[QUOTE=MrDibble]
No, I’m regretting that even more people are going to get it in the neck when the unsustainable Green Revolution collapses. I’m not wishing that people would starve (talk about poisoning the debate well, there), I’m wishing they had never been born. There’s a difference.
[/QUOTE]
But at the point of the GR, they already had been born (if I’m understanding the history, please correct me if I’m wrong). So the collective choice was to feed them using GR methods, or not feed them, wasn’t it? What am I missing?
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
No, I’m regretting that even more people are going to get it in the neck when the unsustainable Green Revolution collapses.
[/quote]
That’s a much better way to put it and I can definitely see your point. While I disagree, I don’t find the reasoning nearly as disgusting as I originally saw. I withdraw my criticism and apologize. Poisoning the well, indeed.
I’m not much of an agriculture expert, but it seems to me that the Farmer Bob way of doing this is significantly less efficient than the factory farm method. I can’t hold the debate without some solid real world numbers, but I suspect the benefit of cheap food outweighs the net negatives.
[QUOTE=ForumBot]
You can’t say that you wish the population would stabilize without admitting that a few bad things will happen for the greater good to prevail.
[/QUOTE]
Read for content, please - I said I wished the population had stabilized rather than going the GR route. Not wishing for a mass die-off now (although I fear one is likely, anyway)
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
How else could you limit population, unless people die because they don’t have enough food?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know - if only there was some way we could stop having babies. But alas, every time we fuck, we pop one out like Liverpool Catholics.
Oh, wait, no, we don’t have to.
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
Saying you’re against modern food production practices means you are in favor of starvation.
[/QUOTE]
Bullshit. But nice false dilemma, though. Truly sustainable food production isn’t some Dark Ages technique - it’s as modern as whatever Monsanto’s pumping out this week.
Plus, like I said - the Green Revolution isn’t doing shit to feed the starving millions in Africa. So people are starving anyway - and the ones who aren’t? They’ll keep breeding and ignoring the impending collapse of their lifeline. The GR isn’t long-term sustainable. It depends far too much on petrochemicals at every stage of production. And it destroys the environment.
Argue those points rather than a “you want people to starve” ad hominem that doesn’t actually deal with the debate points I raised.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Read for content, please - I said I wished the population had stabilized rather than going the GR route. Not wishing for a mass die-off now (although I fear one is likely, anyway)
[/quote]
You mean you wish population growth had stabilized, correct?
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
But at the point of the GR, they already had been born (if I’m understanding the history, please correct me if I’m wrong). So the collective choice was to feed them using GR methods, or not feed them, wasn’t it? What am I missing?
[/QUOTE]
The GR dates more-or-less from the 40s, when world population was at around the 2 billion mark. So no, I think we’d have been able to feed those levels without a GR.
[QUOTE=ForumBot]
I’m not much of an agriculture expert, but it seems to me that the Farmer Bob way of doing this is significantly less efficient than the factory farm method.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
The GR dates more-or-less from the 40s, when world population was at around the 2 billion mark. So no, I think we’d have been able to feed those levels without a GR.
[/QUOTE]
Huh. That definitely runs counter to how it is framed by supporters.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Huh. That definitely runs counter to how it is framed by supporters.
[/QUOTE]
It started in the 40s, it matured in the 60s if I recall correctly. In some countries it had a dramatic affect and combined with modern medicine did lead to population explosions. Mexico, China & India are 3 easy examples of this.
[QUOTE=marshmallow]
I wouldn’t worry too much. When a population exceeds the environmental carrying capacity a phenomenon called overshoot will occur, bringing the population back to an equilibrium point. In the process, the environment tends to be degraded slightly, meaning the new capacity is less than the old.
[/QUOTE]
Which part of that was supposed to keep us from worrying?!
[QUOTE=marshmallow]
The current population is approximately 6.6 billion. No one is really sure what the sustainable carrying capacity of the Earth is – 1 billion? 2 billion? When the artificial foundation that allows such a surplus crumbles there will be an enormous correction. Some forecasts say the world population of 2050 will be 9 billion. Heaven help us.
[/QUOTE]
How do you know the carrying capacity isn’t 9 billion? 15 billion?
What foundation is “artificial”? We aren’t yet actually eating soylent green.
I realize I’m treading close to the false dilemma here, but I admit it’s tiresome to hear the same old, retreaded Paul Ehrlich arguments trotted out by rich Westerners whose children’s survival doesn’t hang in the balance of the wonderful things Norman Borlaug did. If the problem is a lack of fossil fuels, let’s get cracking of finding alternative energy sources, of which there are many; it doesn’t necessarily mean we can’t grow more food.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
How do you know the carrying capacity isn’t 9 billion? 15 billion?
What foundation is “artificial”? We aren’t yet actually eating soylent green.
