Yabby, you are right that current and projected world population cannot be sustained without massive synthetic inputs - in your "mining-farm" model. This model, of course, has only a finite, limited and destructive future, beyond which only lies Armageddon.

You are wrong, however, in suggesting that this is the only available, or even most productive model - over the long term. For millions of years the planet survived magnificently without artificial inputs - in sustainable balance. It is Man who has destroyed that balance, and principally Western Man, through over indulgence. Populations have to decrease worldwide, and organic farming methods have to be adopted universally - eventually - and hopefully while there is still time to avoid a worldwide food crisis.

You suggest there are simple ways to reduce population. I expect this means massive birth control. Let us hope this can be achieved through education and free choice.

"Divergence" is also wrong in stating that poor countries are those responsible for the greatest ecological impact - localised population numbers do not necessarily dictate environmental exploitation and destruction, as evidenced in so many cultures which practice sustainable holistic farming methods. Unfortunately these cultures are also coming under increasing pressure from external interests and corrupt governments to move to less sustainable, exploitative, "modern" farming methods.

Human history is littered with cultures which over-exploited their environment and had to relocate. The problem now is, there's nowhere to relocate to.

Quality of life is a subjective thing, and, sometime soon, limits and balance will have to be determined - again we hope through education and free choice.

*It is Man who has destroyed that balance, and principally Western Man, through over indulgence. Populations have to decrease worldwide, and organic farming methods have to be adopted universally - eventually - and hopefully while there is still time to avoid a worldwide food crisis.*

Salpetre, phosphorus and potassium are quite natural, just in large
concentrations in some areas, we move them to others. Even organic
farming involves mining, if you remove that produce and ship it elsewhere.
Fact is that if you want to get things to grow,
nutrients need to be in balance, it does not matter which farming
system that we use. But we could not feed the masses today, based
on organic systems. In fact we'd be back to soils washing and
blowing away, from overcultivation to kill those pesky weeds.

Soils like Australian soils, particularly WA soils, were old and
clapped out to start with. You are not going to solve the broadacre
farm problem by moving mulch around. Besides, you are doing exactly
what modern farming does, just in different forms and concentrations.

Where does most of the grain from the first world go? Why to the
third world of course, to feed the growing masses there.

Many in the third world are denied family planning or simply can't
afford it. The idea was to make it obtainable to everyone, so
choice is the only limiting factor. We know what happens when women
are given that choice, they choose to have smaller families.

Saltpetre,

My source was the consumption footprints in the Global Footprint Network's 2010 Ecological Footprint Atlas. The footprints for the top billion in the richest countries add up to about 38% of total consumption, i.e., 62% of total consumption is going on in the poorer countries. See the link in my post on p. 17.

Divergence,

Fred Pearce, in this Yale article, begs to differ:

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/consumption_dwarfs_population_as_main_environmental_threat/2140/

Poirot, Fred might differ, but Fred could well be wrong. It is
a little simplistic to try and focus the argument on just carbon
emissions. We could reduce our carbon emissions by quite alot,
if we stopped sending food to the third world.

What about overfishing? What about slash and burn agriculture?
What about desertification from people chopping down too many
trees for firewood? What about the bushmeat trade? The list goes on.

The fact is that every one of those future extra people will
be aspiring for the same Western lifestyle, moving to the West
if at all possible.

So the fact remains, if I consume a little bit more and then
fall off the perch, it pales into insignificance in the longer term,
then if you have 6 children. Think about it.

Yabby,

If I had six children in India, the lot of us collectively would still have a smaller global hectare resource demand or "footprint" than one American - and a roughly equivalent one to an Aussie.

Here's a revealing article on overfishing from the World Wildlife Fund:
http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/globalmarkets/fishing/WWFBinaryitem8633.pdf

And another on World Bank and IMF pressure leading to deforestation (I know you wouldn't expect anything less form me :)
http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/61/IMF.html