The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > World Food Day > Comments

World Food Day : Comments

By Tim Andrews, published 16/10/2012

Green activists are making the world hungrier by pushing policies restricting the supply of affordable food.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
Kevin Andrews, there are big problems with this article.

Firstly, there is no mention of population growth. How on earth can you possibly leave this all-important factor out of an article about global food security??

It is simply daft and self-defeating to concentrate entirely on the supply side of the demand–supply equation, while letting the other side continue to rapidly increase with no end in sight.

You, practically all green groups and practically all those who are striving to increase our productivity, are guilty of this staggering omission.

The thing we need to strive for is a balance between supply and demand, not a constant increase in supply to battle to keep up with a constantly increasing demand, ultimately achieving nothing. Actually, this will achieve a strongly negative result, by way of promulgating the increasing demand and hence taking us further away from a sustainable future rather than closer to it.

Secondly, your comments on native vegetation legislation are way off the mark. It is wildly inaccurate to say that:

< vast tracts of highly fertile farmland are now an effective wasteland. >

As a result of this statement, I have no faith in the accuracy of all your other criticisms of the green movement.

You seem to have a very strong bias towards maximised food production, with little else coming into the picture.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 8:10:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is of course another way to stop all those starving babies, Kevin.

If the Vatican stopped its endless campaign against modern family
planning in the third world, women would have a choice and not
be forced to pop em out like rabbits.

Even here in Australia, Catholic hospitals deny women the option to
have their tubes tied. Luckily here we have a number of choices.
Not so in the third world.

Check out the Guttmacher Institute data, which is good enough for
the Economist to quote from. Women don't choose to pop out 6-8
kids, they come along due to unmet need for family planning.

That means more hungry mouths to feed, more starvation and more
suffering. That is hardly humane.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 8:40:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi, a mea culpa from the editor. The article was accidentally misattributed to Kevin Andrews when it is actually by Tim Andrews. I have fixed that now, but it does affect the first comment on this thread.

It's not that Ludwig is "slow", I'm the one that is.
Posted by GrahamY, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 9:28:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whose science?
Which science?

Meanwhile of course everybody who has done the necssary research knows that industrial agriculture, especially as it is done in the USA, is unsustainable, and indeed is destructive of both the biosphere and of human culture. Human and humanizing culture as promoted by Wendell berry for instance, whose work can be found at both Resurgence, and Orion Magazines. Magazines which promote doable alternatives to business as usual big agri-business hi-tech agriculture.

One writer who is associated with Orion is David Orr who is the author of Down To the Wire and other superb books. He has also for many years been associated with the Bioneers. http://www.bioneers.org

Meanwhile for the real truth about how USA big-time Agribusiness really works why not check out:
Food Fight by Daniel Imhoff
Dirt! The Movie
Food Inc. The Corporate Takeover of American Agriculture.
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/10/the-video-monsanto-does-not-want-you-to.html
http://www.responsibletechnology.org

Plus some other usual alternatrives to business as usual
http://www.greeningthedesert.com
http://www.cornucopia.org
Posted by Daffy Duck, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 10:30:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig, we know you are a single-issue fanatic on the topic of population control.

>>Firstly, there is no mention of population growth. How on earth can you possibly leave this all-important factor out of an article about global food security?<<

The article highlighted a policy problem on the supply side. If the author had wanted to engage you in a discussion on "the impact of population increase on the availability of food", I'm sure he would have done so.

Instead, he would, I am sure, appreciate your view on the topic he chose to write about, which is the adverse impact of Greenpeace's attack on food production.

You might have a point, though, if you would like to expand on this.

>>It is wildly inaccurate to say that: <vast tracts of highly fertile farmland are now an effective wasteland.>.<<

The point the author made, that "Legislation to protect 'native vegetation' has allowed governments to appropriate land without compensation" was itself pretty vague. But your response was also somewhat short on evidence to support your rebuttal.

It is an important subject. I for one would love to understand better the mentality of people who actively oppose any scientific approach to the production of food. Diverting this discussion into the ambit of your population-control hobby-horse is not helpful.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 10:36:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An interesting article, but difficult to reconcile scientifically.
We see serious reduction in shark and blue fin tuna numbers.
Both these species are part of the top end food chain predators, needed to keep the reef and vegetation chewing types, in reasonable check.
Palm oil? The forests that are being cleared, with their native populations unceremoniously disenfranchised, recharge the monsoonal rains, we Australians rely on almost exclusively, for most of our northern food production?
Besides, there are superior forms of oil!
Our salt, frost and drought resistant native wisteria, i.e, is a soil improving, nitrogen fixing perennial legume, that grows quite happily, in barely marginal land.
It produces an oil, superior to most other vegetable oils, and is a ready made bio-diesel, virtually as is!
The very high protein ex-crush material is good enough for human consumption; or, to alone support many forms of feedlotting; including cattle, sheep, goats, pig, chickens and farmed fish!
As for NZ lamb producing less carbon even though transported 11,000 miles?
Sure, but you have to quite massively massage the figures, by including population density, electricity use, the amount of comparative feedlott versus grass fed production, etc/etc.
Britain is rediscovering gardening and the vegetable and orchard production, popular during the depression; and or, the last world war.
The carbon foot print is increasingly, a growing problem, as is fossil fuel powered transportation, which could be quite massively lowered, with less carbon producing fuel options, like say, Australian sweet light crude?
Why, the carbon footprint and trading, is the principal reason we are seeing something of a renaissance, in American manufacturing?
A far-sighted govt would simply set aside the self restricting ideological straight jacket! And proceed apace to build a nuclear powered fleet of ocean going, submersible, super tanker sized, roll on roll off, transport options!
Ocean going bulk freight forwarding, is still the most profitable business model available?
Nuclear power and serious automation, would serve to quite massively reduce the carbon foot print and the price of transport, all while quite massively improving the export income, of the fleet operating entity?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 10:59:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahh its me old mate Pericles, back for another round of Ludwig rib-poking!

Dear oh dear, the same old criticism! Haven’t we been over this point enough times for you over the last seven years on OLO??

Alright, I’ll say to you what I’ve said a godzillion times before:

You know that your accusation of me being single-issue on population is absolutely false. You know that I keep mentioning it because it is the elephant in the living room that just gets left out of so many discussions in which it is an enormously important factor.

And I’m not the only one on this forum who does this by any means, eh Yabby.

Tim Andrews’ article is just another one on the very long list of population-blind writings of this sort.

Sorry Pericles but you are just so wrong to say:

< Diverting this discussion into the ambit of your population-control hobby-horse is not helpful >.

Now, I share your concern and desire to know more about the apparent adverse impact of Greenpeace's apparent attack on food production.

I have plenty of criticism for Greenpeace, The Greens, The Australian Conservation Foundation and other elements of the so-called green movement, so I don't know whether they are on the right track here or not.

So if you want to do something useful to contribute to this discussion, how about doing a bit of web-surfing on this Greenpeace thing.

Meanwhile, I’ve got some quality beach-bumming to do here in the wonderful north Queensland sun. Cheers.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 11:42:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We do need to keep mentioning population growth because it is such a no-go area in some quarters.

On the food front, perhaps we should try to seriously address food wastage in developed countries. According to an SMH article last year, one quarter of the food we waste could meet the food shortfall in the third world. As ever, redistribution is a problem.

http://www.smh.com.au/money/saving/saving-money-can-help-save-others-20111029-1mp5c.html
Posted by Candide, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 11:50:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee another right wing think tank article saying endless growth is possible. Maybe OLO could put some talking points up on the leffhand side of the page, so we can check them off whenever we get an article like this.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 12:19:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Must be "get Luddy day" so here I come too mate.

A case study on government locking up farm land.

A mate has a broad acre farm out a bit past Dalby. This is in the original "treeless plane" country They have built it up from 640 to 1600 acres over 75 years.
They added another 640 acres a couple of years back. This was a farm belonging to an old bloke who was injured 30 years before, & could no longer farm, but continued to live on the property. They bought it from his estate.

About 300 acres, fallow when he stopped working it, had gone through woody weeds to thick regrowth type woodland. Remember this was treeless grassland when settled, but they were refused permission to clear this "virgin forest" when they wanted to put it back to work.

It took over 2 years & cost a fortune to get the approval to return it to production. And people wonder why most farmers sons won't take on the family farm.

Candide, most of the food wastage is in the third world. A very high percentage of their food storage is so poor that much food is eaten or rendered unfit for consumption by various pests & fungal growth problems
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 12:41:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While we continue to endlessly talk about these topics we are wasting our time and future generation`s survival if we do not do something about POPULATION! ! ! !
Go Ludwig.
I`m on your side.
SEVEN billion and counting at the rate of how many millions more each year?
Posted by ateday, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 12:55:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good article and nice to see Ludwig pop up again.

Below is current pop figures from the UN by fertility. It's grim alright but not because we're chockas - population is going the other way.

http://esa.un.org/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_10.htm

Never let it be said I interfered with a bogus fear campaign. Even so, Rhosty is spot on re fish stocks.
Posted by Cheryl, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 1:30:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If too many people are the problem, Ludwig, what's the solution. Are you offering to top yourself? Or do you propose others do it?
Posted by DavidL, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 2:15:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Classic, Ludwig.

>>You know that your accusation of me being single-issue on population is absolutely false. You know that I keep mentioning it because it is the elephant in the living room that just gets left out of so many discussions in which it is an enormously important factor.<<

It's true, of course, that when you are not advocating government control over our population numbers, you are advocating governmental control over every other aspect of our daily lives. So yes, I am guilty on this occasion of a slight exaggeration. But it is also true, as you freely admit, that you introduce the topic at every single opportunity, however tangential to the topic at hand.

>>Sorry Pericles but you are just so wrong to say: < Diverting this discussion into the ambit of your population-control hobby-horse is not helpful >.<<

But already, over 50% of the thread is about population control, not about Greenpeace's interference in the food supply. Don't you feel even the slightest bit guilty for derailing a perfectly cogent argument to pursue your own agenda?

>>Now, I share your concern and desire to know more about the apparent adverse impact of Greenpeace's apparent attack on food production.<<

But on balance, you'd rather go surfing, having neatly sabotaged a potentially interesting thread about food production methods.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 2:15:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheryl:" It's grim alright but not because we're chockas - population is going the other way. "

That's not what your graph says.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 2:19:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Cheryl, Africa still at 4.5 children per woman right now and only
going down, because people like me rattle the cage and point out how
futile it is to create hungry children and call it religous and
humane. If we made more noise and actually did something about it,
it might not take another 90 years in Africa, it could happen next
year.

Even Australia should get off its proverbial arse on this one,
but no, we'd rather somehow squeeze a bit more out of what is already
clapped out farmland.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 2:20:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is spot on

I'd add another couple of issues to the greens' anti-food policies - the fraudulent cranks in the organic movement, advocating farming methods with much lower yields in pursuit of non-existent health benefits; and biofuels subsidies that encourage the conversion of food into fuel for negligible environmental benefit.

Cheryl is right – population growth is slowing as fertility rates are declining. I’d cheerfully support assistance with voluntary family planning in developing countries to help people gain control of their lives and their fertility, but such measures will probably have little effect on the overall fertility trend giving where it’s heading anyway and the power of demographic momentum.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 3:07:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to your graph Cheryl, it will take the rest of the century for Africa to get down to replacement level fertility, and Northern America and Europe - massive consumers of food and everything else - are heading the other way. Grim news indeed.
Posted by Candide, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 3:36:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Candide
Demographic transitions never play out quickly. Even China’s brutal one-child policy took decades to lower fertility rates, and demographic momentum means that China’s population is still growing despite fertility being below replacement. And China is suffering growing problems because of the distortions its policy created in the age profile.

Only anti-child policies even more brutal than China’s, or mass deaths on a scale that far exceed the tolls of the two world wars, would stop the world’s population growing for the next few decades.

The article is right to focus on raising food production. This is a more sensible and humane way to alleviate hunger and malnutrition. In the past 50 years food production has grown more quickly than population, and there's every reason to think this can be sustained, as long as the anti-food lobby don't get their way.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 3:59:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's nothing wrong with the anti-pops perpetuating a lie, lord knows the media have covered us with Mayan end of the world doom day scenarios, rising sea levels, scorpions rising out of the earth, etc, so it's no wonder we're all a bit jumpy.

But here's the thing: growing more food is a very good idea. Using technology to grow more food to sell is a great idea. Trotting out "I'm against it' for ever initiative that might help alleviate human suffering because it doesn't conform to the Mein Kampf of sustainability is ignorance writ large.

