Slashdot Mirror

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, violent Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.com.br/search?q=africa+area
11 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa

Yeah, I'd guess you're right, though Australia and New Zealand don't add up to a whole lot of people. ;-) Actually, I'd guess that lots of places settled by folks from the UK would also eat crustacea, as we Americans do.

I'd also guess that the coastal population of China eats a lot of crustacea, but haven't been part of such statistics until fairly recently. And I've read a number of claims that Chinese data is still widely excluded, because there's such a strong history of bogus numbers coming from their government agencies, numbers sufficiently incorrect to seriously compromise the accuracy of global fish population estimates.

We do still have serious problems getting accurate population estimates for many important species (not to mention the unimportant ones).

The third world will carry on starving until they have enough education to limit the number of children they have

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, theocractic Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.com.br/search?q=africa+area
11 :

The Chinese had it right with their limit on family size

Shame on you. The forced abortions, forced sterilizations and other extremely authoritarian methods used by the Chinese government are crimes against humanity.

Plus, there is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 :

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates; their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will grow from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, theocratic Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by billionaire individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.com.br/search?q=africa+area
11 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa

Solar irradiation of the earth is 1600 EJ

This is wrong. Solar irradiation at 1 AU is somewhere in the region of 1350W/m^2. The Earth has a diameter of approximately 6371000m, which is a disc of 1.27*10^14 m^2. This gives 1.72*10^17W or 0.172EW. Over a year, 365.25*86400s, this comes to 5.400.000EJ.

Wikipedia is wrong.

In fact, from a different page on Solar energy, "Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass." Pretty impressive if solar irradiation is only 1,600EJ. And unlike the 1,600 EJ figure, this one actually comes with a useful citation.

The cited page, FAO on Energy conversion by photosynthetic organisms, chapter 2 has this to say:

"Approximately 5.7 x 1024 J of solar energy are irradiated to the earth's surface on an annual basis. Plants and photosynthetic organisms utilize this solar energy in fixing large amounts of CO2 (2x1011 t = 3x1021 J/year), while amounts consumed by human beings are relatively small, (3 x 1020 J/year) (1), representing only 10% of the energy converted during photosynthesis."

So, it is time for you to revise your ideas about how humanity should live.

Or cut down on population. Which is doable without resorting to war or murder (but, I repeat myself). Put the money into sex ed uncontaminated by religion, free prophylactics, and rewards for not having children. Positive reinforcements, not negative like China did.

There is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 67/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 : https://www.google.com.br/search?q=africa+area
11 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa

"According to Nicholls and Leatherman (1995), a 1m sea-level rise would affect 6 million people in Egypt, with 12% to 15% of agricultural land lost, 13 million in Bangladesh, with 16% of national rice production lost, and 72 million in China and "tens of thousands" of hectares of agricultural land." - http://www.fao.org/sd/EIdirect/EIre0047.htm

Jam your US-centric view up your arse. "...not of much significance...", you disgust me.

I half joke that all the hub-bub over the bird-flu research papers being released is unnecessary - all any 'terrorist' has to do to get a 'superbug' is to get involved in any chicken farm. (Or pig farm.)

And no, small-scale farms show no evidence of being any less likely to reduce chances of 'growing' and spreading disease. Keeping a bunch of animals in confinement is asking for it. Period.

People have been predicting that human population would outstrip human ability to produce food since at least the late 1700s, with a major upsurge in such predictions in the 1960s. The interesting thing is that average per capita caloric consumption in developing countries rose from 1960 through 2000 (and probably since, but I do not have any supporting evidence for that). I cannot find the link where it was exactly spelled out, however, this link contradicts the links you give and makes reference to the trend I pointed out.

All agriculture is irrigated and in 1992 the water managed area was estimated at about 1.6 million ha, all equipped for full/partial control irrigation. Surface irrigation [i.e. row watering, like my dad used to do] is practiced on the old agricultural lands, cultivated since before 1975, which represent about 34% of the irrigated area (Figure 3). Sprinkler irrigation is practiced on about 64% of the irrigated areas. The central pivot sprinkler system covers practically all the lands cropped with cereals.

Oh.

There are more trees on earth since the advent of modern forestry than before it.

