GardenBanter.co.uk - View Single Post - Save Climate and Double Food Production With Eco-Farming

Billy[_10_] · 11-03-2011, 06:17 AM posted to rec.gardens.edible,rec.gardens

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

In article , wrote:

Billy writes:

An urgent transformation to 'eco-farming' is the only way to end
hunger and face the challenges of climate change and rural poverty,
said Olivier De Schutter, U.N. Special Rapporteur

That statement is ridiculous.

No amount of additional production will "end" hunger.
Not with an ever increasing demand for food.

All of these political types are afraid to admit the truth.
There are limits.

You presume a fixed birth rate and a declining death rate, neither of
which is assured.

No, I'm taking the statement at it's face value.

Calls to produce more and more and saying it's "the only way" are
more than misleading. It's calling for disaster.

I know there are some trends to reduce population growth but
overall we're still growing at 1.1% world wide.

Very few countries have an official policy to limit growth.

Joel Cohen's recent book on human carrying capacity summarizes the
continuing lack of scientific consensus on the subject. Estimates of the
number still vary widely according to the specific assumptions used. In
fact, the estimates are more scattered than before - indicating a
quantitative field still very much in its infancy. One strand of
thought, represented by the author Julian Simon discards the notion of a
human carrying capacity altogether, claiming that the additional people
will provide sufficient creativity and innovation to break through any
possible natural barriers to human population growth. Most of the
serious estimates of K (the carrying capacity, often symbolized as " K")
for humans, however, lie in the range 10 -20 billion people.

Precisely the kind of magic thinking I'm talking about.

"We can break through any natural barrier". Great.
I understand if we get hungry enough we can eat each other too.

Mixed crops annuals can produce twice as much food as monocultures.

Perennial chestnut trees could replace wheat fields.

See Farms for a Future
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xShCEKL-mQ8
especially parts III, IV, and V.

Great, double production and we can double the number of people.
That makes sense. There's not enough traffic in town yet.
There are still some plots of land that haven't been developed.
What a waste.

Why have a bunch of people living in single family homes.
Do you know how many people can live in a square mile if
we build vertically.

Next time try to bring some facts.

I brought my opinion. Deal with it.
Opinion, logic if you will, is only as good as its premise. Everyone is
entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

The truth is that our present form of agriculture poisons the planet,
and is responsible for loss of topsoil. If we can get more food and a
healthier planet, I say go for it. Malthus may get us in the end, but
lacking a population control program such as they have in China, we can
hope that rising levels of "quality of life" will lead to lower birth
rates, such as exist in Europe, and apparently Australia.

I'm fine with increasing food production efficiency but someone
from the UN saying the only way we can deal with resource issues
is to produce more is just wrong.

We've built up quite a nice life style but the planet has finite
resources. A number of them are in short supply. Squeezing the
rock harder isn't going to work.

Some serious self control is called for.

We are already past the carrying capacity of the planet. I don't see
help coming. If we grow more food, we might buy enough time for people
to come to their senses. If not, it could get ugly.
--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/3/7/michael_moore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw