*But, this IS the argument <Its just a question of time??*

Sure its just a question of time, Salpetre. But why should I stress
about things that I cannot change? Pedaling to work or doing without
that Ipad is not going to change human destiny, I might as well enjoy
every day!

The problem will always be numbers, not if you lived it up a little
or not.

*If you are a farmer, then you should know that no-till is now widely employed*

Ah Salpetre, but that means that your holy grail of the future, ie
organic farming, is not what you claim it to be. For of course
no till involves the use of herbicides like Roundup.

*and that most soils (even a lot of our worn-out Aussie soils) contain most of the nutrients required for effective agriculture*

Ah Salpetre, but plants need all elements to grow, not just some of
them. Soils in WA were naturally clapped out, without human intervention.
It was only through good science that it was shown
that phosphorus, copper, zinc, molydenum etc, were required to
turn them around. Legumes producing nitrogen means that soils need
lime to deal with the acidity. So my point remains. Cart away
produce from the land, you need to replace nutrients from somewhere, or you are
essentially mining. And you are not going to do that
on on a broad scale to feed the masses, using compost from elsewhere.

*but these remain finite and non-renewable resources*

Ah but that remains the interesting question. What will happen when
the oil runs out and there is no more cheap food. Food crops competing
with energy etc, as is already happening. Best we just let nature
sort it out.

Whilst 250'000 people a day are added to the planet and nobody
cares, I am not about to cut back on my cushy lifestyle

Yabby,

"The problem will always be numbers, not if you lived it up a little or not."

'Living it up a little", of course, is a gross simplification of the wasteful consumption patterns of the billion or so people who inhabit the developed world....

Here's an article by Jared Diamond on consumption:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02diamond.html?pagewanted=1

Poirot, Diamond makes that simplistic mistake of focussing on
oil and metals for his calculations. What about water and all
the rest? You can prove just about anything with figures that are
only partial.

Fact is that we have built our whole population explosion genie
on the back of 100 years of cheap oil. Even Perth now can't survive
on rainfall, it needs gas for its water supply.

Take a look at the world's major grain exporters. They are largely
in the West, shipping to the third world. When their oil genie gets
scarce, their food production will adjust accordingly. It will be
the teeming masses of the third world who have a problem, not the
first world.

When Gane Goodall first went to Gombe, the place was in the middle
of nowhere. Africa had around 240 million people. Now it has a
billion, Gombe is surrounded by farmland, to make way for the
growing masses. The only reason that it surives is because its
pretty famous. Do you think those teeming masses arn't affecting
the environment?

What you have right now is 7 billion heading for 9 billion, all
aspiring to the Western lifestyle and increasingly reliant on the
oil genie for food, water and the rest. Of course its not sustainable.

That big picture is not going to change much based on what you or
I do. If Americans halved their energy consumption tomorrow,
within 16 years you'll still have an extra 1.3 billion people to feed,
or 4 times the entire US population. Even if they consume at
a 4th of what Americans consume, it solves nothing but delay the
inevitable by a few years

Poirot,

Production for export is significant. That is why the Global Footprint Network Atlas has separate columns for the production and consumption footprints. I have only referred to the consumption footprints.

Fred Pearce is cherry-picking by focussing on carbon emissions, an area where the developed world has had disproportionate responsibility, although India and China have been doing their best to catch up. China has now passed the US in carbon emissions and would still be a very big emitter even with a fair system that attributed emissions to the final consumer. Comparing the consumption footprints in the Atlas, the US has a footprint of 8.0 hectares and Ethiopia 1.1 hectares, a little over a 7 to 1 ratio, very far from the 112 to 1 ratio suggested by Pearce. If you want to dispute the footprints, you need to show what is wrong with the methodology, not just link to activists in the poor-brown-people-can-do-no-wrong school.

The US does make a good scapegoat, but there are only about 300 million Americans out of a global population of 7 billion. There would be considerably fewer if the greedy elite hadn't reversed more than 40 years of near zero net immigration and opened the floodgates. See

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/about-problem/our-lost-future.html

All the Americans could be raptured up into the sky, and it would only make a fairly small and strictly temporary difference.

Well, Yabby, by your scenario a few boat people here or there is only the beginning of what must ultimately turn into a flood, and not just to Oz. In Oz we produce more food than we consume, and the U.S. and a few other developed nations do the same - and we export the surplus to feed masses elsewhere. Certainly this overall production relies heavily on fossil fuels, and must eventually diminish as fossil fuels run out. It is going to hit the fan eventually.

Without a change in course things are going to get ugly, and iPods will be the least of people's worries. One over-producer after another will get overrun - boats, gun-ships, invasion - land over-exploited and left in ruin, Oz and the U.S. become dust-bowls, Africa and South America overrun eventually, mass starvation and conflict on a totally unprecedented scale, and a world left in ruin. Who could be willing to sit back and let this scenario evolve?

We had all better get our schools to teach Chinese language, culture and history now, in preparation for the new world order. Guns and bunkers aren't going to help us, and only cooperation (or collaboration, if you like) will offer any chance of survival - and you can imagine what sort of survival that is going to be.

The twists and turns of our stock market demonstrate how closely we are tied to developments in China, and it is possible that, for our own future, we should stop exporting our resources, abandon the level playing field, and become super-xenophobic while we still have a chance. Of course, there is still a small window of opportunity to avoid these drastic portents - or is there?

Head-phones on, comfortable armchair, delicious cool beverage, kids at a good school or in a good job - what me worry? When the bomb hits it will only be those poor chumps who aren't killed outright who will suffer - right?

Oh, and no-till does involve fuel, for slashing or mechanical trashing of stubble, and then direct seed drilling - but no roundup.

*Oh, and no-till does involve fuel, for slashing or mechanical trashing of stubble, and then direct seed drilling - but no roundup.*

Not so Salpetre, for you still have those pesky weeds to deal with.
In broadscale agriculture, you won't do it by hand and if you
go to mechanical cultivation, bang goes your no till.

As to the future, most times when resources get scarce, humans
deal with it through warfare. That is what history seems to show.

The United Nations does not even have a focus on population, let
alone a policy. As can be seen on OLO, many don't even think
its a problem.

Fair enough, whatever lol. I'll let you do the worrying for me :)