Will Aquaculture Save Us from Worldwide Famine?

[Pengwuino]

What if the US is changed in something like the Sahara, and all the rest of the world contaminated with nuclear fallout ?

Probably would be an upgrade in weather conditions then it currently is right now. Damn australians would survive though. I think they are masterminding this whole thing. They want to nuke the world so they can have the world to themselves.

Lets just nuke Canada, nothing intelligent has ever come out of there

 

[vanesch]

What if the US is changed in something like the Sahara, and all the rest of the world contaminated with nuclear fallout ?

To answer my own question...

THE ANTS WILL TAKE OVER

 

[loseyourname]

Could you explain to me how, when it takes a minimum of three times the rescources to produce the same amount of animal calories as it does plant calories?

This is exactly one of the claims he was talking about that was debunked. It may take three times the amount of energy to create the same of amount of animal calories as plant calories, but when people only eat one-third of the plant, and animals eat the entire plant, that argument goes down the drain. There's also an issue of land quality. There is a lot of land out there that just isn't fit for the growing of food-quality grain, but it's perfectly fine for animal grazing or even for growing lower quality grains that is unfit for human consumption, but can be eaten by livestock.

The simple fact is, there are so many variable that go into determining the amount of resources used to produce a certain amount of food of any kind, along with issues regarding whether the land even could have been used for anything else, that no one really knows the exact ratio of meat/plants that represents ideal land usage. It certainly is not as simple as many vegetarians would have us believe.

 

[Skyhunter]

This is exactly one of the claims he was talking about that was debunked. It may take three times the amount of energy to create the same of amount of animal calories as plant calories, but when people only eat one-third of the plant, and animals eat the entire plant, that argument goes down the drain. There's also an issue of land quality. There is a lot of land out there that just isn't fit for the growing of food-quality grain, but it's perfectly fine for animal grazing or even for growing lower quality grains that is unfit for human consumption, but can be eaten by livestock.

The simple fact is, there are so many variable that go into determining the amount of resources used to produce a certain amount of food of any kind, along with issues regarding whether the land even could have been used for anything else, that no one really knows the exact ratio of meat/plants that represents ideal land usage. It certainly is not as simple as many vegetarians would have us believe.

Well it has not been debunked just because you say so. That is not how debunking works.

http://web.idrc.ca/en/ev-30610-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

Land use

At Toronto’s 1992 Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, Agriculture Canada displayed two contrasting statistics: “it takes four football fields of land (about 1.6 hectares) to feed each Canadian” and “one apple tree produces enough fruit to make 320 pies.” Think about it — a couple of apple trees and a few rows of wheat on a mere fraction of a hectare could produce enough food for one person!

Many countries in the world use as little as 0.2 ha (half an acre) of farm land per person (see Table 1). This is equivalent to having 5.5 m2 of land available to produce each day’s food. In 1994, the average yield worldwide for cereal crops was 2 814 kg/ha, equivalent to 1.5 kg (14 cups of cooked grain) per day from 0.2 ha. For root crops, the average global yield in 1994 would have provided 6.8 kg of food per day from 0.2 ha (FAO 1997). As grains and roots are easily stored, it seems reasonable to conclude that even in cold climates, people should be able to live on food grown on 0.2 ha or less.

With exports taken into account, North America still uses seven times more land on a per capita basis than many countries in Asia. This is because large areas of land are used for grazing and significant amounts of domestic grain supplies are fed to farm animals (Figure 1; see also Table 1).

Farm animals are extremely inefficient converters of plants to edible flesh. To produce 31.2 million t of carcass meat in 1993, US farm animals were fed 192.7 million t of feed concentrates, mostly corn. Additional feed took the form of roughage and pasture (FAO 1997; USDA 1997). Broiler chickens are the most efficient, requiring only 3.4 kg of feed (expressed in equivalent feeding value of corn) to produce 1 kg of ready-to-cook chicken. Pigs are the least efficient. For pig meat, the feed–produce ratio is 8.4 : 1; for eggs, by weight, 3.8 : 1; and for cheese, 7.9 : 1 (USDA 1997).

In animals much of the food is converted into manure, energy for movement, and the growth of body parts not eaten by people. Very little can appear as direct edible weight gain. For example, cattle excrete 40 kg of manure for every kilogram of edible beef (Environment Canada 1995).

The meat industry makes an effort to use some of the by-products, but because of the huge numbers of animals slaughtered, this can be a challenge. Only about one-sixth of the manure from hog-raising operations in the United States is used (USDA 1986, cited in Durning and Brough 1991). Excess animal waste often ends up in rivers and in groundwater, where it contributes to nitrogen, phosphorus, and nitrate pollution (Durning and Brough 1991).
Livestock grazing

Roughly one-fifth of the world’s land area is used for grazing, twice that for growing crops (FAO 1997). In a natural state, grasslands are healthy ecosystems supporting a diverse range of plants, birds, rodents, and wild grazing animals. Grasslands are often unsuited for cultivation, but with care they can generally be used sustainably for livestock grazing. Cattle, sheep, and goats are ruminants. They fare best on a diet of grass. In the West, cattle still spend most of their lives grazing and are only fattened on an unnatural diet of grain and soy before being slaughtered.

With most of the world’s rangelands grazed at or beyond capacity, the prospects for increasing the production of grass-fed beef and mutton are unfavourable (Brown and Kane 1994). Gains are made in grazing land increasingly at the expense of wilderness areas. More than one-third of the forests of Central America have been cut since the early 1960s, but pasture land has increased by 50% (FAO 1990, cited in Durning and Brough 1991). In India, tiger reserves, national parks, and tree planting efforts are increasingly threatened by cattle and goats invading and eating young plant shoots (Gandhi 1996).

In dryland regions, cattle can overgraze perennial grasses, allowing annual weeds and scrubs to proliferate. The new weeds lack extensive root systems to guard soil against erosion. As the former diversity of plant species is lost, wildlife also declines (Durning and Brough 1991). According to a United Nations study, “The Global Assessment of Human Induced Soil Degradation” (ISRIC 1990), about 10.5% of the world’s fertile land suffers from moderate to extreme degradation. Overgrazing by livestock and current farming practices are the principal causes of this degradation (ISRIC 1990).
Fish

Like meat, levels of fish consumption have also risen dramatically worldwide. The average fish harvest increased from less than 9 kg/person in 1950 to more than 19 kg by 1989, while the total global harvest more than quadrupled from 22 million t to 100 million t (Brown and Kane 1994). Since 1989 the increases in fish-harvest levels have slowed to where they are just able to keep pace with the growth in the human population (FAO 1996). Current levels are putting a strain on marine ecosystems in many areas. Of the 200 top marine fish resources in the world in 1994, about 35% were declining and 25% had been fully exploited (FAO 1996). Aquaculture, which accounted for 17% of the world’s seafood harvest in 1994 (FAO 1996), has so far been making up for the decline in wild fish stocks, but a tightening world grain supply may curtail growth, as fish production requires large inputs of feed. Farmed fish yield about 1 kg of meat for every 3 kg of feed (Brown and Kane 1994).
Conclusions

Many indicators show that the world is entering an era of declining food security. Available land for agriculture has peaked and is currently declining as a result of industrial and urban expansion and losses to degradation. Freshwater supplies for irrigation are getting scarcer, and fertilizer use has just about reached its full potential (Brown and Kane 1994). Fish production per capita has reached a plateau and may start to fall, and meat production from rangelands is in decline.

Between 1950 and 1984, world cereal-crop yields increased by an average of 3% per year. Since 1984 yield increases have slowed to around 1% per year — less than the amount needed to keep pace with population growth (Brown and Kane 1994; FAO 1997). The result has been a 7% decline in world cereal production per capita — from a peak of 375 kg in 1984 to 349 kg in 1994 (FAO 1997). As the human population expands to close to 9 billion hungry people in the coming decades, it is not hard to imagine every last forest, wetland, and grassland being levelled for agriculture.

Methods to increase yields are also causing environmental problems, such as dammed rivers for irrigation; use of toxic pesticides and herbicides; erosion and sali-nation of soil; pollution of adjacent waterways; and extensive energy use for ploughing, harvesting, pumping water, transportation, refrigeration, and fertilizer production.

A shift in society toward plant-based diets would reduce these problems simply by reducing livestock populations and their demand for land and other resources. On a per capita basis, the land requirements of plant-based agricultural economies are only a fraction of those with high rates of meat production. With fewer animals to feed, it might be possible to rebuild world grain reserves, ensuring dependable supplies for direct human consumption in countries facing food scarcity. Reducing land use by cutting meat production would also be a very effective way to ensure that wilderness areas are maintained and even expanded. Wilderness is crucial to providing biological diversity, climate control, and a store of carbon dioxide.

Getting people to change cherished eating habits will not be easy. Although it is unnecessary to reduce meat consumption to zero, significant reductions may be required. Two tools are available to reach this aim: education and price control. Education is needed to promote traditional and new plant-based cuisines as healthy alternatives to those based on meat. Numerous studies have pointed out the advantages of

vegetarian foods in prevention of heart disease, cancer, and many other diet-related diseases. In addition, people need to know about how meat-centred eating habits can threaten food security and wilderness areas.

One very effective way to reduce meat consumption would be to set higher prices. Agricultural subsidies are partly responsible for the low cost of food, especially meat. Wheat and rice prices expressed in 1985 dollars have actually fallen by half since mid-century (Brown and Kane 1994). Without subsidies, even small increases in the cost of grain would make fattening animals with feed crops very expensive. People would purchase less meat, leaving more grain available for direct human consumption. Gradually increasing grain prices now may be preferable to enduring sudden price jumps resulting from climate-induced crop shortfalls or shifts in world demand. Surplus stocks of grain are now at their lowest level since the early 1970s, leaving the world particularly vulnerable (USDA 1996).

As the Earth’s human population continues to expand, two things will be critical for our survival: adequate food resources and intact wilderness areas. One sure way to achieve both would be to dramatically change food choices from animal products to plant-based foods.
References

Brown, L.; Kane, H. 1994. Full house: reassessing the Earth’s population carrying capacity. Norton, New York, NY, USA.

Durning, A.; Brough, H. 1991. Taking stock: animal farming and the environment. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC, USA.

Environment Canada. 1995. Connections: Canadian lifestyle choices and the environment. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada. State of the Environment Fact Sheet No. 95-1.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1990. Production yearbook 1989. FAO, Rome, Italy.

———1996. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture, 1996 summary. FAO, Rome, Italy. Internet: http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/fishery/publ/sofia/sofflye.htm

———1997. FAOSTAT statistical database. FAO, Rome, Italy. Internet: http://apps.fao.org/

Gandhi, M. 1996. Animal welfare is human welfare. Resurgence, 175 (Mar–Apr), 16–20.

Gardner, N. 1996. Asia is losing ground. World Watch, 9(6), 19–27.

ISRIC (International Soil Reference and Information Centre). 1990. The global assessment of human induced soil degradation. Commissioned by the United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 1986. Economies of size in hog production. USDA, Washington, DC, USA.

———1996. Global grain markets in 1996: shades of 1972–74? Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC, USA. Agricultural Outlook, Sep.

———1997. Agricultural statistics 1997. United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA.

Are you saying that all that rich farmland in the midwest, devoted to growing feed crops for livestock could not be put to better use?

Wake up and smell the manure!

At some point last week -- nobody's quite sure when -- one wall of an earthen reservoir on one of New York state's biggest dairy farms collapsed, releasing some 3 million gallons of liquid cow manure into the Black River. "That stinks," noted observant 15-year-old New Yorker Dustan Wisner. But the stink is the least of the problems: The river is now clogged with bloated, dead fish. "It's the biggest fish kill I've ever seen," said regional fisheries manager Frank Flack. "Before it's all done, it could end up to be millions of fish." That's bad news for a region dependent on tourism and a river beloved by recreational anglers. The Adirondack community of Watertown hasn't canceled its upcoming national kayak championship (uh, dudes?), but they have cut off intake of drinking water from the river. The manager of poopy polluter Marks Farm had only this to say: "I'm too busy cleaning up the mess to talk now."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/15/n...serland&emc=rss

Not that your point is not valid. There is merit in using land suitable for livestock to produce livestock. The problem is that people use that argument to justify the continuation of unsustainable agricultural practices to feed a glutunous, overfed, and diseased first world population at the expense of the environment and the starving third world.

 

[Smurf]

Are you saying that all that rich farmland in the midwest, devoted to growing feed crops for livestock could not be put to better use?

Wake up and smell the manure!

What he's saying is a scientific fact. Energy can not be destroyed, it can only change. Using feed crops to feed livestock can't be said to be less efficient unless the way we're utilizing it is less efficient, it doesn't make energy disappear on it's own. However it could be said that not raising livestock is easier to use efficiently.

 

[The Smoking Man]

What he's saying is a scientific fact. Energy can not be destroyed, it can only change. Using feed crops to feed livestock can't be said to be less efficient unless the way we're utilizing it is less efficient, it doesn't make energy disappear on it's own. However it could be said that not raising livestock is easier to use efficiently.

So you're saying that all the energy the cow exerts on its environment including being mobile, breathing, mooing ... Then there's the cow farts ... methane production which actually harms the atmosphere: the production of horn, hoofs and hide; none of this is waste energy?

