most of what you said that was complete nonsense - though if you want to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, I'm not going to stop you.
GBH - "Fresh water & food are not in any shortage. But they are not evenly distributed"
That's like saying explaining a drought by saying "Well this place may not be getting any rain, but over in country x they are getting too much, so if you average it out the amount of rain is about right".
I'm simply believing what I can actually see , rather than the horror stories and predictions of the environmental movement & Al Gore .
....... there are genuine environmentalists , doing excellent work , but they are being lumped in with the froot-loops , such as Greenpeace . ..... GP is doing immense damage to the planet .
Tell me , the last time that you popped into the petrol station to tank up ........ did you get as much as you wanted , or was the fuel rationed ? ....... there is no fossil fuel shortage !
Did you know that the environmental lobbyists in the USA have conned that government into heavily subsidising bio-fuels ? ..... Fully 20 % of all cultivatable land in America is alotted to producing corn for ethanol production . ....... How many extra people could be fed by that corn , we're talking hundreds of million of tonnes ! ....... in Europe it's rape-seed for bio-fuels , palm oil in Malaysia , sugar-cane in Brazil . ........ a sop to the greenies , but a great loss for the world's hungry millions .
Can you cite environmental lobbyists? URLS?
On the otherside for instance,
"Newt Gingrich earned more than $300,000 consulting to a major ethanol lobbying group in 2009, according to the Center for Public Integrity.
IRS filings show that Growth Energy, a coalition of ethanol producers, paid Gingrich’s consulting firm $312,500 – one of the group’s largest single expenditures that year. "
Newt isnt known for his uh green point of view.....
But fortunately it looks like the subsidy is gone,
http://green.autoblog.com/2011/06/17/a-miracle-of-another-sort-after-se…
"In a remarkable vote earlier this week, the U.S. Senate voted to end ethanol subsidies which total about $6 billion each year. It's great progress to see our lawmakers finally bringing some pragmatic fiscal and environmental common sense to the rag tag elements of transport energy policy."
Bearing in mind Bush I think accelerated the ethanol program.....great at caring for the environment he was.....certainly the farm and bio-fuel lobbyists are pushing for more and more....so facism as opposed to socialism....neither extreme of either works...
regards
I wouldn't get to worried about it Gummy, in fact I'm more than happy to be a founding member of the New Zealand branch of the Kind Kapitalist Klub, KKK for short! Being insulted by Steven is a little bit like being insulted by a 2 year old. Lot's of drama, but little damage.
Greenpeace and you, Gummy, are on the same page re biofuels;
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/biofuels-not-so-green-150108/
Where'd you get the idea they supported the biofuel nonsense?
Greenpeace agree with me , now ? ..... Bugger ! ..
... Thanks for the heads-up Kate , gonna have to dip back into Gummipedia and falsify all the stories that I made up .....
..... gosh darn ..... the Greenies agree with me ....... I feel so dirty , soiled ....... arrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ........
Lots of ppl starving GBH....interesting in your next post you comment on ethanol and how it could be used for food....but if we have no shortages of food it doesnt matter right?
Climate change, its just about impossible to argue with the temp records....or the extrems in weather or very importantly insurance losses...
Shortage of oil, so Liyba goes off line with its 1.5mbpd and the price goes to $120 but that isnt a reflaction of lack of supply?
Poor living, indeed many are better off...trouble is it isnt going to last..
regards
Couldn't agree more with you Gummy Bear.
Plenty of 'food' produced just silly decisions as to what it's used for. Feeding grains to ruminants isn't a good idea for a start. Although even NZ is going more down this path.
Plenty of water as well, even In Auz where I find myself now. Just piss poor farming methods and silly allocation of resources.
And a wee swipe at the NZ dairy industry - why do we now milk cows under centre pivots in canterbury using up to 20 000 litres of water to produce 1 kg of milksolids (no reference sorry just have to believe me) by irrigating pasture over summer to grow grass. Water use efficiency isn't something we worry to much about.
Still in Tassie , Simfarmer ?