This is patently untrue. Even the most conservative counts put current forest populations at about half what they were in the 1800s. Globally, there is a loss of roughly 32,000,000 acres of forest per year. The modest modern increases in forest size in North America and Europe are vastly outweighed by deforestation in South America and Africa. Between 1990 and 2005 alone the Earth lost roughly 309,500,000 acres of forest. Adding the next 6 years at the estimated rate brings us to around half a billion acres lost in just the last two decades of modern forestry.

I'd like to see even a single authoritative source claiming the Earth has anywhere near the forest area that existed 200 years ago.

These numbers have been called into question since they don't count areas of selective logging. If there were still trees standing, it was counted as forest:
http://www.fao.org/forestry/32033/en/

There are hundreds of other studies taking into account other time periods, all of which show declines. The only argument is about the extent of the decline, not whether or not one exists.

Now, the human race has been expanding exponentially at the historic average of 2% per year.

No, the human race - and all other breeding populations bellow any limited threshold - is on a logisic curve. Historically it just looks looks exponential because we have been near the origin. It's also a much scarier curve when you consider the growth period is the 'good times.'

In a natural population the number of breeders explodes until it hit some limit and loss suppresses any more gains. It is a simple consequence of reality. With the ever changing environment that is the natural world, any species able to rapidly expand when one of their limits is removed becomes numerically dominate. Since evolutionary success is simply having more grandkids than the other guy, leveraging these opportunities is built into just about every living thing from bacteria to Redwoods. You breed and spread during the happy times until the limit. Then you replace spreading with horrible churn: for each who is born, someone must die.

The unanswered question is: what limit will keep human population from growing? Very poor economists and armchair sociologists trot out the 'limited space' arguments based on totally unrealistic understanding of not only 3D space and what 'food' is, but also territorial needs of humans and how they can overlap. People who have looked into the matter discovered an amazing thing.

Give education and rights to women and your population grown slams to a standstill.

Why?

It's simple: you have most if not all your children surviving to adulthood and educated, wealthy women women able to tell their man/cleric/priest/culture NO to unprotected sex. There is less successful coercion of women into walking-baby-factories for men by accident or purpose. The world is long past the need for huge families to keep the farm running or fight that war. (Starvation is a logistics and distribution problem.) Also, consider the improved access to medicine available to educated, non-poor mothers. Birth is no longer a lottery in which both the future adult and its mother gamble their lives. There is a lot behind this topic and Google is your friend.

It turns out that humans are more than dumb animals. At least some of us. And by definition what people do is unnatural. Long before starvation or disease limits human growth we do it ourselves. Cut the mechanism behind rapid population growth and it stops. Long before you need government mandates, starvation lotteries, colony ships, O'Neil colonies or Logan's Run our women stand up and conveniently have a headache tonight.

We won't over populate this planet let alone the solar system if we can just do one thing: raise women out of poverty.

It's basic humanity.

(And if that doesn't work in the end, just putting all the women on the ship and forcing the men to stay at home will. Motes we are not.)

It isn't just our fuel, it's our food. The UN FAO reported that animal agriculture contributes more to global warming than the entire transport sector combined. Plant based diets are an easy short term solution as we develop long term solutions to energy production.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

Plant based diets have the added effect of being healthier, reducing local air and water pollution, and reducing ethical concerns over animal welfare.

I'm with you - and given that the largest single source of GHG emissions are from livestock (18% according to the UN FAO study Livestock's Long Shadow - http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM, closer to a scary 51% if you consider what the Worldwatch Institute rebuffs with: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294 ).

Also consider that "three-quarters of the world's agricultural land is devoted to raising livestock, either for grazing or for growing feed" - http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Food-Farming/2011/10/13/food-meat-double-study/

Plus, it's more ethically consistent with how most people (at least Westerners) think. If you wouldn't harm a cat or dog for pleasure, why would you do it to a cow, pig or chicken?

according to an interview with an kidnapping negotiator one of the main reasons for the Somalis becoming pirates is overfishing - most of the economy crashed because they cannot compete with the sophisticated trawler fleet. A FAO paper claims that illegal foreign ships are one of the main reasons for the depletion of maritime resources.

Without a government and while illegal fishing is profitable (pirating started with selling bogus fishing licenses to foreign ships, see here) the problems cannot solved; one proposal was an export embargo but this wasn't successful in the UN security council.

Appreciate the citations.

