Slashdot Mirror

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.

Speaking of vegans, a vegan who drives an SUV directly emits less greenhouse gases than an herbivore who eats meat and commutes to work on a bicycle does indirectly. Cows emit far more greenhouse gas than any human ever would, obese or not.

So, me, a vegan with a bicycle and sleep apnea. The CPAP always gives me gas, so I think it evens out. :)

Organic is healthier, if this study comparing peer-reviewed papers from 2000-present is to be believed. Apparently, as you increase the yield of crops, the nutritional value decreases.

More problematic is that our food supply is becoming more homogeneous. Many times a family farm's crop is replaced with Monsanto seed, a distinct type of crop is actually lost. If something like a new variant of wheat stem rust appears, the lack of genetic diversity in our crops will make them particularly vulnerable.

The UN Food and Agricultural Organization has the missions of "helping to build a world without hunger": that is their motto. So imagine my surprise when I needed some stats for a paper but they wanted me to join as a GOLD MEMBER ($15K) or a SILVER MEMBER ($1.5K) or instead suffer restricted public access: http://faostat.fao.org/site/372/default.aspx

Personally I think it's pretty disgusting an organization claiming they are "helping to build a world without hunger" charge so much for data. I suspect that money is being used to build Dascha or pay for convention junkets to tropical island resorts, rather than being turned into third-world aid. The UN receives $$$ in member donations. They should not be trying to scam money off the people it supposedly represents.

Same with their reports. e.g. Their World Drug Reports make all sorts of claims complied from statistical data BUT DOESN'T BACK THEM UP, and you CANNOT get the raw data to verify what they are saying: http://www.unodc.org/

UN needs to lift its game.

....I have already mentioned Nylonase several times......

So scientists discovered some bacteria that adapted to be able to live on some man made material, such as nylon and related compounds. How does that show that a crocodile can become an eagle or any reptile be an ancestor to any bird?

From the wiki on nylonase:

(..Scientists were able to induce another species of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to evolve the capability to break down the same nylon byproducts in a laboratory by forcing them to live in an environment with no other source of nutrients....)

We have known for a long time that micro-evolution happens every day. Life forms, such as bacteria are amazingly adept at meeting environmental challenges. I'm not disputing that sort of evolution is real. I am disputing that big jump from such small changes to then asserting that reptiles can therefore evolve into birds.

(..in other words: Speciation has taken place...)

So what if speciation has taken place. All experiments with fruit flies still PROVED that nothing OTHER than fruit flies were produced. You may call them another species, but no matter what you label them, they were still essentially fruit flies. That experiment and many others clearly show that genetic LAW doesn't allow for the major changes needed to make a jump from an ant to a bee or a reptile to a bird.

(..Identify the SPECIFIC barrier..)

Experiment and observation show that these large scale jumps just don't happen. That is very specific. Genetic LAW prevents such chasms from being crossed. Evolutionists insist on the existence of processes in the past, that we don't see today in nature, nor can we duplicate them in the lab.

(...Science is about more than experiments in a lab,....)

When I used the word "lab" I meant more than a building made by man. All of nature, as we observe it TODAY is a lab in the sense I meant. We can observe supernovas, the sun as part of that lab. When a crime investigator, looking at the past, presents evidence in court, it is still up to the jury, whether they will BELIEVE the evidence, for or against the accused. In the case of the OJ Simpson trial, there was plenty of evidence that the jury obviously did not BELIEVE.

(.. "half a wing"..)

So has anybody ever made a creature or observed a creature with "half a wing" or half of anything? Natural selection supposedly selects for things that give an organism a survival advantage. It seems to me that any critter having to schlepp around a non-functional part more likely hinders survival. Such a thing will likely die before it has a chance to reproduce. People used to believe that your appendix was a "vestigial" organ that has no use. We now know that it is s repository for certain wastes. Sometimes these wastes cause appendicitis.

I happen to believe that experimental and observational evidence has shown, that large scale transformations, such as from reptiles to birds do not happen today. You do believe the assertions of the evolutionists that this took place in the past.

Maybe you can give me an example of such a transformation, today, not in the past, that is not just simply an organism adapting to stress. While under such stress, a bacteria certainly develop new capabilities to survive, but it still basically a bacteria.

(....top Google link for "man made coal"...)

http://www.fao.org/docrep/T4470E/t4470e0g.htm

(....Google link for "man made oil"...)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-402871.html

:((

That isn't exactly clear when we poor folks only have maps like this

What I'm saying is that it needs to be made more productive in order to feed the world. Specifically, it needs to be more productive while not increasing the labor or cost.

A truly free market would take care of this. Many people leave farms, such as in China and India, to move to cities where they can make more money. However if food prices would rise more people would have the motivation to live on farms, in small communities, or grow some of their own food. Throughout the world city farms are cropping up. In Cuba a lot of food is grown in city farms. After the collapse of the Soviet Union Castro encouraged residents of Havana and other cities to start growing food. Here's a link to a page on urban agriculture from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations with what's being done or is capable of being done throughout the world.

The solution to feeding the world is to improve the root cause of starvation not to create something to sale. By making sure people can make a decent living on farms more people will stay on them, then they could grow plenty for those would decide to live in cities. And with city farms those in cities can grow some of their own food. Actually this past summer there was an article on /. about building a highrise tower farm. Using /.'s search I didn't find it but Goolge has another about how Cities Built on Fertile Lands Affect Climate. These cities built on fertile land take the land out of food production.

Organic production is the ONLY option for subsistence farmers, since they have little or no access to chemicals. I am only asking that GMOs not be dismissed out-of-hand, since they may provide a much quicker path to creating plants that are suitable for Africa than traditional breeding.

Africa is quite capable of growing more food without GMOs. For instance I'll refer back to what I said previously in this tread about what President Robert Mugabe did in Zimbabwe. Here's another post I wrote on it on 19 April 2007. Simply when Mugabe came to power he took Zimbabwe from being a net food exporter, agricultural produce was Zimbabwe's largest foreign exchange earner, into a nation that needs aid to import food to feed the population. Politics created a nation that couldn't feed itself out of a nation that could feed not only itself but others as well.

But somehow you've turned this into an organic discussion, when we WERE talking about GMOs. My hope is that subsistence - and by extension organic - farming can be improved by GMOs

I brought in organics to show that the world can be fed without any need for GMOs. Since the topic is GMOs showing organic farming, which bars GMOs, can feed the world it means that GMOs are NOT needed. Simply solve the root causes of starvation; conflicts, politics, and massive subsidies, and GMOs are not needed. Thinking like this is similar to what a systems analyst does and includes a life cycle analysis.

Cows/Oxen have been used in this manner traditionally to crush oilseeds in India. The apparatus is called a Ghani or a Kolhu. see here : http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/T4660T/t4660t04.gif

"with our growing population (world wide) we desperately need more and better genetically modified crops."

Evidence please?

So far the figures indicate that there's more than enough food being produced (some estimates indicate 17%, but you can see here: http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0262e/x0262e05.htm and not everyone needs 2700 calories ), the main problem is corrupt governments and distribution.

There's still plenty of arable land (and ocean) to grow food on if we need to expand.

Organic farms also produce plenty of food in 3rd world countries - they're just not all of one sort of food and labour intensive (but labour is cheap in those places).

Plus the fishing industry has this EXTREMELY wasteful "bycatch" thing: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/T4890E/T4890E03.htm
You have a shrimp trawler throwing away > 80% of their catch (which usually die soon) because it isn't shrimp, then you have the crab ones throwing away > 70% because it isn't crab, and then the tuna boats throw away stuff that isn't tuna.

That's TERRIBLE. Heck even if I don't finish all the food on my plate, I sure don't regularly throw away 60-80% of it. Fix that and you'll see there's PLENTY of food to go around.

The corporations like GM stuff because they can patent stuff and get monopolies. You do NOT want to give the likes of Monsanto even more control over stuff.

There is no real need for GM stuff at the moment, and the "popular direction" (led by companies that IMO are evil) sure doesn't look like it's going to be good for the world.

"with our growing population (world wide) we desperately need more and better genetically modified crops."

Evidence please?

So far the figures indicate that there's more than enough food being produced (some estimates indicate 17%, but you can see here: http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0262e/x0262e05.htm and not everyone needs 2700 calories ), the main problem is corrupt governments and distribution.

There's still plenty of arable land (and ocean) to grow food on if we need to expand.

Organic farms also produce plenty of food in 3rd world countries - they're just not all of one sort of food and labour intensive (but labour is cheap in those places).

Plus the fishing industry has this EXTREMELY wasteful "bycatch" thing: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/T4890E/T4890E03.htm
You have a shrimp trawler throwing away > 80% of their catch (which usually die soon) because it isn't shrimp, then you have the crab ones throwing away > 70% because it isn't crab, and then the tuna boats throw away stuff that isn't tuna.

That's TERRIBLE. Heck even if I don't finish all the food on my plate, I sure don't regularly throw away 60-80% of it. Fix that and you'll see there's PLENTY of food to go around.

The corporations like GM stuff because they can patent stuff and get monopolies. You do NOT want to give the likes of Monsanto even more control over stuff.

There is no real need for GM stuff at the moment, and the "popular direction" (led by companies that IMO are evil) sure doesn't look like it's going to be good for the world.

More than one "hate his guts".
I would be interested to know why exactly.

l'll tell you why. I grew up in Venezuela, I'm now in the US, working after getting a degree; hoping for better times. Before you say "oh, you're the elite" I'll have you know that I was part of the _tiny_ middle class in Venezuela (both working parents). I was lucky enough to come to the US because I have some relatives here. If you add up our income we would be considered poor in the US.

Chavez has convinced people that the reason they are poor, is because of the ruling upper class. However, up to 90% of the countries income is fueled by the oil industry. So what that means, is that private business accounts for at most 10-20% of the income of the country. So the truth of the matter is that the reason everyone's poor in Venezuela, is that the income from the oil industry was _wasted_ and never used to create industry and infrastructure.

It has never been argued that there wasn't rampant corruption in the US, and that those in power filled their coffers while the poor continued to get poorer. But equating these incumbents with "the rich" or "the ruling elite" is wrong. Most of everyone I know that had money, had it because they had businesses, factories, etc. Not because their family had anything to do with the government. In fact, it has always been looked down on to have anything to do with the government; as you were most likely corrupt.

Chavez has rewritten history and equated these two groups: the people that got money from their hard work (including a lot of portuguese, spanish and italian immigrants) and actually brought some money into the country; with those that have actively been in the government and wasted and misused money; or have just given it away to the poor.

Chavez is not completely bad, but if you actually see his achievements from the "ground level" you'll see that there's more rhetoric than action. However I must admit that he's probably done more for the poor than any other president: Free Clinics, Free Schools, ,etc. However, doing just that will never help the poor prosper, nor will it bring more money into a very poor country. Do the poor live any better than they ever have before? Do they have any more jobs, income, etc? If you look at the numbers, they claim that unemployment is way down as of 2005, lower than it has ever been, yet somehow over 50% of these workers work in the informal sector. How Convenient.

The Claims that the broadcast channel aided the coup are completely ridiculous. But that's for another post. There's just so much to write, so much happened while I was there. There were so many protests. The biggest one happened because he put some decrees in the books that are ridiculous: Do you know they can take your land if you're not actively using it? Do you know that decree 1011 has inspectors, that if they believe a teacher isn't teaching "bolivarian principles" they can get fired? There are so many examples, it's truly scary. Here in the US you get a little scared because of domestic wiretapping, what he's done is so much worse.

There is little doubt that the climate has warmed up a tad lately. Even the article up above mentions this. However, the change has been tiny and again, as mentioned in the article above, the climate has been much warmer than it is now. It has also been much colder.

There is more to the whole global warming fiasco than CO2, though. In fact, it is kind of minor compared to some of these other things.

I would just like to point out a few things:

An Erupting Solar Prominence from SOHO
...nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2...
  Plants revealed as methane source

Growing fuel in the dirt is very hard on the planet. Not only does it suck up a lot of land (on top of what we already need to grow food) it also covers that land with one single crop that needs all sorts of nasty things such as pesticides and fertilizers.

That would very much depend on what you are growing and what you are growing it for.

In many parts of Europe short rotation coppice is being actively researched and grown. Willow is the main crop of interest. You basically grow a field of willow and every four years cut it off about 5 cm from the surface. The willow will then re-grow and you repeat and rinse.
These crops of will require little or no additional fertiliser or pesticides and as they are only harvested every four years the energy consummation per year is low.

They also do not require very good soils in order to prosper, in fact willow does very well on wet heavy soils as it has a very high water consummation and it's roots can tolerate being fully saturated. This aspect can be a positive rather than a negative, much of the work with willow is taking place in Northern Europe where adequate soil moisture is not a problem, especially in the heavy soils which are less suitable for cereal crops.
Due to the high water usage willow can also be used as a treatment medium for organic wastes through Phytoremediation. In fact in the UK and Ireland many farmers growing willow are making most of their profit from "gate fees". This is where they charge to take in material such as sewage sludge, which is land spread on the willow.

There currently also medium scale usages of phytoremediation.
From the FAO website:

The harvested willow can then be used for CHP which produces electrical energy as well as heat, or directly to produce heat (Northern Europe, lots of heat needed).

Now I know that the OP was probably refereeing to liquid transport fuels, but one barrel of oil saved is one barrel of oil saved, and if it can be done with a much reduced ecological footprint than liquid transport fuels, well so much the better.

There is plenty of food to go around, and there almost always has been. Starving people are not starving because of a lack of food, they are starving because the food never gets to them (usually rotting away in some government surplus warehouse), either due to corruption, negligence, crappy transportation, lack of caring, or some combination thereof.

While food supply is surely a concern, energy supply is no less a concern, unless we want to go back to the dark ages. Saying we should sacrifice one or the other is idiotic. There is a happy medium.

> 4.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused > CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html [fao.org]

---

Yeah, I wonder how many domestic cows would be alive if a.) human beings didn't exist to feed the dumb things, and b.) natural predators such as bears, big cats and wolves were still running around at pre-wiped-out-by-man levels.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
2.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
3.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
4.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were these caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://reports.discoverychannel.ca/servlet/an/disc overy/1/20061117/discovery_pollutionsolution_06111 7/20061117?hub=DiscoveryReport)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were these caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

I would hope, but doubt that it will happen, that they would also including stories of good things done about the environment. Not everything that man has done is bad for the environment, and because of the environmental movement itself, we are making positive changes. I think these should be noted. For example, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's (FAO) State of the World's Forests 2001 reports that North American forest cover expanded nearly 10 million acres (4 million hectares) over the last decade. I'm sure theres lot more: land preserves, toxic sites cleaned up, etc....

The term "First Mile" was coined by Titus Moetsabi, a poet/ developmental communications specialist, at a Southern African Rural Connectivity Workshop in Harare in February, 1997. He was the first to turn the "last mile" concept on its head and help us think instead of rural communities from the user perspective -- the first mile, not the last. This term expresses a more equitable and far less top-down approach to the challenge of providing universal connectivity, regardless of location and income.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.

2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).

3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?