People will see through it and the Greens (even with some of their good ideas) will be brushed aside.
Posted by Cheryl, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 4:17:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some of the Green groups really are Luddites. The hysterical opposition to genetic engineering or nuclear power on the Left is just as irrational as climate change denial on the Right. We are likely to need these technologies in the future.

All the same, it is foolhardy to count on miracle technologies to save us. Grain production per person peaked in 1984. See the World Food Price Index

http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/wfs-home/foodpricesindex/en/

There may well be physiological limits. Wheat and chickens are vastly more productive than in 1900, but race horses can't run much faster - and not for want of trying. People like to chant that Malthus was wrong, even though Haiti and Rwanda are good evidence he was right, but a lot of the optimists of the 1950s were definitely wrong:

"Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter... It is not too much to expect that our children will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age."

This from a speech in 1954 by Lewis Strauss, the head of the US Atomic Energy Commission, not a science fiction magazine. I would just love that free electric power and cure for aging.

Rhian et al. are celebrating falling world fertility, as we should, but don't seem to understand the full implications of demographic momentum and environmental overshoot. I have seen a calculation that the population of India would double before it stabilized, due to demographic momentum, even if the fertility rate fell to replacement level tomorrow and stayed there. Aquifers are being pumped dry under its wheat belt. There is an Indian government report that 40% of the children are currently malnourished and nearly 60% stunted due to past malnutrition. See

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/10/child-malnutrition-india-national-shame

How is this likely to get better with twice as many people?
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 7:53:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen, even if your case study is true exactly as you state it, it is not representative of what happened with the vegetation management legislation. I’m sure you would agree that it is an extreme example of things not going as they should have.

.

Ateday, nice to know you are a brother in arms. Welcome to OLO.

.

Cheryl, you seem to think that it is a good thing that the fertility rate is declining. So then, you would also think it a good thing if we helped it along a bit, as Yabby has suggested. Divergence points out that even with the current rate of fertility decline, the global population is going to be very much larger before it stabilises.

The declining fertility needs a very big help along.

And you would also presumably think that this sort pro-active approach on population should go hand in hand with a proactive approach on food production, yes?

Mmmmm….yeah right!

So let me get it straight then – you think it is good that our fertility rate is declining, but totally obnoxious for us to do anything to promulgate that rate of reduction. And you think that we should be maximising food production (supply) and doing nothing at all about the still very rapidly increasing population (demand)… and not striving to match supply with demand, but simply putting all out efforts into increasing supply and letting demand do its own thing entirely!?!?
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 8:02:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence
I don’t celebrate world fertility, but neither do I bemoan it. It’s a fact of life, and incredibly difficult to change through government policies. I also think choices about how many children to have are best left to individuals, which is why I’d support aid for voluntary family planning but vehemently oppose the coercive variety.

Yes, India still has a lot of poor and malnourished people, but the fact is that both poverty rates and malnutrition have declined despite the country’s rising population.

As I posted here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14202&page=0
The data show that the green revolution contributed enormously to improvements in welfare in India. Poverty and malnutrition have fallen, food production has risen steadily faster than population, and in many years India is a net exporter of grains.

http://data.worldbank.org/country/india

I remember a few decades ago eco-alarmists saying it was pointless trying to save India’s hungry because their population would inevitably overrun their food production. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

The source you linked to shows world cereal production on a steady upward trend, reaching an all-time high in 2011:

http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/wfs-home/csdb/en/

Per capita consumption has plateaued, but the FAO attributes that to weaker demand, not supply constraints:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e08.htm
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 8:27:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a scientifically way to demonstrably lower/curtail population growth, and that is to ensure that the female demographic is educated.
Our foreign aid ought to be taken out of the hands of corrupt officials, and given as direct funding to NGO's, that diligently pursue non gender specific education outcomes.
As other writers have noted, what we waste here in the west, would feed the rest of the starving world!
Also, there are studies that seem to confirm that some critical reafforestation, helps to recharge the monsoonal rains that travel north and south from equatorial Africa, assisting essential food production; and or, winding back desertification.
I also believe we can make a solid case for exporting wattle and wisteria seeds, for production of these extremely hardy perennials, in sub Saharan Africa.
And we can teach them how to make and install simple digesters, that will create enough cooking gas, to take the burden of finding fuel or firewood out of the remaining forests, and off of the backs of young females, who really ought to be at school, rather than fetching wood and water for lazy, lay about able-bodied men, who value women as mere bagatelle, inasmuch as how many sheep, cattle, camels, horses or goats they need to part with to buy one?
Sure here are parts of the world where that and or child brides are culturally acceptable, along with a whole host of primitive or barbaric practise and witchcraft, that only education that mandates the inclusion of the female demographic, can eventually wipe out.
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 11:19:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm with Ludwig, the world's oceans have become 30% more acidic since the Industrial Revolution.

The seas have absorbed 500 billion tons of carbon dioxide which has built up in the atmosphere, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels.

By taking in that amount, more than 1/4 of the greenhouse gas has accumulated in the atmosphere, the oceans have buffered the effects of climate change, temperatures have not risen as much as previously predicted and glaciers haven't melted as fast.

These benefits are coming at a cost to marine life, especially oysters, clams and corals that rely on the minerals in alkaline seawater to build their protective exoskeletons.

The effects of the changing chemistry add to the oceans' problems, which include warming temperatures and expanding low-oxygen "dead zones."

By the end of this century, oceans will become hot, sour and breathless.

The lead scientist from the Australian Antarctic Division told a Senate estimates hearing today "rapid changes" taking place across the icy land mass will have significant impacts on global climate.

Changes in ocean flows and shifts in Antarctic ice cap levels are occurring at rates faster than at any other time in history.

Scientists are detecting major changes in the circulation of deep, dense salty water off Antarctica. This water drives the circulation of the world's oceans, in turn climate patterns.

Parts of the Antarctic ice caps are melting at unprecedented rates. "The findings around changes in Antarctica and the southern oceans are critically important to driving world climate," he stated.

Regardless of the science, you all believe we can continue to produce cheap, calorie rich food, exponentially into the future.

I'm with Ludwig on this one, we are about tho see a huge gap in food supply-demand and it has little to do with politics, industry and economics, more likely to do with top-soil loss, extreme weather and climate events and an ever increasing population (circ 80M per annum).

This will result in the depletion of natural resources on an already tapped out finite planet, go figure!
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 11:23:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< So yes, I am guilty on this occasion of a slight exaggeration. >>

Well!! I am staggered Pericles. Fancy you admitting that!! ( :>|

But you then carry on with a not so slight exaggeration with your ridiculous nonsense about me hijacking the debate. Deeear oh dear!

Meanwhile, you’ve indicated where you would like the discussion to go, but you have contributed NOTHING towards it.

I wonder what you are doing that takes precedence over that and yet still allows you to express your abject distaste for any mention of the highly relevant population component of a global food security strategy.

Alright, here’s a start on your Greenpeace query. From Wikipedia:

Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organization that acts to change attitudes and behaviour, to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace by:

• Catalysing an energy revolution to address the number one threat facing our planet: climate change.

• Defending our oceans by challenging wasteful and destructive fishing, and creating a global network of marine reserves.

• Protecting the world’s remaining ancient forests which are depended on by many animals, plants and people.

• Working for disarmament and peace by reducing dependence on finite resources and calling for the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

• Creating a toxin free future with safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals in today's products and manufacturing.

• Campaigning for sustainable agriculture by encouraging socially and ecologically responsible farming practices.

----

The great flaw in Greenpeace’s philosophy is that there is nothing about population. It is simply nonsensical to talk about sustainable agriculture only in terms of farming practices without considering the ever-growing demand for food.

If Greenpeace is completely against GM foods and against large-scale production in favour of local produce as Tim Andrews suggests, but devoid of any action or comment on population, then they have certainly not got it properly worked out.

However, they’ve still got it a whole lot better worked out than Mr Andrews does!

So there’s a start Pericles. Maybe you can develop it further.

What a wonderful looking day. The beach beckons!
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 17 October 2012 8:13:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There you go again, Ludwig!

>>The great flaw in Greenpeace’s philosophy is that there is nothing about population<<

No more questions, m'lud.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 17 October 2012 10:52:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There you go again Perky – demonstrating your obsession with me daring to mention the P word!

Nothing else seems to matter to you. You are clearly not really interested in the topic at hand here.

Once again I say; Deeear oh dear!
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 17 October 2012 10:57:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig, Pericles is not the only one.

I posted the UN's fertility rate graph which shows population is slowing down and about to go over falls from 2050 with Africa being the exception.

Most of western Europe, Russia, Japan, the US and parts of Asia are now looking at how to fund aged care and pensions from a rapidly shrinking tax base. Why do you persist with this single line of argument?
Posted by Cheryl, Wednesday, 17 October 2012 1:04:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm guessing it's because of the other graphs from that website you linked to Cheryl.

You know, ones like this:

http://esa.un.org/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm

Even with a fertility rate slowdown, that's a lot of mouths to feed.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 17 October 2012 1:52:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheryl, have you noted the comments about the graph you posted by no less than six respondents – Bugsy, Yabby, Rhian, Candide, Divergence and um, Ludwig?

As it concerns global food security, your point about declining fertility is not only very simplistic, but highly misleading.

So, what about the questions I asked of you yesterday: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14230#245677

Too difficult?

I note that the respondent closest to you on this thread, Rhian, said:

<< I’d cheerfully support assistance with voluntary family planning in developing countries to help people gain control of their lives and their fertility, >>

YES! THIS is what we need to do a whole lot more effectively. Not coercive measures. And certainly not a do-nothing approach to bringing the fertility rate down faster.

Yes we need to work hard on improving food production, but with a little more concern for environmental factors than Tim Andrews seems to demonstrate. And we need to put about the same amount of effort into stabilising the global population and then sending it into gentle long-term decline.

Something like a 50/50 effort into food production and population issues.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 17 October 2012 2:02:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,

The benefits of the Green Revolution were enormous, and it is true that agricultural production is still rising, but the rate of increase of grain production has been falling and is currently below the rate of global population growth.

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/?lid=26107&section=34&topic=44

"The graph shows that while grain yields per acre have been increasing, the rate of increase has been slowing since the days of the Green Revolution in the 1970s. Most of the benefits of irrigation, machinery, fertilizer and plant breeding have already been realized."

It is hard to believe in "weak demand" when the World Food Price Index I linked to earlier is so high. In any case, your FAO source says, "In developing countries demand for cereals has grown faster than production." They also expect growth in global demand to pick up to around 1.4% a year by 2015.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y3557e/y3557e08.htm

You keep chanting the mantra that we are always wrong, but every time I point to a society that really did collapse because of overpopulation or environmental problems, you deny its relevance to us, as well as ignoring all of the current environmental warning signs, such as the depletion of aquifers under India's wheat belt.

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/node/6267

A "classic tragedy of the commons" according to an article in the Economist.

http://www.economist.com/node/17199914
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 17 October 2012 6:39:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence

I don’t deny there are problems in parts of India. If groundwater is being over-exploited it should be properly priced, or at least regulated. Your first article points to rice being an inappropriate crop for the Punjab. But looking at the country as a whole, things are far better than before the green revolution.

The Economist article identifies the issue as a “tragedy of the commons” – a form of market failure - and I would completely agree. The problem is not technology, it is property rights, as the article makes clear. If people don’t pay the true cost of a resource, or appear to get it “free”, they will over-exploit it - whether it be groundwater, fisheries, or “the commons”.

The FAO website shows that per capita food production rose by 41% between 1961 and 2010, and reached an all-time high in 2010. Total world food production has risen faster than grains production. This suggests that relative demand has shifted, and the FAO article gives a perfectly reasonable account of why this is so. The FAO data also show clearly that there has been a shift in land under cultivation away from cereals and towards oil crops.

So the data you cite do not support your interpretation that comparatively slow growth in cereals is a harbinger of the end of technological progress in agriculture. Nor are India’s water problems.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 17 October 2012 7:37:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Further to my last post:

Something like a 50/50 effort into food production and population issues is what we really need.

Although a 90/10 approach would be a vast improvement on the current situation of essentially blind-eyeing the global population issue!

Crikey Pericles, I’ve just been reflecting on how totally wrong you are this time. Population, its size and rate of growth, and all the nuances therein on the different continents and in different countries around the world, and with all the political, social and religious connotations, is of absolutely critical importance in the struggle to achieve food security.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 18 October 2012 8:31:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Crikey, Ludwig.

>>Crikey Pericles, I’ve just been reflecting on how totally wrong you are this time.<<

As opposed to all the other times, of course.

But seriously...

>>Population, its size and rate of growth, and all the nuances therein on the different continents and in different countries around the world, and with all the political, social and religious connotations, is of absolutely critical importance in the struggle to achieve food security.<<

You have stated your views on this topic on many, many occasions. However, the intent of the article, as I read it, was not to cover every aspect of food security, but to highlight examples of despicable interference by Greenpeace, designed to prevent or derail scientific advances that will increase food production.

If you care to argue that their activity in this area is beneficial, due to the fact that it will in itself prevent the growth of population through facilitating even more widespread famine, that would be germane and on-topic.

However, I stand by my initial observation that, once again, you have hijacked a perfectly reasonable discussion to suit your own population-control agenda.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 18 October 2012 9:39:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*you have hijacked a perfectly reasonable discussion to suit your own population-control agenda.*

The thing is Pericles, they are two sides of the same coin. We
have heard it for decades now, how we need to grow more food for
the starving babies. Then we need even more food, for their starving
babies. Well what about giving women the choice of having all those
babies? Right now, hundreds of millions do not have that choice and
that is where the starving babies hang out.

Darwin accurately noted that a species will keep breeding ever larger
numbers, until the resources run out and it eventually crashes.
Well all we are doing right now, is wiping out other species for ever
more growth of our own. Its a Ponzi scheme, it really is.

So the issue is now a political one. Policitians won't touch family
planning in the third world, as they don't want to upset the Catholic
Church. The only way we can bring about change is people power and
that means raising the issue whenever possible. Slowly its actually
working. When a well known writer of ever increasing agricultural output wrote a similar article on a farming website, every single
poster replied that family planning need to finally be considered too. Well for me that is all good news, as both sides of the coin
need to be debated, not just the one.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 18 October 2012 10:21:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On that basis, Yabby, why bother to start a single-topic thread in the first place?

>>So the issue is now a political one. Policitians won't touch family
planning in the third world, as they don't want to upset the Catholic
Church.<<

In the same way that Ludwig diverted the original conversation to meet his own requirement to talk (yet again) about his ideas on population control, you have introduced the Catholic Church. On that basis, the way is now open to the pros and cons of Catholicism, open season on religion in general, then a short hop to Islamic terrorism and so on...?

Next thing you know, Arjay will be telling us that it is all the fault of the evil banksters, and you will endorse this as a perfectly valid contribution.

For me, I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who cares to defend Greenpeace's position, which in my view is a modern manifestation of Luddism, but with far wider and more deadly connotations
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 18 October 2012 12:58:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< I stand by my initial observation that, once again, you have hijacked a perfectly reasonable discussion to suit your own population-control agenda. >>

And Pericles I stand by my assertion that you are off the rails with this assertion!

It is just completely bonkers! The thread is free to go in different directions. It has not in any way been hijacked. And if you reckon I’m a hijacker, then you’d have to be the second-in-charge, as you have promulgated the hijacking by repeatedly mentioning only the hijacker’s cause and not at all addressing the very subject the you think should be discussed here!

But please, keep objecting every time I dare to mention that despicable P word. You help promote debate on the issue in whatever context it has been mentioned.

<< …the intent of the article, as I read it, was not to cover every aspect of food security, but to highlight examples of despicable interference by Greenpeace… >>

Yes, but re-read the first paragraph. By way of a summary of the main factors influencing food security, Tim Andrews mentions investment, innovation and green groups. Surely population would have been mentioned there if it had been in his headspace.

He is quite wrong to say:

< …the most serious threat to food production has been ignored: environmental groups and their political supporters. >

Population is the BIGGEST factor. And within that; vested-interest population boosters and their political supporters are a pretty major problem. And also green groups that ignore the population factor, when they are precisely the people who should be highlighting this omission!

Now it is a bit rich to be suggesting which aspect of this discussion you think I should be concentrating on while you are writing successive posts that add nothing to the debate.

I’ve tried a couple of times to get you to debate the Greenpeace thing.

The point I made about the Greenpeace agenda is very salient – they’re on about sustainability, but you never hear boo out of them regarding population issues.

So do you think I’m wrong here?
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 18 October 2012 1:07:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*On that basis, the way is now open to the pros and cons of Catholicism, open season on religion in general, then a short hop to Islamic terrorism and so on...?*

Well not really Pericles, so I'll try and put it another way. If
you often wrote and posted articles about why you think that you
should be paid more, to feed your ever growing family, the kids were
barefoot and hungry etc, it would be quite reasonable of myself and
other posters, to suggest some family planning for yourself and the
wife.

That is exactly what we have in the media today. Endless articles
about the hungry children. Enless articles about how we could somehow
extract a little more from clapped out soils or steal more living
space from other species, to keep adding to our own growing billions.
It's taken just 12 years to add the last billion.

They want our charity, our tax money, the tv ads show the poor and
hungry. Yet not word on family planning for these people!

The whole thing is out of balance and yet its a Ponzi scheme. Pointing
that out and introducing some balance, is not such a bad thing.

So valid questions arise. Why don't we spend a share of our 4 billion$
in foreign aid, on family planning for the third world? Why are our
policitians so backward about this? When will they finally address
the issue? If enough Australians rattle the cage about this,
we might finally see some changes happening. It can't be soon enough,
IMHO
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 18 October 2012 1:30:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good point, Yabby, but still a tad off topic.

>>Why don't we spend a share of our 4 billion$ in foreign aid, on family planning for the third world?<<

It touches upon one of the most vexing food-related questions. If we don't send food, more people will starve to death, and populations would decrease. So if you substitute condoms for rice, the recipients would die anyway. Starvation is not the prettiest form of mass contraception, but I suspect it is one of the most effective.

What has been proven to be an effective population management technique is, in fact, economic growth. If a smallholder in Central Africa can double the yield on his small patch of land, through the sorts of agronomic advances that Greenpeace seems determined to quash, a more humane, less interventionist and ultimately more beneficial solution can be reached for all concerned.

So, instead of the kind of protestation-by-rote that we have become accustomed to, I would have expected Ludwig to come out fighting against the murderous shortsightedness of Greenpeace, who stand directly between him and his population-control agenda.

That would have been on topic.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 19 October 2012 8:17:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If a smallholder in Central Africa can double the yield on his small patch of land"

Well we already know what happens then, Pericles. Even more children
can be fed and in the next generation the small plot becomes even
smaller and the problem even larger. We'll just have to chop down the
remaining bit of rainforest, or bring out the Machetes, as happened
in Rwanda.

