Image: Per-Anders Pettersson Getty Images
In Brief
- Food scarcity and the resulting higher food prices are pushing poor countries into chaos.
- Such “failed states” can export disease, terrorism, illicit drugs, weapons and refugees.
- Water shortages, soil losses and rising temperatures from global warming are placing severe limits on food production.
- Without massive and rapid intervention to address these three environmental factors, the author argues, a series of government collapses could threaten the world order.
One of the toughest things for people to do is to anticipate sudden change. Typically we project the future by extrapolating from trends in the past. Much of the time this approach works well. But sometimes it fails spectacularly, and people are simply blindsided by events such as today’s economic crisis.
For most of us, the idea that civilization itself could disintegrate probably seems preposterous. Who would not find it hard to think seriously about such a complete departure from what we expect of ordinary life? What evidence could make us heed a warning so dire—and how would we go about responding to it? We are so inured to a long list of highly unlikely catastrophes that we are virtually programmed to dismiss them all with a wave of the hand: Sure, our civilization might devolve into chaos—and Earth might collide with an asteroid, too!
This article was originally published with the title Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization?.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
185 Comments
Add CommentI think there are so many aspects to consider on this topic, to prevent the crumbling of civilization by food shortages or declining states well the answer won't be an easy ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, humanity must confront all these issues which can no longer be ignore because globally the effects will spread. Our present economic crisis is a good example.
A clear and dramatic statement on the human predicament and what must be done. We are in a race between control of our own fecundity and the degradation of the world's environment. Lester Brown does an enormous public service in trying to wake us up to three facts: we must stop burning coal for electricity, stop using hydrocarbons for transportation and stabilize the human population. Thank you, Mr Brown. Keith Palmer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is quite possibly the most absurd article I have ever read in Scientific American. One interesting aspect of this article is that it effectively describes how all the half-baked solutions to "save the planet" are systematically linked. In Mr. Palmer's new world order, liberty, freedom, and personal beliefs cease to exist as he dictates how many children you can have (and your birth control methods!), what energy sources are suitable for you to use, and the amount of taxes you will pay to fund methods to abate poorly analyzed environmental and economic data.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAugustWest I think you quite missed the point of this article. If states fail and chaos reigns there will be no order, liberty, freedom an so on. The greedy will grab for power and the powerful will do what they want -- without constraints from a social structure cemented together by "civilization". You act as though these ideas are promoted as by some fringe hippie cult with weird "new age" ideas. The facts and ideas in this article are well presented and succinct. If everyone felt as you do, then we are damned to chaos and virtual extinction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you don't think this has happened before read the book "Collapse". It is arrogant in the extreme to think our human nature today won't allow us to repeat the same mistakes over and over again . . .
. . .
AugustWest I think you quite missed the point of this article. If states fail and chaos reigns there will be no order, liberty, freedom an so on. The greedy will grab for power and the powerful will do what they want -- without constraints from a social structure cemented together by "civilization". You act as though these ideas are promoted by some fringe hippie cult with weird "new age" ideas. The facts and ideas in this article are well presented and succinct. If everyone felt as you do, then we are damned to chaos and virtual extinction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you don't think this has happened before read the book "Collapse". It is arrogant in the extreme to think our human nature today won't allow us to repeat the same mistakes over and over again . . .
We seem to be creatures of crisis. Rather than accept the possibility that serious problems are on the horizon, we look for any sliver of positive information to assuage our fears. We're very good and finding proof that there really isn't a problem. It is only when the disaster is unavoidable that we act to mitigate the worst of the impact. We are better at being reactive - proactive is not our strong suit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe obvious driver of this change is overpopulation. This is not a new concept and warnings of the threat have been around for decades. There are countless examples of civilizations growing beyond the capacity of their environment and technology to sustain them. While there is no easy answer to the problem, it is clear as a species we need to find a way to slow down our reproduction in ways that do not impinge on basic human rights.
It doesn't really matter whether you believe in global warming or not or whether you think Mr. Brown is a quack, I think most rational people will agree that this planet does have a limit to the population of humans it can support. Sooner or later we will reach that limit and then the natural world will abruptly step in and make a major correction through famine, disease and resulting conflict. It would be nice if, for a change, we can be proactive and work to find ways to avoid the crisis - even if doing so makes us look a little nutty.
The Bible says that we are to be fruitful and multiply but it limits that by saying we are to fill the earth. I think we all need to admit that we have finished filling the earth and it is time to get into a sustaining mode. Have enough children to replace yourselves and not more. (2 children). You can have another if one of them dies for any reason.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, most people are now being raised in a culture that has little moral structure and unrestricted procreation is not even limited by moral concerns anymore. If it feels good do it and deal with the consequences later. We will find it practically impossible to control the population levels because of this sentiment amongst our young.
I think that the colapse of civilization in not just a possibility, but is a likelihood if we do not do something. As individuals, we can all make a descision do do our part. It is unlikely though that the governments of the world can do anything without risking uprisings and rebellion in their own populations.
And, as usual, hindsight will be 20/20.... for our descendents after the Fall of Civilization.
I think the difficulty is also that what is needed is altruism. We need to cut back on our own desires, be they breeding or the way we live our life. The rewards will be best felt by people that aren't alive now. Unfortunately it seems that Tragedy of the Commons seems to drive human behavior more than altruism. We act in our own best interest even when that isn't necessarily good for others. Getting religious leaders educated in these issues would probably be helpful since religion has been a very good way to get people to be altruistic when they might not be otherwise. It will probably be quite a challenge the major religions have always been very resistant to environmental protection ideas , presumably since this is seen as coming from the 'left' (and thus politicized). And there are some faiths that believe any form of birth control is a sin and that we will be rescued by a greater power in the end anyway (and thus we don't need to do anything). Those beliefs will be hard to counter and could damn us in the end. I'm glad Mr. Brown brought up the issues in this article, especially population.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll of the problems the world is facing stem from overpopulation. However, religious groups put intense pressure on followers to procreate like mad because it is 'glorifying God'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven without that influence, the fact remains that the vast majority of the world's population is totally unaware that their family growth is a direct contributor to the problems we now face. In America it's even worse than that; most people are too stupid or selfish to care.
Technology is not going to save us from these issues. In fact, technology is partly to blame, since that is what enabled us to continue with our bad habits far longer than we otherwise would have. Politics cannot be looked to for a solution because the first response of nations feeling this pinch will likely be to go to war. Beyond that, there are simply too many people in government that think like business owners; if it can't be fixed or felt in the current fiscal quarter, it isn't worth discussing.
Plan B will probably be faced with the same stubborn and thoughtless refusal that has been facing environmentalists for decades. The only course of action we have is to determine how each one of us will meet this crisis when it arrives at our doorstep.
Unfortunately, nuclear weapons may be the savior of humanity.Random population thinning in urban areas will produce the horror that will motivate large population segments to take control of their reproduction rates. Dramatic decreases in population will eliminate shortages.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for all your comments to my post but I disagree with BillR. I think zero children per married couple should be the rule (well maybe unmarried couples too). We need to fix this problem right now; having two kids will consume valuable resources at a significantly greater rate. The government sterilization team will greet you when you return home this evening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApparently the seriousness of the situation is beyond the grasp of Mr. West.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI stumbled on an old graph at the Oil Drum blog the other day that opened my eyes. I adapted it to show why our present biofuel policy can't be maintained. Something has to give:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://home.comcast.net/~russ676/Graphics/img29.gif
and I'm pretty sure the things that will give are the last remaining carbon sinks.
Turning food into fuel has to end:
http://biodiversivist.blogspot.com/2009/04/six-things-you-probably-didnt-know.html
http://www.biodiversivist.com
Actually, some projections say that if we can get to 1.5 children per couple (average number not some Judgment of Solomon) then we can reduce the world population to 2 billion in 100 years. Do I think we can manage this as a species? Not really. The same projection concludes that 2.1 children per couple will push the worlds population to 12 billion in 60 years. 12 billion in 60 years or 2 billion in 100. All bickering and bantering aside, it's time to ask what future we want to leave to that as yet undecided "number of children per couple" - poverty or prosperity?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince man began thinning out our forest cover he has been reducing the basic food supply, basic food is generated by photosynthesis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the early stages our increasing population and lowered primary food inputs were compensated for by reducing populations of the other species and the extinction of some of them.
Today lowering the numbers of the other species or exterminating them altogether will not compensate for our greatly increased population. Besides biodiversity maintains the balance on our planet.
The next crises man faces is mass starvation. Evolutionary forces will do what religious and political leaders will not.
BillR:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only thing the bible is good for is a historic record of the evolution of man's ethics and thinking processes.
It is a work of man, it has several different variants.
Our planet is now firmly entrenched in the sixth extinction.
Grayhawk:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only way religious leaders can do any good is by mass suicide. It is the religious leaders who demanded their flock out populate the others.
In Israel you have this idea of Muslims outnumbering the Jews to this day.
galaxy_man:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with your every idea. Keep the rational thoughts flowing, rational beings are our species only hope.
Politicians, business people and the like are individuals motivated by self. The most successful business people I have met were crafty, sneaky and deceitful.
I completely agree with the assessment that overpopulation is the main culprit behind much that maligns our planet. The historical precedence of many past civilizations (i.e. Mayans, Incas) are silent witnesses that validate this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother historical validation is a great book called 'Forces of Change' by Henry Hobhouse. In this book Dr. Hobhouse describes how disease, famine and population growth are the main history-shaping forces for the past 500 years (from 1492). So why should it be any different now? These same forces and conditions are as prevalent now and as the author of this article clearly points out, are growing at an alarming rate.
In the end, Plan A should be measures to curb the growth of humanity via techniques that limit family size. If we don't the forces of disease and famine will do the job just the same only in a most unpleasant manner.
Yeah, what "Louie" said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHobhouse' book is excellent.
As usual the real problem reverts to money. Our current socio-economic system is predicated on the idea of unlimited economic growth. That requires unlimited population growth. In the late seventies and early eighties we had achieved zero population growth. That was not good for business and corporate America began using the media to steer our cultural consciousness back to large families; a trend that continues today. The only way to save the human race is to reduce our numbers and the only way to do that is to restructure our entire socio-economic system. Stabilize at 8 billion people? We're already depleting planetary resources at breakneck speed. We need to reduce the population by at least 50% and we need to do it fast. Not gonna happen though because we're a foolish species with no self-control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother reason why the world should embrace agricultural biotechnology. Genetically modified crops can help to produce more food and better quality food with less land, less water, less chemicals and less labor
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome responders seem to enjoy self-flagellation. It is not the "civilized" world that is overpopulating the earth. Industrialized countries have low birth rates (some even have negative birth rates). However, it is the immigrants that are propping up some of these birth rates, so we do need to be concerned about our fellow earth dwellers. The best way to help WITHOUT Big Brother making us do things (i.e. limit 2 births per female..GRRrrr) is to get involved locally, nationally and internationally with non-profit groups that are making a difference through education and assistance. So step away from the computer and get involved...geez.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInnovation is needed, like Valcent's vertical growth system. 20 times the yield on 5% of the water. http://www.valcent.net/s/HDVGS.asp?ReportID=264273
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmerica is never more than 3 meals away from anarchy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we're to consult the bible, then that's acceptance of god(s) and tacit admission that god(s) is/are in control.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf that's the case, then what we think and do are irrelevant.
If a god is involved, then what we think or do doesn't matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have the land, the technology, and the ability in the United States to feed the world. Better then that, we could also have the ability to export quality grain and farming techniques to the world so they can feed themselves. But we don't because we don't care to, don't feel we can, or simply because of greed. When this effects OUR children then it will be important to us. But then will it be too late, just like our financial crisis now? Madoff got jail, 401K's are gone, but hey, he got jail....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI seriously hope we (As a people) are starting to move beyond the concept that its ok for Corporations to be solely driven by profit. (Thus greed). We need a new model of corporation, one that has stewardship for local communities at its heart, not greed.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/738983/world_food_crisis_explained_in_one.html
You really are either an ignoramus or a Republican dupe if this is all you could get out of this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"States fail when national governments can no longer provide personal security, food security and basic social services such as education and health care."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould you class Pinochets Chile a 'failed state'? Or the UK,where accoridng to the UN, children are desperately unhappy, the unhappiest in the 'developed world' and vastly unhappier than children in mnay poorer countries?
Any state that fails to spread the use of permaculture as a way of builidng in local food security is failing it's people,a nd probably doing so intentionally!