4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])

5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)

How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html [fao.org])

Er. These would be livestock which we rear and breed and slaughter all over the planet? Beef cattle, wool sheep, pork bellies and so forth?

This is a human contributed factor.

In any case, see 1); the USA is still doing nothing newsworthy to allow for a rise in sea levels, let alone all the more subtle and serious problems arising from 1.

Even without agreeing on a cause and tackling that, there aren't even any attempts to mitigate the damage caused by the symptoms, so we still need some global leadership on this.

According to this:

The European Union, the United States, and Russia are the world's three largest sugar beet producers,[1] although only Europe and Ukraine are significant exporters of sugar from beet. Beet sugar accounts for 30% of the world's sugar production.

Here copy and pasted to counter the -1 moderation. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature. 2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's). 3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet [space.com] ic_031212.html [space.com]). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org] ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? 4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j [space.com] [space.com] r.html [space.com]) 5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ [space.com] [space.com] mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new [dailymail.co.uk] s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770 [dailymail.co.uk]) How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. 6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i [fao.org] ndex.html [fao.org]) Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 [breitbart.com] [breitbart.com] 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa [cnn.com] rming.ap/index.html [cnn.com]) One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Here copy and pasted to counter the -1 moderation. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature. 2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's). 3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html [space.com]). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere [wikipedia.org] ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? 4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j [space.com] r.html [space.com]) 5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ [space.com] mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770 [dailymail.co.uk]) How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. 6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html [fao.org]) Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 [breitbart.com] 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html [cnn.com]) One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetosphere ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. 6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

You're thining food security like "what if we can't import food". Food security also (and primarily) describes situations like "what if food production fails." It's also "can everyone afford food." See this page.

Food security is (in a really simplified form) just relative food surplus:
(Food produced - Food desired) / (Food Desired)

Examples would include crop failures due to drought or disease, decreased economic access due to depression (a big problem in the U.S. during the Great Depression; we actually had enough food, it just wasn't getting to the hungry), and other problems beyond diplomatic conflicts.

Some Africans countries are good examples right now of what happens when food security fails. Some actually produce more food than they consume, but farmers (and the government) export it for profit. International agencies try to give (or sell really cheaply) food, but that food is either refused ("We're doing fine, that other ethnic group doesn't count anyway) or misdistributed (the poor can't buy it, or it's not given to an "inferior" starving group).

Another example would be Ethiopia trying to cope with an incredibly long drought and population growth.

Ireland during the potato famine was also a good example. They actually produced enough food, but the British took it away.

According to FAO, photosynthesis gets to 11% efficiency under ideal conditions. According to Wikipedia, the efficiency of solar cells varies from 6% to 30%. The most modern commercialised solar cells achieved an efficiency of 14%. However, the 30%-efficient solar cells cost 100 times more than the cheapest and most common cells in use nowadays.

I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.

The word you're looking for here is "thermometers".

3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?

No, obviously not. The temperature was falling throughout those 150 years and has only started rising recently. The only correlated factor is CO2.

4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])

5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)

Complete crap. We have absolutely no idea what the temperature history of the other planets is and so we have no way of drawing any conclusions from any changes we see.

6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)

The article you linked to says that CH4 only amounts to 18% of CO2-equivalent emissions. Since the lifetime of CH4 is only 12 years, the cumulative effect is smaller still.

How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

See above. However, since temperatures on Earth have only started rising recently, and we've been monitoring the Sun's output longer than that, we can be sure the reason isn't a change in the Sun.

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.h

...that doesn't have a link to the report it talks about?
UN press release
FAO press release
The report in question

I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.

2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).

3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?

4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])

5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)
 
6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)

How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

What is the issue is is this a natural process, a man-made process or a combination?

Why is that the issue? Are we looking to assign blame?

The point is to figure out what (if anything) should be done based on what's happening. If global warming is caused primarily by mankind releasing carbon dioxide into the atmostphere, then it would behoove us to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions to control global warming. OTOH, if global warming is mostly a result (for example) the earth receiving more energy from the sun, then reducing carbon dioxide emissions will have only minimal effect.

It should also be pointed out that while most people generally take for granted that nearly everything we do releases carbon dioxide and therefore leads to global warming, that's a bit one-sided. Just for example, burning coal not only releases carbon dioxide but also generally releases at least some sulfur. Sulfur in the atmosphere causes global cooling (i.e. it does more to reflect energy from the sun back out of the atmosphere than to trap energy from the sun in the atmosphere). If you compare sulfur release into the atmosphere to the global temperature, you get a fairly close (inverse) correlation. That would support an argument that most of the arguments over global warming have things backwards: rather than currently causing global warming, the real situation could be that we (mankind) were mostly responsible for the mini-iceage by burning sulfur-bearing coal. In the last few decades we've reduced coal usage and (particularly) reduced emissions when we do use it (e.g. most power plants now have equipment to remove sulfur from their emissions). What we're seeing as global warming is really just the earth recovering back to about where it would have been if we hadn't been causing global cooling for centuries.

Likewise, many people (including some here) have suggested that planting trees as an obvious cure. Simple solutions to complex problems sound nice, but (as in this case) things are rarely as simple as they initially appear. Much of the loss of rain-forest that's often cited is largely illusory. While it's true that what's classed as rain-forest has been reduced (somewhat) the losses are often at least partially offset in terms of overall wooded land. Taking a look at the UN's FAO data we see that while the forest land in South America dropped by about .4% annually between 1990 and 2005, when/if we take the other wooded area into account, the loss is really about .2% annually (they don't provide totals/percentages for the other wooded areas -- you have to cut-n-paste into a spreadsheet yourself to get those).

There are also problems with the idea itself. For one, large plantations of trees cause some environmental problems themselves. For another, depending on the latitude at which they're grown, trees can actually contribute to global warming.

Neither the problem, nor its cause, nor "the" solution is nearly as clear or certain as many would have you believe.

Actually there is just starting to be active research in artificial photosynthesis. The idea is to exploit qualities of the biochemical processes. Duplicating nature exactly is difficult and costs time or energy/money and may not accomplish what we want. Also the nature version offers low efficiency which if cheap enough may cause space issues.

Also the use of certain photoactive dyes is more heavily researched and a relatively new promising path to cheaper photovoltaic modules with similarities to photosynthesis but, has its obstacles.

Photosynthesis is well below the efficiency of commercially available solar panels.

"The net result being an overall photosynthetic efficiency of between 3 and 6% of total solar radiation."

"Typical solar panels have an average efficiency of 12%, with the best commercialy available panels at 20%, and recent prototype panels at around 30%."

The pulsed light systems affect only the surface of the product being treated. Photoproducts resulting from this treatment are much fewer than those produced by thermal treatments, thus minimizing product degradation. Pulsed light treatment has been reported to be effective in extending the shelf life of foods such as bread, shrimp and meats (26). Pulsed light is effective in treating water, owing to the transparency of water and the fact that it permits the penetration of light. The reported costs of equipment amortization, lamp replacement, electricity and maintenance indicate expenditures of only a few tenths of a cent (U.S.) per square foot of treated area (24).

Small molecules in wine may pass through an R.O. filter preferentially according to their smallness. Since H2O is the smallest molecule in wine, all of the other constituents are passed into the permeate in lower concentrations than are present in the wine. A typical permeate stream might contain water plus ethanol (75% of retentate concentration), acetic acid (60%), ethyl acetate (40%), and lactic acid (15%), and little else. Since the effective cut-off molecular weight for significant passage is 100 daltons and ions do not pass at all, R.O. permeate contains substantially no tartaric, citric or malic acids, anthocyanins or other phenolics.

Depending on what the winemaker desires to accomplish, this permeate stream may be simply discarded, or may be treated to remove a particular constituent and then recombined with the retentate. The result may be a wine with the same volume and constituents except that a specific element has been reduced, enhancing the perception of desirable flavors. All R.O. applications seek to remove "surgically" a low-molecular-weight constituent of the wine with as little change in the rest of the wine's composition as possible.

Hm, the really interesting stuff shows up when you search on intergeneric.

According to this report, intergeneric hybrids in fish are more likely to be fertile than some intrageneric hybrids. Furthermore, even in hybrids generally labelled "sterile" there are occasional mutations that produce fertile versions of that hybrid.

Photosynthesis is 3-6% efficient.

That exists. In some cases, we're talking about a plastic box that is open on bottom, has a place to attach a pvc pipe on top, and has a cheap man powered pumping system to bring water out of the end of the pipe. (Pole with a plunger kind of thing) The idea is you bury the box in the river or lake bed, pump water out with good ol' elbow grease, and allow sand to do the filtration for you. If you're in a hilly area and have a long enough pipe, you can even do away with the pumping and just siphon. Of course, that's only one possible solution mentioned at that page, but it is one I saw in action on the The Learning Channel(TM) before it became a channel infected with shows like "Trading Spaces" and "What not to wear" :-(

Link to article on how broadcasting grain prices helps standardize the market and prevent the small-time farmer from getting screwed.

Thats a direct example of not just technology, but technologically aided flow of information directly "empowers" (read: gives them more money) a person.

Who knows how laptops could be used!

AFAIK, the best solar cells available are plant cells

Far from it. Photosyntheis is only 3-6% efficient.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/w7241e/w7241e05.htm

By contrast, commercially available solar cells are between 10 and 35% efficient.

First of all the link he provided says that forest area is stable in industrialised countries and that in addition the volume of wood within this stable area is actually increasing in those countries. It then goes on to say that the situation is different in developing countries where about 0.8 percent is converted to agricultural use per year.

All this was in the first paragraph of text which you have obviously either not read or simply not understood.

You say: "The author is a CS professor..." but perhaps if you actually read his, John McCarthy's, statements they might not be in such contrast to your FAO link? If you read http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry 2/index.jsp?siteId=101&sitetreeId=1191&langId=1&ge oId=0 there doesn't seem to be any outright contradictions as there is a positive net change in forest area in the non-tropics which would include most industrialised nations. Your link to lombog-errors.dk completely misses the point of what John McCarthy wrote as he goes as far back as to 1850 when talking about deforestation.

Anyway the author is not Bjørn Lomborg, nor is any of the links and references to him, even so you want him to be your scapegoat and so you write:

"...Bjørn Lomborg (who by the way has no knowledge of climatology nor statistics)..."

It's hard to take you seriously when you manage to be totally wrong about things that are so easy to check up on. Are you being willfully wrong? Your case would be better if you stopped injecting such nonsense.

First from his own site which should of course be taken with a few grains of salt. It has a biography at http://www.lomborg.com/biograph.htm:
"Bjørn Lomborg is an associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus." and of course it makes perfect sense that an assistant professor of statistics knows nil about statistics... (sarcasm).

Let's check with a source that strives for factual objectivity, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjorn_Lomborg:
"He taught as an associate professor, lecturing in statistics, in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus." this too confirms that he ought to know a thing or two about statistics.

Read the Wikipedia article in full; it might surprise you and make you understand why some people dislike the decidedly unscientific attitude prevalent among many so-called environmentalists.

Choice quotes from the Wikipedia entry:

"12 March 2004: The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DSCD) have finally ended their case, rejecting the original complaints. They have decided that the original decision is invalid and has ended any further inquiry." i.e. they completely exhonerated Bjørn Lomberg.

"Having reached the conclusion that the concrete accusations against Lomborg largely don't hold, it is legitimate to question the approaches of Lomborg's opponents. Using some historical examples it is argued that almost all opponents use discussion tactics, which come very near to those of dogmatically driven pseudo-scientists"

So we have a guy who uses the knowledge he has in statistics to substansiate his scepticism about environmentalist claims, because of this he is more or less immediately hung out to dry and flamed by people who later on is caught with their pants down and their dicks in the pie - /* start sarcasm */ but oh! wait! Those are the good guys who think they're about the save the world, of course there is absolutely no way they could be misguided or *shudder* wrong, not in the least bit... /* end sarcasm */

The link you provide, among other things, says that forest area is not decreasing, which is a blatant lie popularised by master jester Bjørn Lomborg (who by the way has no knowledge of climatology nor statistics) in his "skeptical environmentalist". The lie is originated by the plotting of forest area as published by FAO since the end of WW2, without correcting for the fact that countries were continuously joining the FAO and that first estimates were not precise, and had no conventional definiton of "forest area". The myth is well debunked here.

The author is a CS professor, not a climatologist. His credibility is quite low on this issue. The fact that he disagrees with pretty much any climatologist on the planet is also a pointer.

This might do something about desertification by slowing winds, providing shade, and stabilizing soil. If you combine this construction with irrigation and build it high enough to enable specially constructed harvesters to move underneath, you might multiply the benefit.

OK, let's focus on "developed" economies for a second. Population growth here isn't slowing because of disease, it's slowing because, as you point out, families are choosing to have fewer children (for a variety of reasons). Many diseases that used to kill early and often--polio, tuberculosis, flu, malaria--aren't a concern anymore, and diseases like AIDS aren't so prevalent that they'll lead to an appreciably lessened population growth rate.

So what about the developing world? Here, AIDS and other diseases (malaria, TB) are indeed slowing population growth; however, contrary to common misconception, this is not because of overpopulation. It's because of limited access to education and medicine, plain and simple. HIV infection rates in cities are actually lower than infection rates in rural areas, thanks to better health awareness, availability of things like condoms, and a culture more accepting of diseased individuals (I'm thinking particularly of HIV here, but the same goes for other yucky diseases). Whatever the impact of disease, things would be no better (in relative terms) with a smaller population.

Arable land can be recovered, and the technology's constantly improving to squeeze more and more food out of every hectare of land (sustainably, natch). And it's not as if we don't have malaria vaccines or the proper ways to stop the spread of AIDS. Slowing our population growth rate--whether by fiat or by natural disaster--won't do anything to eliminate famine, disease, and resource depletion. Sorry to sound like such a company man, but really, only economic and political stability can do that.

You don't dissapoint me at all :)

I'm trying to find some references on this. Here's one:

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6528E/X6528E01.htm

In Italy, Spain, South Africa and Texas in the USA camels were also introduced as pack animals, but they soon disappeared.

So maybe they didn't dissapear completely? Another one:

http://www.lsjunction.com/facts/camels.htm

The camels fell into Confederate hands at the beginning of the Civil War, then back to the Union Army in 1865. Most were sold at auction in 1866. A few escaped into the west Texas desert and are known to have survived until late in the nineteenth century.

PS: I'm really not doubting what you're saying, I'm just trying to find something which confirms it. Of course, that something may not exist on the web...

I know you're a troll, but I'll bite.

Cuba had the lowest malnutrition rate in Latin America from 1979-1992, before the US intensified sanctions. Its estimated number of malnourished as of the report date (2000) was 1.8 million, i.e. ~5%. This is almost completely due to the increased embargo; not being able to buy from the US (its nearest potential supplier) increases costs by about 30%; caloric intake during the time dropped 38%. Even still, for comparison, about 30 million Mexicans (~%28) are malnourished. Who is crying them a river?

As for your "ex-cuban" relatives, you are staring in the face the classic example of "selection bias". If they weren't anti-castro/anti-communist, they wouldn't have fled to the US, now would they?