Peak Oil: the very quotation you include sums up why it will never be a problem: if oil becomes scarce, price will rise; as price rises, alternatives become economical, and the substitution effect occurs. The same thing essentially happened to the whale oil industry. I will acknowledge that oil reserves among OPEC countries are almost certainly vastly overstated: when production quotas became tied to "proven reserves" in 1985, Kuwait boosted their declared reserves from 63.90 to 90.00 billion barrels of oil (a 40.85% increase). In 1988 alone, Iran claimed to find an additional 44.05 billion barrels in declaring 92.85 billion barrels against 1984s 48.80 billion barrels (+90.27%), Iraq jumped from 47.10 to a nice, round 100.00 billion barrels (+112.31%, where it stayed, consistently (and regardless of production), for another four years, before increasing to 115), while Venezuela suddenly got lucky and declared 56.30 vs. 1984s 25 billion barrels (+125.20%). In 1990, Saudi Arabia suddenly declared an increase of 51.79% in oil reserves (from 169.97 to an even 258 billion barrels), while in 1988, Abu Dhabi went from 31.00 to 92.21 billion barrels (+194%). Even little old Dubai got into the act, in 1988 nearly tripling their reserves to 4 billion barrels from 1.35 previously. 1988 was one hell of a busy year in the world of oil discoveries: the five countries which increased their declared reserves went from a combined 153.25 billion barrels to a whopping 345.36 billion barrels!

Overfishing: I'll admit I can't speak intelligently on this issue, except to point out the role government subsidies play. For example, in Canada, fishermen (fisherpeople?) are paid by the government for six or more months of the year because they cannot earn a suitable income on their fishing income alone. Absent these subsidies I suggest a whole lot fewer people would be out there fishing. Of course, like trees, fishes are not a finite resource: you can always make more of them.

Extinction: I know this is an unpopular view, but I say: who cares? I honestly don't mean that flippantly. I just mean that species have gone extinct throughout the history of the earth, while other ones pop up for a while. According to some guy on Quora (I'm too tired to look up more sources - sorry!), somewhere between 6,000 and 19,000 new multicellular species are discovered each year http://www.quora.com/How-many-new-species-are-discovered-every-year. Is it "bad" that some (or perhaps even many) species disappear simply because of humans? If you accept that humans are part of nature, then you should conclude that there is no real difference between species becoming extinct because of a meteorite or because of humans or because of anything else. The view that humans are somehow "outside of nature" is very odd to me: birds build nests, beavers build dams and humans build skyscrapers and nuclear plants. The nests and dams and skyscrapers and nuclear plants are all simply animals reorganizing their environment to their benefit, and are all "natural" in my world view. I don't see humans as an affront to nature. YMMV.

As for "widespread destruction of forests", as I mention above regarding fishies, we can always make more trees. In fact, there are more trees now in the US than there were 100 years ago: according to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the number of trees in the US increased by 4,441,000 hectares between 1900 and 2005 http://www.fao.org/forestry/country/32185/en/usa/.

In any case, I'm glad to learn you are indeed optimistic, as I'm optimistic too, and for the same reasons you are, except for the "human population reduction" you mention, which has been tried in various ways with poor results (see Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and others). Humans are humans' best and most precious resource, and more of them is a good thing.

Maybe the game could use a few modern twists and get people prepared for things they haven't given enough thought to. Got some radio-iodine in the milk? The half-life is short. Why not process it into powdered milk and store it until there's no longer a problem? Could farmers or the department of agriculture use cloud seeding to cause pollution to be dumped in a lower impact area like over the ocean? Could some keep hay in reserve to feed the cows with in case the pasture areas get contaminated for a little while? If farmers got more behind product testing, wouldn't they be less likely to have competitors cheating with melamine?

If animals are fed diets that promote higher acidity and nastier strains of pathogens, crowding promotes spread of pathogens, and heavy use of antibiotics has made resistant pathogens more common, shouldn't the "good" farmers be pushing for more transparency leading to public outcry that helps push desirable reforms?

Does the pubic have an accurate picture of potential dangers? Can a game help make life better?

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110505p2g00m0dm005000c.html

Should farmers have plans to evacuate their cows under bad conditions? Should information have been withheld to keep them and others more calm? Could they have been keep calm while being fully informed?