Galaxymum wrote : "All of the problems the world is facing stem from overpopulation. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it that this is touted, so often, that is has become almost a 'received (uneamined) wisdom' when it is what the 6 billion or so people, and their societies, are DOING that is the root of the problem.
The fundamental of nature is that all is food, all gets pretty much what is needed to THRIVE and that all excess is returned to the nutrient cycles in a form that other creatures can metabolise into new nutrients which are then available to life processes. Industrial Society at present does exactly the opposite. Much that is excess is concentrated as wealth, and the rest is 'treated' as waste, and dealt with in ways that make it toxic.
William McDonough in 'Cradle to Cradle' proves that we can re-engineer all our industrial processes to reflect natures fundamentals. What is obvious is that a) those who concentrate wealth have no intention of letting go of that concentration b) Governments serve the interests of concentrated wealth c) Industry does not want to adapt to natures fundamentals and thus we are all placed in inevitable peril.... not to mention what our children and grand-children may expect....
In response to BillR. It is a common misconception that only having two children will stabilize population. In fact, due to our extended lifespan of 70+ years, if each of us only have two children, population will continue to grow rapidly. As long as there is only 20-30 years between generations, and our lifespan is 60+ years, population continues to climb because multiple generations exist at the same time. In order to reduce population, which I think most people would agree is needed, we need to limit ourselves to zero or one child per couple.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough this seems barbaric to some, the alternative - mass starvations, genocides, wars, plagues, nuclear holocaust, etc - are many times more barbaric, and are unavoidable if we do not rapidly limit our own population growth. For these reasons, I do not plan to have any children, and I encourage others to adopt kids rather than having their own. Until every child on the planet has loving parents to care for it, there is no need to increase the number of infants on earth.
Mr. Brown has written an excellent article, and I strongly endorse his book, Plan B 3.0, which goes into much more depth into both the problems we're facing and the existing solutions. We NEED to reduce our carbon emissions drastically, and re-evaluate how we provide food, shelter and water to everyone on the planet, or we will face mass extinctions or terrible crises within my lifetime. I'm only 24, but I understand the consequences of failing to act.
The article and everything written by Brown is interesting, but useless. The only solution which will save humanity from destruction is the execution of the Pope and every Catholic Priest for demanding sex without artificial birth control, the execution of every orthodox rabbi for demanding children and the execution of every protestant for opposing abortion. Anyone having more than one child must be executed for crimes against humanity. Anyone advocating having more than one child must be imediately executed for crimes against humanity. Only if the above steps are taken will humanity survive. Jason G. Brent jbrent6179@aol.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you failed to notice the segment of the article that specifically stated that bio-tech crops are not going to solve our problem. Current research has shown that bio-tech crop yields show negligible improvement over the conventional methods that have already been implemented to boost productivity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I stated before, technology is not going to save us from this threat. Even if we could somehow colonize, terraform, and produce crops on other planets, we would not be safe, and that is because as a species we show an overwhelming tendency to multiply to the point where our demand for resources vastly outweighs the ability of our habitats to sustain us.
Survival as a species can be accomplished in two ways:
1) we somehow overcome our ignorance and lack of self control to impose measures that put population size and growth firmly within whatever bounds we set, or
2) we suffer a near-extinction event that reduces our numbers to BCE values, thus rebalancing the world's ecosystem and providing the environment a chance to recover its former biodiversity. However, in this scenario there is no guarantee that we won't repeat the very same cycle in another three thousand years.
core luminous, you are correct that what our societies practice is a facet of the problem, but not in the way that you have argued.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI say overpopulation is the source of the problem for one reason: we have no natural inhibitors.
Humans as a species have redefined the phrase 'top of the food chain'. We all know that predatory species such as lions enjoy relative security - as long as their food supply is not diminished or removed. They cannot control this resource, and that imposes undefeatable limits on the number of lions that can survive in an environment.
Humans do not suffer from this limitation. We are the only species in the history of the planet that has developed an ability to expand its own support infrastructure almost without limit. This was accomplished by means of superior intelligence and an ability to adapt to many different environments that also is unprecedented.
If you want to go right to the roots, the invention of agriculture spelled our doom. That was the great turning point at which we began to expand beyond all boundaries until we literally filled every nook and cranny of the world, and we are still squeezing for every drop we can get.
We are now dependent upon this technology, but we have also reached the point where it is failing us. Just as the atomic properties of silicon place a limit on the density of transistors that can be formed in a microchip, so do the resources of the earth. Like it or not we are running to a brick wall, and nobody is going to enjoy - or likely even survive - the consequences.
"In affluent countries such as the U.S. and Canada, grain consumption per person is nearly four times that much, though perhaps 90 percent of it is consumed indirectly as meat, milk and eggs from grain-fed animals."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, what to do...what to do? According to a 2006 United Nations initiative, the livestock industry is one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation worldwide, and modern practices of raising animals for food contributes on a "massive scale" to deforestation[2], air and water pollution, land degradation, loss of topsoil, climate change[3], the overuse of resources including oil and water, and loss of biodiversity.
Animals fed on grain need more water than grain crops.[5] In tracking food animal production from the feed through to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1.[6] The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_vegetarianism
J. Brent : You're nuts
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been preaching population controls to environmental groups for many years. " That whatever we do today to remedy environmental problems, food shortages, disease, etc- it will not save our planet without population controls. Their continued silence is deafening! Our one shot at a fix is to force our President to address this problem and start a world wide movement to fund an educational program for the worlds women!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow - the American ethnocentric arrogance in this thread is mind numbing! A great example: "Force our President...to start a world wide movement [to educate the] worlds (sic) women!" What do you propose we teach them? I suppose your response will be condom use, abortion rights, and coitus interruptus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm glad to see that at least one of you has voluntarily decided to leave the gene pool.
There are so many half truths in the article, with so many assumptions, that I almost thing Al Gore wrote it...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut, Since there is some truth, he couldn't have.
Yes, food shortages caused by such things as not having enough profit in the growth to sell and survive...
Or... Some ding-bat, half backed 'environmentalist' idea of turning food crops into fuel, to raise the price of a can of corn by $1, and not be usable in the winter... and not feed the hungry with something besides diesel...
These might bring on Starvation.
Politically correctly allowing the mideast to teach their children (for 75+ years) to HATE AMERICANS AND KILL THE JEWS... because teaching them reading, writing, arithmetic, logic and reasoning would ruin their minds (oops... real history and real DNC policy. Sorry, not supposed to print that stuff).
There are real problems. After letting them be screwed up by people that haven't a clue... it will be hard to fix. Too bad, they are in charge, now
Galaxy man (not mum - sorry!)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe do have a natural inhibitor = we are meeeting our limits, which are by definition, self created, (inherent in the processes we have chosen) because we are denuding the habitat .... we, and the other inhabitants, are losing more and more land, more and more rivers, oceans and lakes, every day due mostly to Agro-chemical farming practices that leach nutrients, toxify soils and destroy water tables. All of life is compromised by this.
All of which is being accomplished by virtue of our 'superior intelligence' which you mentioned..... but to me, and to many others, this looks less like intelligence and more like stupidity and hubris. Hubris is the provenance of greed and elitism.
Intelligence is not assessed by how much one knows, but by what one does when faced with an unknown. Infants explore the unknown until such time as they have a decent enough model to move forwards with. THAT is intelligent, in that it precludes destroying that which works ... and within the context of nature, 'civilisation' has failed utterly in that regard.
The idea that by limiting population that war, environmental degradation etc will be avoided is foolish.
We HAVE to change the way we do things, across a huge range of activities, not merely limit birth rates.
And you have not addressed the core point I made - we do NOT return nutrients to the nutrient cycles so that others can metabolise and create yet more life. That can only lead to one final conclusion. Extinction.
So tell me why we can't copy nature, and return what is excess as nutrients rather than toxins? What possible plausible objection could anyone have to that?
@RobB1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you daft or just clueless? The U.S. exported over 56.2 MILLION tons of food aid across the globe from 1997-2007. A full 5x more than the next most generous doner, the European Commission. (http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/hunger/tables/global/multiyear/maindonors.htm)
While the merits of our food aid can be debated, the fact that we produce and send A LOT of food around the world cannot. But I know it's comfortable, easy and rather in fashion to blame the U.S. for everything from starvation to meteor showers so don't let the facts distort your dogma.
Data, it's your friend.
ignorance is bliss...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an informed naturalist and conservationist, I belive that Mr Brown's recomendations are founded on an in-depth interpertation of the problems, and moreover abd based on logic and science. Its not only anger with the apathetic mood of our socoety that is frustrating, but sometimes I feel downright lonely and sad. It's been my experience that it is generally difficult to find regular run-of-mill individuals that even have a clue about this crisis, never mind caring. It can kind of risky speaking your mind regrding these issues. How reassuring it would be during a conversation with everyday aquantancesto hear them tell me about and expressing their concerns regarding the current extinction of species ever to occur in history . I have to say, unfornately, that I have often told myself to look and think another way. Or maybe, I am too obsessed with learning the facts and what's going on inthe world. Why worry and get depressed about my grandchildren's future way of life with out water and polar bears?? On a more positive note - I feel like there is change in the air. I am hoping that something big and powerful is in store - for my children's sake. Meanwhile I will continue to read from Mr. Brown;'s "Plan-B" . kfl
Compound growth is the most powerful force in the universe. Population grows in a compound manner. At 1% per year compound growth something doubles in about 72 years. Ten doublings will take about 720 years and 10 doublings will cause the original amount to increase by a factor of 1,024 times. Humanity will destroy itself before population grows by a factor of 1,024. Population growth must stop, if our species is to survive. The greatest crime is to increase the population of humanity. Any plan or environmental action which does not stop population growth will destroy all of humanity. The only way to stop population growth is to execute anyone having more than one child. If we don't execute anyone having more than one child our species is doomed. And the only way one child per family can be achieved is to execute the Pope, all Catholic priests, all orthodox Jews and all Protestants oppposed to abortion. jbrent6179@aol.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Capitalism, destabilization equals opportunity for profitable exploitation. For the United States to capitalize a nation, the target state needs first to be destabilized. Of course, there is no rule that says the American military cannot be directly and effectively used for this purpose, and it often is; while the CIA has been the main instrument of the destabilization of non-American nations for many decades. If the policies of the "developed" nations (the Conquistadors) cause the failure of states--as America tried to engineer in Cuba (and, of course, innumerable other places)--then those failed states become desperate to sell themselves to the developed nations like prostitutes to Johns. This scenario is playing out all over the world at macro and micro scales and is, by now, virtually transparent--to everyone but an American citizen. American citizens are mind-controlled patsies and-or individual exploiters. This is a matter of ideology and cannot be corrected. It is only a matter of time before capitalists rape the people and the planet to final exhaustion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article though valuable ignores one crucioal fact. That is the human population now far exceeds the capacity of this planet to support it at anything like what we in the west would accept as a minimal standard of living. And no we will not invent ourselves out of this. What is inevitable is that 9 out of ten of us will die off within this century. And for the sake of all other lifeforms on this planet the sooner the better!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a serious issue, understand that if not the water, then it is the ENERGY inputs that provide the food security of the world. This petrochemical reliance is really all the Green Revolution was, and now the result is a world doubled in population, eating fossil fuels. The agenda promoted here is understandable, given Mr. Brown's history, and some of it is laudable, however, 'ending poverty' and reducing carbon emissions by 80% WILL occur. It happens when the human population reaches a more sustainable level. HINT: prior to the advent of fossil fuels it never got over 2 billion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a great Birth Control method that does not require any artificial contraception. It is based on understanding your bodies natural cycle and when practised properly is equally effective as condoms or the pill. It is called the Natural Fertility Method. For further information see www.fertility.com.au.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbioengineering plants and animals is likely to result in a lot more increased productivity than most people realize,as the field is still in diapers. it is true that the yield of a field of wheat may not increase greatly because of the law of diminishing returns,but it may be possible to get the same yield of grain and also change the structure of the leaves and stems enough so that they are easier to use to produce cellulosic alcohol for instance.another strong possibility is that engineered plants will be able to utilize fertilizers more efficiently,or require fewer expensive pest control measures,thereby increasing yields of useful materials at substantially less cost.net result, more food and fuel per acre and per man hour and per barrel of oil .however as a farmer i am extremely reluctant to advocate a flat out push for bio fuels, as in my opinion if such a push were to succeed,we will literally destroy whats left of our open spaces trying to keep two cars in every driveway.any one who thinks you can grow repeated annual crops of any plant for example switchgrass and remove it from the land on which it grew without soon finding it necessary to start applying fertilizer, lime , herbicides,and perhaps wateron a regular basis has never worked on a farm-unless perhaps the plan is to use peasants and human wastes to replace the chemicals and the machinery.a subsistence farm can work almost like a little self sufficient ecosystem,but when you put the crops on a truck and haul them away,you simply must use the truck to bring in replacement phosphorus, potassium,sometimes nitrogen,etc.very few weeds grow in corn once it is well established because the ground is heavily shaded.mow off a field of switch grassand pretty soon you will find yourself busy weeding your switchgrass. the only longterm solution that will work permanently is to figure out a way to spray the whole world with some sort of birth control drug the way i used to spray fies with ddt.just kidding of course, but the green revolution did not solve the food problem .it just shoved it a generation or two into the future.my guess is that the odds of world war three starting within the next decade as a result of food and fuel shortages are high enough that a lot of professional military people are working overtime preparing contingency plans and losing a lot of sleep thinking about the world thier kids will live in as adults -presuming they live.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismelbourne girl, my sister is a fully qualified nurse who teaches at the university level.her specialty is neonatal care and parental education.at her school they have a name for couples who practice the system whereof you speak ,as well as several others of the same sort.that name is parents. these systems do reduce unplanned pregnancies to some extent, but the pill is the gold standard according to the medical profession.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many failed states are a direct result of amerikan destruction?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery time i hear a doomsayer speaking (accurately) of these inevitable end of the world scenarios all i can think of is Mr Smith's monologue towards the end of the Matrix.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this""Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I've realized that you are not actually mammals. (smiles) Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. (he leans forward) There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague. And we are... the cure.""
Conversely, every time i hear someone talk about THE LIBRULS AND THE MEDIA HAVE PROPIGATIONED THE MYTH OF GLOBAL WARMING and THEN dismiss all environmental concerns as 'HOGWASH' all i can think of is the phrase "ignorance is bliss".
Perhaps the idiots have the right idea after all (for all the wrong reasons). Perhaps I'll just sit back, burn my trash instead of recycle and just enjoy Act 5 of the human race.
I'm also reminded of the joke "I hope i die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather did, not kicking and screaming like his passengers". The powerful are asleep and we as passengers are kicking and screaming. Can we wake grandpa up before the bus flies off the cliff? My humble resignation is no, we can not. It's our nature to destroy. Ourselves and others. Making our race turn 180 and 'GO GREEN' is like teaching a dog not to lick his nuts. Sure he might do it when you hold a biscuit, but when your not looking....
If having nations be unstable and hungry creates terrorists, then why is the US over in Iraq and Afghanistan destroying their infrastructure and causing them to be unstable and hungry? The WOT is a SHAM. Also, if rising affluence creates grain demand, that won't be a problem much longer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMonsanto Rep wrote: "Another reason why the world should embrace agricultural biotechnology. Genetically modified crops can help to produce more food and better quality food with less land, less water, less chemicals and less labor".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, this PR is BS. Farmers in India are committing suicide by drinking Monsanto Roundup Ready - the pesticide they are forced to use 3 times as much as necessary - studies show that GMO crops have less yield as we are seeing in Africa. GMO crops pose enormous danger by mixing animals and plants and allowing the pollen to drift off into the world where it not only contaminates organic farms irreversably, but is then used for grounds of ridiculous patent infringement cases. Now Monsanto has special "Monsanto Laws" in certain states and wants legislation like HR 875 that would make home gardeners face one Million dollar fines for growing ANYTHING. Wake up.
