# Outlook for high-yield agriculture is not good. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 27, 2015, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853 "2015-10-27T06:21:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/61 "2015-10-30T02:04:56Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > I’m just saying if you want to beat up on the poor, … I want to beat up the poor? I don’t care about the poor. I don’t care about the rich, either. I’ve been poor. It would never have occurred to me to have children until I could look after them myself. I’m currently looking for work now. If for some mad reason my wife and I decided to have kids, we wouldn’t do it until I had a job again and could afford it. The same concept applies to if we wanted a new car. I don’t understand how having a ‘right’ to do something applies. I don’t have to exercise that right at this particular moment. Sometimes people need to be forced to do things for their own benefit and the benefit of others. eg. seatbelts, helmets, or in this case, birth control. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/62 "2015-10-30T02:18:15Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > You didn’t answer the question I asked you. It’s a ridiculous question. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > So to summarize, in order to “protect the environment” you’d like to deprive other people of their basic human rights, but you won’t voluntarily make a small sacrifice of your own towards the same goal. That’s a massive instance of hypocrisy on your part. I already have made that ‘sacrifice’. I don’t have kids. I haven’t exercised that right. In the meantime, I walk the extra couple of feet to put the recyclables into the correct container, don’t own a car, and normally walk to wherever I’m going if I have the time. But then I don’t really consider any of that a sacrifice. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/63 "2015-10-30T02:32:19Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > I’ve said the number of people are the problem. I’ve laid out some conditions on which to limit people from breeding willy nilly that include people who don’t have the minimal means to support their kids. It does not exclude rich people unfit to care for children. I’m truly baffled why people would object to preventing selfish people from breeding who have no way to raise their kids effectively? If you’re worried about the environment, you should stop people who _can_ afford to take care of their kids from having them. You think street children are the ones polluting the environment? I think it’s the middle class children whose moms drive them to their soccer games in Chevy Suburbans. Stop the middle class from having children, that’s the way to save the environment. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/64 "2015-10-30T04:50:40Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > But, again, the earth doesn’t really care if you are receiving welfare payments or not. Pollution is caused by consuming resources, which is overwhelmingly the realm of the rich. Well I dont know. If your some poor tribe you go into an area and first, use up all the available wood. Then you hunt all the animals. Then you use the outdoors for a toilet so pretty soon you have an unusable camping spot and you must then move to another. There have been tribes who crap in one part of a river and take their drinking water up from right next to it so I cant see how that is any good. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/65 "2015-10-30T05:21:54Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > It’s a ridiculous question. “Do you understand why rights exist at all?” Not a ridiculous question. A very straightforward and logical question, which is why you’re refusing to answer it. You say that you don’t understand why people have the right to have children: I’m truly baffled why people would object to preventing selfish people from breeding Everyone else understands perfectly why people have the right to have children. So there’s disagreement between you and everyone else. To that end, we debate. The purpose of a debate forum is for clashing sides to defend their views and question the other side. So in this debate where everyone else argues for reproductive rights and you argue against, an obvious question is the basis of rights. Why do human rights exist? Once we know the purpose of human rights, we can then proceed logically to the question of exactly which human rights exist. However, you refuse to answer the question of why rights exist at all, presumably because you know that once that question is answered, the wrongness of your stance against reproductive freedom will proceed in short order. I therefore ask you again, do you understand why rights exist at all? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/66 "2015-10-30T07:18:24Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Or you can just grow more food. > > After all, food is just carbon, hydrogen and sunlight, and we’ve got more than enough of those. We just have to get better at utilizing them. Nitpick: Carbon, \*water, \*and sunlight. Hence terms like “carbohydrate.” But essentially, yes. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/67 "2015-10-30T07:24:07Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The root cause of pollution is the burning of coal, not people. > > Getting rid of people will not stop pollution. Just consider the three individuals in modern history who got rid of the most people: Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung. Did any of them stop pollution? I’m pretty sure the answer is no. That proves that getting rid of people does not stop pollution. There are pollution issues that derive from human sewage and human agriculture, to which the burning of coal is incidental. > [@](#): > > So since China prevents people from freely having children, according to your “logical” argument, China must have stopped all pollution. In reality, pollution in China is [the worst in the world](http://www.activesustainability.com/top-5-most-polluting-countries) and rapidly increasing. This proves again that getting rid of people does not stop pollution. China had a one-child policy because its urban centers were already overtaxed. Don’t confuse levels with rates of change in levels. > [@kanicbird](#): > > Well if you don’t have a solution, and I don’t, and no one does, we are going to need someone to come up with one, so we need to have more children so we have better odds at getting a solution. Children are the solution, we are the problem. There’s a lot wrong with this comment. But in short, the “solution” some of those children are likely going to come up with is open slaughter of their neighbors. It’s happened before. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/68 "2015-10-30T07:25:53Z")
Oh, and **ITR Champion** , I’m amused by your attempt to argue from the authority of “high-minded” political documents–particularly the Declaration of Independence. **Uzi** isn’t a Yank, he’s a Canuck or something. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/69 "2015-10-30T07:36:47Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Nitpick: Carbon, \*water, \*and sunlight. Hence terms like “carbohydrate.” But essentially, yes. That said, my pessimism is based on present projections: First, a collapse in available fresh water in my own country as fossil water stores are used up in North America. At least the Israelis are doing surprisingly well with water recycling. There is hope on this front, but it will require a sea change (excuse the expression) in our economy. Second, a possible total global fisheries collapse. Third, the threat of coral collapse, aside from overfishing, for reasons related to CO[sub]2[/sub] pollution. Fourth, various climate effects due to global warming, which add to water insecurity. Fifth, whattaya mean there’s more phosphate rock? I was told twenty years of reserves. Is there actually more, and is it actually cheap? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/70 "2015-10-30T12:38:10Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > There are pollution issues that derive from human sewage and human agriculture, to which the burning of coal is incidental.China had a one-child policy because its urban centers were already overtaxed. Don’t confuse levels with rates of change in levels. > There’s a lot wrong with this comment. But in short, the “solution” some of those children are likely going to come up with is open slaughter of their neighbors. It’s happened before. Never in recent history has warfare had a substantial effect on world population. Even during the Second World War, people were being born faster than the combatants were killing people. [QUOTE=foolsguinea] Fifth, whattaya mean there’s more phosphate rock? I was told twenty years of reserves. Is there actually more, and is it actually cheap? [/QUOTE] “You were told”? By who? Thomas Malthus? I decided to do a little googling on the subject. The most official estimate I could find was 370 years of known reserves. That’s a bit more than twenty. Other estimates include two hundred years, one hundred years, and “like, an incredibly long time.” “Reserves” means “available at more or less current market prices.” ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/71 "2015-10-30T12:39:09Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > There are pollution issues that derive from human sewage and human agriculture, to which the burning of coal is incidental.China had a one-child policy because its urban centers were already overtaxed. Don’t confuse levels with rates of change in levels. > There’s a lot wrong with this comment. But in short, the “solution” some of those children are likely going to come up with is open slaughter of their neighbors. It’s happened before. Never in recent history has warfare had a substantial effect on world population. Even during the Second World War, people were being born faster than the combatants were killing people. [QUOTE=foolsguinea] Fifth, whattaya mean there’s more phosphate rock? I was told twenty years of reserves. Is there actually more, and is it actually cheap? [/QUOTE] “You were told”? By who? Thomas Malthus? I decided to do a little googling on the subject. The most official estimate I could find was 370 years of known reserves. That’s a bit more than twenty. Other estimates include two hundred years, one hundred years, and “like, an incredibly long time.” “Reserves” means “that we know are now available at more or less current market prices.” ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/72 "2015-10-30T13:02:10Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Fifth, whattaya mean there’s more phosphate rock? I was told twenty years of reserves. 20 years? That’s ok then, it will coincide exactly with the advent of cold fusion and strong AI, which are also 20 years away. More seriously though: Am I correct that phosphate is important because it contains phosphorus which itself contains the phosphate ion PO4−3?\* Aside from mining, what are the alternatives means of getting phosphorus? I do not mean just the currently affordable means since chemical engineering can be expected to improve. What are the alternatives to phosphate when it comes to its role in agriculture, if any? - The “4” should be small and low and the “3” small and high. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/73 "2015-10-30T14:36:01Z")
[QUOTE=foolsguinea] First, a collapse in available fresh water in my own country as fossil water stores are used up in North America. At least the Israelis are doing surprisingly well with water recycling. There is hope on this front, but it will require a sea change (excuse the expression) in our economy. [/QUOTE] Yet we are still talking about hundreds of years of proven reserves. The reason why Americans don’t recycle more is we haven’t really had to. We have vast fresh water reserves. Now, if you were from China and THAT was your ‘own country’…well, you’d have something tangible to worry about. They are in serious trouble wrt fresh water reserves. Yet, even there, they aren’t looking at a ‘collapse’ any time soon. > [@](#): > > Second, a possible total global fisheries collapse. No idea how close this one is to reality. Do you have a cite that it’s imminent? I’d really like to know. > [@](#): > > Third, the threat of coral collapse, aside from overfishing, for reasons related to CO2 pollution. Yeah, that seems a definite concern, at least I know that the current El Nino is having a very detrimental effect on coral and that it’s been dying in large areas for years now. > [@](#): > > Fourth, various climate effects due to global warming, which add to water insecurity. Sure. And some cities in the US (and maybe even regions or states) might be unsustainable in the long run as climate change takes hold. States like California and Arizona which are freaking deserts might not be able to sustain the current levels (or any levels) of agriculture as water supplies are stressed, at least not without spending hundreds of billions or even trillions on canal or pipe systems to move water from further and further away (or desalinization plants all along the coast of California). > [@](#): > > Fifth, whattaya mean there’s more phosphate rock? I was told twenty years of reserves. Is there actually more, and is it actually cheap? I provided a link AND a quote on this one above. Short answer though is you are off by over an order of magnitude (and this is just PROVEN reserves…no one is really looking for new ones that much because it’s not an imminent issue). Of all of your reasons for why high-yield agriculture might have a ‘not good’ outlook, Global Warming seems the most relevant. I don’t think it will be though…I think that it will become more important in fact. What will change is that the bread basket regions will shift, and places today that are high-yield agricultural areas might die off and shift to other regions…but the use of high-yield agriculture is going to stay the same because if it doesn’t, literally billions of humans will die, and I doubt that’s going to be acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/74 "2015-10-30T17:33:22Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Of course, the only thing that lowers birth rates is wealth. So assuming that we continue to make progress on making ourselves a wealthy planet, we can assume the birth rate will continue to drop. Actually, I think it’s education and emancipation of women that really lowers birth rates. That’s often correlated with wealth, but there are some Gulf petro-states where the two diverge, and they continue to experience high birth rates. Well, high relative to other countries with similar incomes. Low compared to the Ugandas of the world. > [@even\_sven](#): > > I’m just saying if you want to beat up on the poor, there are better ways to do it. “Only rich people should reproduce because I’m worried about the planet” doesn’t make any sense. Maybe you are worried about the planet and also want to take away the human rights of the poor, and that’s fine. But they don’t tie together. I don’t endorse Uzi’s argument by any stretch, but I think what he may be getting at is this: countries that are poor today are likely to develop. It would be way better for the environment if Africa develops with one billion people (today’s population) than three billion people (2100’s estimated population.) And that’s where almost all the growth is: the developed world has already ceased growing its population. > [@MichaelEmouse](#): > > More seriously though: > Am I correct that phosphate is important because it contains phosphorus which itself contains the phosphate ion PO4−3?\* > > […] > > - The “4” should be small and low and the “3” small and high. You [sub]can[/sub][sup]do that[/sup]! ---
**Author:** ![Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/do_not_taunt/32/2968_2.png) [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Do_Not_Taunt)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/75 "2015-10-30T17:35:10Z")
By the way, did Blake completely abandon this thread? I too would like to know what his 40,000 years drive-by referred to… ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/76 "2015-10-31T01:09:11Z")
> [@Do\_Not\_Taunt](#): > > I don’t endorse Uzi’s argument by any stretch, but I think what he may be getting at is this: countries that are poor today are likely to develop. It would be way better for the environment if Africa develops with one billion people (today’s population) than three billion people (2100’s estimated population.) And that’s where almost all the growth is: the developed world has already ceased growing its population. Bingo. Rather than some group pushing bibles a better option would be to push condoms and education. Slow the birth rate until new technologies can keep up with population growth. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/77 "2015-10-31T01:12:57Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Bingo. Rather than some group pushing bibles a better option would be to push condoms and education. Slow the birth rate until new technologies can keep up with population growth. But only for the people consuming the least? ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/78 "2015-10-31T01:22:10Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I therefore ask you again, do you understand why rights exist at all? Do you understand that most of them have conditions upon which they can be exercised? ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/79 "2015-10-31T01:51:28Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > But only for the people consuming the least? It doesn’t matter what group they fall into. It just happens that those with the highest growth rate are, in many cases, the poorest. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853/80 "2015-10-31T02:38:38Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Do you understand that most of them have conditions upon which they can be exercised? Still no answer to my question. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/outlook-for-high-yield-agriculture-is-not-good/735853.md?page=5)