..... and you are 100 % correct !..... If advanced primary producers such as NZ & OZ suffer from mis-allocation of resources ( such as water ) , what hope for the rest of the world's food producers ! ...
.... Only education / time / and a lack of central government meddling will lead to the efficiencies required for cheap & environmentally friendly production of foodstuffs .... And some food in the tummies of people everywhere !
I have in the past done numbers on the conversion of irrigation water to milk solids and you are in the right ball park. The conversion rate should have got interesting in areas where dairy farmers are using irrigation when residential households were told to get used to using well under one thousand litres of water per day. It didn't, but may in future.
Putting the conflict another way, each cow's milk production using irrigation takes more water than 20 households are going to be allowed.
Cheers, I thought someone was going to crucify me for those numbers but I do remember it from somewhere. I'm not anti dairy I just think we have gone a bit far with the conversions. Why are farms still being converted in central-mid canterbury and drawing new ground water ? Is it purely bank driven ? You cannot tell me that cantebury grasslands out of horata makes more money now as dairy units as it would if it were still running 15 000 xbreds ? But I bet the banks making a lot more :) If we were actually interested in water use efficiency wouldnt we still be growing winter cereals with basically no irrigation in a mixed farming system with sheep ? No we must become a floating dairy farm.
I think it is bubble driven. A bubble supported by banks, government and a whole raft of businesses that suck money out of dairying (sorry, I am supposed to say support the industry). The bubble is though starting to deflate. This from today's "The Dairy Trader":
Demand for imported milk powder by China eased back recently due to higher in-market supplies. Milk powder stocks in China built up during the first part of 2011.
and
Whole milk powder imports for the month of May 2011 fell by 46% from the record volumes imported during April.
WMP is NZ's main dairy export, and over half of it has been going to China.
Just talked to a banker in the USA, he called it the 'million dollar question' how long will the bubble in farm commodities last?
from the- meat trade news, on the Aussie lamb prices, I dont know whether this is an acurate prediction or a local event. You need to go the the web site to read the article, I just got emailed the highlights.
>>>>>>
MOST lamb breeders and feeders must be scratching their collective heads in wonder at how such overwhelming evidence - from so many experts - suggesting that lamb prices would continue on their merry way, may prove to be inaccurate in a period that is historically the dearest selling time of the year.
The heady days of lamb prices topping $200 seem to have vanished as rapidly as they appeared.
Stories about a certain Victorian lamb producer passing-in a draft of lambs at a major prime sale because he thought the $220 offered was not enough, sounded ludicrous at the time - and now sounds downright ridiculous.
But in early 2011, producer expectations were so high that at the time it seemed like a reasonable reaction.
Interesting Andrewj, heres the link for above,
http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/200611/australia___big_drop_in_lamb_prices_.aspx
But things are different in New Zealand eh!!
http://www.hawkesbaytoday.co.nz/business/news/ewe-price-smashed-at-hastings-sale/3956873/
Applause broke out among the big crowd of buyers when Argyll farmer Neville Twist paid $310 each for a pen of 384 shorn border-leicester two-tooth ewes sold by the Henderson brothers, from Waipukurau.
Hi steveL
I also see that the Dairy trader has admitted that China is building supplies (stockpiling?)
China dairy import volumes fall. Whole milk powder imports for the month of May 2011 fell by 46% from the record volumes imported during April. May 2011 volumes were still 17% higher than that imported in May 2010. Demand for imported milk powder by China eased back recently due to higher in-market supplies. Milk powder stocks in China built up during the first part of 2011 China sources the vast majority of
The industrial world is far less polluted in 2011 than is has been since the industrial revolution began . There still is pollution , but much much less than previously .
Look around you...
That is probably why all the rivers around here, clear and beautiful swimming rivers even 30 years ago... are now gunge-infested drains.
That's assuming that you can get to the river over all the broken bottles and fly-tipped rubbish piles.
That is probably why, on our quiet country road, I can fill a clean-sack a week from the rubbish that is chucked out by passing motorists... and that's over just a 100m stretch of roadside...
As a child our family walked or caught the bus. Like many other families around us, we didn't own a car. Are you telling me that our air is cleaner now that the population has nearly doubled and nearly every family has at least one car and many seem to have 3 or more?
So, increasing nitrogen runoff from more intensive farming and larger industrial 'parks', more roads, more cars thru more drive-thrus discarding more litter, increased air, noise, & water pollution...
And all this despite the industrial world exporting much of its pollution to the third world....
And this is without even mentioning things like didymo...
And this is in CLEAN GREEN NZ.... how do you justify your statement that their is LESS pollution now than since the industrial revolution began? Your sweeping generalisation is arguable at best...
Exactly! Good to see that someone understands the real issue. Over-population is a bigger problem than all other problems combined.
This is why I couldn't care less about anything to do with environmental sustainability. Individuals humans consuming too much carbon / producing too much waste / cutting down too many trees is NOT the problem; too many humans is the underlying cause. Ironically, neither side of the climate change debate ever mentions the word over-population.
The planet would be a much better place if there were only 500m people living on it, not 7 billion and counting.
I'm not the doomsday type, but I believe the long term outlook for our earth is not pretty. Too many people, the fuel of economic growth (cheap oil) becoming expensive and/or running out, billions of people moving up to the middle class and wanting to live like Americans, more record droughts and floods, food and water shortages, rising income inequality in many countries.... it goes on and on.
On the bright side, New Zealand is probably in the best position of any country in the world to deal these changes.
Useless eaters...Google it!
Most scarcity is induced by UN, IMF and World Bank policy - cash crops instead of growing food to eat in exchange for funny money.... NZ practices that model...hows that working out for NZ? Food more affordable lately? Funny the sheep and veges used to be grown on the outskirts of Wellington and up the Kapiti coast "local"
.
Un...etc Interesting point of view....
Outskirts of Wellington is now more and more houses, read some of Hugh's and PhilBest's posts on what one element thinks of growing local....
In terms of Vege's we buy all ours in the Sunday farmers/growers market straight off them....its not hugely cheaper, but its fresher and its supporting the locals...though most seem to be around Levin.....
regards
I think you will find its self evident that is how it works in regards the IMF, UN etc etc...the IMf are here now and the agent from that is already telling you me and the rest of the great unwashed down here we want your infrastructure....to service the interest...
Yes I read that stuff of Hugh and PhilBest. Hugh is stuck on some Texas thing but the sprawl and infilling are all failed ideas its geography to nowhere...
Philbest I can not comment cause I still havnt got the jist of his posts...
Our fore-fathers knew the difference between town and country and up untill around 1902 - 80-90% of the world population were busy growing food for themselves...
Indeed the farmers market comes down to Welly on a Sunday from up the coast...
4ha lifestyle blocks are one of the worst environmental issues in nz I reckon. Take a drive from chch to rangiora to oxford - how much land is now wasted with lifetyle blocks ? What do they produce - nothing. But you could have 50 odd 800 sq m sections on each of them for affodable housing !
Yep well Im not posting or advocating land banking and I agree with ya wealthy prats from the city do nothing on the land but then again what does so called affordable housing produce? Another infrastructure drain on limited energy with waste...
It all depends on the type of housing and from what Ive seen most new stuff is rubbish and is not self sufficient it leaks and requires the grid 100% well thats 1950's thinking...like Fonterra and its industrial dairy model past its used by date...
Interesting study by Deutsche Bank.
World population is actually shrinking.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/human-race-doomed-deutsche-bank-one-mo…
From the article you quote:
''Population growth will continue for a few more decades because of momentum from the age structure and people living longer but, reproductively speaking, our species will no longer be growing."
Most people would read that as saying population will continue to grow in the immediate future ie the next decade.
errr that doesnt really compute with your contention above that "world population is actually shrinking '......
I recall in the 1980s there were demographic studies claiming that human population would have stabilised/started to decline by 2000 or so. How wrong they were.
As far back as 1968 a butterfly ecologist , Paul Ehrlich , had his book " The Population Bomb " published . It become a world-wide best-seller , and Ehrlich was feted as a genius , and became a guru of the environmental movement .
