On 11/06/2014 4:54 AM, Higgs Boson wrote:
On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 5:31:32 AM UTC-7, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 10/06/2014 1:12 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:



It is simply impossible to get enough calories without grains, tubers

and bananas, all high carb foods. Despite all its drawbacks we simply

cannot give up farming and become hunter-gatherers,



Hunter-gatherers would have gorged on any form of food that was abundant

if they could get their hands on it regardless of whether it was a carb

or a protein so I find it odd that anyone would try to turn back the

food clock.



we cannot turn the

clock back 10,000 years and specifically we cannot give up farming

grain. How do you think the green revolution saved hundreds of millions

from starvation?



Please don't rabbit on about T2 diabetes, a disease of the people of

rich countries who over eat and under excercise, focus on this one

question.



How do you feed the world for the next 50 years without heavy reliance

on farming and consuming high carb crops?



In case you missed it I repeat: please don't rabbit on about T2

diabetes, a disease of the people of rich countries who over eat and

under excercise, focus on this one question.



Yes. I find it amazing how little exercise seems to be done these days

in comparison to how much intake of chow there is in our modern

societies. The paleo walking regime would be a good thing to resurrect.

Or even a Victorian walking regime.



There is an innitiative of the Qld health dept that has gone round the

country as a Healthy Heart program. It's called something like

"10,000steps" and the goal is to walk 10,000 steps each day. I put on a

pedometer and did over 10,000 steps on a normal day of doing housework,

gardening and animal care. I did 2 lots of baking in addition to the

meals, did a bit of gardening, did 2 loads of washing and hung them out

on the line and then brought the clothes in when they were dry and put

them away. I did a bit of vacuuming and visited the chooks twice to let

them out, feed and water them, collect the eggs and then lock them up

for the night. Just an average day for me but I wonder what a lazy

sloth step count would be.

We have that 10,000 steps thingie up here too.

I found that interesting that it was also in the US so did a google -
apparently the 10kstep thing started in Japan in the 60s. It's got
around since them :-))

I put in the same or more as you in house, garden, shoppin, etc. but it never occurred to me that these steps would count toward the 10K. I thought it had to be stride ahead..

No, apparently the reason why it was started was because the average
person only did between 3 and 5k per day and that's not enough. The
recommendation is for 30 minutes continuous a day where you can still
talk whilst walking plus try to get some vigorous (can't talk) each week.

Agree 1000% on need to walk more.

It IS true that the greater LA area IS dreadfully spread out, such that it would take a good part of the day to take bus(es) to distant part of county. With better public transport, the suffering could have been mitigated decades ago. But the government is owned by the oil & gas & automobile barons who have spent gazillions over time at the est Little Whorehouse in Washington (AKA U.S. Congress) to make sure their products continue to be consumed, faut de mieux.

Now the traffic is so bad -- supposed to be worst in country ??? that people just give up driving during rush hour which used to begin about 4:30-5:00. Then 3:30-4:00 - then ... so now it is perpetual rush hour. I've read that people spent a WEEK of their lives stuck in traffic!!!

Personally, as a card-carrying science freak, I used to enjoy events at JPL and Caltech. Not any more..check out the 405 Freeway at rush hour! Apocalyptic.

Back to walking: So, it's a great concept, but realistically...

I have no trouble fitting in walking. I lve on a farm but I also live
near a small village and have joined a wlakign gorup there. But another
example is that yesterday I had a Specialist Doctor's appointment in the
Moderate Smoke. I parked in a multi storey car park at least 15 minutes
walk away from the Doctor's rooms and them walked vigorously to the
appointment. I was still at least 15 minutes early. I do the same thing
when I shop. Put the car in the far distant corner of the supermarket
and then wheel my trolley back there and if I need to go to anonther
shop I'll walk there from that car park and then walk back with my
goodies in a carry back I always carry with me (assuming of course that
it's only a few items and not something that I'd need a team of Sherpas
to carry back).

At least we have a lovely promenade overlooking the Pacific -- well used by people and dogs (on leash).


Don't you have any sidewalks in your suburb?

On 11/06/2014 12:02 PM, 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.

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.

Cuba is a good example of those sorts of techniques. I can't imagine
too many people in the first world being willing volunteers for the sort
of hard work that involves.

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

Fran Farmer 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.

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.

