The Big Question: Is changing our diet the key to resolving the global food crisis?

[Demi]

The Independent
London, UK
16 April, 2008


The Big Question: Is changing our diet the key to resolving the global food crisis?

By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor

Why are we asking this now?

People are dying because of the global food shortage, which has sparked a sudden surge in food prices. The global food bill has risen 57 per cent in the last year, the price of rice is up by three quarters, and wheat has more than doubled. The head of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation, Jacques Diouf, warned this week that riots in Egypt, Cameroon, Haiti and Burkina Faso over soaring prices could spread.

World grain stocks have fallen to a 25-year low of 5 million tons, enough for two to three months, and World Food Programme officials say 33 countries in Asia and Africa face political instability as the urban poor struggle to feed their families. "The world food situation is very serious," Mr Diouf said.

Are we growing too little food to feed the world?

Bizarrely, no. There was a record global grain harvest last year. It topped 2.1 billion tons, up 5 per cent on the previous year. The problem is that a diminishing proportion of it is being turned into food. This year less than half the total grown – 1.01 billion tons – will find its way on to people's plates, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. And this crisis is hitting before world food supplies are further damaged by climate change.

So where is the grain going?

There are two reasons why the record amount of grain is proving insufficient to feed the world. First, a large amount is being diverted to make biofuels. From yesterday, all transport fuel sold in the UK must be mixed with at least 2.5 per cent biofuel made from crops. As our front page explained yesterday, the Government's idea is that this will make Britain's 33 million cars greener.

But the consequence is that there is less grain available for food. This year global production of biofuels will consume almost 100 million tons of grain – grain that could have been used to feed the starving. According to the UN, it takes 232kg of corn to fill a 50-litre car tank with ethanol – enough to feed a child for a year. The UN last week predicted "massacres" unless the biofuel policy is halted. Jean Ziegler, the UN's special rapporteur on the right to food, said biofuels were "a crime against humanity", and called for a five-year moratorium.

Would cutting car use solve the food crisis?

Not on its own. Of course we should be reducing our reliance on the car, and on jet travel and other profligate uses of energy, for environmental reasons. Cutting car use, and reducing energy demands overall, would cut demand for biofuels, leaving more grain available for food. But while 100 million tons of grain are being diverted to make fuel this year, over seven times as much (760 million tons) will be used to feed animals. The world's passion for meat is a much bigger cause of global hunger than its passion for the car.

How does eating meat cause hunger?

Because it is a very inefficient way of producing food. It takes 8kg of grain to produce 1kg of beef, and large tracts of forest have been cleared for grazing land that might have been used to grow crops. Chicken is more efficient to produce – it takes 2kg of feed to produce 1kg of meat. To maximise food production it is best to be vegan. According to Simon Fairlie, in his magazine The Land, it would take just 3 million hectares of arable land to meet Britain's food needs, half the current total, if the population were vegan.

Isn't it completely unrealistic for Britain to go vegan?

Of course. Vegans number 0.4 per cent of the population, vegetarians 3 per cent, and most people will not take readily to a diet of green leaves, pulses, fruit and nuts. This is about the direction we should be moving in, not the ultimate destination. We should be aiming to reduce our meat and dairy consumption, and increase consumption of fruit and vegetables.

We are eating 50 per cent more meat than in the 1960s, and global consumption is forecast to double by 2050. More of the extra is chicken, and we eat less red meat than in the past (and a lot less than the Americans). But in terms of overall meat consumption, we are not even going in the right direction.

What about the rest of the world?

China, India and other parts of the developing world are behind the soaring demand for meat. Eating meat is a mark of affluence, and as societies in the east grow wealthier they are demanding the same benefits of a diet that the west has enjoyed for more than a century. In China meat consumption has risen from 20kg a head in 1980 to 50kg a head today. As meat consumption rises there is less grain for (human) food, adding to the pressure on grain prices

Food export controls have been imposed by Russia, China, India, Vietnam, Argentina and Serbia in response to the crisis. Last week the Philippines had to hunt for grain supplies after China withheld shipments, prompting the US to step in to guarantee grain supplies. Tensions are growing not only over energy, but now over food.

Are there other reasons for cutting back on meat-eating?

Yes. The largest study of the link between diet and health published by the World Cancer Research Fund last November concluded that animal flesh occupies too big a place in the western diet, contributing to high rates of cancer and heart disease. There are also environmental benefits from cutting down on meat. Each of Britain's 10 million cows produces more greenhouse gases in the form of methane per day than the average 4x4 on a 33-mile drive. Giving up meat could have a comparable impact on climate change to giving up flying.

Finally, there could be animal welfare benefits. The less meat we eat, the more we can afford to pay – and farmers selling fewer animals at higher prices should be able to provide them with better conditions.

So what diet should we be aiming for?

One that does not eschew meat altogether – if that seems too difficult – but that puts more emphasis on the vegetarian elements. In many countries meat is regarded as a relish, with the bulk of the meal coming from carbohydrates – corn, rice, pasta or potatoes – and vegetables.

We should get used to thinking of meat as a treat – it could help to save the world's poor from starvation.

Should we be trying to cut out meat to help save the world's poor from starvation?

Yes...

* Producing meat is less efficient than growing grain – it takes 8kg of corn to produce 1kg of beef

* Growing crops to feed animals means there is less land on which to grow crops for humans

* There is a shortage of grain for human consumption, and global food prices have leapt by 57 per cent in a year

No...

* It is not realistic to expect people to switch to a vegan diet of vegetables, pulses, fruit and nuts

* China and India should not be denied the same diet that we have enjoyed as they grow wealthier

* An alternative way of tackling the food crisis would be to reverse the policy of diverting grain to make biofuels


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/the-big-question-is-changing-our-diet-the-key-to-resolving-the-global-food-crisis-809566.html

[LessLiz]

The more editorials I read from the really smart people in this world the dumber I get.

[francisstp]

Anyone even remotely familiar with the concept of supply and demand will quickly see there is no long-term problem here.

Higher prices attract additional suppliers to the market, bringing price and quantity back to equilibrium fairly quickly. Of course, things can go wrong when governments subsidise farmers to grow weeds and let them rot...

As for the environment, what good is a clean planet when all humans inhabiting it are fat and sick because they eat crap all day?

[Zei]

The problem as I've heard it isn't about how much food is available or can be produced on the planet so much as it is corrupt government systems and human greed which prevent the food (of which plenty can be made available) to those who need it rather than to the favor of those who want to get or remain rich. That's one of the reasons I've never put any stock in "zero population growth" types of suggested solutions for the world's problems. Less starving people on a planet with less people period but nothing else has changed is still too many starving people. Meanwhile since I can't change the world I'll still just do what I can to help others and keep eating healthy low carb.

[64dodger]

How does eating meat cause hunger?

Because it is a very inefficient way of producing food. It takes 8kg of grain to produce 1kg of beef, and large tracts of forest have been cleared for grazing land that might have been used to grow crops. Chicken is more efficient to produce – it takes 2kg of feed to produce 1kg of meat. To maximise food production it is best to be vegan. According to Simon Fairlie, in his magazine The Land, it would take just 3 million hectares of arable land to meet Britain's food needs, half the current total, if the population were vegan.

What a crock. We could not produce enough food for the world if we did not have meat in our diets.

[Wifezilla]

Not to mention the fact that cattle doesn't need grain. It can do fine on grass. I have no problem growing grass...especially where I don't want it to grow.

[Nancy LC]

I think it was in Omnivore's Dilemma that some farmer pointed out that nature turns sunlight into a complete protein by having cows eat grass. Lots of places you can't grow grain can sustain lots of grass eating animals.

[Marillia]

They always merrily forget that it takes more plant foods to feed someone than it does meat.

[Dodger]

It's time to bring back Soylent Green.

[LilithD]

Family A and Family B have equal sized resources. Family A produces two children, educates and feeds them well, and uses any spare resources to improve their lifestyle, health and cultural pursuits.

Family B produces 12 children, feeds and educates them poorly, and then runs to the government demanding that it would be 'fair' for family A to give up its spare resources, and then some, to help pay for the 12 children.

That is what this way of thinking is. Why on earth have many countries thought long and hard about sustainable population sizes and used birth control, with the aim of improving the wealth of their country (including, perhaps, eating as much meat as desired), if doing this is 'unfair' and countries that over-reproduce demand 'equal resources'?

[Rheneas]

Not to mention the fact that cattle doesn't need grain. It can do fine on grass. I have no problem growing grass...especially where I don't want it to grow.

Exactly what I was thinking. Grass grows for free practically all year round being replaced withing days each time it is cropped by the cattle who quite happily fertilise it for free. It also grows abundantly in places where grain can't be grown. Cattle can be fed silage over winter harvested through the year and replaced in the field, again for free and quickly. Cows, left to their own devices will also breed, for free, producing more cows, and milk.

Grain is a once a year crop that needs buying, sowing, fertilising, spraying, harvesting, storing, packing and distributing before it gets to the cattle. It also makes the cattle sick and fat and they often have difficulty in breeding therefore needing IVF type intervention. Following on to all this then comes the need of medications, hormones, steroids etc which in turn are eaten by people who then perpetuate the illnesses of grain and are affected by residues of the medications but red meat always gets the blame not the farming practice.

Balancing those two I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone would either want or need to feed grain to cows. The oddity about it all is that grass fed beef is much more expensive to buy than grain fed yet the grain fed is more expensive to produce. Better by Nature not big industry profits says I.

[Baerdric]

It takes 8kg of grain to produce 1kg of beefWait, it takes between 3 and 8kg of SILAGE to produce one 1kg of beef.

Remember that 2/3 of what a cow eats is inedible to man. Of the rest, turning carbohydrates into fat and protein is a good, efficent use of the land. Especially grazing cattle, since they are solar powered and move the food to the processing plant using green fuel.

I cannot express how angry I get when I see improper use of statistics to promote a political stance which does nothing but worsen the problem it is intended to alleviate. Makes the proper use of statistics look bad.

[Baerdric]

It's time to bring back Soylent Green.I agree. That way everyone who wants to return to a simpler, better time, could line up for the trucks and help us reach it by volunteering to reduce the population.

[Wifezilla]

http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/11/suicide-booth.jpg

[renegadiab]

...large tracts of forest have been cleared for grazing land that might have been used to grow crops.

Large tracks of rain forrest have been cleared to grow genetically-engineered soy. Big agra is just as damaging to the environment.

Plus, as Wifezilla pointed out, cows can eat grass, which is free and the best food for them. There is plenty of land that isn't suitable for growing crops, but great for grazing animals.

[francisstp]

That is what this way of thinking is. Why on earth have many countries thought long and hard about sustainable population sizes and used birth control, with the aim of improving the wealth of their country (including, perhaps, eating as much meat as desired), if doing this is 'unfair' and countries that over-reproduce demand 'equal resources'?


I'm sorry but that's a misunderstanding of the problem. Having more children means the possibility of having more people around producing stuff, not just consuming resources. The problem is that those people lead unproductive lives, not that they actually live.

Babyboomers are a stricking example of a high reproduction rate generation who led very productive lives. Now we're seeing the very opposite : a lack of reproduction brings a host of problems in western societies.

[KarenJ]

Wait, it takes between 3 and 8kg of SILAGE to produce one 1kg of beef.

Remember that 2/3 of what a cow eats is inedible to man. Of the rest, turning carbohydrates into fat and protein is a good, efficent use of the land. Especially grazing cattle, since they are solar powered and move the food to the processing plant using green fuel.


Baerdric, The cow who is eating grass is essentially turning the power of the sun into protein, via grass that humans cannot digest.

I should be noted, though, that the feedlot cow is fed 32 pounds of feed per day, which is 75% corn, liquefied fat, protein supplements, liquid vitamins, synthetic estrogen, alfalfa hay, silage, molasses, urea. Oh and don't forget the Rumensin and Tylosin needed to treat the sickness caused by that diet.

[1000times]

Anyone even remotely familiar with the concept of supply and demand will quickly see there is no long-term problem here.
"Supply and demand"? Oh, look children, we have an Economist here to enlighten us. Gather round and listen quietly while the Economist explains it all!

Higher prices attract additional suppliers to the market, bringing price and quantity back to equilibrium fairly quickly.
Well, strictly speaking, that's true. For example, in Haiti, the higher prices for grains have indeed brought additional quantities of "food" to the market, according to the Associated Press (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gJNOtTiclCnd0fapnw8cn8I2WDBgD8VVT36G0) :
In Haitian slang, Francois and Joseph describe their hunger pangs as "eating Clorox" because of the burning sensation in their guts. Flashing a sheepish smile, Joseph said they sometimes resort to a traditional hunger palliative — cookies made of dirt, salt and butter.

However, the truth of the matter is that most of the developed world is fed by a system that turns unrenewable resources such as natural gas and crude oil into fertilizer and motor fuels, respectively. What does your economics tell us about the resulting price levels of the demand-driven additional supply when those unrenewable resources are ALSO going up in price?

As for the environment, what good is a clean planet when all humans inhabiting it are fat and sick because they eat crap all day?
What good is a clean planet? Let's see:

Overfishing of Atlantic salmon has brought "additional supply" in the form of open-net fish farms. Since the people building these farms want to maximize their ROI, they pack the "farms" (actually feedlots) with as many salmon as they can. Diseases and parasites, notably sea lice, spread among the farmed salmon, and are then spread to nearby wild salmon stocks when the "farmed" salmon escape, as they frequently do. This further reduces the wild catch.
Diversion of water for irrigation and hydroelectric power, and residential development on the West Coast of the United States have combined with overfishing (to meet the demand for "additional supply"), leading to the complete closure of the Pacific salmon fishery. There will be NO salmon caught off the West Coast this year. None. Zip. Zilch.
Gulf Coast wild shrimp have been caught by "raking" the shrimp beds, a destructive practice that leads to decreased yields.
Open-cycle shrimp farming (developed to meed the demand for "additional supply" following falling catches in the U.S. -- begin to see a pattern developing, Milton Friedman?) was established near coasts, by clearing mangrove thickets and creating large lagoons, which were then "farmed" using modern intensive methods. The salinity in these lagoons was adjusted (to maximize output) by pumping fresh water from nearby wells, leading to salt water infiltration and destruction of the aquifer. With prolonged use, these intensively-used ponds form a sludge on the bottom. Eventually, the pond has to be abandoned, rendering the land unusable for decades at best.
Overgrazing, driven by -- wait for it -- demand for "additional supply", leads to desertification, erosion, replacement of desirable grasses with inedible and toxic weeds, and ultimately reduction of the supply of meat that could have been produced on that land.
Broadcast irrigation, needed to produce hay in dry climates like Montana, can cause salination on prairies that were once sea bottom. For example, irrigating an uphill farm can wash subterranean salt downhill and destroy a neighboring farm.

So, who needs a clean planet? Only people who eat.

[1000times]

What a crock. We could not produce enough food for the world if we did not have meat in our diets.
What part of "it takes 8kg of corn to produce 1kg of beef" are you having trouble understanding? Is it the part where you subtract 1 from 8, leaving 7?

8 kg of corn produces between 6 and 7 pounds of cow shit in a CAFO, plus 1 kg of meat in the supermarket. Grain fed to cattle REDUCES the amount of food available to humans. :rolleyes:

[1000times]

I think it was in Omnivore's Dilemma that some farmer pointed out that nature turns sunlight into a complete protein by having cows eat grass. Lots of places you can't grow grain can sustain lots of grass eating animals.
I just finished listening to Omnivore's Dilemma (thank you, Audible.com!), and it's a very thought-provoking read (well, "listen" in my case). I think the source of that observation you quoted was Joel Salatin, proprietor of the amazing Polyface Farm (http://www.polyfacefarms.com/).

Joel maintains the majority of his property as woodland, because clearing it for pasture -- or worse, cropland -- would reduce the productivity of his existing pasture, according to his practices.

The book also mentions that Joel could buy chicken feed and create "additional supply" to meet the "demand" for chicken, which is Polyface's most profitable product -- but the resulting "additional supply" of chickenshit would be a useless waste product in the life cycle of his free-range chickens.

[Baerdric]

Baerdric, The cow who is eating grass is essentially turning the power of the sun into protein, via grass that humans cannot digest. I think that's what I said. Or more or less. Actually, whether they eat grass of grain or silage or corn or Purina Cow Chow(tm), they are turning sunlight into food.

I should be noted, though, that the feedlot cow is fed 32 pounds of feed per day, which is 75% corn, Maybe things are different elsewhere, but the cows I see are fed a mixture of corn with husks and cob, corn stalks, what looks like Hops or another vinelike flowering plant, and some Cow Chow. I would say it's nearly 90% inedible (by humans) and all grown locally. I suspect that it is a very efficient use of the land.

[Baerdric]

What part of "it takes 8kg of corn to produce 1kg of beef" are you having trouble understanding? Perhaps the part where that's not quite true.

Cows (the ones I see) eat corn parts that we don't, plus as another poster mentioned, we must also eat corn if we don't eat meat. Why are you leaving those very significant facts out of your equation? It's like trying to do a home budget while ignoring the mortage and the car payments.

[1000times]

They always merrily forget that it takes more plant foods to feed someone than it does meat.
:rolleyes: Once more into the breach, dear friends...

8 kg of corn becomes 1 kg of meat.

8 kg of corn contains 30735 cal of digestible carbs, 1538 cal of fat, and 2769 cal of (admittedly incomplete) protein, for a total food value of a bit over 35000 calories.

1 kg of meat contains between 5000 (all protein) to 9000 (all fat) calories. The rest of that 35000 calories, between 26000 and 30000 calories, is turned into waste -- cow shit on the ground of the CAFO, methane burped into the air (where it has 18 times the greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide).

Feeding human-edible grain to cattle in feedlots is a practice that should be banned.

[1000times]

Maybe things are different elsewhere, but the cows I see are fed a mixture of corn with husks and cob, corn stalks, what looks like Hops or another vinelike flowering plant, and some Cow Chow.
So where is this feedlot? How many beef carcasses would you say are processed by this local feedlot?

[Wyvrn]

The cattle I eat are raised in a sustainable manner without any grain. The land they graze is natural habitat for large ruminents and unsuitable for growing crops.

[Baerdric]

Oh, look childrenThis is an excellent way to convice people to your opinion while making friends at the same time.

cookies made of dirt, salt and butter.

I know Hatians. I am related to a good number of them. They have been "Dirt Poor" for decades, and it is not about the price of grain, it is about the lack of freedom, education and technology. They eat those cookies because they are ignorant, not because Americans are all mean and stuff...

So, who needs a clean planet? Only people who eat.It is a strawman that some people want a clean planet and other people don't. But what is true is that some people fall for every Catastrophe Hysteria the press dishes out, and other people have become skeptical. Few people want their children to live in a more restrictive world on the off chance that the press's most recent favorite End of the World theory is finally right.

Do you have children?

[Baerdric]

So where is this feedlot? How many beef carcasses would you say are processed by this local feedlot?Right over there (see where I am pointing?). I can smell it every morning and half of the night.

As for their production, I don't know, but it's enough to keep them in business. I am not swearing that they don't sneak in some human edible corn snacks, but I see the front end loader pile in what they grew in the field last year and I see the cows eat it. I know I couldn't digest most of it.

But your question seems like a challenge, and a challenge means you think I'm lying. Is that your point? If so, just say so. I am not as emotionally invested in winning an argument as you seem to be. I'm more concerned with what is right, not who is right.

[Baerdric]

should be banned.This is really the point. Some people think that their ideas warrant the use of force on other people. They want to make other people "behave". They can't convince us with their "facts" and/or their winning personalities, so they want to make a law.

The average connection to the internet "wastes" more than 100 gallons of gasoline per year. If these folks promise to stop using the internet, I will promise to eat more veggies. :lol:

[1000times]

...Grass grows for free...
Yes, all you have to do is murder any indigenous inhabitants and take over that free land to grow that free grass, right? Alas, that ship has sailed. These days, grass is grown on land which is usually owned by someone and has value. In other words, as any hippie could tell you, There Ain't No Such Thing As Free Grass.

It also grows abundantly in places where grain can't be grown. Cattle can be fed silage over winter harvested through the year and replaced in the field, again for free and quickly.
Again with the "free"? Silage can be made from "free" grass, yes -- but it's also made from grains like sorghum, oats, and corn, plus peas. It's harvested (in the developed world) using capital-intensive machines which are powered by ever-more-expensive diesel or gasoline/gasohol and operated by human beings. These human beings want to be paid in money, and can often get more money for less work saying "Do you want fries with that?" than staying on the farm.

Silage is "made from plant material with a suitable moisture content, about 55% to 70%", according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silage#Making_silage). However, in most of the places famous for producing beef cattle, such as Texas and Montana, cattle are wintered on hay, because there isn't enough moisture to make silage from the grass. In many of those places, there isn't enough rain to grow hay in some years unless the land is irrigated. As noted above, irrigation sometimes leads to salination of pasture or cropland. Irrigation also requires water -- which is decidedly NOT free out west. Cows that are eating hay or grazing on these prairies ALSO require water.

Cows, left to their own devices will also breed, for free, producing more cows, and milk.
Most farmers in the developed world don't leave breeding up to the cows, but pay actual money (i.e., not "free") for bull semen from proven bulls. Before artificial insemination became common, farmers would pay (again, not "free") to have a stud bull brought to the pasture.

Grain is a once a year crop ...
Meaning that the corn grower can turn his harvest over to the maw of the factory farming system and take some time off -- even take a vacation, if he can afford it. Grass-fed beef is a year-round job.

Balancing those two I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone would either want or need to feed grain to cows. The oddity about it all is that grass fed beef is much more expensive to buy than grain fed yet the grain fed is more expensive to produce.
No, grain-fed beef is NOT more expensive to produce than grass-fed beef, not as long as fertilizer can be produced from cheap natural gas, and as long as farm kids would rather sell grain-fed beef and HFCS-sweetened soft drinks at McDonalds than raise cows on Old McDonald's farm. The U.S. government pays farmers to raise corn, but eliminating that subsidy wouldn't make grain-fed beef cheaper than grass-fed.

[Rheneas]

I think your definition of silage in the US is different to that in the UK. Here it is cut grass that is stored in bales to be fed to cattle over the winter when they are kept indoors. As the grass grows quickly it can be cut 2 or 3 times a year providing ample winter feed. There is no sorghum, corn, wheat or other grain involved, just grass (or hay). In the UK there are many many areas that grass grows thick and fast and free that is unsuitable for crop growing but excellent for raising cattle and sheep.

[KarenJ]

Grain fed to cattle REDUCES the amount of food available to humans.

I think Pollan's argument in Omnivore's Dilemma was that USDA policy has sought to move the "mountain of corn" by "passing as much of it as possible through the digestive tracks of food animals who can convert it into protein" (-Pollan).
Why go through that wasteful step at all if humans can just eat the corn directly?

http://www.pbase.com/karenfrogpond/image/95758092/medium.jpg

Art provided courtesy of my 11 yo.

[Wyvrn]

No matter what we eat, there is a limit to how many people this planet can support. Forcing malnutrition on people who need a meat-based diet for good health won't solve that problem.

[Zei]

Family A has two kids, feeds them well and spends lots of money on things they don't necessarily need like new cars, a house in a new subdivision, name-brand clothes and dinner regularly at those expensive fast-food places. Family B feeds has twelve kids (or family C, mine, with 8), and feeds and cares for them well by driving a little older cars, purchasing a used home in a still-decent neighborhood, shopping at sales and discount stores and providing their children with some nice things but teaching them money isn't everything and they don't need all the latest new goodies to be happy (and eat at home, not the golden arches and burger/dairy royalty). Everything works out fine and all the kids in all these families are well cared for and happy. Having a big family does not automatically mean poverty or neglect. Also a thought on contraception programs. These will only result in smaller family sizes if parents acutally want less children and were failing to achieve their goal. Except of course for places like China with poor human rights records and things forced upon people by the government.

[Wifezilla]

Wow Karen,

I think you have a future political cartoonist on your hands! :D

[teaser]

How much acreage is wasted on low calorie-yield vegetables?
How come noone complains about all the house pets? The food we feed to all the dogs and cats in the world, well, I don't know how much that is, but I imagine it could put quite a dent in human hunger. (I posted something on a similar thread today about eating cats and dogs. I want to assure everyone that I have had several cats and dogs in my life as pets, and that I loved them dearly and did not in fact eat them.)

Here's what's gonna happen. Farmers in parts of the world that haven't been stricken by drought, who haven't been growing as much grain as they possibly could, are gonna increase production. And just when they get up to peak production, the droughts in other parts of the world are gonna ease up, and eventually we'll be seeing telethons for poor beleagured farmers wounded by the falling grain prices and in danger of losing their farms because of the loans the banks were happy to give them because of the previously high grain prices.

My favourite kind of prediction is "this is not the end of the world." Not like there'd be anyone around then to tell me if I was wrong.

[Baerdric]

Here's what's gonna happen. Farmers in parts of the world that haven't been stricken by drought, who haven't been growing as much grain as they possibly could, are gonna increase production. And just when they get up to peak production, the droughts in other parts of the world are gonna ease up.If we would ever get some of that global warming they promised me, we would get significantly more rain in the equatorial deserts and better crop yeilds in the Northern plains of Canada and Eurasia. Along with the increased CO2 caused by the extra warmth and the longer growing seasons all around, this would take care of the grain shortage problem.

So everyone? Burn some styrofoam for World Hunger!
:thup:

[KarenJ]

If we would ever get some of that global warming they promised me, we would get significantly more rain in the equatorial deserts and better crop yeilds in the Northern plains of Canada and Eurasia. Along with the increased CO2 caused by the extra warmth and the longer growing seasons all around, this would take care of the grain shortage problem.

So everyone? Burn some styrofoam for World Hunger!
:thup:

Bingo.

I think you have a future political cartoonist on your hands!

She's good. :cool: Gets her cartoons on the "Principals Board" all the time. :heart:

[LilithD]

"family C, mine, with 8"

Zei, I have no argument with responsible people who want to and really can support large families. In modern developed countries they are balanced out by people who decide to have 1 child or none.

I made it quite clear that this is about people (whole countries in fact) who reproduce irresponsibly and then expect help from people (again, whole countries) who reproduce responsibly.

But even with your enthusiasm for children, you must see that there is a limit to how many people the world can support.

As for China - so what? Where did I suggest any type of enforced population control? My point is this: people and countries who reproduce responsibly should not be expected to pay for those that reproduce irresponsibly. And if Family A (or nation A) wants to use the spare land to grow healthy grass-fed meat and grow forests and generally have more space, that seems fine to me.

Maybe living in lovely green New Zealand with plenty of space and affordable grass-fed meat has skewed my perspective.

[francisstp]

The price of raw and other natural commodities such as oil, gold, and uranium have risen substantially in recent years, due to increased demand from China, India, and other industrializing countries. However, this short term price increase is not contrary to [Julian] Simon's cornucopian theory.

"More people, and increased income, cause resources to become more scarce in the short run. Heightened scarcity causes prices to rise. The higher prices present opportunity, and prompt inventors and entrepreneurs to search for solutions. Many fail in the search, at cost to themselves. But in a free society, solutions are eventually found. And in the long run the new developments leave us better off than if the problems had not arisen. That is, prices eventually become lower than before the increased scarcity occurred."

Simon-Erlich wager on resource scarcity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager)

[francisstp]

It is a strawman that some people want a clean planet and other people don't.

It's actually a false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma), but will all these fallacies packed together who can keep track anyway? ;)

[Baerdric]

It's actually a false dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma), but will all these fallacies packed together who can keep track anyway? ;)Well, it is based on a false dilemma, and it really seems to have a little bit of both, but the argument (at least in some cases) isn't so much that one must choose between those two positions, but that the second position exists at all.

That second position, that some person doesn't want a clean planet, is put forward because one can more easily argue against it - instead of trying to prove that any one event was caused by any certain policy. It assumes the dilemma, then moves beyond it.

It actually has a little tinge of ad hominem to it as well. "Bob just wants to destroy the planet because he is a stupid racist homophobe warmonger"

I guess some would say it either is a false dilemma or it isn't. :lol:

[Marillia]

There are a few articles on why veganism wouldn't fix world hunger, and would, in fact, wreck the planet.
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html
http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html

[waywardsis]

One thing that confuses me is the focus on volume of food produced (ie: less grains to cattle = more grains to humans) rather than the nutritional quality of the food produced and its benefit, or lack thereof, to those who eat it. (And of course this argument assumes that grains are a good food for humans, and for cows etc as well)

Wheat, for example, contains all the essential amino acids - it's just that you'd have to eat a helluva lot more of it to get the amount you needed, compared to what you'd get from meat. That's providing, of course, that the anti-nutrients, etc in the wheat itself don't cause other health problems, as they do in a large percentage of people.

I wish there would be more focus on farming, esp. in poorer countries. One thing I like about the aid program I deal with (I sponsor a family in Zambia) is that they devote funds to creating sustainable farming opportunities in the communities they work with. They vary according to area, of course, but they have helped set up chicken farms, beekeeping facilities, and help families purchase goats and other animals both for their personal use (meat and milk) and as a source of income.

Of course this doesn't change the fact that there are just too many of us to feed, and that providing space and opportunity for us to once again take part in the process of food production is a challenge. I doubt that my city will knock down some condos to create a grazing pasture for cows anytime soon (though we have a lot of community food gardens) and I don't know many ppl here who hunt or fish, though we have a crapload of deer ripe for the picking, thanks to all the folks who decided that wolves were bad and needed killin'. :)

[Wifezilla]

there are just too many of us to feed

This was a big concern in the 70's....the population bomb and all that. Of course, dire predictions were wrong then and they are wrong now. The starvation you see in countries in Africa are not due to the inability of the land to support crops, it is the inability of people to grow crops when there is a civil war and people keep lopping off the farmer's heads with machetes.

Here are some links with a bit of perspective...

"THIS year is the 40th anniversary of Paul Ehrlich's influential The Population Bomb, a book that predicted an apocalyptic overpopulation crisis in the 1970s and '80s.

Ehrlich's book provides a lesson we still haven't learnt. His prophecy that the starvation of millions of people in the developed world was imminent was spectacularly wrong — humanity survived without any of the forced sterilisation that Ehrlich believed was necessary.

It's easy to predict environmental collapse, but it never actually seems to happen.

The anniversary of The Population Bomb should put contemporary apocalyptic predictions in their proper context. If anything, our world — and the environment — just keeps getting better.

Ehrlich was at the forefront of a wave of pessimistic doomsayers in the late 1960s and early '70s. And these doomsayers weren't just cranks — or, if they were cranks, they were cranks with university tenure.

Despite what should be a humiliating failure for his theory of overpopulation, Ehrlich is still employed as a professor of population studies by Stanford University. Similarly, when George Wald predicted in a 1970 speech that civilisation was likely to end within 15 or 30 years, his audience was reminded that he was a Nobel Prize-winning biologist."
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/isnt-all-this-talk-of-an-apocalypse-getting-a-bit-boring/2008/01/26/1201157736917.html

"In the late 1960s and early '70s a plethora of terrible books about the future were published. In 1968, Paul Ehrlich published the neo-Malthusian classic The Population Bomb (Ballantine). "The battle to feed all of humanity is over," he notoriously declared. "In the 1970s the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." Ehrlich was far from alone. In 1967, the Paddock brothers, William and Paul, asserted in Famine 1975! (Little, Brown) that "the famines which are now approaching...are for a surety, inevitable....In fifteen years the famines will be catastrophic." In 1972, the Club of Rome's The Limits to Growth (Universe Books) suggested that at exponential growth rates, the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead, and natural gas by 1993. The end was nigh. The modern heirs to this strain of doomsaying include Lester Brown at the Worldwatch Institute and Vice President Al Gore.

But the silliness was not confined to the environmentalist front. Take a look at John Kenneth Galbraith's 1967 paean to planning, The New Industrial State (Houghton Mifflin), in which he asserted: "High technology and heavy capital use cannot be subordinate to the ebb and flow of market demand. They require planning and it is the essence of planning that public behavior be made predictable - that is be subject to control."

Galbraith, too, has heirs - most notably, Robert Reich and Lester Thurow. In his 1980 book The Zero-Sum Society (Basic Books) Thurow suggested that "solving our energy and growth problems demand [sic] that government gets more heavily involved in the economy's major investment decisions....Major investment decisions have become too important to be left to the private market alone." Thurow ended with this revealing claim: "As we head into the 1980s, it is well to remember that there is really only one important question in political economy. If elected, whose income do you and your party plan to cut in the process of solving the economic problems facing us?"

Ultimately, the neo-Malthusians and the zero-summers are pushing the same egalitarian agenda: Stop growth and then divvy up the static pie."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_1998_Dec/ai_53260537/pg_2

[Baerdric]

This was a big concern in the 70's....the population bomb and all that. Of course, dire predictions were wrong then and they are wrong now. I hate to admit this, but in the 70's I did an award winning paper on the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer of our atmosphere. Using replenishment values of just two segments of refrigeration industries, and dispersion data from NASA, I conclusively demonstrated that we had already lost enough Freon into the air that there was no hope of life continuing on the exposed face of the earth past 1990.

Of course, at the time I was a pot smoking teenaged hippy with more brains than sense, so I can excuse my sophomoric pretensions... after all, I was a HS Sophomore. It was the State School administrators and civic minded adults who spurred me on, and got me published. They should have known better.

Luckily, my prediction of the end of the Earth was fatally flawed, in that Freon is much heavier than air and quickly sinks into the ground where it is disassembled.

"But we know the world didn't end, 'cause... check it out." - Oz

[Wifezilla]

I did my share of papers on recycling, solar energy, etc... Our public school was always on the forefront of the latest crisis calling for immediate government intervention. Hell, I even studied Solar Engineering in college (only 1 class away from a degree but then I wrecked my car. Opps!)

I was even a vegetarian for quite a while.

I got better :D

[Baerdric]

I got better :DWe must be twins!

I'm always astounded by those few occasions when I get back together with my HS friends. We were all the Science nerds and last gasp hippies (actually, the word was "Freaks") and all went on to college and working in similar fields. But a few never seemed to get out of the 70's. Now they are all grocery clerks or dishwashers or assistance collectors with degrees.

The attitudes and propensities of the 70's will be felt as a damage for decades into the future.

[waywardsis]

The starvation you see in countries in Africa are not due to the inability of the land to support crops, it is the inability of people to grow crops when there is a civil war and people keep lopping off the farmer's heads with machetes.

Agreed, and good point. IIRC, even food aid sent to certain countries doesn't make it to the people who need it - the ruling class tends to, uh, skim a little off the top. Or just take it.

With all the overpopulation talk, it's easy to forget what else is going on that affects the situation. Do you think (both of you 70's social-cause survivors) that the overpopulation thing is yet another information cascade?

[Wifezilla]

even food aid sent to certain countries doesn't make it to the people who need it - the ruling class tends to, uh, skim a little off the top. Or just take it.

Yeah...that really irks me too. Starving suffering people are held out to the world as the reason aid is needed, then tons of money and goods pour in to the region (some from other governments, some from compassionate people in the private sector), and military dictators keep it or give it to their buddies while the rest are left to die.

Do you think (both of you 70's social-cause survivors) that the overpopulation thing is yet another information cascade?

Well...on one level, yes. On another level, crisis is often used as a power/money grab.

[Baerdric]

Do you think (both of you 70's social-cause survivors) that the overpopulation thing is yet another information cascade?I haven't done the math, but I know that there are now two problems, and when you add them together, it might be no huge insoluable problem at all.

Some areas have a destructively high birth rate.

But many European countries and a few other countries are not growing in native population. They have a negative growth rate.

Usually that is more than counteracted by the immigrant populations, but it means that the total number of humans on the planet is not growing as much as some populations might suggest.

Nonetheless, we do seem to be experiencing rapid growth, although the rate of growth has slowed somewhat. Again, it is a matter of Freedom, Education and Technology. The cultures where population growth is slowest is where those things are present.

[feelskinny]

When it comes to mainstream media/hype it's always doom.

Hype/doom sells.


Thriving on the negative; isn’t it essentially propaganda concerning what the general public WANTS to hear?!!??!!

The monies raised throughout the world on behalf of the impoverished countries, goes so much farther than what we'd ever see/hear on CNN, etc.
Not to say there's no need to contribute!!!
[sorry, I sound like a contradictionist here]

I know many, many missionaries,
[lets see...incl. families around 500-ish--don't know how many babies have come recently so this is a rough figure] I’m not talking off the cuff here.

I'm a financial supporter in a very large degree, thus have regular reports-updates, etc, so I see a lot of ....the other-side.

It breaks my heart, that the positive things that are being accomplished in impoverished countries, will never-ever make the 6:00 news.

It’s not news worthy :cry: .

As for overpopulation…
HAA!!!!

Just move to Saskatchewan...!
We have enough room to fit a couple of nations-at least! REALLY!!!

I’m so sick and tired of that old bullsh*t
I don’t, and will never buy the 'overpopulation crap,'

among other theories…

many, many, other theories.

[Baerdric]

Here is the population map (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Population_density.png) I posted in another thread, which shows what all the overpopulation talk is all about.

[feelskinny]

Oh, you got it buddy!

[Wifezilla]

Anyone who thinks the planet is running out of room has never had to drive across Kansas, Nebraska or Iowa.

[Wyvrn]

Ehrlich's book provides a lesson we still haven't learnt. His prophecy that the starvation of millions of people in the developed world was imminent was spectacularly wrong — humanity survived without any of the forced sterilisation that Ehrlich believed was necessary.
But millions of people in the developed world ARE starving. It's insidious rather than apocalyptic, but it's very real.

[Baerdric]

But millions of people in the developed world ARE starving. It's insidious rather than apocalyptic, but it's very real.I guess that depends on what you mean by "the developed world". Many people in Third World countries are starving. But they are not starving because of a lack of food as such, but rather from a lack of Freedom, Education and Technology. Many could grow food if they weren't busy fending off warlords who steal any aid sent their way.

Some hundreds of thousands are starving in isolated areas of the Free World, a statistical few even in the US, but again, not from a lack of food, but from a lack of Education. Every single one of them could have food if they knew how to get it. Most could get free food if they would ask.

[Baerdric]

When it comes to mainstream media/hype it's always doom. That's why it's so hard to find charts like this one (http://claypipes.pbwiki.com/f/global_temp2.jpg).

[Marillia]

That's a great graph. I'm so saving it.

[Baerdric]

That's a great graph. I'm so saving it.What I was really looking for was the one that shows that measured levels of CO2 in Artic ice follow the periodic rise and fall of temperature. I found it once on the NOAA site but was unable to find it again.

[jande2211]

Keep the graphs coming, Baerdric. Thank you.

Wifezilla, I drove across Kansas. Once. Can't even find a joke in there. Dang.

[LessLiz]

Anyone who thinks the planet is running out of room has never had to drive across Kansas, Nebraska or Iowa.All of which pale in comparison to Montana. :D

[Marillia]

Another linky-loo for youse:
All Animal Life: Peter Singer's Dumb Quote (http://allanimallife.blogspot.com/2008/04/peter-singers-dumb-quote.html)

[jande2211]

All of which pale in comparison to Montana. :D

Don't you have mountains you can at least look at in Montana? But Kansas? Nothing. Wheat (I think) as far as the eye could see. One would think the earth was really flat.

[Wifezilla]

Well, the sunflowers are pretty....but you get sick of them after an hour too.

[waywardsis]

Drive through Canada, if you've got a few months to spare. And we've got lots of room in the northern bits :)

Thanks for the temp chart. Man, the GW issue really burns me. (hardy har har) All you hear are emotional arguments. I'm all for being environmentally friendly (a term I have come to detest) but I want clear, hard science that can tell me what's what, and why.

I think all you 70's survivors should collaborate on a book.

So the population growth isn't widespread, but condensed to a few areas, and is kept in check by lower birth rates elsewhere. Something one doesn't hear about on the evening news. And starvation is political - makes perfect sense.

I wonder too about the influence of companies like Monsanto, patenting seeds (the whole basmati rice thing) for example.

I'm really annoyed by all this. Media, I mean, and the shoddy job they do of reporting facts and/or balanced information. I don't even know where to go to get unbiased information, bc I no longer trust any source.

[teaser]

I've been poking around Dr Macdougal's site over the weekend. I'm learning a lot. Did anyone know that the average person needs only twenty grams of protein a day for perfect health? His latest newsletter tells you how to live on boiled rice and white potatoes for a dollar fifty a day. Or you can go to his healthy eating getaway and get all you can eat starches for just four thousand for a ten day stay.
He's one of those that claims that mother's milk contains five percent protein and that that's the most protein anyone needs in their diet. That got me to thinking of the young pigs in Taube's book that just ate and ate without becoming obese, until they had enough protein, just burning the extra. I found a claim on the net that babies need fifty calories per pound (it looked like the lady was making the same calculation I was, but her webpage wouldn't open. I got the fifty calories number from the google listing.)
So I calculated that to be eating like a baby, I'd need to eat more than 8000 calories. At five percent protein, that worked out to 110 grams a day--in agreement with what I got from the protein power books.

[Baerdric]

I think all you 70's survivors should collaborate on a book.Eh... "Calvin and Hobbes" has already been done. Literature is finished.

[jande2211]

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn13741-food-miles-dont-feed-climate-change--meat-does.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news1_head_dn13741

Global warming. It's not the gummint's fault. It's Dr. Atkins' fault.

[Baerdric]

Global warming. It's not the gummint's fault. It's Dr. Atkins' fault.Good! So since the Global Temperature has actually been cooler for the last decade, he gets the credit for that too! Outdoor Air Conditioning! Yay!

I once saw data about how Mars has been slightly warmer in the last century too. I suppose this means "Cows on Mars"?

[waywardsis]

I love how it's "meat", not what we feed them, that's the problem - and that meat means beef only. WTF? Ugh. Say "Industrial beef production", for chrissakes.

Beardric, you're right. No-one will ever write anything better. My Costco has the complete C&H collection, and I was distraught that I just couldn't spare the $100 or so to buy it.

[Wifezilla]

Calvin & Hobbes :D

Hubby and I loved it so much we named our oldest son Calvin!

[ReginaW]

it takes 232kg of corn to fill a 50-litre car tank with ethanol – enough to feed a child for a year.

232kg of corn = 227,360 calories.....just 622 calories a day, not nearly enough to feed a child for a year.....nevermind feeding a child just corn for a year would leave them totally malnourished not only for calories but micronutrients.

Interestingly, while many point out that world grain production is up (which it is), few get into what that translates to on a per person basis...that's been declining for the past thirty years....

http://www.sonic.net/~evolve/wp/human_ecology/world_grain_production_1.gif

What exactly would happen if those pushing for global vegetarian/vegan diets succeed in convincing the majority to abandon meat in their diet? The situation will get worse...not better.

[NoWhammies]

Calvin & Hobbes :D

Hubby and I loved it so much we named our oldest son Calvin!
We have a Calvin - if not in name, very much so in spirit. We bought the entire Costco collection - which has been read and re-read by both of our boys. The one who takes after Calvin fails to see the resemblance...

[Baerdric]

Beardric, you're right. No-one will ever write anything better.My wife and I collected them years ago. We joked that we would use them to inform our childrearing efforts instead of Dr.Spock

Turned out not to be a joke.

[Baerdric]

232kg of corn = 227,360 calories.....just 622 calories a day, not nearly enough to feed a child for a year.Hey!

No fair actually doing the math. You're supposed to just accept their opinion and respect it. Are you some sort of hater?

[ReginaW]

We are eating 50 per cent more meat than in the 1960s, and global consumption is forecast to double by 2050. More of the extra is chicken, and we eat less red meat than in the past (and a lot less than the Americans). But in terms of overall meat consumption, we are not even going in the right direction.


Considering the world population doubled between 1960 and 2000, it's not surprising that in absolute terms, Britain is eating more meat since their population trended with the world.

On a per person basis though, they're eating basically the same amount of animal foods today as they did in 1960 for protein, but much more vegetable oil and more plant-based protein.

1960

Calories per person per day in UK = 3290

Animal protein = 54.7g per person
Plant protein = 38.2g per person
Total Protein = 92.9g per person

Animal fat = 106.3g per person
Vegetable fats/oils = 32.2g per person
Total Fat = 138.5g

2000

Calories per person per day in UK = 3380

Animal protein = 55.3g per person
Plant protein = 44.5g per person
Total Protein = 99.8g per person

Animal fat = 77.9g per person
Vegetable fats/oils = 63.9g per person
Total Fat = 141.8g

----

While the article makes it seem like people in the UK are chowing down on much more meat each day, the fact is they're consuming a whopping 7-ounces more meat a year than in 1960....but 18-pounds more plant protein and 38-pounds more of vegetable oils/fats.

[1000times]

232kg of corn = 227,360 calories.....
Where are you getting your conversion figure? I figured "Cornmeal, Whole-grain, Yellow" (http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/20020.html) would be pretty close to the food value of unmilled corn, and that cornmeal is shown as having 442 calories per 122 g, or around 3.6 calories per gram, giving over 800,000 calories in 232,000 g.

just 622 calories a day, not nearly enough to feed a child for a year.....
Unless they're on Kimkins...

nevermind feeding a child just corn for a year would leave them totally malnourished not only for calories but micronutrients.
True dat...

[ReginaW]

Where are you getting your conversion figure? I figured "Cornmeal, Whole-grain, Yellow" would be pretty close to the food value of unmilled corn, and that cornmeal is shown as having 442 calories per 122 g, or around 3.6 calories per gram, giving over 800,000 calories in 232,000 g.

Corn at harvest is on the cob, unmilled, and that weight is what is published as tons produced per year...thus how it should be calculated for caloric value - in it's unrefined state - so I used on the cob, unprepared for calories in the USDA nutrient database.

[Baerdric]

Where are you getting your conversion figure? I figured "Cornmeal, Whole-grain, Yellow" (http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/20020.html) would be pretty close to the food value of unmilled corn, .I believe this is the problem with many of the calculations you see, they don't take into account what the actual product is composed of. Corn meal would be much more densely packed than corn cobs.

Similarly, the so called corn harvest to lbs of beef relationship ignores that most of what the cow eats is indigestable to humans. It contains food value, but we would need extra stomachs to make use of it.

[ReginaW]

Hey!

No fair actually doing the math. You're supposed to just accept their opinion and respect it. Are you some sort of hater?

LOL - yeah I hate data manipulators!

[ReginaW]

Similarly, the so called corn harvest to lbs of beef relationship ignores that most of what the cow eats is indigestable to humans. It contains food value, but we would need extra stomachs to make use of it.

Exactly! ;)

ETA: Also, contrary to what we're told, people are eating LESS bovine meat (beef) in the world today than in 1990. FAO data shows that in 1990 the per capita calories from beef was 45.51 per day per person.....in 2003 (last available year from the database), that had fallen to 39.98 calories per person per day.

Now, granted, the world population grew by about a billion people in that period of time - but beef production did not keep availability steady, it declined....what really increased was calories from pork and poultry, vegetable oils, and fruits and vegetables.

[jande2211]

Good! So since the Global Temperature has actually been cooler for the last decade, he gets the credit for that too! Outdoor Air Conditioning! Yay!

I once saw data about how Mars has been slightly warmer in the last century too. I suppose this means "Cows on Mars"?

No, no, no, there's a Starbuck's on Mars. That's the problem. :p

[Nae]

I agree. That way everyone who wants to return to a simpler, better time, could line up for the trucks and help us reach it by volunteering to reduce the population.

hahaha but is that atkins friendly the people crackers? im teasing baerdric

[Baerdric]

No, no, no, there's a Starbuck's on Mars. That's the problem. :pNow I've never been to a Starbucks (Because I heard it made men dress up in suits and wear ponytails) so I don't know how they could cause Global Climate Change. Do they burn styrofoam cups?

[Wyvrn]

I guess that depends on what you mean by "the developed world". Many people in Third World countries are starving. But they are not starving because of a lack of food as such, but rather from a lack of Freedom, Education and Technology. Many could grow food if they weren't busy fending off warlords who steal any aid sent their way.By "developed world" I mean most of the industrialized first world nations plus China and India, if they aren't already considered to be in that category, and IMO not just millions but billions of people are starving.

[Baerdric]

plus China and IndiaAh, that explains the confusion.

IMO not just millions but billions of people are starving.Really! How many billions would you estimate? I'm thinking more than 10 billion but less than 25 billion?

[Wyvrn]

Ah, that explains the confusion.

Really! How many billions would you estimate? I'm thinking more than 10 billion but less than 25 billion?Is that what you think I estimate or is it what you estimate? :wave:

[Baerdric]

Is that what you think I estimate or is it what you estimate? :wave:Well the way you stated that "billions" were starving, there was no telling what you might think. Clearly at least two billion, which is almost a third of humanity, but probably more. I find that fascinating.

[Wyvrn]

Well the way you stated that "billions" were starving, there was no telling what you might think. Clearly at least two billion, which is almost a third of humanity, but probably more. I find that fascinating.Joke's on me, I guess, if you think I meant a number greater than the total population of the planet.

I do, in fact think that there are somewhere between two and three billion people worldwide suffering from serious malnutrition, and possibly a couple billion of them (mostly manifested as metabolic syndrome/diabetes) in the industrialized nations.

[Baerdric]

I do, in fact think that there are somewhere between two and three billion people worldwide suffering from serious malnutrition, and possibly a couple billion of them (mostly manifested as metabolic syndrome/diabetes) in the industrialized nations.Ok then, now that we have redefined "the developed world" to include the two largest national populations even though they are really Emergent Nations, and redefined "starvation" to mean imperfect nutrition (largely due to political and cultural issues), then I agree with you.

[Baerdric]

a couple billion of them (mostly manifested as metabolic syndrome/diabetes) in the industrialized nations.I can't find any reasonable estimate of the total population of the Industrialized Nations that is more than two billion, unless you are including Emergent Nations again, but that only makes about 4 billion. Surely you aren't saying that every other person is diabetic? Switching terminology around is a good way to be misunderstood.

Perhaps by 'billions" you mean "a large number"? I could go with that.

[Wyvrn]

Ok then, now that we have redefined "the developed world" to include the two largest national populations even though they are really Emergent NationsEmerged enough, if their diabetes growth rates are any indication.
and redefined "starvation" to mean imperfect nutrition (largely due to political and cultural issues), then I agree with you.Aw... "imperfect nutrution"... it sounds so trivial when you put it that way. :lol: But seriously, I don't think there is anything trivial about the consequences of this type of malnutrition (diabetes, heart disease, alzheimers etc). Do you?

Anyway, you mention "political and cultural issues" - are there countries where malnutrition is due to something other than political and cultural issues?

[Baerdric]

Emerged enough Ah.

are there countries where malnutrition is due to something other than political and cultural issues?Again, depending on your definitions, which I'm not sure I can depend on. It's been fascinating though. We'll have to talk again sometime.

[Wyvrn]

I can't find any reasonable estimate of the total population of the Industrialized Nations that is more than two billion, unless you are including Emergent Nations again, but that only makes about 4 billion.Yes, 4 billion is more like it. Or are you claiming that China and India are not industrialized?
Surely you aren't saying that every other person is diabetic?Various studies put prevalence of metabolic syndrome/diabetes in industrialized countries (USA, China, India) at around 25%, Russia a bit more, Western Europe a bit less. Most of the data I've seen is several years old, and the rate worldwide has been increasing so yes, we could easily be looking at close to two billion with metabolic syndrome/diabetes.
Switching terminology around is a good way to be misunderstood.Sure... but what does that have to do with this conversation?

[Baerdric]

Sure... but what does that have to do with this conversation?Absolutely nothing, er... using my definitions of "absolutely" and "nothing". :lol:

[Wyvrn]

Absolutely nothing, er... using my definitions of "absolutely" and "nothing". :lol:Awesome! So why'd you bring it up?

[LessLiz]

Absolutely nothing, er... using my definitions of "absolutely" and "nothing". :lol:I assume your definitions sum to "everything". :D

[Baerdric]

I assume your definitions sum to "everything". :DLOL - Good to see you can add two plus two and get five, for extremely large values of "two". :agree:

[LessLiz]

I learned addition from the same dictionary being used in this discussion. :idea:

[Baerdric]

I learned addition from the same dictionary being used in this discussion. :idea:I take it that by "Dictionary" you mean "hatrack" and by "discussion" you mean "A lemon which has been squashed into the mud of a Morrocan back road by a rampaging flock of sheep"?

In that case, I agree with you.

[LessLiz]

Nice to know we are on the same page. :D

[Baerdric]

Nice to know we are on the same page. :DYeah, we're like twins with ESP or Text messaging or something.

[Wyvrn]

Another thing I find interesting is the use of the word "overnutrition" by many nutrition statisticians, as if the 25% or more of people in the industrialized nations with metabolic syndrome/diabetes got that way because of too much of a good diet, rather than too much of something (carbs) that isn't appropriate food for humans in the first place. The spin on this issue is just amazing.

[Baerdric]

The spin on this issue is just amazing.I have a friend who spins and she says she will teach our little homeschool group how to run a loom. Her loom is in a barn so now that it has gotten a little warmer maybe we can start. I was driving by and I can see her barn across the valley and the snow on the north side is almost down to the windows.

[Wyvrn]

Anyone who thinks the planet is running out of room has never had to drive across Kansas, Nebraska or Iowa.I have driven across those states and it appeared to me that the land was all in use for food (or feed) production. I suppose we could pave and build over it but what would all those additional people eat?

[Baerdric]

I have driven across those states and it appeared to me that the land was all in use for food (or feed) production. I suppose we could pave and build over it but what would all those additional people eat?Yep, the parts near the roads are all used for food. That's so they can get the trucks to the food. But do a sat lookup and you'll see the empty spaces. The estimate I got was that one third of all arable land was now in use. This doesn't count making deserts arable with Freedom, Education and Technology, just land that already comes that way.

I'd say we have a ways to go. But don't let that stop anyone for signing up their family for population reduction. You have to do what you feel is right. Facts be damned.

[Wifezilla]

If Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska are too crowded for you, try Wyoming, Utah and S. Dakota :p

[cleochatra]

I think part of the problem is that we harvest animals which require a lot of land. Why not try iguanas or emu? Iguanas populate the rainforests of South America IIRC, and require less grazing room than, say, grass-fed cattle. Emus are chock full o steaky possibilities.

I also say we revisit eating dogs and bugs as a culture.

[Wifezilla]

There are some dogs in the neighborhood that need eating. The damn things are left in the back yards and just spend all damn day barking.

[Wyvrn]

If Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska are too crowded for you, try Wyoming, Utah and S. Dakota :pHave you been there? The truly empty parts of the American West and other parts of the world are empty for good reason - not enough water to sustain communities, agriculture or industry.

[Baerdric]

I also say we revisit eating dogs and bugs as a culture.I don't know about dogs and bugs, but surely there are some small tasty animals that can cohabitate with our crops and maybe even benefit them. Chickens are good in most field crops and keep the insects down. We need something like chickens but better. Maybe something that will eat insects and damaged leaves while rooting out the weeds.

A Shmoo!

[Baerdric]

Have you been there? The truly empty parts of the American West and other parts of the world are empty for good reason - not enough water to sustain communities, agriculture or industry.That's right and they should stay that way! I hate it when people come along and ruin perfectly good wasteland (http://www.marietta.edu/~biol/biomes/images/desert/desert_irrigation_6323_A80.jpg) by making it productive enough to feed people. We should just learn to live with what we have, no matter how many children starve.

Darn those people.

[Wyvrn]

Yep, the parts near the roads are all used for food. I did a satellite lookup of Iowa. The fine network of farm roads pretty much covers the whole state except for the urbs and riparian flood zones.

[Baerdric]

I did a satellite lookup of Iowa. The fine network of farm roads pretty much covers the whole state except for the urbs and riparian flood zones.Well, there you go then, everything except what you want to ignore supports your contention. You win! :clap:

[Wyvrn]

That's right and they should stay that way! I hate it when people come along and ruin perfectly good wasteland (http://www.marietta.edu/~biol/biomes/images/desert/desert_irrigation_6323_A80.jpg) by making it productive enough to feed people. We should just learn to live with what we have, no matter how many children starve.

Darn those people.Where is the water coming from, and who is paying for it?

[Baerdric]

Where is the water coming from, and who is paying for it?Do you have any children?

The water will come from where we can get it and it will be paid for by the people who want their children to eat.

Which children shouldn't be allowed to eat?

[ReginaW]

I don't know about dogs and bugs, but surely there are some small tasty animals that can cohabitate with our crops and maybe even benefit them. Chickens are good in most field crops and keep the insects down. We need something like chickens but better. Maybe something that will eat insects and damaged leaves while rooting out the weeds.

A Shmoo!

Chickens need the cows (or other ruminent animal) to graze the fields, and while grazing, drop the grass-based manure, that then attracts the bugs/flies so they can lay their eggs for the chickens/birds to have the larve to eat.

[Baerdric]

Chickens need the cows (or other ruminent animal) to graze the fields.I've seen chickens who were quite happy in a field of squash or beans eating the insects that came to eat the fruit or lay eggs on the leaves. The ones I am remembering got other food, but they pecked at the bugs all day.

[Wyvrn]

The water will come from where we can get it and it will be paid for by the people who want their children to eat. No doubt. Do you think that is the case with the water being used for irrigation in that photo you linked?

[Baerdric]

No doubt. Do you think that is the case with the water being used for irrigation in that photo you linked?I don't know anything about that water, do you?

Do you have any children?

[ReginaW]

I've seen chickens who were quite happy in a field of squash or beans eating the insects that came to eat the fruit or lay eggs on the leaves. The ones I am remembering got other food, but they pecked at the bugs all day.

No doubt....for the long term, however, ruminent animals are vital to the cycle of bugs/insects in the food chain to serve as food for others like fowl. And that is what think you posted about - cohabitation of animals symbiotically with crops to each provide something to the other? From what some very traditional farmers have spent time talking to me about, in my inquiries to them, the ruminent-fowl connection is important to the long-term health of an area for both the animals in the area and the vegetation of the area....that's because (from what I understand) without the ruminent, over time you have erosion and depletion of your soil - so while your chickens may enjoy the bugs of the crops without a grazing animal in the crop fields - over the long-term such an area, without inputs from ruminents will eventually be depleted from the imbalance that is created by crops taking from the soil with no means of replenishment. Now that's not to say that manure and/or composte from ruminents can't be added manually (of course it can!) from another part of the farm - but without that circular give-take-give-take-give going on, over time the soil cannot support the crops....does that make sense?

[ReginaW]

Cuba: An Island in Time

In Haiti, the majority of peasants own their own small farms. So small farms per se are not the answer to stopping erosion. When farms become so small that it is hard to make a living from them, it becomes hard to practice soil conservation. In Cuba, fifty miles from Haiti across the Windward Passage, the collapse of the Soviet Union set up a unique agricultural experiment.

Before the 1959 Cuban revolution, the handful of people who controlled four-fifths of the land operated large export-oriented plantations, mostly growing sugar. Although small subsistence farms were still common on the remaining fifth of the land, Cuba produced less than half its own food.

After the revolution, in line with its vision of socialist progress, the new government continued sponsoring large scale, industrial monoculture focused on export crops — primarily sugar, which accounted for three-quarters of Cuba’s export income. Cuba’s sugar plantations were the most mechanized agricultural operations in Latin America, more closely resembling those in California’s Central Valley than on Haiti’s hillsides.

Farm equipment, the oil to run them, fertilizers, pesticides, and more than half of Cuba’s food were imported from the island’s socialist trading partners. The end of Soviet support and an ongoing U.S. trade embargo plunged Cuba into a food crisis.


Unable to import food or fertilizer, Cuba saw the calories and protein in the average diet drop by almost a third, from 3,000 calories a day to 1,900 calories between 1989 and 1994.

Loss of Soviet support

The Soviet collapse resulted in an almost 90% drop in Cuba’s external trade. Fertilizer and pesticide imports fell by 80% and oil imports fell by 50%. Parts to repair farm machinery were unobtainable. The New York Times editorial page predicted the imminent collapse of Castro’s regime.

Formerly one of the best-fed nations in Latin America, Cuba was not quite at the level of Haiti — but not much above it. Isolated and facing the loss of a meal a day for everyone on the island, Cuban agriculture needed to double food production using half the inputs required by conventional agriculture.

Experiments in farming

Faced with this dilemma, Cuba began a remarkable agricultural experiment, the first nation-scale test of alternative agriculture. In the mid-1980’s the Cuban government directed state-run research institutions to begin investigating alternative methods to reduce environmental impacts, improve soil fertility, and increase harvests.

Within six months of the Soviet collapse, Cuba began privatizing industrialized state farms; state-run farms were divided among former employees, creating a network of small farms. Government-sponsored farmers’ markets brought peasant farmers higher profits by cutting out intermediaries.

Major government programs encouraged organic agriculture and small-scale farming on vacant city lots. Lacking access to fertilizers and pesticides, the food grown in the new small private farms and thousands of tiny urban market gardens became organic not through choice but through necessity.

Changing old systems

Charged with substituting knowledge-intensive agriculture for the embargoed inputs needed for conventional agriculture, the country’s research infrastructure built on experiments in alternative agriculture that had languished under the Soviet system but were available for widespread, and immediate, implementation under the new reality.

Cuba adopted more labor-intensive methods to replace heavy machinery and chemical inputs, but Cuba’s agricultural revolution was not simply a return to traditional farming. Organic farming is not that simple. You cannot just hand someone a hoe and order them to feed the proletariat.

Adopting local methods

Cuba’s agricultural transformation was based as much on science as was the Soviet era’s high-input mechanized farming. The difference was that the conventional approach was based on applied chemistry, whereas the new approach was based on applied biology — on agroecology.

In a move pretty much the opposite of the green revolution that transformed global agriculture based on increased use of irrigation, oil, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, the Cuban government adapted agriculture to local conditions and developed biological methods of fertilization and pest control.

It created a network of more than two hundred local agricultural extension offices around the country to advise farmers on low-input and no-till farming methods, as well as biological pest control.

Dramatic changes

Cuba stopped exporting sugar and began to grow its own food again. Within a decade, the Cuban diet rebounded to its former level without food imports or the use of agrochemicals. The Cuban experience shows that agroecology can form a viable basis for agriculture without industrial methods or biotechnology. Unintentionally, the U.S. trade embargo turned Cuba into a nation-scale experiment in alternative agriculture.

Some look to the Cuban example as a model for employing locally adapted ecological insight and knowledge instead of standardized mechanization and agrochemistry to feed the world. They see the solution not simply as producing cheap food, but keeping small farms — and therefore farmers — on the land, and even in cities.

Labor-intensive methods

Thousands of commercial urban gardens grew up throughout the island, hundreds in Havana alone. Land slated for development was converted to acres of vegetable gardens that supplied markets where local people bought tomatoes, lettuce, potatoes and other crops. By 2004 Havana’s formerly vacant lots produced nearly the city’s entire vegetable supply.

Cuba’s conversion from conventional agriculture to large-scale semi-organic farming demonstrates that such a transformation is possible — in a dictatorship isolated from global market forces. But the results are not entirely enviable — after almost two decades of this inadvertent experiment, meat and milk remain in short supply.

Cuba’s labor-intensive agriculture may not produce basic crops as cheaply as American industrial farming, but the average Cuban diet did recover that lost third meal. Still, it is ironic that in retreating from the socialist agenda, this isolated island became the first modern society to adopt widespread organic and biologically intensive farming.

Self-sufficient nation

Cuba’s necessity-driven move toward agricultural self-sufficiency provides a preview of what may come on a larger scale once we burn through the supply of cheap oil that presently drives modern agriculture.

And it is somewhat comforting to know that on at least one island the experiment has already been run without social collapse. Less comforting is the question of whether something similar could be pulled off in a society other than a one-party police state.

Island culture

After Darwin’s famous sojourn in the Galapagos, the isolated nature of islands strongly influenced biological theory. But it is only in the last several decades that such thinking reached the realm of anthropology. While people may someday migrate into space to colonize other planets, the vast majority of us remain trapped on our planet for the foreseeable future.

Although a global rerun of Haiti, Mangaia, or Easter Island is by no means inevitable, the experiences of societies on islands around the world remind us that Earth is the ultimate island, an oasis in space rendered hospitable by a thin skin of soil that, once lost, rebuilds only over geologic time.

http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=6782

[Wifezilla]

Have you been there? The truly empty parts of the American West and other parts of the world are empty for good reason - not enough water to sustain communities, agriculture or industry.

Of course I've been there. In fact, there are only a handful of states I haven't been in.

One thing you will notice about these areas is, even in the dry areas like Wyoming and eastern Colorado is there is STILL GRASS. It doesn't take much moisture to grow grass. And if the grass the cattle needs won't grow in these low moisture areas, I have no problem switching my meat source to pronghorn, buffalo, elk or mule dear.

[LessLiz]

Since you raised the issue... we have a horrible deer overpopulation problem in the US, but we don't allow enough hunting to thin them out.

I can sit our backyard with a rifle at night and harvest elk -- we have an overabundance of elk where I live. Of course, that's not legal -- no night hunting cause we gotta give them critters a sporting chance. Well, and the other issue is I have to make a lot of noise out there at night to keep the bears out of the yard. Can I tell you how frightened I was the night I walked out to enjoy the stars and came within 10 feet of a mother bear and 2 cubs who had taken out a section of the fence? I don't care for bear meat -- too fatty -- but other people like it.

There are moose killed all spring, summer and fall around here -- by cars. To hunt moose you have to enter into the lottery for a ticket. I wouldn't be surprised to discover there are more moose killed by cars in my county than killed in the entire state by hunters. Moose is *really* tasty.

As the price of food goes up, I'm expecting people to lobby fish and wildlife to reduce the number of hunting cops out there. You get fined through the roof for poaching the overpopulated deer and elk population.

Another overpopulation issue in my part of the world are turkeys. A full grown wild turkey is a tough old bird, but the young males are quite tasty indeed. But they have a really low limit on turkeys.

[Wyvrn]

Since you raised the issue... we have a horrible deer overpopulation problem in the US, but we don't allow enough hunting to thin them out.

I can sit our backyard with a rifle at night and harvest elk -- we have an overabundance of elk where I live. We are in the same situation, but it's white-tails, not Elk. Although honestly I don't think my neighbors would notice or care, especially if we did our porch-hunting on, say, July 4th. The main thing stopping me is there are a lot of kids riding dirt bikes back there. I don't want to see the deer population decimated, but as a motorcyclist, I'd like to see it come down a lot and don't mind if some of it ends up in my freezer.

[TheCaveman]

Where is the water coming from, and who is paying for it?

Let's guess that the photo is of the desert southwest. If so, I guess that Mexican children are paying for it with decimated fish resources due to insufficient freshwater inflow from the Colorado River into the Gulf of California.

[TheCaveman]

we have a horrible deer overpopulation problem in the US, but we don't allow enough hunting to thin them out.

Why IS that? Why would game managers allow overpopulation?

[Baerdric]

Let's guess that the photo is of the desert southwest. If so, I guess that Mexican children are paying for it with decimated fish resources due to insufficient freshwater inflow from the Colorado River into the Gulf of California.While we are "guessing" let's guess that those Mexican children are in Nevada now, their parents have steady work and they are getting free healthcare and education. Since they never could have afforded the fish anyway, they never noticed the slight decrease in supply, but now their lives are vastly improved over what a few fish would have done. But their cousins back in Mexico, would could never have afforded the fish either, are getting steady money in the mail from their bracero cousins en El Norte, so now they can buy the fish.

I mean, since we are just "guessing".

[Wyvrn]

One thing you will notice about these areas is, even in the dry areas like Wyoming and eastern Colorado is there is STILL GRASS. It doesn't take much moisture to grow grass. And if the grass the cattle needs won't grow in these low moisture areas, I have no problem switching my meat source to pronghorn, buffalo, elk or mule dear.Indeed. I have driven through there and observed cattle grazing in some really dry places. But these areas need a LOT of land per head. Still, it's sustainable and that's a lot more than you could say for trying to mono-crop (or build large population centers) on imported water.

[TheCaveman]

While we are "guessing" let's guess that those Mexican children are in Nevada now, their parents have steady work and they are getting free healthcare and education. Since they never could have afforded the fish anyway, they never noticed the slight decrease in supply, but now their lives are vastly improved over what a few fish would have done. But their cousins back in Mexico, would could never have afforded the fish either, are getting steady money in the mail from their bracero cousins en El Norte, so now they can buy the fish.

"We're sorry, Senor, the fishery has collapsed. No more fish. You'll need to move to Nevada where you can buy rice that some fool decided to grow in the desert southwest. Too bad (for YOU) that the fisheries in the Gulf of California supplied more food in a year than the Arizona rice paddies will produce in their entire projected lifetimes."

[Baerdric]

Imagination is a wonderful thing.

[Wifezilla]

Why IS that? Why would game managers allow overpopulation?

Hippies. You know, the ones who whine when evil hunters kill "Bambi"? The overpopulation of deer is a problem at the Air Force Academy. A year or so ago they announced they were going to allow hunting to help with population control and the hippies went nuts.

[LessLiz]

Why IS that? Why would game managers allow overpopulation?People get upset when you shoot Bambi. The Northeast is overrun with deer, even worse than most places. In my part of the world if you grow a garden you put up 10 foot fencing around it if you want to harvest anything.

[TheCaveman]

Hippies. You know, the ones who whine when evil hunters kill "Bambi"?

People get upset when you shoot Bambi.

Yawn.

I don't remember a single game manager in my entire career that gave a dang about Bambi. We must have all the non-hippy game managers here in California.

[Baerdric]

People get upset when you shoot Bambi. The Northeast is overrun with deer, even worse than most places. In my part of the world if you grow a garden you put up 10 foot fencing around it if you want to harvest anything.I took a walk today, up the hill behind my house. Fourty five minutes out and about 1000ft up. On the way I passed sign of maybe 30 deer. This is within sight of my neighborhood. We have trouble growing gardens, trees, flowers, grass. The school put in a row of ornamental trees and I saw that the bark had been chewed off all around them up to about 8 ft., probably due to the hard winters we have been having.

Vermont is a hunting state, but there are sharp limits. They seem to think the tourists need to see more deer stepping out in front of their cars.

[LessLiz]

Parts of California also have deer population issues.

[Baerdric]

does that make sense?Well, except the part where you put cows in the squash field. Cows like squash. That might work well on pasture land and post-harvest fields, but I was thinking more something that didn't like to eat our food.

Guinea pigs?

[LessLiz]

Hippies would be better than guinea pigs. Tuck a little cash crop in there and you could solve multiple problems in one fell swoop.

[Baerdric]

Hippies would be better than guinea pigs. The Hippies I know are all too bitter. Don't rodents taste better?

[LessLiz]

I thought it was the waste product that was of interest. Now that I think about it, Breatharians would be best. They spewed a lot of BS.

[cleochatra]

Guinea pigs are a delicacy in Peru.

[Baerdric]

I thought it was the waste product that was of interest. No, if that were the case, politicians would do.

I'm semi-serious, for once. I often think about all the invasive species we have moved around the world for ornamental purposes or to eat some other pest and I keep thinking, if we are gong to mess around with stuff, at least make the subject edible.

So if you want to get rid of the snakes in Texas, don't put in mongoose, put in something that tastes good. And if deer are out of control in New Hampshire, don't import wolfs unless wolf steak is yummier and juicier than venison. Cause you know they are just going to get out of hand, and then you will have to either pay someone to kill them or have people pay you for the priveledge of hunting them.

So if we are going to put things in our gardens to eat insects, why make them toads? Let's find something that eats insects which also makes a nice midnight snack. And no, I won't be eating Toad. I hear you thinking out there.

[Baerdric]

Guinea pigs are a delicacy in Peru.I hear they taste good too, but do they eat insects?

I was just thinking that ducks would be good, plus they even look like shmoos.

[francisstp]

Why IS that? Why would game managers allow overpopulation?


The same reason they make us waste hours in line at the DMV. Maybe mixed a little with the same reason we have tariffs and subsidies, and possibly also with the same reason we have a food guide telling us to base our nutrition on bread and pasta.

[jande2211]

Hippies. You know, the ones who whine when evil hunters kill "Bambi"? The overpopulation of deer is a problem at the Air Force Academy. A year or so ago they announced they were going to allow hunting to help with population control and the hippies went nuts.

Reminds me of when I lived in Indiana. They let the deer population go nuts, but still limited hunting to a certain time and how many one could nab. Anyway, the deer started starving. So, the amount one could hunt was upped to thin out the population and give these poor things a quick death. The hippies went nuts. Yeah, how sad that they be shot . . . but it's OK to starve them. Morons.

[Wyvrn]

I don't remember a single game manager in my entire career that gave a dang about Bambi. We must have all the non-hippy game managers here in California.I have a friend who works for our state fish and wildlife agency and she recently mentioned to me that her co-workers (including upper management) are mostly hunters. It's probably what attracts people to that work, wanting to see the resource get managed correctly.

The funding is up to the legislature though.

[Wyvrn]

Which children shouldn't be allowed to eat?Of course, as far as I'm concerned, the main point of limiting the birth rate is to make sure that there is enough food to feed ALL the children.

[Baerdric]

Of course, as far as I'm concerned, the main point of limiting the birth rate is to make sure that there is enough food to feed ALL the children.Do you have any children?

[Marillia]

I hear they taste good too, but do they eat insects?

I was just thinking that ducks would be good, plus they even look like shmoos.
Nope. They're straight herbivores.

Also, they're not rodents. Not not not.

[Baerdric]

Also, they're not rodents. Not not not.Oh you, stop it. They are too rodents! Don't even make me google it. OK, that's it, I'm getting out the google. I'm taking it off the nail where it usually hangs. Don't make me use it... That was your last chance, now I'm going to google it and you will just have to suffer the consequences of your behavior.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Rodentia
Suborder: Hystricomorpha
Family: Caviidae
Subfamily: Caviinae
Genus: Cavia
Species: C. porcellus

[Marillia]

Mitochondrial DNA shows that guinea pigs had no business being placed in the Rodentia order in the first place. Apparently they're more closely related to rabbits, horses, and even humans than mice and rats.

More here (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9407E1DA1739F930A25755C0A960958260)

[LessLiz]

Those three quotes in a row sure are funny, especially with that lead in quote.

[francisstp]

Of course, as far as I'm concerned, the main point of limiting the birth rate is to make sure that there is enough food to feed ALL the children.


I understand your concerns, but they stem from a static point of view. These children will certainly need nourishment, enlarging the food deficit in the short term.

However, there is no reason to believe these human beings won't one day be producing (much) more than they consume, like most of us do. By curbing birth rates now we are effectively curbing future productivity.

What is IMO a much more important problem and probably a big chunk of why food and energy prices are so out of whack right now is the cheap credit policy our central banks have in place, creating huge bubbles one after another and screwing up with incentives. This policy has enabled millions of westerners to consume over their means for years while not contributing much in terms of productivity. Needless to say that these habits are not sustainable.

[Baerdric]

Apparently they're more closely related to rabbits, Rabbits are rodents.

From your article: Not surprisingly for a report with such radical ramifications, other scientists attacked it as uncredible, naive and full of holes.

"It's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of," said Dr. Rodney Honeycutt, who studies the molecular evolution of rodents and other mammals at Texas A&M University. "There's a huge amount of data showing that rodents are unequivocally monophyletic."

[Cerridwen]

Ducks and geeses eat bugs. Muscovies are used for bugs specifically... good for weeds too.
Guinea fowl are good for bugs as well.
Cerridwen

[Baerdric]

Ducks and geeses eat bugs. Muscovies are used for bugs specifically... good for weeds too.
Guinea fowl are good for bugs as well.
CerridwenI am really interested in ducks. I want some for my yard, but I am afraid it's too small and that we get too cold in the winter. Do you know a good place to discuss ducks?

[Marillia]

Odd... other sources have it that rabbits were only considered rodents until the early 20th century, until they were reclassified as lagomorphs.

Either way, rabbits, guinea pigs, and rats can all be tasty and nutritious sources of meat. XP

[Baerdric]

Odd... other sources have it that rabbits were only considered rodents until the early 20th century, until they were reclassified as lagomorphs. I'm just teasing you, I have a close friend who raises pigs and she gets all mad when I call them rodents too.

What she doesn't know is that I call any dog smaller than a german shepherd "rodents" too.

Either way, rabbits, guinea pigs, and rats can all be tasty and nutritious sources of meat. XPI wonder what the fat content is likely to be. I see a sign down the road sometimes that they sell rabbit meat, I might have to stop in and talk to them.

[ReginaW]

I am really interested in ducks. I want some for my yard, but I am afraid it's too small and that we get too cold in the winter. Do you know a good place to discuss ducks?

We're pretty cold here in mid-MO - our neighbors have ducks - so many last year they had to move most of them to another site (they were up to 130 on 4-acres and they were making a mess of the water in the lake - worse, they prefered our yard!) to bring the total to six or less.....now they have 12 again ::: sigh ::: anyway - they have just a small coop structure to protect against the cold/wind/elements and seem to survive and breed.

Don't get me wrong, they're kinda cute - I've got no problem with ducks - except when there are too many of them, all over the place, to the point where your kid can't even go out in his own yard to play!

[Wyvrn]

I understand your concerns, but they stem from a static point of view. These children will certainly need nourishment, enlarging the food deficit in the short term.

However, there is no reason to believe these human beings won't one day be producing (much) more than they consume, like most of us do. By curbing birth rates now we are effectively curbing future productivity.Up to a point (in population density) this is true, but we may have passed that point in the United States and certainly have in other parts of the world. The sustainability of agricultural practice is what will drive future productivity. How sustainable is the current intensive petroleum-based agriculture? If you don't have the raw materials, throwing labor at it won't help. http://www.trut