...... sadly for him , his apocalyptic prognostications were wrong , completely 100 % wrong . The world's population did not crash back to 2 billion . The mass starvations and mass cancer of hundreds of millions of people in the 1970's and 1980's did not occur .
.... a series of books by Ehrlich followed , each one as far from reality and as bone-headedly wrong as the previous one .
Luckily for him , the environmental movement is utterly blind to reality , and still holds onto his predictions . There is no accountability for screwing up , and totally getting it wrong .
In 2008 Ehrlich and his wife published " The Dominant Animal " , a further tome of doom and gloom .....
...... finally the man got professional psychological help , in the form of Robert Ornstein , and they produced a volume " Humanity on a Tight-rope " ( 2011 ) ........ a plea to us all to get huggy-feely-warm & fuzzy with each other ......
...... glad that the therapy helped , Paul !
But the 'green revolution' got in the way of his preduction.
Which of course isn't what most people would assume it was. The increasing of Harvest Index in wheat and barly from about 30 % up to over 50 % by dwarfing the plants. Therefore grain production went through the roof.
Over-shoot / Collapse : ......... they just happen when ..... populations of butterflies or locusts , rabbits or mice ..... get totally out of control . They over-shoot .... and ka-blammie , head over the cliff alike the proverbial lemmings .
Now , PDK ........ Gummy reckons that the bloggers here are a fair representative sample of human beings as a whole .... And as such , I'm theorising that they're more intelligent , adaptable , and skilled at survival than a bunch of bugs and vermin .....
...... but you're saying that is not so ........... Yesssssss ?
Your both right...and 5-6 years ago Id have agreed out right with ya PDK but things are not what they seem....its a layer cake and division is what elites do best....
...but I tend to agree with Gummy on this one
Scarcity is a practice used by the UN IMF World Bank and elites it creates the artificial market controlled by their vested interests.
ie: The World bank promotes cash crops over growing food locally all this nonsense in regards trade is then obfusicated over by the WTO I believe Coffe beans was one such policy back in the late 1990's so everyone grew coffee beans then the market collapses oversupply ... lol but you still owe the World Bank... then the economic hitmen IMF agents turn up "so you cant pay the loan we now require your infrastructure....
its happening in NZ right now, so we can pay off make believe money, that never existed to begin with. Its a fiction of contract, the banksters actually bring nothing to the table to begin with..
Round one for NZ was rogernomics Round two is just begining! If it carries on soon we really will be slaves and tenants in our own country and what for? Buying and selling the same house 20 times over and buying crap made in China by other slaves who also are losing the ability to grow food....
""Rising commodity prices are the main threat to growth," French President Nicolas Sarkozy told a recent conference in Brussels."
So like the Greek champagne socialists they will legislate away the problem.....in this case Peak oil...sorry we dont like it so we''ll ban it....
I have to wonder on the mental capability/sensibility of our leaders.....well actually most of the time!
regards
I agree with everything you say on the issue gummy. In fact I feel like one of those wrestlers who I used to watch on TV when I was a kid, standing behind you and nodding my head every time you say the word greenie, while menacingly grinding a fist into the palm of my hand.
The environmental movement has seriously lost its way in my view and is now nothing more than a bog-standard political movement made up of individuals whose sole desire it is is to control capital and labour. Environmentalism is the means to their end, since their previous vehicle to control that, communism, failed.
There are many pressing environmental issues which effect the planet, not least of which in my view is pollution. Anyone who has travelled to countries where pollution controls are weak will know what I mean. But on the other side of the coin, anyone who has travelled to first world countries such as England, and the Thames river, or the US and Boston Harbour, will also see what is possible when adequate pollution controls are introduced and a concerted effort is made to clean up the environment. I hope efforts to clean up the Manawatu River here in NZ will be similarly successful.
Sadly now environmentalism, largely as a consequence of Greenpeace’s perversions, has become about GE Free, the oil and nuclear industries, nuclear testing, climate change, saving the whales, stopping destructive fishing, invading boats on the high seas and such like. Never mind the fact that their evidence for any of these things being the problem that they claim they are is simply not there, or is strenuously disputed. This is irrelevant to their political agenda that is all about goose-stepping opposition to big business.
