Moving Venus or Mars

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

Cecil states, "We’ve already got one planet pretty much hosed. "

Is Cecil a tree-hugger, or what? This planet is nowhere close to being hosed. The Q & A on this topic is indicitive of the culturally accepted “the Earth is overpopulated” myth.

Fact: All of the people on planet Earth could stand shoulder to shoulder, chest to back, and all easily fit into the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida. There would be room to spare. Of course we could not live like this, but that begs the point. There is ample room on this vast planet. Just driving across the Upper Peninsula of Michigan on US 2 could make one lonely in hurry.

The state of Iowa alone could feed the entire world and then some. Humanity has nowhere near overpopulated the Earth. The people who believe this lie either have never gotten out of the city or or victims of lemminish influence.

2

Your worldview is overly simplistic and based, apparently, on nothing scientific. Read this for some insight into the complexity of the problem:

I’m not saying his conclusions are necessarily correct, but at least he doesn’t make your mistake of ignoring the rest of the environment and the interdependence we have on other ecosystems.

3

Then, uh, why doesn’t it? More importantly, why do famines exist if food production is so easy? One would think Iowa, Nebraska, California and oh, I don’t know, maybe Australia all together could have everyone of us up to our eyebrows in food.

4

Cecil’s cite claims to “fight ignorance,” and yet you ask the question why Iowa doesn’t feed the world? Do you claim to refute this fact? Don’t you know that our own government pays farmers not to grow food, so as to keep prices stable? Otherwise, the price of certain crops would drop because of such a high supply and farmers would not be able to survive.

The farmers of Iowa and elsewhere do not, nor cannot, take it upon themselves to feed the world simply because there is noone to pay them to do so. Our government can’t do either–the only way they could afford to do so is by way of heavy taxation.

There is certainly no shortage of food in this world, nor any shortage of space. Usually faulty government systems and ineffecient, socialistic/communistic economies are to blame for the inability to feed certain cultures.

Do not fault America for being able to feed its own. It is too simplistic to simply say that our country is greedy and should feed other countries who refuse to have a free enterprise system. Who is going to pay for it?

5

Do you have a cite for your claim that Iowa can feed the entire world? I’ve never heard this before.

6

Unfortunately, I do not have a cite for the claim I made. It was presented to me matter-of-factly from a professor during college, and I do not have an appropriate reference. I will say that the “fact” is based upon Iowa’s potential only, nor does the claim suggest that Iowa could sustain such a high rate of production indefinitely.

That being said, the following cite might prove useful is seeing that Iowa presently produces enough food to provide for the basic needs of our own country: www.agriculture.state.ia.us/. Simply convert yields of meat and bushels of various grains, add the milk and eggs, and divide by our population. Of course, our population is much less than the world’s, but keep in mind that I referred to the state’s potential. There are huge tracts of land not farmed at all, most of which are part of government, subsidized programs to keep natural habitat for wildlife (CRP land), which helps to keep food prices high enough so farmers can be remain solvent. Moreover, the government buys huge quantities of surplus and either destroys it or gives it away.

All of this really begs the original question/concern. Food shortages are largely the result of inefficicient methods and failed governmental systems. The idea that the world is overpopulated is based on a selfish and godless notion. I have yet to find one person who believed the world is overpopulated and was willing to check out and make room for someone else.

7

Godless? WTF does “god” have to do with anything? If you’re suggesting that the world cannot possibly be overpopulated because some putative god created it for us and since he’s supposedly perfect, the world simply must be able to support all of us, well, you’re full of shit.

8

You well know that “you’re full of shit” is an unacceptable insult in this forum. You have been warned for insults many times before. Be advised that your posting privileges are under discussion.

bibliophage
moderator CCC

9

Which part of the web site are your referring to? There’s a link that has some summary figures, but surely you aren’t suggesting that one pound of beef per year per person is enough? (6.6 billion pounds/year was their production claim)

I agree with you that starvation is primarily a problem of distribution rather than of production, but you don’t seem to be able to take your argument any further than reliance on what you remember a professor saying. Perhaps he was wrong. Perhaps things have changed since you were in college.

Also, I think it’s worth pointing that the willingness to “check out” isn’t necessarily related to a belief that the world is overpopulated. You can be on the Titanic, believe that it is sinking and still fight to the death for your seat on the lifeboat.

Finally, I think Cecil was making what some people refer to as a joke.

(OK, I’m done feeding the trolls now).

10

Sam Kinison

Joking aside, I don’t see that kknott’s link backs up the claim.
According to this, Iowa only produces about 6% of the US food supply. We do export some food, but our food surplus in not enough to suggest that Iowa could satisfy the US by itself, much less the entire world.

11

How do you make the connection that Cecil only meant overpopulation, and not the dozen other ways in which humans have hosed the planet: deforestation, large-scale extinction of countless species, climate catastrophe…

Yes, the planet has had extinctions before, there have been radical climate changes before (including ice ages) - but nothing on that scale has ever been caused by one species. And no species before has called itself sapiens sapiens (wise times squared) and then proceeded to poison their food supply, shit in their drinking water and turn the heat up to 110 inside the house (to use a comparision here).

As for the overpopulation: the question isn’t standing room or food. Yes, with current methods we could fee 12 milliard people, not the 6 + we currently have (and with organic methods, even if they have only an effectiveness of 50%, which they have compared to the optimized farming methods in the west, but not compared to the badly-managed farming practices in the 3world countries, where organic is up to 90% more effective!, we could still feed the world if we solve the political and distribution problems).
But overpopulation is about far more than food. It’s about all our resources - water, energy, living space -, and the time needed to replenish them. It’s about living in a natural enviroment, and not in concrete silos because everything’s filled up.
Moreover, it’s the rate at which we are increasing together with the current number that’s the problem. I remember when India had 700 million people and China 1 millard; now India has reached 1 milliard and China (despite drastic programmes) 1.3 milliard. If this goes on, we’ll soon have doubled the population but maxed out the food supply.

Yes, we have hosed = ruined this planet pretty good. And if people still don’t accept this basic fact, then the real first step, changing our destructive habits to clean it up, are harder and farther still.

12

Well, no, we really haven’t. There is absolutely no human activity which can make it totally inhabitable–even if we lit off our entire nuclear arsenal at once. If humans disappeared tomorrow, the biosphere would recover completely in a few thousand to a few tens of thousands of years. Now, we can make it not so pleasant for ourselves and our population may crash at some point, but the planet itself will be just fine.

13

I assume Cecil was referring to making the “planet uninhabitable for us”, not “ruining it completly”, since he surely knows that even asteroids/meteors hitting Earth in the past, ice ages and dumping a toxic gas (oxygen) at the beginning of biological development didn’t destroy the planet.
But the question was about moving planets for purposes of human habitation, so his point was that we should learn to not destroy this one before destroying other ones, I presume.

14

Take the eggs, the yield of meat, the milk, and the total bushels of grain, and then divide by 300,000,000. You will easily see that Iowa currently produces enough to feed all of America. This stat is based upon the requirements to readily live, not the requirements to feast unlimitledly to one’s delight. Iowa has the potential to feed even more. Imagine how much food the total US can produce!

15

Mount St. Helens erupted more CFC’s in her last eruption than all of humanity has since the Industrial Revolution. This idea that we are greehousing our planet to death is just ridiculous.

16

CFCs= Chlorofluorcarbons? Those came from hairspray cans and fridges and were banned in the 80s because they depleted the ozone layer. I’ve never heard of any volcano producing them.

Volcanoes, to my laymen’s knowledge, erupt COx gases and lots of sulfur, which then causes the “nuclear winter” phenomenon (see the year without summer, after a volcano exploded.

Greenhouse effect is from carbon dioxide (and methane from too many cows, and water vapor because the ocean temp. is rising, and methan from deposits in frozen ground in Siberia and on the bottom of the sea/lakes which becomes unfrozen because the temp is rising).

So before you denounce either effect, please get straight what causes what.

And again, I repeat that “greenhousing the planet to death” can be interpreted either as:
we are making the planet uninhabitable for humans - which is supported by scientific evidence, and which I assume Cecil was referring to, esp. in the context,
we are destroying the planet itself, so that nothing can live there. This is not what I said or meant, because the planet has obviously withstood far worse.

To use the (bad) analogy of a house: If your house was nice and clean inside, but now it’s trashed and filled with dangerous waste while the heat is 110 F, you can’t really live in that house any longer without cleaning it up. That the house withstood a fire in the past isn’t really much help with this current problem for you, right?

As for your point itself: if you meant to say that Mt. Helens erupted more CO2 into the atmosphere than has been produced since the industrial revolution, that is, around 1850 - I sincerely doubt that claim, but I leave it to other dopers who have the facts about climate in English at their fingertips (we have several experts here, though they might be a bit tired of the old Anthropogenic Global Warming AGW debate again.)

17

Do you have a site for this one, or is this just another thing you heard somewhere?

18

Ok.

Iowa produces 6.6 billion lbs of red meat=22lbs per person.
Average American eats 63lbs of red meat a year.

Iowa produces 13.9 billion eggs=46 eggs/person.
Average American consumes 230-250 eggs per year.

Iowa produces 274 million lbs of turkey=.91 lbs per person.
Average American consumes 17.5 lbs turkey per year.

I don’t have a source for the number of bushels of grain the average American consumes a year.

Since I am sure you would not have made this claim without having done the math yourself, maybe you can let me know where your numbers are different than mine.

You can also help me to understand why if Iowa only produces 6% of the total US food production, and this is enough for the entire US, (or world) where is the other 94% of US food production going?

19

It takes a tremendous amount of land just for cattle to graze. Even if the plan could isolate the cattle to just pens, much like we raise a great deal of the poultry in commercial operations, it doesn’t seem like that would remotely be enough. It would still take huge amounts of land, to grow the food for the cattle to eat; let alone for all of the other crops that humans were needing as well.

This is also not as strong of a claim in the OP where you were stating Iowa could feed the entire world.

I know of some religious groups that downplay just how much destruction man has done to the planet, and overpopulation, global warming isn’t anything to worry about, and that only God can destroy the planet. I hope you don’t belong to such a group.

20

Let’s just look at this, shall we.

Currently, the yield for corn in Iowa is 165 bushels per acre. Iowa has a total land areaof 35.76 million acres. This gives the state the theoretical (yet completely impractical) ability to produce 5.9 billion bushels of corn per year (assumping 100% utilization of every available inch of surface area). It requires 8 bushelsof corn to provide sufficient calories for 1 person per year. So - 5.9 billion total bushels, divided by 8 bushels per person, gives us enough calories to feed 738 million people per year.

Given the extremely generous assumptions outlined above, the theoretical maximum for Iowa is roughly 11% of the world population. Not too shabby, but still far from “the entire world and then some.”