On 12/06/2014 6:33 AM, 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.

No it can't. Country where wheat and sheep are produced cannot grow
vegetables. Our land, where we currently produce beef cattle, could not
grow vegetables. We also cannot grow grapes successfully either.

It's all abbut the class of land (which relates to the quality of the
land) and rainfall/water. The former is not high quality enough for the
production of vegetables and the latter is just plain old deficient.


The techniques Songbird and I talk about can incorporated
in various degrees.

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.

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

That paragraph makes no sense.