When was the last time you saw Greenpeace protesting against the Horizon Regional Council for the state of the Manawatu river? Pretty much says it all really doesn’t it? And the sad thing is that novel attempts to try and improve global food production and distribution will likely be opposed by these clowns and their fellow travellers, as it will be ‘bad for the environment’.
Ah right the old watermelon line.......so "we didnt lose the cold war to communism so we sure as hell are not going to lose it to those new commies, the greens"....
and you say you are not a Libetarian? so what is your political centre? because its sure out there in extremist land.
regard
David BOne of the silliest diatribes I've ever read.
And I've read a few.
Greenpeace is essentially an international organisation, voluntary to a large extent, and donation funded. They target what they think is most important. It's triage, no more, no less, and always a rearguard action.
The Manawatu has indeed been protested about, and within the last year - was it Greenpeace? Who cares - you can cherry-pick 'facts' that 'support' your case, but don't expect to convince folk like me with such nonsense.
And Communist? Contriol capital and labour?
Sorry? Youv'e been listening to PB's drivel too long, or you share a defective gene. Capital relies on goods and services to be available, in exponentially-increasing volume, all of which obviously ends up with a fight-to-the-death with what you call 'the environment'.
Capital killed itself - was alwys going to do so. You cherry-picked the best, now you must put up with the rest.
And why do you differentiate between climate change and polllution - it's the same thing. I know the answer to that one - hip-pockets change peoples perceptions of fact. They accept te existence of a problem, until they have to 'pay'.
Bah humbug.
I think on a number of levels David the movement has been infiltrated...corrupted...undermined from both sides carrying agendas of their own under the guise of "ecology"......and so I'd find it extremely hard to put a broad leftie label on them...see link on funding provided.....http://badecology.blogspot.com/2008/07/greenpeace-funding.html
We were just going over the subject on another thread and I tend to agree with Gummy ...we need to get back to good science....
Therein lies the conundrum science requires funding ...and funding requires interest...and interest becomes.... self interest .....and so on and so forth.
Yes I agree. The sooner we can get back to first principles (scientific ones) in terms of the environmental debates, the better. But good luck. Given the anti-science instincts that run so deeply through society (and ironically among many in the environmental movement) in this day and age, I won't hold my breath, sadly, that that will happen anytime soon.
Which first principles would you like to work with?
The fact that co2 blocks the infra red? first discovered/shown I think in the 1800s? (or something) Can be easily demonstrated to a 11 year old in a physics lab? probably even a 7 year old could understand it....
Or should we go back futher to say the 1200s where the world was flat and everything circulated the earth?
Possibly this is up to your level of first principles?
regards
Somehow I doubt you would even know what 'the infra red' was. And by the way, atmospheric carbon dioxide doesn't block infra red radiation from the sun, it absorbs it.
Looks like you're not even up to the level of that 7 year old.
Anyway, I've had enough of responding to your ill-tempered and sour nonsense. Unless you have something reasoned and reasonable to say, you will be ignored.
regards
You know before this thread self destructs i gotta tell you a story about that greener than green (yes some folk even whiter than me boy) Bono ..the self absorbed arrogance of it all.
the Venue...Glasgow Scotland
Nearing the end of the set he insisted on silence from the thousands of good people who braved the elements to see the band.
when he felt it was silent he proceeded to clap his hands together every few seconds.....
after a short while .()...he said in a despairing tone ...
every time I clap my hands a child dies in Africa......untill
Someone called from the front row
Wheel stop duin that thun ye Evil bastard..!
....... will I have to return to eating my greens ? ...... I've chewed up two of them today , with the Count's and DB's able assistence ! ....... Gummy does love to watch the greens stew , simmer , and boil over .
Ahhhh , the fun we have in Hickeysville ....... hoooooo haaaaaaaaaaaaaa !
We must humanise it ! .... Hu-mour me , for a tic .
... Remove the sexist " man " from " human " , ... then tack the " hu " onto " apouri "
..... and we have Hu-apouri .
Acceptable to everyone , and has a nice Chinese sounding ring ...... just the thing to endear us to it's new owners . .
Davidb and the count-who-should-know-better
First principles eh?
Good science eh?
Come on, let's be having you.
What do you refute, and on what grounds?
Exponential growth? Doubling-times? Gaussian curves? Finiteness of resources? Depletion? Reduction of habitat? The fact that we are a species, requiring of a habitat? Half-life and the history of Yucca Mountain? Over-fishing, perhaps? Perhaps the amount of energy released in the cracking of a carbon bond. The diameter of the earth? Or, if that's too big for you, how about the radius? Note: only use circumferential evidence for that one.
I won't accept Julian Simon-type nonsense (food has gotten cheaper as the population increased, therefore increasing the population will result in cheaper food) of course, I'm talking first princilpes here, not the nicene Creed.
Well?
PDK, as I have already told you numerous times before, my qualifications in science are a B.Sc, a M.Sc with 1st class honours, and a PhD. And I am fairly certain from what you have said here in the past that your formal science qualifications are zilch. I have been through a formal and structured process of education and examination in the sciences over many years by people well qualified to teach and examine that. My qualifications recognise that I have achieved the satisfactory standard of competency and fluency in science, scientific method and scientific analysis to be awarded them by other scientists. I am not aware that you have done any of that.
If I feel ill and needed to seek medical attention, who would I go and see? A qualified and trained clinician experienced in the practice of medicine, or someone untrained and who has read a couple of books and being to a few lectures. I think the answer is obvious. The clinician’s formal training means something. You on the other hand are the guy who’s read the books.
As I have said in the past, based on what you have written here, you simply do not really understand many of the concepts that you say you do. You may think you understand them, I have no doubt about that, but believe me, your understanding falls far short of what I have learnt about those things and what many of those scientific concepts actually mean, for what and why they are used, and what stands behind them.
Exponential growth? Doubling-times? Gaussian curves? Finiteness of resources? Depletion? Reduction of habitat? The fact that we are a species, requiring of a habitat? Half-life and the history of Yucca Mountain? Over-fishing, perhaps? Perhaps the amount of energy released in the cracking of a carbon bond. The diameter of the earth? Or, if that's too big for you, how about the radius? Note: only use circumferential evidence for that one.
What you have written above doesn’t mean anything. It’s a meaningless jumble of scientific words and phrases that has flooded out of you in a stream of consciousness. On the face of it, to some, it may seem like you actually know something and what you are talking about, because each of those things does have a meaning and may be an active area of research or concern. But to me it is very evident that you don’t really understand any of that stuff. And because of that lack of understanding in depth, you see the world in absolutist’s terms, black and white, right and wrong. That’s what the physics (when you actually mean biology) says and you can’t argue with the physics. And if you argue against the physics, then you’re stupid. You don’t get it.
You’re just so wrong.
The world is not black and white; the science is uncertain and often contradictory. No PhD qualified scientist ever talks about their work in absolutist terms, as you do, or implies that science does. Seekers of a true understanding in depth are very aware of the shortfalls in knowledge, the contradictions, and the uncertainties. In many respects that is what drives scientists on to do more work and experiments, to try and find out the answers and to improve knowledge and understanding. Oftentimes that can mean they discover they were wrong and their cherished idea/ theory/ hypothesis was a load of old codswallop. But as genuine seekers of knowledge they are completely open to that possibility. But we never hear any of that from you.
David B, I would be strongly supporting - except for the bit above, where you included climate change, saving whales and destructive fishing among those things where the scientific evidence for the environmentalist concerns is "simply not there". Are you really saying that the science behind environmentalist concern about these things is as weak as the science behind environmentalist concern about GE and nuclear power?
It seems to me that there is a clear difference, which starkly points up the incoherence in the environmentalist position - they are very happy to point to the near-universal scientific consensus about the reality of anthropogenic climate change, but they are completely oblivious to the near-universal scientific consensus about the potential of GE and nuclear power among the technologies which could be used to start to address it.
"If I feel ill and needed to seek medical attention, who would I go and see? A qualified and trained clinician experienced in the practice of medicine"
and if you are concerned about the diagnosis, you go get a second opinion, usually from at least one specialist if not two....and not rely on your GP for highly serious or complex problems.
In terms of AGW, you go see the climate ppl...in terms of "expotential" you go see the Maths ppl. Yet you dismiss these words out of hand, all of them "short form" for some of the most serious problems this planet faces.....
"science is uncertain and often contradictory" It sure is....but at some point the evidence is so overwelming, the counter-evidence so weak and the risks and impacts so significant that you have to act.. This is known as risk management and mitigation .....its a perefectly acceptable management function/duty to act on the best knowledge available even if imperfect because waiting means it is not possible to stop/solve it later....
As in seeing a doctor, you go as early as possible and take the course as soon as possible because this is the by far the way to get the best outcome.
In terms of black and white, some things simply are, black and white....its like 2+2=4 its either 4 and correct or wrong....there is no grey...so "Exponential growth? Doubling-times?" is simply pretty basic maths....you cannot argue its not true, but you can argue about what to do or not do about it.
regards
PDK...I'll not pretend to be able to foot it with you on science as a subject or indeed the practical application thereof......and as you know by past threads I have the utmost respect for your committment to your science and your principals......you are indeed a clever man.
I find myself open to ideas and often seek the common ground on which to formulate an opinion or rational if you like.
You are fully aware that I am a believer in the numbers coming down....and the concept of finite resource due to ever increasing demand.
I find it extremely difficult to look at a man standing outside a tin shack with eight children he cannot feed and therefore condems them to a life of misery followed by death.....and not think to myself ...Who is responsible here..? ..This shit has got to stop...
However I choose to engage rather than to alienate people...and through that engagement albeit sometimes on a very superficial level hope to explore both my own conclusions and theirs with an open mind....still learning...still interested.
Please don't take that as a swipe ...but if you reflect you'd see that the overwhelming number of responses to posts put up by your good self (more often Steven) are met with vitriole because the shutters have already gone up.
The things that the Gumster and I don't agree on ....don't seem to get in the way of talking about those and other issues we do agree on....nor does it for the most part Steven...
You and I discussed Cassandra's Dress......she needs a new one...more inviting.
P.S. I know I've offered nothing scientific here PDK...but then you never expected me to did you...?
Respect as always.
"man standing outside a tin shack"
Indeed, however when you have the farmer who decides that having 8 sons is great because it helps him with the farm, well you can see that effect today, 7 billion. Who is ultimately is responsible? Im afraid the answer lies in "over-population" so he is.....I cant see how anybody else is, it was his choice....please enligthen me if that is not so.
"are met with vitriole because the shutters have already gone up"
Yes they already have, but take a look at those where this is the case. I tend to over-use the term libertarians I suppose but when you talk to or against the fanatics/extremists here they are mostly of the same ilk (thankfully we dont have any real socialists/communists as well) the shutters were long ago nailed shut.
Those actually I dont care about, what I do care about is that any half-truths or even downright lies they come up with in order to influence those who may or do listen are countered with logic, information and data. Those ppl then know they have the choice to go read what they wish to read or believe whomever, at least ive tried to give them that option........otherwise it looks like the extremists are the only voice and what they say must be true.
Which brings us back tot he man in the shack.....if his religious leaders tell him no different, if his village leaders tell him no different, if his friends tell him no different, how is he but to think the same way.....
regards
Steven once again you take a line and start to untangle it at the wrong end....which demonstrates your defensiveness....of course it's his fault....the very begining of human responsibility...his responsibility...
.I'll go into it tomorrow....I gotta go to a dinner
Dear Count - thank you for your thoughtful reply. Sorry about the delay in returning the favour, but - no kidding - I was at a Jane Goodall lecture. (I agree about always learning).
I had my little shoot-from-the-hip (above) in mind, as I listened to her. What a gracious lady - combine the poise of Jeanette Fitzsimmons and Aung San Suu Kyi, multiply by about 10, and put the result in the mensa class.
And I thought of this site's gimme gimmee types, when the fellow who runs the Dunedin Gifted and Talented programme - think about it - asked her a question about Jared Diamonds hypotheses. Stunning. She's there, in spades. Gets it all - overpopulation, ocean capacitance - she's a class act. There were 6 or 7 lecture theatres (streaming video) and I'd guess between 2 and 3,000 people.
She also ungerstands that her chimps are doomed because of the 8-sprog man, so she started up a programme to loan them a small amount (fertiliser, wheelbarrows, chickens) to get to sustainable food production,and an education one, and a family-planning one. Even missionary towns thank the programme for the latter - they understand that there are too many, and more kids means less food to go around....... She stated what I do here - that if everyone on the planet wanted to live like you andf me, it'd need 6 planets. "Maybe that's only 4, or 3", she said "but we have only one. (PB should have been there!
It's the only way she could arrest the encroaching destruction, and she acknowledges that it may not work, but that any other way is guaranteed to fail.
Thanks for the gentlepersonly reply - respect sincerely returned.
The other fellow went a bit silent, but :)
Interesting Guy Jared...
The first thing I looked at on him via google was most entertaining,
http://commonsblog.org/archives/000313.php
......followed by a link to this,
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/bottomlesswell/
Which I found funny it if wasnt such so seriously flawed....however with such biblical works in existance is it a wonder that it feels like pushing water up hill.....
Yes, strange thing but it feels like I am up against a religious fundimentalist opposition who have a bible they write on the fly to support anything they think up, on the fly. As opposed to a mathematical, scientific, or engineering one.....the hard/far right simply believes their beliefs no matter what the best science, maths, data or evidence says....ho hum......
A better piece on his work,
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/34.2/mcneill.html
I like big picture ppl,
"It is a striking fact that most of the big picture histories have been written by people not trained as historians"
Listening to the likes of Nicle Foss I wonder if this isnt the case with many other spheres....
"The book is even more persuasive on the systematic edge that food-producers, wherever they are found, enjoyed (and enjoy) over food-collectors."
We can see ample cases to support this (India banning exports of race, Russia, Wheat, japan with no where to buy...)...and going forward we'll see more......
regards
Steven...I was about to get back into it with you this morning...but having read your above two posts...I think you get it without me labouring the point.....sometimes if someone gets your back up ...take a breath....evaluate the worthyness of a response....then respond the way you have chosen just above...not derisive...not patronising...not lecturing...but clear and informed which you are...as the cheap shot is not your forte..!
As I know you are fond of evidence scroll up to your response to David B ...you will see in the opening paragraph reference to a "seven year old being able to understand it".....that kind of line is going to stop anything usefull you had to offer dead in it's tracks.
I (speaking for myself only) don't think your intentionally abrasive and if you can poke a little of that borax back at yourself....you'll get more polished.
Stay Well.
There is no global shortage of food production...that's plain crap....there is uncontrolled population growth in places where bugger all can be produced..and this is made worse by the handout of free fodder without any effort made to stop the population explosion....
For every sack of "Made in America" grain they give away..how about a sack of lollies laced with hormone depressent!
Don't want to comment on the population issue. It just opens up a whole can of worms regarding population control.
Conspiracy theory time though. This is an attempt by the various governments to shift the blame from their monetary/fiscal policies and/or orders from their corporate masters to justify the high prices so that the serfs don't revolt.
Who's denying that it is unsustainable?
What some are denying is that it is going to continue to be J-shaped. Population growth rates have been slowing down since 1963 and on some projections are expected to stall altogether and then go into reverse around the middle of the century.
Who's denying that it is unsustainable?
What some are denying is that it is going to continue to be J-shaped. Population growth rates have been slowing down since 1963 and on some projections are expected to stall altogether and then go into reverse around the middle of the century.
you're right - but that's a blind stat.
It's based on BAU - and BAU itself is unsustainable.........
One way or the other - formally through war, informally through local struggle, through starvation or pandemic, or a combo, it's more likely that it'll go into reverse earlier than that.
I was at a Jane Goodall lecture the other day, and she was asked the question: she replied "Some say we are using the planet as if we had six more. Some say, four, or three......it a silly argument..... we have only one".
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.