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/mdnnews/news/20110504p2a00m0na005000c.html
earlier report
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110504004563.htm

What can farmers and others do to deal with soil problems?

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/national/T110422004322.htm
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/editorial/T110412005529.htm
pdf on dealing with salt in soil
http://www.fao.org/ag/tsunami/docs/saltwater-guide.pdf

Is farming and other industry impacting farming regulated by the right people?
http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/68-elite-bureaucrats-land-power-company-jobs-over-50-yrs

Fully 50% of the world's population depends on rice as their primary source of calories. They do not do it because they are stupid or they are fascinated by it.

In Vietnam they get 6.14 tonnes/hectare for potatoes and only 3.9 tonnes/hectare with rice

Rice has 4.8 times as many calories as potatoes by weight so it produces 3 times as many calories from the same piece of land. So they could plant 2/3 of their cropland with other crops to makeup for the nutritional deficiencies of rice and still have more calories and a more varied diet than if they planted only potatoes. Potatoes are great in the Andes where rice wouldn't grow, but otherwise rice or another grain win handily.

you gotta be kiding me. what you are touting as the solution is actually a big part of the problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy
" Agricultural subsidies depress world prices and mean that unsubsidised developing-country farmers cannot compete; and the effects on poverty are particularly negative when subsidies are provided for crops that are also grown in developing countries since developing-country farmers must then compete directly with subsidised developed-country farmers, for example in cotton and sugar[28]. The IFPRI has estimated in 2003 that the impact of subsidies costs developing countries $24Bn in lost incomes going to agricultural and agro-industrial production; and more than $40Bn is displaced from net agricultural exports["

"The CAP-related agriculture and trade policies that lead to the overproduction and dumping of EU agricultural products are said to undermine the livelihoods of millions of farmers in developing countries...."
http://www.fao.org/ag/AGAInfo/programmes/en/pplpi/docarc/wp18.pdf

I don't know man. We can debate on this forever but all I have to work with is my own experience. I haven't eaten meat or fish parts in almost 22 years yet my doctor tells me year on year I'm in weirdly great shape. I'm very fit and get the flu around once a year, for a couple of days, never more. I'm rarely tired/lazy and am very productive in my chosen career.

I grew up on a farm and have eaten many animals that I myself have killed. So close was my relationship with this process that it seems abstract/unnatural/wrong to pay another to kill on my behalf. I'll only eat what I kill and if hungry enough I'd eat anything (or anyone for that matter!). We're animals like any other. To say otherwise is to reach for mythology.

The reality is sustainable grass-fed meat, satisfying a world population of meat-eaters, is a fantasy given today's consumption habits. 200 years ago, sure. Today -grass fed or not- meat takes around 7 times more land than grain to grow while we, as a species, are breeding like rabbits. Much of the world is starving, hungry for grain stupidly maldistributed into agriculture. 70% of the Amazon has been cleared for grain 90% of which is fed to cattle elsewhere. It is madness. The trick is to eat the bean before it ends up on the cow.

Agriculture is devastating the planet and I choose not to fund this. Read the UN Food and Agricultural Association's report. Conservative estimates place 50% of all tenable land on earth being dedicated to chicken, pig and cow parts by 2050. Once read, sit down for a steak, bought at your local bio-shop.

If there's one thing we need to do now, it's eat less meat. Ideally none other than that feeling creature you kill yourself.

We don't need to eat meat. It's a fetish, and a very environmentally costly one at that, given our number.

Vegetarians are a whole different and sad subspecies of humankind, they try to deny we've been eating meat from animals since many millions of years.

Remember that raw meat is instinctualy repugnant; it's only with the technologies of fire and weaponry that we began eating meat at all - environmental conditions positioning it as a good source of protein. All these years later, we have better, and more future proof means of satisifying our caloric and protein needs.

There are many reasons not to eat meat these days. Here are some

Meat production requires 10 to 20 times more energy per edible tonne than grain production and is estimated to have a 54:1 protein inefficiency ratio (54 units of protein are required to produce a single unit of meat protein). Each cow raised requires (directly and indirectly) 90 to 180 litres of water a day and passes 40kg of manure per kg of edible meat. It's been estimated by scientists that that 1kg (2.2 pounds) of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometers, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

Soya has 4 times more calories than red meat so the amount of soy that could be grown using the same amount of land would feed far more people than if used to raise cows. Moreso, a meat-based diet requires 7 times more land on average than a plant-based diet. Ironically much of the meat eaten world-wide is raised on soya grain anyway. According to The United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization, livestock production is at the heart of almost every environmental stress confronting the planet: rain forest destruction, growing deserts, loss of fresh water, air and water pollution, acid rain, floods and soil erosion.

Finally, meat eaters generally consume more than twice as much protein as they need, increasing likelihood of kidney failure, cholesterol, heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, stress. Legumes, especially soybeans, contain the largest percentage of protein among the vegetable foods and are in the same range as many meats. If legumes are a central part of a vegetarian's diet, there will be plenty of enough protein in the diet.

Vegetarians are a whole different and sad subspecies of humankind, they try to deny we've been eating meat from animals since many millions of years.

Remember that raw meat is instinctualy repugnant; it's only with the technologies of fire and weaponry that we began eating meat at all - environmental conditions positioning it as a good source of protein. All these years later, we have better, and more future proof means of satisifying our caloric and protein needs.

There are many reasons not to eat meat these days. Here are some

Meat production requires 10 to 20 times more energy per edible tonne than grain production and is estimated to have a 54:1 protein inefficiency ratio (54 units of protein are required to produce a single unit of meat protein). Each cow raised requires (directly and indirectly) 90 to 180 litres of water a day and passes 40kg of manure per kg of edible meat. It's been estimated by scientists that that 1kg (2.2 pounds) of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 250 kilometers, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

Soya has 4 times more calories than red meat so the amount of soy that could be grown using the same amount of land would feed far more people than if used to raise cows. Moreso, a meat-based diet requires 7 times more land on average than a plant-based diet. Ironically much of the meat eaten world-wide is raised on soya grain anyway. According to The United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization, livestock production is at the heart of almost every environmental stress confronting the planet: rain forest destruction, growing deserts, loss of fresh water, air and water pollution, acid rain, floods and soil erosion.

Finally, meat eaters generally consume more than twice as much protein as they need, increasing likelihood of kidney failure, cholesterol, heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, stress. Legumes, especially soybeans, contain the largest percentage of protein among the vegetable foods and are in the same range as many meats. If legumes are a central part of a vegetarian's diet, there will be plenty of enough protein in the diet.

I remember reading about a flap not too long ago, in which the founders of Seed Savers Exchange (a large heirloom seed organization; mentioned a few times in the threads above) wound up in a bitter and very public dispute concerning transfer of member-supplied seed to Svalbard. Unfortunately, between the increasingly over-the-top rants, deletion of posts on the topic and PR spin control as the thing heated up, I could never get a clear picture of just what it was factually about. The complaint as I understand it was (in this case) extensive collections of member-donated seed from SSE's private collections (some 25k varieties - not all of which are released to the general public) were supplied under a "safety deposit box" style agreement, but later transferred to Svalbard without permission. More generally, it is asserted that supplying seed of any species/cultivar/etc. to Svalbard places that genetic material under what's known as the FAO Treaty, allowing legally free-and-clear access to seed of that variety by interested parties, including GMO companies. The side opposing the SSE/Svalbard deal asserts that while the stored seed itself remains the property of the donor, the donor "cannot refuse" requests for genetically-equivalent seed from interested parties under the terms of treaty.

To make a more Slashdot-friendly analogy (sorry, no cars), it sounds like the concern is that placing any seed there puts it automatically under a BSD-style license, which goes against the intentions of many heirloom growers/donors whose stance against GMO (terminator genes, seeds with IP protection) may be considered more GPL-like.

http://www.patnsteph.net/weblog/2010/10/seed-savers-exchange-3/

Googling various combinations of the terms Svalbard, Seed Savers Exchange, FAO, Kent Whealy and Cary Fowler turns up various collections of rumors, damage control and tinfoil hat rants (including widespread claims that Monsanto is a primary investor to Svalbard...a claim Monsanto denies.)... does anyone know the full / factual story on this?

Then there's the little matter of China owning enormous chunks of the U.S....

You speak as if there are real properties involved, ie, land.
It is illegal for a person who is not a US citizen to own land in the United States.

I'm not saying that we don't owe other countries money, goods, or services, but the land is entirely American-owned.

Thank you, drive through.

We are both partially right. From http://www.fao.org/docrep/article/agrippa/555_en.htm

According to the National Office of Animal Health (NOAH, 2001), antibiotic growth promoters are used to "help growing animals digest their food more efficiently, get maximum benefit from it and allow them to develop into strong and healthy individuals". Although the mechanism underpinning their action is unclear, t is believed that the antibiotics suppress sensitive populations of bacteria in the intestines. It has been estimated that as much as 6 per cent of the net energy in the pig diet could be lost due to microbial fermentation in the intestine (Jensen, 1998). If the microbial population could be better controlled, it is possible that the lost energy could be diverted to growth.

Thomke & Elwinger (1998) hypothesize that cytokines released during the immune response may also stimulate the release of catabolic hormones, which would reduce muscle mass. Therefore a reduction in gastrointestinal infections would result in the subsequent increase in muscle weight. Whatever the mechanism of action, the result of the use of growth promoters is an improvement in daily growth rates between 1 and 10 per cent resulting in meat of a better quality, with less fat and increased protein content. There can be no doubt that growth promoters are effective; Prescott & Baggot (1993), however, sho ed that the effects of growth promoters were much more noticeable in sick animals and those housed in cramped, unhygienic conditions.

Currently, there is controversy surrounding the use of growth promoters for animals destined for meat production, as overuse of any antibiotic over a period of time may lead to the local bacterial populations becoming resistant to the antibiotic. This is it not an invariable rule: Streptococcus pyogenes remains sensitive to penicillins after over sixty years of clinical use but such examples are, however, very rare. Undoubtedly, the medical exploitation of antimicrobial chemotherapy, particularly to treat human infections, has imposed an enormous selection pressure on formerly sensitive bacteria to acquire genetic elements that code for resistance to antibiotics.

Wood gas as engine fuel

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/T0512E/T0512e00.htm

http://www.woodgas.net/files/FEMA%20emergency%20gassifer.pdf

They've got a lot of catching up to do, 26% of land area on earth is used for grazing, not to mention an area almost as large to grow grains to feed cows. Large tracts of land are being dehydrated as water is pumped in from elsewhere to feed these cattle. It takes 7000lbs of water just to produce 7lbs of feedlot grain which in turn is sufficient to grow 1lb of beef.

The impact of the oil and automobile industries are small concerns in comparison. If you want to help the planet, eat less (ideally no) meat.

Herbicide resistance can lead to less herbicide use because you can then apply one herbicide that kills everything but the one thing that is resistant rather than having to apply multiple chemicals depending on what weed you need to eradicate.

Quite the contrary, plants are made herbicide resistant so the plant can be drenched by the herbicide. And as herbicide resistance spreads to the wild even more herbicides or more power herbicides are needed. As it is herbicide resistant weeds were discovered in the early 1970s.

The same could be said for pesticide resistance, perhaps you can apply stronger chemicals but less often which may be safer than having to apply weaker stuff more often.

How about instead of using fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides that are natural gas or petroleum based use organic methods. Instead of planting the same crop year after year rotate crops. Instead of monocultures inter-plant different species, companion planting?

Falcon

Mankind's been using animals to provide warnings, attack and/or restrain intruders and root out evil for quite some time.

In 2007, the U.S. exported 991 tonnes of sug1r beet for $76,000. In 2007, the U.S. exported 373 tonnes of sugar cane for $190,000. In 2007, the U.S. exported 103,138 tonnes of processed sugar for $391m. http://faostat.fao.org/site/342/default.aspx

Links that are not reputable or factual but seem to support my case... (but I'm not a doctor so I can't tell)

http://archinte.highwire.org/cgi/content/summary/90/4/513
http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0442e/a0442e0m.htm
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/28630.php
http://www.alternet.org/story/274/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/280264/obese_britons_also_at_risk_for_malnutrition.html?cat=51
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r718533228ph9g55/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8581766
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S155072890800600X ...but in all truth I am not nearly as qualified as you are to talk about these things. I'm parroting things I've seen in biased documentaries. I bow before your might.

It could work. If someone with vision produced a competent educational suite, designed to help these kids actually learn and succeed in life, it could make a huge difference. There is no reason software couldn't be written to take kids all the way through high school (and give them tools they need to expand their own knowledge base afterwards). To pass the high school level all you really need is basic algebra and reasonable reading skills. After that, they could fill in the gaps with interesting topics like basic mechanical projects or fashion tutorials (anyone kid should be capable of matching the colors of their clothes even if they are poor) or music lessons or programming or any number of interesting things. If they are in really poor areas, they could introduce things like rabbit raising that will make a difference in their lives immediately. The kids don't have to do all of them, they can choose from a few. If someone with vision and drive were doing it, then it could be great.

Nicholas Negroponte, the head of OLPC, has shown that he is not that man. He has floated around from OS to OS, failed to deliver what was needed, failed to show he even understands what is needed, failed to develop any kind of reasonable software to do anything (sugar is an ok start, but......it's still just a start). I wish he were more competent because it could be a great project. What a shame.

and using it to track deforestation is neat and all, but a better, more comprehensive source of information is the State of the World's Forests 2009 report. And yes, it has neat and colorful maps, too.

What a lame try, dude! Talk is cheap. Making broad statements without any valid information to back them, come on!

Why don't you use Google and get the definition straight from the horse's mouth?

If you can't bother to use the link, here it goes:

(...)the number of people who do not get enough food energy, averaged over one year, to both maintain productive activity and maintain body weight (FAO, 1990, 1996b)(...)

I like your logic. When you see someone in need, instead of thinking how to solve the problem, you think about buying a gun. That will work very, very well.

Your government's military budget is 600 billion dollars (41% of the world's total). FAO is begging for 20 billion during 3 years to significantly reduce world hunger. So you see, ending hunger would be a lot cheaper than buying a shitload of weapons to keep the hungry away. But that is just too simple for people to understand, isn't it? Your Nobel Prize president didn't even bother to attend FAO's World Summit on Food Security.

Check this.

I'll quote:

We are alarmed that the number of people suffering from hunger and poverty now exceeds 1 billion.

That's quite different from threatened with hunger. The "threatened" word is just euphemistic bullshit spread by the corporate media machine to soften the issue.

The CO2 from your breath is not the problem. The CO2 from your tailpipe is.

Actually the food that you eat is a bigger problem (with regards to greenhouse gasses) than your tailpipe. See the UN Food and Agriculture Organization report titled Livestock's Long Shadow. When looking at all the greenhouse gasses and land use changes involved, animal agriculture was contributing more greenhouse gasses than the entire transport sector combined.

Umm I don't really think 16lb difference is going to matter when most roads are designed to hand regular truck traffic. Prius: 3000lb (~15 sq in per tire * 4) = 50lb / sq in (P195/65R15 tires) Hummer H2 6600lb (~24.8 sq in per tire * 4) = 66lb / sq in (LT315/70R17 tires) This is not even taking in account for under inflated or overinflated tires! http://www.fao.org/docrep/w2809E/w2809e03.htm

Photosynthesis is pretty bad. It uses only a narrow range of wavelengths, which cuts it down to 45% right from the start. The chemical reactions work out to about 25%, max. Overall theoretical maximum is 11%, which goes down to 3-6% under realistic conditions. Source:

http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7241e/w7241e05.htm#1.2.1

Comparing Cattle production (more CO2 equiv emissions than transport) and the alcohol industry? WTF?

Cattle production is a significant cause of soil compaction, topsoil degradation, coral reef degeneration, methane emissions, acid rain, water contamination (with cow shit / hormones / antibiotics).... I could go on & on.

One of the easiest things you can do to help the environment is consume less beef & dairy products.

No 'more' than cattle. Yeesh!

I'm no bioscientist, but could this project be modified to something which harvests energy from the sun and then can discharge it in a was in which electrical or bio-mechanical energy could be generated?

Who gets the -1 duh?

You didn't specify "other than as petroleum-type fuels" in your original post.

The non-sarcastic answer to your question is that in theory, yes, you could make a biological equivalent of a photovoltaic solar panel.

However, it might be more efficient if bacteria just used the sun's energy to make hydrogen gas, and then we used the hydrogen for fuel cells or to burn as clean energy.

I take it you've never heard of avian flu or West Nile virus?

Photosynthesis has a maximum theoretical efficiency of about 11% from sunlight into energy stored in biomass (eg. the plant). But in the wild, it's only 3-6% efficient.