*What has been proven to be an effective population management technique is, in fact, economic growth*

Well yes, because when you earn a dollar a day, there is hardly any
surplus money to afford a Norplant or have the snip undertaken at
the local hospital. So you are stuck with having ever more babies,
which is exactly why there is a problem. There is a huge unmet need
for family planning, which people in these areas simply cannot afford. So why not assist them? For whilst they keep popping out
ever more babies, they will remain poor.

I saw a great documentary about the situation in the Phillipines.
They interviewed this family who lived on the Manilla rubbish tip.
She was 35 and on her 8th child, pleading for her tubes to be tied.
She was denied that choice as the hospital was Catholic and the Govt
would not assist her to have the operation. On her dollar a day,
she simply can't do what richer folks do, which is go elsewhere and
pay to have it done. Why wait before she is rich enough? Why not
assist her now?

Growing ever more food simply increases and delays the problem, it
does not solve it.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 19 October 2012 8:58:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

Re: your comment on clapped out soils.

There have been, and continue to be, enormous profits made by multinational corporations supplying fertilizers and pesticides to nations that have clapped out soils. The overuse use of both has "caused" the degradation.

Soils are supposed to be alive with micro-organisms, not dead and fed with chemicals.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 19 October 2012 9:23:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, you’ve got right to the nub of the issue in your last two posts. I concur totally with what you are saying.

.

Pericles, I take it by your non-answer to my question to you in my last post, that you think I am quite right regarding Greenpeace’s lack of action on population issues.

But you have also demonstrated in this thread that you don’t know anything about Greenpeace in relation to Tim Andrews’ criticisms. So how can you say:

<< …through the sorts of agronomic advances that Greenpeace seems determined to quash… >>

and

<< …the murderous shortsightedness of Greenpeace. >>

Currently, no one on this thread seems to know or care too much about the veracity of Andrews’ claims.

So, instead of the kind of protestation-by-rote that we have become accustomed to from you every time I mention population, how about striving to find out?

I’ve got better things to do in this magical north Queensland spring weather. But you are sitting in some dank little room in the middle of smoggy Sydney, with nothing better to do than research this point that you keep picking at me about! ( :>)
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 19 October 2012 10:32:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Soils are supposed to be alive with micro-organisms, not dead and fed with chemicals.*

You remain confused on that one, Poirot. Plants need 17 chemical
elements to grow. Look up Liebig's Law of Minimum of how it works.

People forget that farming is essentially mining of those elements,
replacing them with the same elements mined elsewhere does not kill
all the micro organisms. In fact soils actually increase in biological activity, when those elements are in balance.

Plants take up N,P,K, etc, in the same form, wether they come from
compost or bags of fertiliser.

But in the end you will run out of places to mine.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 19 October 2012 1:40:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

I was actually supporting your stance.

Do you think it's wise to kill the micro-organisms that exist in healthy soil which should consist of plenty of organic matter? Do you think its wise for people in the third world to be encouraged to overuse expensive fertilizers and pesticides in place of practising good husbandry of the land?

That's what "clapped out" means, after all.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 19 October 2012 2:32:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Ludwig, was I ignoring you? I'm sorry.

>>Pericles, I take it by your non-answer to my question to you in my last post, that you think I am quite right regarding Greenpeace’s lack of action on population issues.<<

On the contrary, Greenpeace is highly active in the population management game.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/agriculture/problem/genetic-engineering/

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/environment/greenpeace-activists-in-costly-gm-protest-20120802-23i0t.html

This type of institutionalized vandalism is indirectly causing the deaths of thousands of people from starvation, and is in itself a form of population control.

I imagine that this is precisely the reason why you are fully behind their actions.

Along with your friend Yabby, whose approach to giving these poor folk an opportunity to raise themselves out of poverty is quite stunningly callous.

>>Well we already know what happens then, Pericles. Even more children
can be fed and in the next generation the small plot becomes even
smaller and the problem even larger. We'll just have to chop down the
remaining bit of rainforest, or bring out the Machetes, as happened
in Rwanda.<<

Conveniently ignoring the statistics that say, quite clearly, that improvement in individual prosperity is the most significant factor in lowering population growth.

Incidentally...

>>Currently, no one on this thread seems to know or care too much about the veracity of Andrews’ claims.<<

Sadly, that's what happens when the thread gets hijacked onto a different topic from the opening post. People who are interested in food technology and international agronomy immediately switch off, knowing that they will be drowned out by the hyperactive anti-population brigade.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 19 October 2012 4:08:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/14/3/gpr140302.html

Pericles, perhaps you should read what the Guttmacher Institute has
to say on the topic. They are commonly quoted by the Economist,
so even you should consider the information reliable.

*Conveniently ignoring the statistics that say, quite clearly, that improvement in individual prosperity is the most significant factor in lowering population growth.*

I did no such thing. If you read my post again, it will dawn on you
that I explained why that statistic actually exists. Perhaps you
just lack empathy and are unable to fathom how people choose to
spend their money, when they only have a dollar a day to spend.

Poirot, soil can be quite healthy when fertilisers are used. Misuse
is the problem, but that is another story. Its not one or the other,
as you seem to imagine. Put a bit of soil under a powerful micrsoscope,
its like New York city with activity. Clapped out soils
happen if you keep removing nutrients and don't replace them. The
more that you suck out every year, the more you need to replace.
There is no one silver bullet for the third world. Some would be best
off with permaculture. Some with modern fertiliser additions. Only
good plant agronomy can answer those questions, not your black and white

Now I think I'm out of posts for a while on this thread.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 19 October 2012 4:51:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very good Pericles. We at last have some information about Greenpeace!

<< Greenpeace is highly active in the population management game >>

No. ‘fraid not! Neither of the links you posted have got anything directly to do with population and only a pretty vague overall connection.

<< This type of institutionalized vandalism is … in itself a form of population control. >>

So you reckon we should just charge forth with GM research and completely disregard all the concerns raised by Greenpeace. Now THAT would certainly be institutionalised vandalism of the highest order!

You can see a connection between GM and population! Wonderful.

But…. hold on…..if I was to dare to mention population on a thread about GM, you’d be right up me for it!!

** Ahh that silly Ludwig has hijacked the thread again... blither, blither, blather, blather !! **

<< I imagine that this is precisely the reason why you are fully behind their actions. >>

Now that’s getting pretty irresponsible dear Sir, when you know full well that I have said on this thread that…

>> I have plenty of criticism for Greenpeace… <<

...and I’ve had nothing to say about their position on GM foods.

I am not fully in support of Greenpeace, and I am not fully behind their actions on GM.

The points made by Greenpeace in the brief summary in the link you have posted are all very real concerns. But they shouldn’t be a mob of Luddites. They should be striving to facilitate GM while at the same time implementing the strongest possible safeguards against the downsides.

Like most things, GM is not all good or bad. There are huge possible negative consequences and huge possible benefits.

Again, the main problem with Greenpeace’s position on this is that it is not tied to population stabilisation.

So it’s back to you Peri for the next instalment of Greenpeace research!
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 19 October 2012 8:57:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

As you note, it's difficult for us fortunate Westerners to deny an aspiration to prosperity to those in the third world - but with an improvement in individual prosperity there's comes more than just a lowering of the birth rate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/30/food.china1
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 19 October 2012 11:52:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now, what's all this about, Ludwig.

>>What happened to you on the ‘World food day’ thread Pericles? You know when you’ve been thoroughly trounced eh?<<

Let's see now.

>>Neither of the links you posted have got anything directly to do with population and only a pretty vague overall connection.<<

You were supposed to read them in the context of the article. As in "the baseless and unscientific attack on enriched food by Greenpeace, which culminated in the criminal destruction of a CSIRO trial wheat crop in 2011."

The idea was to draw your attention to the clear link between the Luddite tactics of Greenpeace in preventing research into more efficient methods of food production, and the impact this would have on people who desperately need more efficient methods of food production, i.e. the world's starving people.

Quite how you missed this obvious connection is beyond me.

What else.

>>So you reckon we should just charge forth with GM research and completely disregard all the concerns raised by Greenpeace.<<

No. But I do object to vandalism. Do you support it? Because that's what the article is about. Vandalism. Luddism. Preventing research into more efficient methods of food production, that the world's starving desperately need.

Did I mention that before? Oh well, it is worth repeating.

>>You can see a connection between GM and population! Wonderful. But…. hold on…..if I was to dare to mention population on a thread about GM, you’d be right up me for it!!<<

Doh!

Mentioning the impact on a starving population of preventing research into improved methods of food production, is not the same as diverting the discussion onto "population control", which, I have noticed, you do with monotonous regularity.

Did I mention that before? Oh well, it is worth repeating.

>>Again, the main problem with Greenpeace’s position on this is that it is not tied to population stabilisation.<<

No, the main problem is that it is a vicious, shortsighted and ultimately pointless strategy that actually kills people. "Population stabilization" is the ultimate pipedream of the ultimate authoritarian, and has no place in twentyfirst century policy models.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 23 October 2012 2:18:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*"Population stabilization" is the ultimate pipedream of the ultimate authoritarian, and has no place in twentyfirst century policy models.*

Sheesh, so Darwin has been proven correct once again. Species including humans, will simply keep breeding like rabbits until they
run out of resources and then the whole thing will fall over.
The hope that human intelligence might make a difference to this,
is but a pipedream. Our species is simply too stupid. So be it.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 23 October 2012 2:31:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
C'mon Yabby, you know better than that.

>>The hope that human intelligence might make a difference to this, is but a pipedream<<

Human intelligence will of course make a difference. The context here is "enforced population stabilization", of the kind that Ludwig is in favour of, where governments are given the power to decide who gets born and who doesn't.

Mind you, there's a lot of truth in the Darwinian process that you - somewhat imperfectly - describe.

>>Species including humans, will simply keep breeding like rabbits until they run out of resources and then the whole thing will fall over.<<

Most species ensure their own survival by ceasing to overpopulate before they run out of resources. Humans will do the same, of that I have no doubt.

The question that tends to get batted around here is whether that point has been reached. I say that it has not, but that I fully expect the earth's population to stabilize - reach an equilibrium - at some point in the future. What I am totally against is the concept that the Ludwigs of this world should arbitrarily make that calculation, for their own selfish reasons, and then proceed to impose their will upon the rest of the world, nolens volens.

It will be interesting to see whether the richer countries, feeling an ever greater pinch from the GFC, will start to tone down their charitable instincts, and become less inclined to pay to the third world countries their conscience money. This might have the beneficial effect of concentrating their attention on creating within the recipient countries independence from charity, rather than encourage a culture of dependence.

Which is where using our more advanced technology to help them grow food comes into the equation. And where Greenpeace's attempts to prevent this from occurring are particularly egregious.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 23 October 2012 5:33:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*The context here is "enforced population stabilization", of the kind that Ludwig is in favour of*

Well hang on Pericles, for a start Ludwig agrees with me, that women
in the third world, who are too poor to afford family planning, should
be given a choice. That is hardly enforcement. I'm not sure if you
read the Guttmacher Institute report, but even the Economist of
12th July 2008 agrees that some women in sub Saharan Africa are
missing out. While you are feeding 6 kids, its hard to get ahead
economically and say start a micro business.

But let me ask you a philosophical question. What about other species?
Are you going to leave a bit of space for them too, or just wall to
wall humans? What kind of planet do you want your great grandkids to
see? For all we are doing is decimating any species that is in our
way, for ever more humans. I personally think that it's a terrible
shame and will be our own undoing in the end.

Without biodiversity, you won't have a humanity, nature will make
sure of that, as we've seen time and time again.But we humans
seemingly need pain to learn and will learn the hard way. Poor
judgement is a human foible after all.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 23 October 2012 9:32:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course they should, Yabby.

>>Well hang on Pericles, for a start Ludwig agrees with me, that women in the third world, who are too poor to afford family planning, should be given a choice.<<

But we don't need such assistance in Australia, do we. And it was that flavour of government intervention/authoritarianism that I was alluding to. The kind that Ludwig is desperately in favour of, with government meddling in every aspect of our personal lives. Including our sex lives, apparently. And where we should live. The assumption - often made by those steeped in public service myopia - that governments somehow miraculously know better than the people.

>>While you are feeding 6 kids, its hard to get ahead economically and say start a micro business.<<

No question. And I wouldn't be in their shoes - or lack of them - for quids. But if you are able to make a decision between a) continuing to feed them as best you can by shipping stuff to them from everywhere in the world, or b) helping them make a start to becoming self-sufficient, the choice (I would hope) is obvious. Hence my disgust at the self-serving, holier-than-thou antics of Greenpeace, and its drive to prevent this from even being an option.