All these things go into the waste of energy.

Then there is the comparison of the amount of calories used in the digestion process. Tofu or beans vs. beef. The toxicity of putrid beef in the digestive system. Steroid and anti-biotic contamination. Variant CJD, botulism, salmonella and other food poisonings.

Storage of grain vs storage of cattle and cattle products. Grain for the most part is dried and storable in silos. Transport is effected by moving it in large containers. Cattle continues to consume until slaughtered even after optimal weight is achieved. After slaughter, it must be kept under refrigeration. Transport is highly complex using stock yards that are free of cruelty and allow the arrival of product at an abotoire LIVE otherwise the product must be used for utility purposes (Pet food). Grain is stacked in sacks. Carcasses are hung in refrigerators or freezers. Post slaughter transportation must be done in freezing conditions especially during international transport and using cryovac packaging.

All-in-all ... A peanut butter sandwich supplies you with all the usable protein as a steak without the health risks which include the above list of diseases and does not have the problem of colesterol.

Beyond that, the current use of meat in the American diet is an abberation and is not the same as what was consumed prior to the early 1960's. It is merely a reflection of Hedonism and conspicuous consumption that flies in the face of proper nutrition to the point that obesity in the USA kills more people in the USA than cigarettes and car accidents.

No, I do not advocate giving up meat completely.

But try looking at the amount of beef included with a Chinese meal combined with vegetables. Then look at an average street filled with Chinese and compare it to the average street filled with Americans. One thing becomes strikingly apparent ... and it's not how fat they are or how tall they are ... It's that most of the Americans are in cars while the Chinese are on bikes.

 

[edward]

As with everything else we must conform to an efficient model to feed the world. I agree with TSM. Beef is not that efficient to raise compared to the amount of food consumed by the animal. And I believe that methane is a greenhouse gas.

As someone posted above, farm raised grain fed fish are a good source of animal protien and the waste product is easy to handle as it is already liquid fertilizer.

The variation in growth rates is explained largely by the efficiency with which various animals convert grain into protein. With cattle in feedlots, it takes roughly 7 kilograms of grain to produce a 1-kilogram gain in live weight. Growth of feedlots is now minimal. For pork, the figure is close to 4 kilograms per kilogram of weight gain, for poultry it is just over 2, and for herbivorous species of farmed fish, such as carp, tilapia, and catfish, it is less than 2. The market is shifting production to the animals that convert grain most efficiently, thus lightning the pressure on soil and water resources. Health concerns are also helping to shift consumption from beef and pork to poultry and fish.

 

[loseyourname]

Are you saying that all that rich farmland in the midwest, devoted to growing feed crops for livestock could not be put to better use?

Nope. I can repeat myself if you'd like:

The simple fact is, there are so many variable that go into determining the amount of resources used to produce a certain amount of food of any kind, along with issues regarding whether the land even could have been used for anything else, that no one really knows the exact ratio of meat/plants that represents ideal land usage. It certainly is not as simple as many vegetarians would have us believe.

In a nutshell, my claim is this: If everyone switched to a vegetarian diet overnight, we would not end world hunger. Granted, I may be arguing somewhat of a strawman here, as no one but a blind idealogue would believe the counterclaim anyway. Still, the bulk of my message was that animal calories requiring X times the amount of energy to produce as plant calories does not mean that the raising of animals uses X times the amount of land or any other available resource.

Not that your point is not valid. There is merit in using land suitable for livestock to produce livestock. The problem is that people use that argument to justify the continuation of unsustainable agricultural practices to feed a glutunous, overfed, and diseased first world population at the expense of the environment and the starving third world.

Then again, you're probably arguing a strawman here as well. No one in this thread has made the claim that we should continue with exactly the same agricultural practices we currently engage in. I certainly never have and I never will.

By the way, you should really run a search for the old threads we're talking about. Moonbear in particular, and I to a lesser extent, have posted some pretty good resources in the past.

 

[Kakarot]

ok no more than 2 kids from now on guys lol

 

[The Smoking Man]

http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/gen/ap/CO_Beef_Recall_Colorado.html

You just don't see them recalling tofu like this do you.

Well, no problems ... those of you with a real jones for beef can avail yourself of a Fudruckers Dermal Beef http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=99703.