I realize I’m treading close to the false dilemma here, but I admit it’s tiresome to hear the same old, retreaded Paul Ehrlich arguments trotted out by rich Westerners whose children’s survival doesn’t hang in the balance of the wonderful things Norman Borlaug did. If the problem is a lack of fossil fuels, let’s get cracking of finding alternative energy sources, of which there are many; it doesn’t necessarily mean we can’t grow more food.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, but why can’t we practice more and better birth control while we are looking for new solutions and why the fear of GM foods while we need alternatives to fertilizes and pesticides based on petroleum products?
What does birth control have to do with the discussion?
You want to push birth control, I’m with you. Of course, in my opinion just handing out birth control to the third world isn’t very helpful. What will really stabilize population is gender equality, where women have the right to control their own fertiliity.
This is about the green revolution, and why it was so awful.
So fill in the sentence.
It would be preferable if the global food supply was cut in half because:
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
What does birth control have to do with the discussion?
You want to push birth control, I’m with you. Of course, in my opinion just handing out birth control to the third world isn’t very helpful. What will really stabilize population is gender equality, where women have the right to control their own fertiliity.
This is about the green revolution, and why it was so awful.
So fill in the sentence.
It would be preferable if the global food supply was cut in half because:
[/QUOTE]
Wrong question, the question I saw was, would the world have been better off without the Green Revolution?
However, I prefer a third question, How much better would it have been if combined with birth control for a population of maybe 3 billion people?
Would it then have ended poverty along with feeding the poor?
[QUOTE=Lemur866]
What does birth control have to do with the discussion?
You want to push birth control, I’m with you. Of course, in my opinion just handing out birth control to the third world isn’t very helpful. What will really stabilize population is gender equality, where women have the right to control their own fertiliity.
This is about the green revolution, and why it was so awful.
So fill in the sentence.
It would be preferable if the global food supply was cut in half because:
[/QUOTE]
Where did Mr. Dibble, or anyone else this might have been directed towards, say it would be preferable if the global food supply was cut in half?
You can believe that the green revolution might have some very unpleasant ramifications for this planet without wishing starvation on those people already born.
[QUOTE=valleyofthedolls]
Where did Mr. Dibble, or anyone else this might have been directed towards, say it would be preferable if the global food supply was cut in half?
You can believe that the green revolution might have some very unpleasant ramifications for this planet without wishing starvation on those people already born.
[/QUOTE]
So those of you arguing that the GR was unnecessary–that other policies could have prevented mass starvation–what specifically would those policies have been (i.e. be more specific than “birth control”)?
Also, did the GR preclude those policies, or just make them less politically viable because of the short-term fix?
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
So those of you arguing that the GR was unnecessary–that other policies could have prevented mass starvation–what specifically would those policies have been (i.e. be more specific than “birth control”)?
Also, did the GR preclude those policies, or just make them less politically viable because of the short-term fix?
[/QUOTE]
Good questions, as I said, I would honestly have liked to see both together. It should not have been large population booms “fed” by GR. It should have been a better life for everyone as population settled into some much lower amount. Lets call it 3 to 4 billion. The closer to three the better. If this had been accomplished somehow, there should have been nearly no starvation anywhere in the world.
Of course a UN with a real mission to end suffering and some support from the big powers could have maybe saved Africa. Instead it is an accumulation of nearly every problem humans have ever had. Two many petty tyrants and rule of gangs. Too much theft of goods by a small handful. Instead the Cold War exasperated the problem, promoted Islamic fundamentalism and petty tyrants propped up by both sides.
The problem is bigger than GR, but GR is also part of the problem as it has not occurred with rational reforms.
[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Yes, but why can’t we practice more and better birth control while we are looking for new solutions and why the fear of GM foods while we need alternatives to fertilizes and pesticides based on petroleum products?
[/QUOTE]
Look around; we ARE practicing better birth control. Population growth rates shrink as wealth increases. If you want to slow population growth, you should be an advocate of more free trade and economic freedom. That’ll lead to prosperity and, consequently, lower birth rates. Most rich nations don’t even have replacement-level birth rates now.
It’s already been noted that they’re projection the world’s population to stabilize at 9 billion. Suppose that might be true; why not see if we can’t feed 9 billion people? There’s more than enough food to feed 6.5 billion.
As for the fear of GM foods, don’t look at me. I have no problem with GM foods.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Look around; we ARE practicing better birth control. Population growth rates shrink as wealth increases. If you want to slow population growth, you should be an advocate of more free trade and economic freedom. That’ll lead to prosperity and, consequently, lower birth rates. Most rich nations don’t even have replacement-level birth rates now.
It’s already been noted that they’re projection the world’s population to stabilize at 9 billion. Suppose that might be true; why not see if we can’t feed 9 billion people? There’s more than enough food to feed 6.5 billion.
As for the fear of GM foods, don’t look at me. I have no problem with GM foods.
[/QUOTE]
Is it really coming under control in India and Malaysia?
I am all for free trade and economic freedom. Can we even continue to feed 6 billion as the price of oil continues to climb? How quick can we move to alternatives? What is fueling the resistance to GM foods?
I conjecture, there is a connection between those countries whose dominant religions resist birth control and those countries that are resistant to GM foods.