We're all Doomed

[Dominus]

Originally posted by diplomatic_lie
Doesn't Ethiopia have some of the most fertile lands in the world?

And doesn't Rwanda have far more natural resources than Monaco?

Farms don't work if everybody is too busy fighting civil wars to tend to them.

I don't know about the fertility of Ethiopia, but considering that they've got Gold, coffee originated there, and its home to an ancient civilization that has only been conquered by outsiders once, and that was in this past century, and their last emperor was so good that the Rastafarians think he's the second coming of Christ (or something like that), you'd think they'd be doing better.

 

[CableLight]

Ethiopia is...Yeah...Not doing good. Ras Tafari Makonnen was an Emperor of Ethiopia and I think he was one of the first black power figures to appear at the League of Nations. Rastafarians refer to him as their messiah figure, and, even though he was killed in a coup it hasn't effected their quote-unquote religion. The fertility of the land isn't something I'm familiar with, but hell they're still where they are after the billions we spent on Live Aid or whatever it was.

Now, as for what Ice Cold said about the Greenhouse effect, I think it's a little misleading. In cities, yes, CO2 levels are going to be pretty heinous. In most other "no so populated" places in the world, the level of CO2 is fairly constant no matter where you go. Also, in terms of plants, it's not going to be the limiting factor in photosynthesis. I'm not saying it isnt bad in cities, but for a lot of the rest of the world it isn't terrible.

 

[Deep Dish]

3) Vegitarian diet. Going against our biologic nature would result in the need to consume much more vast amounts of plant biomass than concievably possible to get a healthy amount of the essential amino acids and protiens for survival. Also, the proverbial "box" of creatures that are naturally herbavores is only so big, and infringing upon it could push some of those creatures out of existance.

80% of the crops grown in the United States are used for feeding animals to then be butchered. It takes somewhere around 80 gallons of water to produce one pound of meat. If all the crops were used towards human consumption there would be enough to feed the entire world! The problem is that Americans are overweight bastards whom supersize their steak meals and horde grain in silos while the rest of the world starves. The problem with the argument towards putting other animals to extinction is simple: we plant crops.

 

[CableLight]

I wasn't saying there wouldn't be enough of it to go around, per se, I'm saying that we don't have big enough stomachs to eat the amount of vegetation we'd need to get the protiens and amino acids found in meat.

The quantity is availible, the quality is not.

 

[Dominus]

Originally posted by Deep Dish
80% of the crops grown in the United States are used for feeding animals to then be butchered. It takes somewhere around 80 gallons of water to produce one pound of meat. If all the crops were used towards human consumption there would be enough to feed the entire world! The problem is that Americans are overweight bastards whom supersize their steak meals and horde grain in silos while the rest of the world starves. The problem with the argument towards putting other animals to extinction is simple: we plant crops.

Uhh, nope. Sorry. There is enough arable land in the world to feed itself. The problem is corrupt totlitarian governments, civil wars, and the like.

Heaven forbid we enjoy the fruits (er, meats) of avoiding all that.

 

[CableLight]

Also, the reason many Americans "hord food in grain silos" is the production costs. If you can't make up differences for what you spend versus what you make, there would be no point to continue farming. Having said that, there aren't exactly a lot of farmers anymore, at least compared to what there used to be.

It's not a question of production, it's distribution.

 

[Ice Cold]

Originally posted by CableLight
Now, as for what Ice Cold said about the Greenhouse effect, I think it's a little misleading. In cities, yes, CO2 levels are going to be pretty heinous. In most other "no so populated" places in the world, the level of CO2 is fairly constant no matter where you go. Also, in terms of plants, it's not going to be the limiting factor in photosynthesis. I'm not saying it isnt bad in cities, but for a lot of the rest of the world it isn't terrible.

I am quoting my profs and textbooks.

 

[Dominus]

Originally posted by CableLight
Also, the reason many Americans "hord food in grain silos" is the production costs. If you can't make up differences for what you spend versus what you make, there would be no point to continue farming. Having said that, there aren't exactly a lot of farmers anymore, at least compared to what there used to be.

It's not a question of production, it's distribution.

Believe me, man, I know. Grew up on a livestock farm.

 

[CableLight]

Originally posted by Ice Cold
I am quoting my profs and textbooks.

So am I.

 

[7 Virtues]

Assuming the Earth can support 20 or even 40 billion people (at complete devastation to rest of the envrionment, but anywasy), can you imagine trying to put the brakes on then?

How do you slow down a population that spawns a new Mexico City or New York every week?

 

[CableLight]

I'm sure we'll terraform another planet by that time...Or hopefully I'll be dead before I have to deal with any of that.

It's estimated our population will be about 11-12 billion in 50 years, so that'll be enough of a hassle as is.

 

[CableLight]

I also want to point out...

There is a breaking point for what we're going to be able to do. I may not have the answer as to exactly when/what that is, but it is there. Eventually there will be a point where, either through populations taxing resources too much or they simply run out, we're not going to have anything left.

What to do about that, though, is the real question.

 

[Dominus]

Originally posted by CableLight
I also want to point out...

There is a breaking point for what we're going to be able to do. I may not have the answer as to exactly when/what that is, but it is there. Eventually there will be a point where, either through populations taxing resources too much or they simply run out, we're not going to have anything left.

What to do about that, though, is the real question.

Thats a bit far off for us to worry about. With current technology, we theoretically have the capabiity to support 10 billion people at a quality of life pretty close to the average american's.

And, since we orbit a giant nuclear reactor, I'm sure we'll have plenty of energy for quite awhile (current estimates are in the billions of years). Raw energy, and natural resources from earth and other planets, are basically all we need, as our technology progresses.

 

[CableLight]

Right...I'm not saying it's going to happen very soon, but it will happen. Also, if we can currently support 10 billion, we ought to be to that number, if not beyond, by 2050. Also, it's not that we don't have the food/resources availible, it's that prices are too high to get them to people that do not have them.

I'm assuming technology will advance along with our population, and hopefully we'll either find a way to get more out of fossil fuels, or not depend as heavily on them.

As for the sun...I don't think humans will be around to find out, but I think it would be interesting to see what would happen when that bad boy finally burns out. Like Fight Club tells us, on a long enough time line, the survival rate of everything drops to zero.

 

[aBAzLLnA]

As of right now China's food supply running out wicked fast. People are all crowding into the cities now cuz farmers are losing their work.

The area around Beijing used to be a fertile farmland, but now is becoming a dustbowl, soon merging together with a nearby desert (can't remember which one). When that happens, China will be totally ****ed, needing to import goods from any country that's able to support them, and that country, surprise surprise, will be the good 'ol US of A. And what's predicted to happen is the US will end up refuse to export goods out of the country because it'll cause massive mark-ups for Americans.

Not only that...but the water supply in Asia is also getting shot to hell...Optimists say 7 years, pessimists say 3 years. Either way, we're ****ed, and immediate action is strongly suggested.

 

[Dominus]

Originally posted by aBAzLLnA
As of right now China's food supply running out wicked fast. People are all crowding into the cities now cuz farmers are losing their work.

The area around Beijing used to be a fertile farmland, but now is becoming a dustbowl, soon merging together with a nearby desert (can't remember which one). When that happens, China will be totally ****ed, needing to import goods from any country that's able to support them, and that country, surprise surprise, will be the good 'ol US of A. And what's predicted to happen is the US will end up refuse to export goods out of the country because it'll cause massive mark-ups for Americans.

Not only that...but the water supply in Asia is also getting shot to hell...Optimists say 7 years, pessimists say 3 years. Either way, we're ****ed, and immediate action is strongly suggested.

Asia may be ****ed, but we're not.

That bit about us not exporting makes absolutely no sense. We are currently underproducing so much, and you know why? To keep the prices up, so that the smaller farms can stay in business. Americans could have much cheaper food, but it would then all be from agro businesses (which I personally don't think would be bad, except that it would drive my father out of business).

So, if the Chinese demand for US food skyrocketed, it would be a win win situation for us. We could keep domestic prices steady, and increase output.

 

[check_mate_kid_uk]

Originally posted by Dominus
Asia may be ****ed, but we're not.

That bit about us not exporting makes absolutely no sense. We are currently underproducing so much, and you know why? To keep the prices up, so that the smaller farms can stay in business. Americans could have much cheaper food, but it would then all be from agro businesses (which I personally don't think would be bad, except that it would drive my father out of business).

So, if the Chinese demand for US food skyrocketed, it would be a win win situation for us. We could keep domestic prices steady, and increase output.

i study economics, now this is pretty simple, theres a certain supply for food and a certain demand, if you increase demand then price will go up, but more people will start supplying and this will bring prices back down, possibly even lower. ( i wont get in to why it is to di with marginal satisfaction of producing 1 more being lower then average satisfaction from the product so people do not want it as much so will not pay as much, and also because of mass producing)

HOWEVER there will be a huge demand for the food if its to feed china and if supply can not keep up with deamand which i dont know if it could produce enough to keep up with demand, then there will be excess demand and price will shoot up to get rid of excess demand.

Because people in china are so much poorer then people in the usa i do not think it will pose any real risk on the supply of food to the usa.

 

[Ice Cold]

Originally posted by check_mate_kid_uk
i study economics, now this is pretty simple, theres a certain supply for food and a certain demand, if you increase demand then price will go up, but more people will start supplying and this will bring prices back down, possibly even lower. ( i wont get in to why it is to di with marginal satisfaction of producing 1 more being lower then average satisfaction from the product so people do not want it as much so will not pay as much, and also because of mass producing)

HOWEVER there will be a huge demand for the food if its to feed china and if supply can not keep up with deamand which i dont know if it could produce enough to keep up with demand, then there will be excess demand and price will shoot up to get rid of excess demand.

Because people in china are so much poorer then people in the usa i do not think it will pose any real risk on the supply of food to the usa.

WTF is this? economics 101?

Earth can't support 10 billion people living american lifestyle for sure.

Earth is overpopulated as of now already.

China, with the amount of stuff they produce have and will continue to fvck up their ecology, but nobody gives a flying fvck about them. Unfortunate.

So am I.

Goes to show how much they know

If you consider this from all perspectives, like political, economical... etc... then we're fvcked up. Cause none of us individually can do anything about it...

And "together" we don't have the funding to unite and influence.

Peace.

 

[Dominus]

Originally posted by check_mate_kid_uk
i study economics, now this is pretty simple, theres a certain supply for food and a certain demand, if you increase demand then price will go up, but more people will start supplying and this will bring prices back down, possibly even lower. ( i wont get in to why it is to di with marginal satisfaction of producing 1 more being lower then average satisfaction from the product so people do not want it as much so will not pay as much, and also because of mass producing)

HOWEVER there will be a huge demand for the food if its to feed china and if supply can not keep up with deamand which i dont know if it could produce enough to keep up with demand, then there will be excess demand and price will shoot up to get rid of excess demand.

Because people in china are so much poorer then people in the usa i do not think it will pose any real risk on the supply of food to the usa.

However, food production in the US is artificially low, keeping prices artificially high. If foreing demand increased, we could increase production while maintaining domestic prices.

 

[Dominus]

Originally posted by Ice Cold
WTF is this? economics 101?

Earth can't support 10 billion people living american lifestyle for sure.

Earth is overpopulated as of now already.

hah hah. no.

You know, if Texas was covered in apartments, you could fit 6 billion people there? Thats just Texas.

The problem of the planet is not that there's too many people. The problem is that there's too many people living under really ****ed up governments (China, 90% of Africa, N. Korea, Iran, Russia increasingly, etc.). If the entire world were stable, peaceful free market republics (call them democracies if it floats your boat), or at least social democracies, then its possible.

Again, this is all theoretical (as in, we have the theoretical capacity to support these people). Our population is not really limited by the actual resources at hand. There's enough resources to last us long enough to where we can find other sources, such as mars (evidently, they've found this huge frozen ocean there, just under the groun, right near the equator). Its limited only by our utilization of these resources.

When you've got a relatively free government sitting on a crapload of oil, you get Kuwait, one of the countries with the highest standard of living (occasionally, the highest). When you've got an oppresive gov't sitting on that much oil, you get Saudi Arabia. No comment on the quality of life there.

So, unless things get better in a geopolitical sense, these 4 billion people about to be born, by and large, are gonna be living miserable lives.