Familiar PV cells already get 15-25% efficiency; experimental concentration cells get over 45%. And the PV outputs electric current, not just biomass to burn inefficiently.

Those cells cost a lot more energy to make than plants do, but they last over 30 years, while most plants don't.

I'm not so sure that mimicking photosynthesis is such a great way to go.

deforestation for grazing and feed production (see: rainforests of South America, or the majority of the US countryside).

8-15lbs of grain per pound of produced beef. Cattle are a very inefficient method of food production; cut out the middle man, and even if people have to eat 3 times as many grains to make up for the lack of beef, we're still using 3-5 times less grain than had we fed it to a cow.

cattle are a very large producer of greenhouse gases

people eat about 2-5 times more meat, on average, than they "need" to (I use the word "need" loosely, I'm vegan and run 7 miles regularly, as well as work out).

for a more informed argument than I can give here, read this extremely informative UN study

Note that I'm not a "farmers are bad people!" sort; my dad grew up on a farm, put himself through college selling hogs. I had shorthorns myself, won reserve grand champion at the Austin livestock show one year. For actual farmers, there's not really a problem. Hell, if beef were actually produced, in general, the way it was 40 years ago...I'd have never stopped eating meat (though at this point, I'd never go back). But most is factory produced these days, and most of the real problem starts at the feed lots. The problem is also the consumer, demanding waaaaaayyyy too much beef.

My wife is a veterinarian. Last night she was watching a bit about the growing shortage of ag vets, and how it is supposed to be almost epic in numbers in just over a decade. Well, if we stopped eating half a pound of meat a day on average per American (yes, that's the average) and instead ate a quarter pound...which is all that the USDA recommends, despite it being heavily biased to the beef industry...then there would be plenty of vets, and the remainder of places like the rainforests might survive a little bit longer.

I'm all kinds of copy+paste happy today, so apologies, but:

http://www.fao.org/bestpractices/content/02/02_01_en.htm

In parts of Europe and the USA, and densely populated areas of East Asia, animal waste production can exceed the absorptive capacity of land and water. Continuous nutrient import results in over-saturation of nutrients with a series of negative implications on the environment, including biodiversity losses, groundwater contamination, and soil pollution.

The process needs to be refined, I'm sure, but livestock waste is a problem that this would help solve.

Use the land to solve a problem and make oil. This is your basic no-brainer.

Even if it didn't help the cost situation at all, we'd still be seeing a net-gain.

Posted elsewhere, so apologies for that, but ag waste is actually a PROBLEM, not a valuable resource:

http://www.fao.org/bestpractices/content/02/02_01_en.htm

In parts of Europe and the USA, and densely populated areas of East Asia, animal waste production can exceed the absorptive capacity of land and water. Continuous nutrient import results in over-saturation of nutrients with a series of negative implications on the environment, including biodiversity losses, groundwater contamination, and soil pollution.

Most stockyards just keep pumping it over and over again onto the same fields. They can't get rid of the stuff and only do the minimum required to adhere to the law.

I should have included this in my parent post:

http://www.fao.org/bestpractices/content/02/02_01_en.htm [fao.org]

In parts of Europe and the USA, and densely populated areas of East Asia, animal waste production can exceed the absorptive capacity of land and water. Continuous nutrient import results in over-saturation of nutrients with a series of negative implications on the environment, including biodiversity losses, groundwater contamination, and soil pollution.

People seem to be missing out on the fact that this is WASTE material. Not only is it waste, but this waste actually causes environmental issues all its own. So we have the option of taking a problem and turning it into something we need.

Yes, it requires energy. Can you think of a better way to spend it?

This is complete and total bullshit.

Do you have ANY IDEA what happens with the current agricultural waste output?

It goes, quite literally, TO WASTE. So here we're taking a waste product and turning it into the most valuable material on the planet and you're STILL complaining.

http://www.fao.org/bestpractices/content/02/02_01_en.htm

In parts of Europe and the USA, and densely populated areas of East Asia, animal waste production can exceed the absorptive capacity of land and water. Continuous nutrient import results in over-saturation of nutrients with a series of negative implications on the environment, including biodiversity losses, groundwater contamination, and soil pollution.

When the US is left without the ability to produce anything of value

But the US does produce things of value, food. The US is one of the top food exporters.