>>But let me ask you a philosophical question. What about other species? Are you going to leave a bit of space for them too, or just wall to wall humans? What kind of planet do you want your great grandkids to see? For all we are doing is decimating any species that is in our way, for ever more humans. I personally think that it's a terrible shame and will be our own undoing in the end. Without biodiversity, you won't have a humanity<<

I fail to see the point of the question. Of course we need "biodiversity".

But are you actually suggesting that Greenpeace's efforts to suppress the advances in food technology are necessary to promote biodiversity? Or that opposing their activities will ultimately wipe out the human race?

Seriously?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 24 October 2012 8:18:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

Modern "food technology" doesn't promote biodiversity. It promotes monoculture.

It also encourages a reliance on chemical fertilization over true husbandry of the land. It promotes loss of biodiversity among plant life - leading to a loss of diverse sources of nourishment. It promotes a loss of knowledge in indigenous societies, as they discard wisdom and understanding handed down through generations and rely on packaged chemicals. It promotes reliance on pesticides which further damage the soil and pollutes groundwater. It promotes excessive use of groundwater, particularly in the practice of growing thirsty crops in areas that can't sustain them.

Look closely at what's happening in India and tell me it's "sustainable".
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 24 October 2012 8:53:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Of course they should, Yabby.*

Well that is what we are fighting for Pericles, as Harradine's deal
with Howard, is still stamped on our foreign aid programme. Nothing
for family planning, despite billions spent each year. So hundreds
of millions of women have little choice but to keep popping out ever
more children and then show them on tv, when they are starving.

*or b) helping them make a start to becoming self-sufficient, the choice (I would hope) is obvious*

Of course its obvious, but the answers are already obvious and
all it needs is implementation of what we already know. Permaculture
works great in the third world, it was actually developed in Australia btw.
They also need property rights, micro credit and
less children, then they might have a chance. Nothing new here.

* Of course we need "biodiversity". *

Well yes we do. But we are getting rid of it as fast as we can. What
used to be tropical rainforests is turning into monoculture of oil
palms. There go the OrangUtans and the rest. In Africa the land is
now being flogged off to the Arabs, Chinese and Indians, for
monoculture crops. Anything else in the forests is being shot for
bushmeat. There go the bonobos, wild chimps and gorillas. The
list goes on and on.

I take little notice of what Greenpeace thinks. IMHO most of these
organisations are a bit like the Greens, overloaded with hysterical
know littles. But through what I do every day, I have learned a great deal about
how nature works, so I argue my points based on that knowledge.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 24 October 2012 9:48:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ummm... really?.

>>Well that is what we are fighting for Pericles<<

I thought we were talking about Greenpeace. Oh, here we go.

>>I take little notice of what Greenpeace thinks.<<

Perhaps you should, as the article points out.

What, all of it, Poirot?

>>Pericles, Modern "food technology" doesn't promote biodiversity. It promotes monoculture.<<

Apparently, it greatly depends on the farming techniques and practices that go along with GM crops. One of the less hysterical studies that I have read states as follows:

"Overall, the review finds that currently commercialized GM crops have reduced the impacts of agriculture on biodiversity, through enhanced adoption of conservation tillage practices, reduction of insecticide use and use of more environmentally benign herbicides and increasing yields to alleviate pressure to convert additional land to agricultural use.""

http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gmcrops/article/15086/

Sounds exactly what the impoverished smallholder is looking for, and exactly what Greenpeace thinks they don't deserve.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 24 October 2012 1:59:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Perhaps you should, as the article points out.*

Pericles, the article was more about just Greenpeace and of course
as you start to discuss things like GM, you open another whole
can of worms, as the devil is always in the details.

GM is a double sided coin, with good and bad points, not just black
and white. It can be a very handy way to transfer genes, with only
the good genes transferred, not those which you do not want.

But the technology IMHO has already been misused, as the main thing
achieved is to create crops that can resist Glyphosate. (Roundup)

Now we do indeed depend heavily on Roundup for conservation tillage,
GM or no GM. There is no other product like it. But what Monsanto
have now done is to transfer the Roundup ready gene into everything,
which means that farmers in South and North America are growing
corn, soya beans etc, fence post to fence post, relying just on
roundup ready weed control.

Mother Nature of course does not work like that, or only in the short
term. What you now have in all these areas are weeds springing up
that are resistant to roundup too. So in the end, through misuse,
farmers will lose the most valuable tool that they had for conservation tillage, hardly smart thinking.

Next we have the issue of fish sanctuaries. They actually make
alot of sense, as they let fish breed somewhere and if they
are in abundance, they will soon swim out of those areas and into
areas where they can be fished. What you are finding right now is
that even in Australian waters, good eating fish are becoming rarer
and rarer, as they are targeted, as they have value. So where will
they breed? They might not yet be extinct, but why push things until
they are?
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 24 October 2012 9:44:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
""the global demand for food will increase by a staggering 70%""

NO it WON'T!

Energy sources that give LESS energy than the cost of its extraction and transport will be able to support only 2-3 billion people by 2025-2035. (The same amount as coal in its continuity limit before WWI)

I estimate that wars and diseases will kill Oh, around 5-6 billion people during those years.

By 2050, if homo sapiens is still around, there will be plenty of food!

But as the survivors of nuclear wars they MAY be living in caves.

Economic growthist morons are to blame. I can't mention the obvious names but Wayne Swan should be marked. I don't understand why the rank and file don't cripple the bastards now and save us all the coming angst .. especially for your kids if you are foolish enough to have any given their hmmm, future unprospects.

The problem for those who deny the above is that the Second Law Of Thermodynamics(2LT) coupled with Human History and the rapid advances in military weapons of mass destruction GUARANTEES the above.

We are marching lock step to the Gloaliseation Clifff and idiots like Barry O'Greiner and JUlia whatshername? are cracking the whip believing that in positions of power they will have special privileges and SURVIVE.

Well guess what? History doesn't show that to be true in most cases either.

The answer for anyone not stuffed to the gunnels with debt and who thus have a MIND is Geothermal Heat and GEOTHERMAL Power plants surrounding each capital city. Sydney has some marvellous volcanic caulderas ripe for development for example. It can be shown this satisfies 2LT requirement for population stability and continuity.

But IF you can do it , it will be useless without a one child per woman policy. Because humans will do the SAME thing over and over like f'ing lemmings on drugs and with error prone like a block of flats.
Posted by KAEP, Thursday, 25 October 2012 11:15:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy