Yum, food for aliens!
Yum, food for aliens!
Last time I heard he only wants to kill about a billion Muslims. Has the list increased?Originally Posted by smalltownsky
cull?
what is with all you population haters?
I sometimes wonder how people support an overpopulation theory, when predictions of it has been debunked daily for centuries. What exactly is different about today?
Damn, now we need to reduce by 2 billion people.
Great War or famine/hunger. which will it be ??
Debunk it for me.
o·ver·pop·u·la·tion (vr-ppy-lshn)
n.
Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration.There are entire continents that meet the above. You have your head firmly in the sand if you do not think overpopulation is a very real issue we face. Arable land, fresh drinking water and other resources are limited, while our need for them is limitless. And in pursuit of more and more arable land other environments are destroyed, the knock on effects having a negative impact on humans as well. Tearing forests down for farm land increases the rate of soil erosion in almost all cases. Not to mention the effects it has on biodiversity.overpopulation (vr-ppy-lshn)
The population of an environment by a particular species in excess of the environment's carrying capacity. The effects of overpopulation can include the depletion of resources, environmental deterioration, and the prevalence of famine and disease
Now you tell me what the above does to world markets? Prices soar. And how does this affect everyone else? Poorer continents and countries have to pay more to feed themselves. And China is not the only one in this predicament. Add up all the others that are unable to meet their own demand and you start having a truly global supply-and-demand problem. And it is not limited to grain.China grain imports at seven-year high as demand soars
Date April 12, 2012
GRAIN imports by China have risen to the highest level in at least seven years as the world's most populous nation stepped up overseas purchases amid rising demand.
China imported 1.64 million tonnes of cereals and cereal flour in March, from 280,000 tonnes in the same month last year. Imports in the first quarter totalled 3.84 million tonnes, up sixfold, the customs agency said on its website yesterday.
The world's fastest-growing economy is turning to foreign supplies as rising incomes spur increased food and livestock-feed demand and farmland is lost. Corn imports by China may surge sevenfold to a record 28 million tonnes by 2015-16.
''Grains imports are on a rising trend because of limited arable land, water and labour, at a time when demand is growing,'' said Li Qiang, the chairman and chief consultant of agricultural researcher Shanghai JC Intelligence Co.
A highly developed world at current population growth levels will eat and breed itself into oblivion.China's farmland has shrunk by 8.33 million hectares in the past 12 years, Chen Xiwen, the top agriculture adviser to the Premier, Wen Jiabao, said last year. Land under cultivation has fallen almost to the government's 120 million-hectare limit after being covered by apartments and factories, lost to desertification and used for a forestation campaign.
Last edited by thestaggy; 25-07-2012 at 08:21 AM.
I don't need to, the predictions debunk themselves by not coming true. Every other greeny has made a prediction ever since Malthus in the 1800s and they have all been wrong.
Welcome to economics and individual wealth. China is buying more because it has more money. Want everyone to be fed? Convert to socialism, any other way is impossible - even if abundance existed.
I see, so you're still relying on making predictions eh? You do realise that the malnourished population has stayed steady at 900 million since the late 60s, right?
Too many uneducated (broad sense) people breeding.
Cost and lack of enough resources.
Do yourself a favour and read that. Again.China's farmland has shrunk by 8.33 million hectares in the past 12 years, Chen Xiwen, the top agriculture adviser to the Premier, Wen Jiabao, said last year. Land under cultivation has fallen almost to the government's 120 million-hectare limit after being covered by apartments and factories, lost to desertification and used for a forestation campaign.
China's ability to produce her own food has been hampered by growth. As it is, no more than an estimated 8 - 10% of China's land is arable anyway. China outsources her food demands, which is fine. For now. What happens if and when the world reaches the point China is at, when the demands of the global community exceeds available supply? Wide open land does not equate to arable land and often you'll find it is wide open for a reason; ie, economically unviable.
Lets not forget about fresh drinking water. And oil. And timber. And coal. And, and, and. . . Resources are limited and most are not replenishable. Our needs are not limited, to the contrary, our needs grow continually.
Population explosion necessitates more housing. Population explosion necessitates more jobs. Population explosion necessitates more food. More housing requires more land. More jobs mean more factories/office blocks which require land. More food means more land needs to be converted into farming land. As previously and undeniably proven, not every inch of vacant land is arable, so on that final point, you will reach a point where there is no more land left to farm on without completely destroying the environment around you.
When meeting the above needs (food, housing, industrial) environmental destruction occurs as well as the collateral damage to biodiversity. Environmental destruction can and does have an impact on humans, such as accelerating soil erosion and increasing the chances of disasters such as flooding and land slides.
Not to mention pollution and human waste. Our waste, for the most part, is not biodegradable and once it is exposed to the environemt - pollution - it does considerable damage. Ironically, a major form of that damage affects one of our limited and most vital resouces - water.
Last edited by thestaggy; 25-07-2012 at 01:07 PM.
Yet you're falling into the same trap Malthus fell in; extrapolation based on current abilities. Then used said extrapolation to call for doom. When exactly? Next year? 2100? It would be stupid to think that stuff like vertical farming hasn't taken off before something like 2050. That said, with current abilities we produce something like enough food for 12 Billion people to be well fed; the current malnourished of the world are only malnourished because of logistics/economics and that's not going to change even if we go back to a million people on the world.
Shame!
I love how you say ''...extrapolation based on current abilities. Then used said extrapolation to call for doom.'', but then go on to predict that the concept of vertical farming will take off in the future. So I get pinged for using very real current & past trends yet you can say an as yet unused & unproven concept that sits on drawing boards will solve the problem?
China is the modern benchmark for growth. Albeit in an extreme case, but the issues they face can and will be faced by many other nations. Resources are limited. Fact. China has reached the point where her own resources do not feed her, so she looks elsewhere. What happens when elsewhere needs more due to its own development? Now China can't feed itself, elsewhere can't feed itself, where to next?
And it is not just food. Water. Living space. But wait, we're gonna be living in hover cities, or cities floating on the ocean, cities IN the ocean, so no worries about that. And somebody is going to invent a super-cheap desalination plant.
Current trends and levels of growth are unsustainable and no amount of hypothesised and futuristic technologies will alter that current and very real threat.
The Earth, as a whole, is limited. There is only so much it can give before it can give no more. It's not about being a greeny or a tree-hugger, it is a fact.
Last edited by thestaggy; 25-07-2012 at 01:23 PM.
Predictions based on stagnation is foolish, to say the least. I even said, that if we stagnated, we'd still be able to feed 12 billion people. We're not even close to that number!
I don't see how living space will become a problem. Water has always been a problem of logistics, not lack of.
China will find a way to feed herself when it's not economically viable to import. I'm not sure you understand how exactly economics works to drive innovation and improvement.
Why is it unsustainable? Give me proof, other than China can get food cheaper elsewhere.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks