Massive fish kill reported in Louisiana

Started by Parmaniac5 pages
Originally posted by inimalist
no... Ive not insinutated that

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but what is the problem in India and China...

is it that there are just too many people there, or is it that there is not enough infrastructure to support that many people

Then define how much infrastructure you wanna have spread around the globe... cause if you take china as an example they more or less reached industrial country status.

Originally posted by inimalist
I must have done a poor job explaining my point. FACT: there is enough grain grown in the praries of Canada and America to feed the world. FACT: we waste over 40% of it.

that is my point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10977955
Do you have a source for the 40%? The article mentions "a bumper" but not how much but this is still a good example now imagine that they need to feed several billion people more world wide, it's just not working.
Maybe you're right about the current population but if it increases, which is definately happing and exponentially, we need birthcontrol and I'm not saying "let's walk around killing people" I'm talking about regulating the offsprings of the current generation.

Some will see this as a sign to the end of times. First this, then the tornadoes in NY.

Originally posted by King Castle
i think you are right. i seem to recall a rant where he said the bases of his reason being the bush snorted coke so he felt he could relate to him. 😮‍💨

I would like to see that post, until you can produce it, you are just full of shit.

Originally posted by Robtard
IIRC, you voted for Bush in 2004. Correct?

In 2004 I voted against the pussy candidate. You figure it out.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Then define how much infrastructure you wanna have spread around the globe... cause if you take china as an example they more or less reached industrial country status.

maybe in urban areas...

what, you want my utopian ideas? or do you think merely feeding everyone poses too much infrastructure?

Originally posted by Parmaniac
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10977955
Do you have a source for the 40%? The article mentions "a bumper" but not how much but this is still a good example now imagine that they need to feed several billion people more world wide, it's just not working.

http://www.livescience.com/culture/091126-food-waste.html

and like I've said before, we already produce enough food to feed the world. This is without applying technology that exists today to increase yeilds. We could do nothing but reorganize the system of distribution and everyone on the planet could eat.

The work by Norman Borlogue, and especially that of his critics, very plainly deal with this (though Borlogue does think GMOs will be necessary)

Originally posted by Parmaniac
Maybe you're right about the current population but if it increases, which is definately happing and exponentially, we need birthcontrol and I'm not saying "let's walk around killing people" I'm talking about regulating the offsprings of the current generation.

do you have anything to support your hyperbole?

Originally posted by inimalist
do you have anything to support your hyperbole?

ok...

now where is the part about us not being able to feed them?

Originally posted by inimalist
ok...

now where is the part about us not being able to feed them?

You said they produce 40% more than needed, 40% will be fast surpassed by this rate of birth increases plus they must ship it to afrika from canada/america, by increasing people on the globe the oil demand also increases, oil is not infinite as soon as it runs out how are you getting the ships to afrika? Now you could argue that bio fuels will drive them but you need fields for these aswell. We live on a planet with physical limitations and limited resources it's just not possible to keep up like that for let's say the next 40-50 years (<- No prove, my own estimation).

Seriously this shit can't go on like this for long.

We already getting these scenarios in mexico where farmers start growing bio fuels cause it's making more money and people living there start starving cause of the lack of fuel. It's not just a question of how much we have at this point and how much is needed at this point.

http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=5518

Originally posted by Parmaniac
You said they produce 40% more than needed,

no, I didn't. I said we waste 40% of our food. There is a different statistic, that talks about the tonnage of food produced in the praries, that says there is enough food grown in North America to feed the planet.

Anybody who jumps from that to "we need to start shipping our extra food around the world with little American flags stuck to them" is not actually reading what I am saying.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
40% will be fast surpassed by this rate of birth increases plus they must ship it to afrika from canada/america, by increasing people on the globe the oil demand also increases, oil is not infinite as soon as it runs out how are you getting the ships to afrika? Now you could argue that bio fuels will drive them but you need fields for these aswell. We live on a planet with physical limitations and limited resources it's just not possible to keep up like that for let's say the next 40-50 years (<- No prove, my own estimation).

Seriously this shit can't go on like this for long.

all of that is only relevant if we ignore how quickly agricultural science is progressing.

Ok, so yes, maybe the system we have now wont be applicable in 50 years, that is moot in the extreme.

BTW, I've never said anything about shipping it to them. That is a stat that attempts to show that people, like you, who claim there "just isnt going to be enough food" are painfully mistaken, because we grow more than enough domestically, let alone on the world stage. I'd prefer we help them develop their own local agriculture without export/import conditions imposed by the world bank or IMF.

like, you seem really keen to have an argument with someone whose points are only tangentally related to mine.

Originally posted by Parmaniac
We already getting these scenarios in mexico where farmers start growing bio fuels cause it's making more money and people living there start starving cause of the lack of fuel. It's not just a question of how much we have at this point and how much is needed at this point.

http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=5518

...

so? and the world drug market causes starvation in Nepal, where people grow pot instead of food...

this dones't change the simple fact that it is not scarcity that causes hunger. Or rather, it is either local or artificial scarcity that causes hunger. That Mexican farmers are growing cash crops does pose a problem for their local food sources, it doesn't mean that we, as the planet, have no other options in terms of feeding them...

Is this like one of those 3-d posters where you're supposed to cross your eyes to see the picture? Because i don't see it. I still see a gravel road.

End of times, bitches.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I didn't. I said we waste 40% of our food. There is a different statistic, that talks about the tonnage of food produced in the praries, that says there is enough food grown in North America to feed the planet.

Anybody who jumps from that to "we need to start shipping our extra food around the world with little American flags stuck to them" is not actually reading what I am saying.

all of that is only relevant if we ignore how quickly agricultural science is progressing.

Ok, so yes, maybe the system we have now wont be applicable in 50 years, that is moot in the extreme.

BTW, I've never said anything about shipping it to them. That is a stat that attempts to show that people, like you, who claim there "just isnt going to be enough food" are painfully mistaken, because we grow more than enough domestically, let alone on the world stage. I'd prefer we help them develop their own local agriculture without export/import conditions imposed by the world bank or IMF.

like, you seem really keen to have an argument with someone whose points are only tangentally related to mine.

...

so? and the world drug market causes starvation in Nepal, where people grow pot instead of food...

this dones't change the simple fact that [b]it is not scarcity that causes hunger. Or rather, it is either local or artificial scarcity that causes hunger. That Mexican farmers are growing cash crops does pose a problem for their local food sources, it doesn't mean that we, as the planet, have no other options in terms of feeding them... [/B]

The Optimum Population trust (think tank) conducted a study that concluded that a sustainable population for Earth should be between 2.7 and 5.1 billion people. Although I'm not sure how much they took into consideration future technology for food production such as genetic engineering (once people get over this media perpetuated lie of "frankenstein food"😉 as well as things such as vertical farming.

It did also take into consideration other resources though.

Originally posted by jaden101
The Optimum Population trust (think tank) conducted a study that concluded that a sustainable population for Earth should be between 2.7 and 5.1 billion people. Although I'm not sure how much they took into consideration future technology for food production such as genetic engineering (once people get over this media perpetuated lie of "frankenstein food"😉 as well as things such as vertical farming.

It did also take into consideration other resources though.

weird... I've seen that number as high as 12-15 bil.

Originally posted by King Castle
i say we just remove 4 billion out of the six billion ppl on the planet and i am lookin toward a general direction where we can start.

you're right, we should start with north americans that consume resources adn produce more waste than anyone else on the planet

Originally posted by inimalist
bio-diversity is an human aesthetic.

I would personally destroy every endangered organism if it meant that humans would live. [/B]

True, but so is the value you place in human lives. Objectivelly, there is nothing different between your argument and "I would personally destroy every human if it meant the remainder of the extant bio-diversity would live".

Originally posted by 753
you're right, we should start with north americans that consume resources adn produce more waste than anyone else on the planet

No, we should start with poor people especially in Africa their population growth rate is higher than anyone else. They can't fight back as hard either.

Originally posted by inimalist
Optimally we, as intelligent rational humans, can probably come to solutions that both satisfy the fact that humans need to live with the fact we think nature is pretty.
Well, bacteria, plants and bugs 'need' to live just the same. The reasons not to destroy any other species or populations for the sake of your own are the same as the reasons not to destroy any other human culture or population for the sake of your own, and they are not because they are pretty. Besides, even this feeling of pertinence to a 'humanity' is a cultural construct.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, we should start with poor people especially in Africa their population growth rate is higher than anyone else. They can't fight back as hard either.
You wanna do things the easy way or the right way?

Originally posted by inimalist
weird... I've seen that number as high as 12-15 bil.

How about a trillion? Or maybe a few hundred million?

A study by the UN concluded that there is no consensus at all about the planet's carrying capacity.
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpm/wpm2001.pdf (page 39)

Originally posted by 753
You wanna do things the easy way or the right way?

If you're culling a population that is the right way. You need to slash the rate of increase or the exercise if futile.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you're culling a population that is the right way. You need to slash the rate of increase or the exercise if futile.
Not if you're doing it out of concern for scarcity of resources or environmental damage. Over-consumption is a much bigger problem than over-population from a resource depletion and ecological perspective.