 

[Skyhunter]

In a nutshell, my claim is this: If everyone switched to a vegetarian diet overnight, we would not end world hunger. Granted, I may be arguing somewhat of a strawman here, as no one but a blind idealogue would believe the counterclaim anyway. Still, the bulk of my message was that animal calories requiring X times the amount of energy to produce as plant calories does not mean that the raising of animals uses X times the amount of land or any other available resource.

I guess I was resorting to hyperbole. I just get a little agitated sometimes.
Sorry

You are correct, it is not that cut and dry, however the animal does not consume the entire plant either, and on the whole a plant based diet is far and away more efficient than an meat based diet. So it would be a good first step to start promoting a plant based diet as part of a strategy for a more sustainable food supply for the world.

My original point was that if we had the will we would find the way, and that arguments against an evolution to a vegetarian diet is counter-productive to solving the crisis of world hunger.

I would highly recommend reading T. Colin Cambell. It is probably the most comprehensive study ever done on the link between diet disease.

Then again, you're probably arguing a strawman here as well. No one in this thread has made the claim that we should continue with exactly the same agricultural practices we currently engage in. I certainly never have and I never will.

Good

By the way, you should really run a search for the old threads we're talking about. Moonbear in particular, and I to a lesser extent, have posted some pretty good resources in the past.

I have read them, probably not all so I will look further.

Here is a good site on efficient land use.

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu03pe/uu03pe05.htm#farmer participation is essential

 

[vanesch]

Isn't antropophagy the solution then ? The more we are, the more food (beef!) there is

 

[loseyourname]

We could always eat our own dead. They're dead anyway, right? Then again, in the places where hunger is a major problem, the dead are malnourished, without any good meat on them. There goes that plan.

 

[The Smoking Man]

We could always eat our own dead. They're dead anyway, right? Then again, in the places where hunger is a major problem, the dead are malnourished, without any good meat on them. There goes that plan.

Asside from the Soylent Green scenario.

This is part of the 'survival of the fittest' scenario though.

Don't predators cull the weak, sick, dying or young from the herd?

But then, when you reduce the morality of man to the basic level of animal instinct, things get a tad tense. People start screaming stuff about human rights n'all.

 

[Entropy]

It isn't that we need to grow more, it's the allocation of crops. We could currently feed the entire world and have food to spare, but the people who need it most usually don't get it. Example, you give food to third world countries and they sell it to someone else because they're greedy instead of distrubting it to the starving.

Also lots of farmland is reserved for unnecessary crops such as tobacco. Most of the farmland in North Korea is used to grow drugs because in the short-run it's more profitable than growing food.

 

[Entropy]

We could always eat our own dead. They're dead anyway, right? Then again, in the places where hunger is a major problem, the dead are malnourished, without any good meat on them. There goes that plan.

Or a more humane thing to do is use them as furtilizer. Techniquely, our bodies will be recycled anyways, so why fight it? Although, it probably won't be as efficient.

 

[The Smoking Man]

It isn't that we need to grow more, it's the allocation of crops. We could currently feed the entire world and have food to spare, but the people who need it most usually don't get it. Example, you give food to third world countries and they sell it to someone else because they're greedy instead of distrubting it to the starving.

A recent example of this absurdity was during the relief sent after the recent Tsunami.

Governments in the area started taxing relief materials and trucks coming into the area.

Also lots of farmland is reserved for unnecessary crops such as tobacco. Most of the farmland in North Korea is used to grow drugs because in the short-run it's more profitable than growing food.

When you talk about things like this I am reminded of parts of Southern Ontario. A lot of tobacco was grown there and it provided a steady income for the farmers. HOWEVER, when the taxation, the health scares and all the rest were put into place and demand fell, the tobacco farmers were the ones effected the most.

They had had these farms literally for generations and unfortunately the soil used for tobacco doesn't support much else as a cash crop.

There was quite a spate of suicides and bankruptcies in the area. (This is the area where the book Of Mice and Men took place.)

 

[russ_watters]

However, the Earth's human population is also growing exponentially. In fact it is growing faster than the rate of available consumables.

1978 was the year the two rates crossed. Before that point, we had the ability (but did not do so) to distribute equally among all of Earth's population enough food so that no one would have to die of starvation. Since that date however, Earth's population has eclipsed our ability to grow crops (including farm animals).

Could you clarify that and cite your source, please? I think you may have misunderstood the information you are citing. While the rate of increase of population might be higher than the rate of increase of the food supply, that does not necessarily imply a shortage of food.

 

[Entropy]

They had had these farms literally for generations and unfortunately the soil used for tobacco doesn't support much else as a cash crop.

I'm sure they can grow something more useful than tabacco, but I'm not saying there is something that can be grow just as well or as profitable as tabacco. All I'm saying is that corruption and greed is the cause of world hunger, not an inablity for the Earth to grow sufficient amounts of food.

 

[The Smoking Man]

I'm sure they can grow something more useful than tabacco, but I'm not saying there is something that can be grow just as well or as profitable as tabacco. All I'm saying is corruption and greed is the cause of world hunger, not an inablity for the Earth to grow sufficient amounts of food.

Well, it is possible to alter the soil over time ... The Nile Valley is characteristic of this but it takes massive engineering schemes and possibly the routes of rivers.

Southern Ontario for example is divided by the Niagra Escarpment.

Geologically speaking, this used to be an ancient ocean shelf. When this was thrust up out of the ancient oceans, the fertile soils were washed or eroded to the Niagra on the Lake area below the Falls.

The Earth below the escarpment is characteristically black, rich, fertile earth.

The land above the escarpment is sand and clay.

Below the escarpment is filled with orchards, vegetable farms and the like.

Above, is primarily tobacco.

Man can't just decide to produce crops in an area. If we could, the sahara would be a nice big, lush forest.

It is possible to recover Deserts as was done in Southern California but you end up with other problems such as the creation of 'salt marshes' due to mineral leaching.

The proper way to do it is by adding dessert grasses and over generations add more complex foliage to build up a layer of organics which becomes soil.

It is so easy for man to destroy these environments but incredibly complex to recover them. Beiging has the problem of particulate pollutants blowing in from the western deserts in China. Why? Because they cut down the forests. The prognosis for recovery ... GRIM.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

We could always eat our own dead. They're dead anyway, right? Then again, in the places where hunger is a major problem, the dead are malnourished, without any good meat on them. There goes that plan.

Prion Disease anyone?

 

[vanesch]

We could always eat our own dead. They're dead anyway, right?

Sure, I don't want to have anything that is still moving in my dish !

Then again, in the places where hunger is a major problem, the dead are malnourished, without any good meat on them. There goes that plan.

Damn.

 

[Skyhunter]

Prion Disease anyone?

Another good argument for a plant based diet.

 

[champ2823]

I'm sure they can grow something more useful than tabacco, but I'm not saying there is something that can be grow just as well or as profitable as tabacco. All I'm saying is that corruption and greed is the cause of world hunger, not an inablity for the Earth to grow sufficient amounts of food.

I do not think I could have said it any better.

 

[X-43D]

Famines often occur in dry environments. They are much rarer in cold temperate climates where food is abundant. Reducing population while increasing production, improving food distribution and making trade fairer will end hunger. Some places are more prone to droughts than others.

 

[revelator]

When you talk about things like this I am reminded of parts of Southern Ontario. A lot of tobacco was grown there and it provided a steady income for the farmers. HOWEVER, when the taxation, the health scares and all the rest were put into place and demand fell, the tobacco farmers were the ones effected the most.

I know one tobacco farmer out near Cambridge, ON. I recall him telling me that he doesn't grow tobacco year after year in the same fields, as the soil can't sustain it. He had to rotate crops, although I can't remember now what else he grew. I did however see enough tobacco to keep a dedicated smoker satisfied for the rest of his life.

Incidentally, the majority of his tobacco was going to be sold to China.

 

[EnumaElish]

1978 was the year the two rates crossed. Before that point, we had the ability (but did not do so) to distribute equally among all of Earth's population enough food so that no one would have to die of starvation. Since that date however, Earth's population has eclipsed our ability to grow crops (including farm animals). What this means is that even if we tried to distribute enough food for everyone to eat, many people would still have to starve to death because there just isn't enough to go around.

I would like to see the basis for this conclusion. Where is this coming from, a book? The web? What are your references?

GM crops weren't even around in 1978. GM foods are controversial, but you cannot say that the picture you have presented is accurate to the extent that it does not take GM crops into account, one way or another. (That's just one example.)

 

[EnumaElish]

There is a very natural solution to the problem of reduced living standards (let alone famin) reaching highly develloped democracies: they go to war ! Democracies cannot stand lowering living standards, it makes them elect fascist rulers, who blame the "others" for all the misery.
Now, war is the "market response" to famine, and would regulate the problem ; the problem now is that with all the sophisticated armament around, the problem might be regulated once and for all!

There are examples to what you have posted. There are counterexamples as well. For example, after the fall of the Soviet system the living standards fell (and income distribution probably worsened) but Russia didn't go to war.