On 06/11/2014 04:21 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Todd wrote:
On 06/11/2014 04:35 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
songbird wrote:
David Hare-Scott wrote:
...
How do you feed the world for the next 50 years without heavy
reliance on farming and consuming high carb crops?

the same way it was done before much of the
current nonsense came along. diversity, smaller
farms and people working together as an actual
community.


There just won't be enough food. What is so hard to understand about
2/3 of the worlds food calories come from carbohdrates, mainly grain
grown on farms? If you stop doing that what do they eat? Do it
like it was done before? What was that, when? When the entire
world population was a few million? How does that scale up to 7
billion? Where does the land come from?

i've seen good results here on not much room
at all, no reason it can't work on a larger
scale other than needing more people who would
want to do it. enough people get hungry enough
and perhaps they will want to do it too.


Stop with the idealism for a second, take a breath and look at the
figures. You and Todd are both in fantasy land.


D


Hi David,

I just don't see it. That same farm land can grow other crops.
The techniques Songbird and I talk about can incorporated
in various degrees.

At last some engagement!

Those other crops (which other crops are they?) cannot produce anything
like the calories per unit area that grains do. It's all about the
efficiency to harvest sunshine. We are running out of arable land and
losing much constantly while every day there are a few million more
mouths to feed. Aside from the obvious that we cannot keep reproducing
ourselves to extinction this implies the need for more food per acre of
land not less.

Have you read about the green revolution? Start with Wikipedia. For
the current situation go to the FAO they have been grappling with this
for decades. Those are the kinds of figures that make your scheme
impossible to apply generally. As Fran said, what you suggest is only
possible in rich societies.



Think of this, the California wine industry has almost
completely switched to organic techniques. The reason being
that the entire vineyard is consistent, one end to the other.
They no longer have one end that is more sour than the
other, etc.. And, they get a higher yield. Cheaper
too.


Assuming that what you say about yield and cost are true about
California wine you cannot extrapolate this to your scheme to do away
with carbohydrates as a major component of the world's diet. For a
start their measure of success is to produce quality wine not feed the
maximum people per acre.

So basically, if we are to feed more people, this is an
idea that is coming. It is a matter of practicality, not
idealism.

No it isn't. You merely assert your case but I need you to produce some
evidence.


Just out of curiosity, do you use compose in your garden
or ammonium nitrate? Which gets the better, more consistent
yield?


I am mainly organic but I would describe my approach as eclectic with a
bias towards recylcling and away from introduced inputs. I have no need
of ammonium nitrate as I can get N from manures. But I will use
Potassium sulphate as there is no other practical way to get K into my
soil.

This is not relevant as I am not trying to feed a family on my vege plot.

Let us not get too distracted by the specifics of my garden, you need to
show how the world can still eat by doing away with 2/3 of its calories
that come from carbohydrates. And show the FAO how to find a way to
feed those millions of poor buggers who already don't get three squares
most days. And the millions extra that will be born daily until we get
means of population control other than starvation and war.

David

Hi David,

Replace those calories with fat. It is the idea fuel
for humans. And more calories per weight than carbs.
Plus, no Diabetes. Hybridize the high carb foods
for fat. Not addictive either, so there will be special
interests and corrupt government agencies kicking
and scratching not to do it.

Don't mistake initial iterations as the final end product.
As we say in engineering: iterate, iterate, iterate. You
would be amazed at what humans can do when they put their
minds to it. We will find a way. Unleash the human spirit
and you'd be surprised at ways we find to farm and do other
things. Songbird's stuff may seem silly at first glance,
but that is not the way to look at it. The way to
look at it is that it is an initial iteration. Say
to yourself "I wonder if this can be improved on by ...".
Look at Songbird as a pioneer (who takes the arrows).

For example, we Nevadans benefit from world class
cantaloupes grown in the "desert". (I get to eat a half
of one at a sitting.) Definitely not "arable land", if
your were to believe the naysayers.

As far as those starving in the world, you will find
it is far more a product of stifling the human spirit
(Socialism) than any other reason. Were free markets are
allowed, supply and demand shift resources around automatically.

By the way, "Starvation" is one of the methods "the most"
brutal empire in the history of the world used to
subjugate the populace (the Soviet Union). Mainly so they
could not fight back. So, your war argument doesn't hold.
Starving people don't go to war -- they can't.

So, how will the problem be solved? Easy. The human
spirit: the free and open exchange of goods and services
between consenting parties.

-T