TV Food for Thought

[Moriath]

Anyone see this last night

Made me think what the real problem is. Its that there are too many people in the world ... not the food that we import / export.

So whats the solution ?

Find more intensive farming methods and use more water making more areas of the earth barren.

Limit the types of food available to people to locally or at least nationally grown ones and make countrys become self sufficient

Or Limit the number of people.

I favour the last option. The human race cant go on expanding for ever and ever 9 billion in 2050 a 3 billion increase over just 50 years is just unsustainable. You see it in every populations rabbits decrease as foxes increase to a point where the number of rabbits cant sustain the foxes so the fox population decreases and the rabbits increase keeping a kind of sea saw equilibrium.

Humans cant be above this without making even more damage to the environment and generally making it able to sustain even less that it could if the population wasnt managed.

But the governments dont even consider this its all about sourcing more food and making more short term solutions.

Sometime i wish we were communist and they could say to the world one child per couple at least for hte foreseable until the population comes back within manageable numbers

Probably about 4-5billion

imo

Whats yours ?

and why

 

[gunner440]

Let the fly eyes in Africa die.

 

[Vae]

I'm not in favour of limiting children per couple but I think that there should be incentives to discourage families of more than 2 children per couple. The UK is one country suffering from too many people per area of land. Even compared to it's nearest neighbours (e.g. France) the ratio is far higher than them.

If you could discourage larger families then population would slowly fall because of deaths and people not having enough children to replace themselves. This would lead to other problems such as are about to be experienced in the UK where the number of people working (economically active) is outnumbered by the people who have retired.

In my opinion a policy such as providing child benefit only for children 1 and 2 for a couple might be one way of discouraging (but not preventing) larger families. In particular it would help discourage the people who exist solely on benefits from having more children just to get extra benefits.

You would obviously have to phase this in as you couldn't apply it to existing children nor to people already pregnant so it'd have to be introduced in say 1 years time from the decision date.

I can see that there would be some uproar though with complaints that this breaches various Human rights plus how do you apply it to unmarried couples, divorced and remarried couples etc.

 

[Ctuchik]

In my opinion a policy such as providing child benefit only for children 1 and 2 for a couple might be one way of discouraging (but not preventing) larger families. In particular it would help discourage the people who exist solely on benefits from having more children just to get extra benefits.

so what about the unfortunate bastards that end up with 3, 4 or more kids from the same pregnancy? you gonna make exeptions for them? and in that case why them and not everyone? why should a family that has a genetical advantage to get more then 1 or 2 kids at the same time be offered special treatment. and if they wont get it, why should they suffer from it?

and lol at the last scentance... you dont have kids right?

 

[Moriath]

there are ppl that live soley on benefits and for some reason they seem to have more than the average number of kids ... guess they get bored and nothing else to do .. then they expect the state to look after all their off spring which themselves being disadvantaged and a higher probability to be doing the self same thing when they get older.

I think if you cant afford kids you shouldnt have them ... not rely on benefits to support them.

But its not just a UK question its a global question and the only way you solve a population problem .. which the globe has now is culling or birth control

Otherwise lets just have shit loads of babies and run this place into the ground till it cant support anything more than a cockroach

 

[dysfunction]

Terraform Mars and live there as well...

 

[Wij]

wtf - did everyone go commie when i wasn't looking ?

 

[tris-]

Surely if there is only enough food for x people but y people are born, then the excess will just die off and balance it out?

 

[DaGaffer]

Surely if there is only enough food for x people but y people are born, then the excess will just die off and balance it out?

Yes, but with increasing number of "resource wars" thrown into the mix, that could escalate dramatically, not to mention the environmental wasteland left behind as we try to cultivate every available inch of the planet (of course this may be inevitable anyway).

World population could probably sustain even higher numbers than it does (a human being needs 90% less land to sustain himself than he did 1000 years ago), but eventually we will reach an unsustainable point.

As for what we do about it; well it turns out the simplest way to reduce population growth is to increase prosperity; the wealthier parts of the world have far fewer kids than the poor parts, and almost nowhere in Western Europe, Japan or Australasia is having kids at the replacement level. Only the US is still slightly above replacement level, and that's driven by the latinos. That of course creates its own demographic crisis, which is why we're busily importing Poles to pay taxes to support all our old people.

 

[Moriath]

Thats all oil based though

Take oil out of the equation (which everyone must eventually as its a finite resource) and your land required to sustain becomes more as pesticides and machinery etc etc all require oil to run

Take those out and you become less efficient .

I guess what im talking about is trying to avoid food wars and such which DAGaffer mentions .. which would be a result of getting so large that the population isnt supportable so the rich and technological advanced war against lesser nations to keep fed

Like oil wars atm

 

[Tom]

Population isn't a problem. Population density is.

The planet has plenty of space to support a population twice the size. Most of the planet is uninhabited, and people tend only to starve in areas where government has failed.

 

[Chilly]

Population isn't a problem. Population density is.

The planet has plenty of space to support a population twice the size. Most of the planet is uninhabited, and people tend only to starve in areas where government has failed.

Most of the planet is uninhabited for bloody good reasons. IE most of the planet can't support human life. Even places that are inhabited often can't properly support life any more or at current populaiton densities.

 

[TdC]

Population isn't a problem. Population density is.

The planet has plenty of space to support a population twice the size. Most of the planet is uninhabited, and people tend only to starve in areas where government has failed.

erm, Tom? to make your statement work even slightly would require massive population relocation and mind boggling amounts of funding to set up the logistics and facilities to sustain it.

also I would dispute your extremely oversimplified explanation of the dynamics of starvation due to resource depletion.

 

[JBP|]

Population control is the way, just as it has been for many many years.
what we really need is 8 or 9 years of WW III

 

[Fweddy]

*invades JPB|*

 

[Tom]

Most of the planet is uninhabited for bloody good reasons. IE most of the planet can't support human life. Even places that are inhabited often can't properly support life any more or at current populaiton densities.

Eh? Ireland - empty. Scotland - empty. Much of the USA - empty. Most of Africa - empty. You could fit another 20 million people into Ireland, and don't forget that its absolutely tiny compared to Africa, which is not, as most people would believe, a barren desert full of Lions and limbless children.

Most of the planet is uninhabited not because it can't support life, but because there's no reason to be there. And there's nothing to suggest that land can't be made more productive - I can quite easily believe that agriculture will become a more than a two-dimensional activity in future.

 

[Raven]

Don't forget not everyone produces enough food for themselves either. Some can't be arsed.

Quite an interesting article about Bolivia who seem to be doing something about it.

 

[Moriath]

Eh? Ireland - empty. Scotland - empty. Much of the USA - empty. Most of Africa - empty. You could fit another 20 million people into Ireland, and don't forget that its absolutely tiny compared to Africa, which is not, as most people would believe, a barren desert full of Lions and limbless children.

Most of the planet is uninhabited not because it can't support life, but because there's no reason to be there. And there's nothing to suggest that land can't be made more productive - I can quite easily believe that agriculture will become a more than a two-dimensional activity in future.

but all that takes oil especially multi dimension farming so either find some substitute or get used to eating potatos and carrots and not much meat in future

 

[TdC]

Africa, which is not, as most people would believe, a barren desert full of Lions and limbless children.

guessing from the wikipedia vegetation map I would say between 25% and 35% of the land mass is arid- to semi-arid desert though. The only similar place I have been is Western Australia, and even though you argue it is technically possible to live there I would like to opt out please.

From your argument it would be feasible to fill (example) Greenland with people because it is empty. Well, good luck, and I mean that sincerely!

 

[rynnor]

but all that takes oil especially multi dimension farming so either find some substitute or get used to eating potatos and carrots and not much meat in future

No-one can predict the future development of the human race - there have been doom-mongers about population increase since the time of the ancient greeks some 5000 years ago and probably even longer

Sadly for them every time they set an arbitrary limit we smashed through it and all was fine. The doom-mongers never factor in more effecient use of land, fertilisers etc. etc.

As to those who quoted the UK its a very bad example since population is actually declining if you exclude migrants - once people have a reasonable standard of living they dont need to have dozens of kids and you end up stabilizing/declining populations.

Tom is also right that people are very clustered - I dont think its beyond human ingenuity to spread out a bit

 

[Tom]

guessing from the wikipedia vegetation map I would say between 25% and 35% of the land mass is arid- to semi-arid desert though. The only similar place I have been is Western Australia, and even though you argue it is technically possible to live there I would like to opt out please.

From your argument it would be feasible to fill (example) Greenland with people because it is empty. Well, good luck, and I mean that sincerely!

There's nothing to say that desert can't be used though. You've got a shit load of energy from the sun, with the right technology you could build a whacking great greenhouse down there.

Besides, according to the greenies the ice is melting in Greenland. That's more water for agriculture, and more space to live in. I can't see a downside

 

[Ctuchik]

Besides, according to the greenies the ice is melting in Greenland. That's more water for agriculture, and more space to live in. I can't see a downside

i can

+8 meters of water depth (last figure that i read about) can't be good

 

[TdC]

There's nothing to say that desert can't be used though. You've got a shit load of energy from the sun, with the right technology you could build a whacking great greenhouse down there.

Besides, according to the greenies the ice is melting in Greenland. That's more water for agriculture, and more space to live in. I can't see a downside

certainly, and building the infra to provide it with resources costs nothing? holy shit Tom, you fight renewable energy resource issues all the time, and now you're using the same arguments you normally attack to put a greenhouse in the Sahara ^^

also, don't know about you, but the Greenland icecap melting is not something to see as a joyous event. The bulk of the water isn't going to nicely stay put in a handy lake to aquify the new Greenland wheat fields: it's going to end up in the Atlantic, and will seriously fuck with this: this thing. Of course you don't believe in global warming, but if you're handilly going to melt the entire Greenland ice expanse, then you better come up with something to handle what the melt is going to do to the Atlantic

 

[Raven]

There's nothing to say that desert can't be used though. You've got a shit load of energy from the sun, with the right technology you could build a whacking great greenhouse down there.

Besides, according to the greenies the ice is melting in Greenland. That's more water for agriculture, and more space to live in. I can't see a downside

what?

 

[Zenith.UK]

It's down to industrialisation.

As I've said before, I'm doing research into my family history and part of that is looking at the working practices of the time.
One main branch of my family come from the Shropshire/Herefordshire border in the late 1700's to the mid 1800's and they were ALL agricultural labourers. Father, son, grandson... "agri.lab" on census returns and parish records. I would guess that more than 3/4 of all the village were agricultural labourers and they had a habit of living well into their 70's and 80's.

The parish records also show how much crop was produced and how much money it made when sold at market. It wasn't a phenomenal amount of food, but no-one went hungry. There was enough food made for the village, the king, the church and some to sell. It's all mentioned in "Baa Baa Black Sheep"

"Baa Baa Black Sheep, have you any wool?
Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full.
One for the master, one for the dame,
and one for the little boy who lives down the lane."

One for the master = tax to the king/landowner
One for the dame = tithe to the church/parish
One for the little boy = what you can sell for yourself.

It may sound churlish these days, but there was definitely something about society that worked back then. People had large families, but the death rate was much higher. Death was not the all-encompassing grief event it is these days, it was a given part of everyday life.

One day, things will go back to this way of life.

 

[Tom]

:lol:

 

[Moriath]

:lol:

what point is funny the fact that the industrialised world we live in is based on oil and would need 4+ earths to keep everyone in the same comfort that USA or UK live in

Or that you think we have inexhaustable supply of said fuel to do what we want with and nothing bad will happen cause it never has.

See the program about food that was on BBC 2 last night on iplayer to see how cuba is coping atm without oil and see the future..

Just because we have done ok doesnt mean we will forever..

I just hope im ok till i die hehe

I guess thats your opinion also Tom as there is no thought to the future

 

[old.user4556]

Scotland - empty

I wanna keep it that way!

I was reading in the news about a 300 mph maglev train that they wanna put in between Glasgow and Edinburgh to turn it into a "super city" to attract worldwide investment.

 

[Moriath]

im sure the ppl in edin want to keep the glaswegians out

 

[Wij]

what point is funny the fact that the industrialised world we live in is based on oil and would need 4+ earths to keep everyone in the same comfort that USA or UK live in

Or that you think we have inexhaustable supply of said fuel to do what we want with and nothing bad will happen cause it never has.

See the program about food that was on BBC 2 last night on iplayer to see how cuba is coping atm without oil and see the future..

Just because we have done ok doesnt mean we will forever..

I just hope im ok till i die hehe

I guess thats your opinion also Tom as there is no thought to the future

So once the oil runs out it will have come as a complete surprise and nobody will have thought of anything to replace it ?