Cuba is a good example of those sorts of techniques. I can't imagine
too many people in the first world being willing volunteers for the sort
of hard work that involves.

yes, they actually improved their health after the
initial decline in calories, (basically they lost a
meal a day for a few years until the veggie patches
came into production).

the thing is, that if you get everyone to put in
a few hours here or there it isn't that bad. right
now we are two people who sort of garden a few
thousand square feet, it's not intensively done or
even with a lot of fiddling, and while we may not
have perfect results it still provides a great deal
of food.

like right now, i'm harvesting strawberries so that's
more than we'll ever be able to eat fresh. making
freezer jam today and after one more large round of
picking/processing i'll probably call people and let
them know they can come pick when they want, first
come first served. critters are eating plenty of
them too.


songbird

In article
songbird writes:

the thing is, that if you get everyone to put in
a few hours here or there it isn't that bad. right
now we are two people who sort of garden a few
thousand square feet, it's not intensively done or
even with a lot of fiddling, and while we may not
have perfect results it still provides a great deal
of food.

Accepting wikipedia's numbers for the sake of debate, New York City
(proper) has an area of 304.8 square miles and a population of
8,405,837. According to my calculator, that works out to about
1010 square feet per person. Take out the space used by roads,
walkways, parks and non-flattop buildings. How well do you think
they will eat if they put in a few hours each, but you take away
the farm influx?

And at ~27k/sqmi, NYC doesn't even come close to getting on wikipedia's
list of top sities by population density. Looks like Manila works
out to about 250 sqft/person.

What you say can be done, but it cannot be done for the current
global population.


--
Drew Lawson | What you own is your own kingdom
| What you do is your own glory
| What you love is your own power
| What you live is your own story

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:45:24 PM UTC-7, Fran Farmer wrote:
On 11/06/2014 4:54 AM, Higgs Boson wrote:

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 5:31:32 AM UTC-7, Fran Farmer wrote:

On 10/06/2014 1:12 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:







It is simply impossible to get enough calories without grains, tubers



and bananas, all high carb foods. Despite all its drawbacks we simply



cannot give up farming and become hunter-gatherers,







Hunter-gatherers would have gorged on any form of food that was abundant



if they could get their hands on it regardless of whether it was a carb



or a protein so I find it odd that anyone would try to turn back the



food clock.







we cannot turn the



clock back 10,000 years and specifically we cannot give up farming



grain. How do you think the green revolution saved hundreds of millions



from starvation?







Please don't rabbit on about T2 diabetes, a disease of the people of



rich countries who over eat and under excercise, focus on this one



question.







How do you feed the world for the next 50 years without heavy reliance



on farming and consuming high carb crops?







In case you missed it I repeat: please don't rabbit on about T2



diabetes, a disease of the people of rich countries who over eat and



under excercise, focus on this one question.







Yes. I find it amazing how little exercise seems to be done these days



in comparison to how much intake of chow there is in our modern



societies. The paleo walking regime would be a good thing to resurrect.

Drew Lawson wrote:
....
Accepting wikipedia's numbers for the sake of debate, New York City
(proper) has an area of 304.8 square miles and a population of
8,405,837. According to my calculator, that works out to about
1010 square feet per person. Take out the space used by roads,
walkways, parks and non-flattop buildings. How well do you think
they will eat if they put in a few hours each, but you take away
the farm influx?

why is it valid to say there will be no
farm inflow from the surrounding area?

if it doesn't happen that we can transport
food into large cities then for sure people
will be moving out. there are vast areas of
the surrounds that could be used again for
mixed agriculture. they are fallow in large
part now because most people are happy with
processed packaged chemfoods (derived from
corn, soy, wheat and rice).


And at ~27k/sqmi, NYC doesn't even come close to getting on wikipedia's
list of top sities by population density. Looks like Manila works
out to about 250 sqft/person.

What you say can be done, but it cannot be done for the current
global population.

assuming people stay in place. as you probably
know, when shit hits the fan, people start to
migrate. when the sea levels increase we'll
already have huge movements of people and will be
forced to rebuild large chunks of infrastructure,
wouldn't it be great if we actually built them
with sustainability, efficiency and better land
use policies for people who will walk, garden
and have green spaces?


songbird

On 06/10/2014 10:31 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:

As is obesity and falling rates of physical activity according to the WHO.

"Obesity" is from the excess consumption of
carbs. To get fat required high blood sugar
and insulin (the fat hormone).

You can't get fat off of fat (keytones). Fat is use
or lose.

I had to learn all this stuff after getting
diagnosed.

On 06/10/2014 10:31 PM, Fran Farmer wrote:
And I still eat too much.

Then perhaps you could try to learn self control.

I eat when I am hungry. Eat more at some meals,
less at other, occasionally fast when I can't
eat (on a customer's site, etc.). Somewhat
similar to hunter-gathers.

When my wife or I cook something nice, I do
tend to eat a bit more. Bear in mind that
I can now taste my food much better.

It all works out. It is a closed loop system.

In the third world, were Diabetes is becoming
a huge problem, they eat a hell of a lot less
that I do and move a hell of a lot more. The
problem is that they eat the same thing that
injured me: healthy carbs.

On 06/11/2014 02:32 PM, songbird wrote:
why is it valid to say there will be no
farm inflow from the surrounding area?

Hi Songbird,

The surrounding area is full of farms!

Some NYC folks even grow their own stuff on their roofs!
Great hobby and yummy.

Watched a documentary where they are trying to
fish farm in their basements to cut the transportation
time (bad fish stick!) on fish to market. Don't
know how well that will turn out.

-T

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

Todd wrote:
On 06/10/2014 03:36 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Todd wrote:
On 06/10/2014 06:20 AM, David Hare-Scott wrote:


Sorry folks I couldn't resist the temptation. I know it's
puerile, like tapping on the cage in the reptile house. Todd didn't
disappoint, struck out like an Eastern Brown in an ants nest. I'll
try not to do it again. He might hurt his nose on the glass.

David


No, you just lost the argument and decided to insult me.

There was no argument.

The one about Diabetes being a rich world problem


How do you feed the world for the next 50 years without heavy
reliance on farming and consuming high carb crops?

D

Heavy reliance on farming and low carb crops.

-T

But the low carb crops don't produce nearly enough calories per acre, so we
would need many more acres that we don't have, see my reply elsewhere.

D

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

Todd wrote:
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.


What fat, where from, how much, what density of calories per acre can it
yield? Did you even look at the FAO site?

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).


You haven't even got to the feasibility study level how can you be talking
about iterations.

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.


Irrelevant, nothing like the density of food required and needs extensive
irrigation which is getting more scarce by the day.


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.


Idealogical clap-trap doesn't feed people. If you have been driven off your
land and your sons forced into the army you don't give a shit about whether
the warlord is a socialist, a martian. You don't care if they are
philosophers or just of another tribe that thinks your tribe is scum to be
cleared so they can take over.

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.


I didn't say starving people go to war. You have this grossly over
simplified (like the rest). Famine and war go together, each is a common
cause of the other.

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


The last translates as "I haven't a clue how to do it in practice but I have
much pious hope"

I think we leave it there (as predicted) there is no progress.

D

On 06/11/2014 07:13 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Todd wrote:
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.


What fat, where from, how much, what density of calories per acre can it
yield? Did you even look at the FAO site?

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).


You haven't even got to the feasibility study level how can you be
talking about iterations.

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.


Irrelevant, nothing like the density of food required and needs
extensive irrigation which is getting more scarce by the day.


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.


Idealogical clap-trap doesn't feed people. If you have been driven off
your land and your sons forced into the army you don't give a shit about
whether the warlord is a socialist, a martian. You don't care if they
are philosophers or just of another tribe that thinks your tribe is scum
to be cleared so they can take over.

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.


I didn't say starving people go to war. You have this grossly over
simplified (like the rest). Famine and war go together, each is a
common cause of the other.

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


The last translates as "I haven't a clue how to do it in practice but I
have much pious hope"

I think we leave it there (as predicted) there is no progress.

D

D,

You are just frustrated because I am not agreeing with
your argument.

I think the human spirit will surprise you. Remember when
the patent office was closed as there was nothing new to
discover? Humanity is not a static equation. We are dynamic.
Don't be so negative. There is a lot of exciting things
going on in the farming community right now -- a mixture
of good old fashioned knowledge handed down and science

A lot of farmers are switching to organic because they
can actually make a profit. Free and open competition
is how it is done.

When people stop buying grains, farmers will stop
producing them. They don't make squat off them
anyway. Farming/ranching is hard work and they deserve
to make a living.

As I have said before, for alternatives, just
go to your local produce section and look around.
When I am in the meat and produce sections, the
only word I can describe it as is "joy!" (One of
the produce ladies just smiles and shakes her head
when she sees me pick up an eggplant. The eyes
give me away.)

-T