exactly and our mistakes are letting the governement rule eveything for our good. Wake up silly, I think we have a better change going back to the moral principles of this dilemma then just letting the government try to fix everything for our GOOD
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Plan B idea is appropriate.The question is how to institutionalize it. We need to transform this concept/idea into a socio-political framework. It would mean a dramatical push from Agenda 21 (maintain) mindset to networks of nation-and local based Plan B's (restore). Are there enough people and organizations left to do it- with the required resources time and hope?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismelbourne girl, do you know what people call young ladies that rely on the rhythm method?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe all better get our backyard food gardens growing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr.Vandana Shiva made this little video to address this issue - www.tinyurl.com/growfood
when you are ready to get started, register for a free backyard food gardening class at www.onemilliongardens.com
see you in the garden
So, "Scientific American" is a proponant of New World Order. This is fear mongering to try to prop up failed governments. The old NWO slogan "Order, out of Chaos" is apparently the POV of this author. Sorry, I'm not buying it. The economic meltdown was engineered by corruption at the top of government. This means that the government is a failed function of society, and must be purged before positive growth can be had. The food crisis is also engineered by bioengineering and chemical poisoning of the environment. The only option is to get back to personal sustainability, and away from the Agri-corporate control of the food supply. We have seen the sociopathic behavior of the corporation at work, destroying people to create private profits. I suppose the proponants of NWO want to see population dead, so the next attack is on food and water supplies for people deemed "useless eaters" by the global elite. These same elite won't want for food on their tables, and with their attitude towards the rest of humanity, may be eating our babies, as well as our wealth. Just take a look at the Georgia Guidestones if you want to see this agenda spelled out in black and white. The reduction of humans on the planet, is part of the goal of these looters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are not very scientific, however, if you consider this an option to eliminate worrisome populations. The world that will remain will only have the lowest common demininator of selfish individuals, when the rest of the world dies off.
Agreed KatzFreedman! When I invoked the term "new world order" a few days ago, I was informed that I missed the point of this article and failed to grasp the seriousness of the matter. Be prepared for the same group-think response. Mr. Brown's article is full of the same type of half-truths and misinformation he spewed over a decade ago with his dark forebodings of China. Scientific American should stick to articles with some adequate level of peer review and avoid nonsense such as Mr. Brown's musings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with your assessment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAugustwest, I agree with your assessment. Try this statistic on for size. The entire amount of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere comprise less than three percent of the total atmosphere. Humans contribute less than 1/100 of one percent of that 3%
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIce sheets are greater than ever on the east side of the antarctic continent building up a huge storehouse of fresh water.
Ocean depths are an average of three miles deep.
It is quite possible for the earth to sustain 20 billion people according to a UN report that came out in the 80's.
It is not the inability for nation states to make sure their citizens get the food, water, fuel, and shelter that they need. It is the government's own stupidity that deprives people of an ability to provide for themselves. The entire economic crisis is proof of the peter principle. Everyone in power is totally incompetant at their jobs.
I like plan C: almost everyone continues business as usual, but a few recognize the impending storm and quietly prepare. The world falls apart for a while. Populations are quickly depleted by famine, disease, and war. And then those who prepared go back to business as usual, better off than before. That is what is really going to happen- not some pie in the sky 4 part plan to end poverty and save the universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry reading "A Short History Of Progress" by Ronald Wright. The Sumerians, Mayans, Easter Islanders, Incans, Babylonians, et al - all gone. What makes us think that we're going to pull a rabbit out of the hat that they couldn't? Oh yes, that's right, they were ignant savages... and we've got TV! Just keep buying trinkets little kiddies, and pay your taxes... "the scientists" will figure something out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author is full of baloney. Things are working out perfectly for the global elite. The final goal is the death of 95% of the human population to implement the "New World Order." It is important that the population not become aware of the plan, so it must appear credible. Economic collapse, famine, disease... always blamed on the 'litle guy" are tools so no-one will say "Gee, this was planned."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAngusWest doesn't want to hear the message, and vents an emotional reaction, but says nothing to indicate these crises are not building. It's good to have that reaction posted because it is a very common reaction, especially among those who are Bible-oriented and who don't really care what happens to the Earth because they are focused on an afterlife.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is very good to have AngusWest posting, as he/she represents the denial that is very, very common. He/she clearly doesn't want the facts to get in the way of his emotional or theological beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKatz, Those that you refer to as behind the NEW WORLD ORDER.are unfortunatly correct. You refer to the "guide stones" which instruct, a global human population of 500 million as an example of their what? Well I'll tell you what. 500 million humans is our optimum number. Not to critisize, but there is far more life on this planet than us that are at stake. Surely you know of the massive die off of other species as a result of our trepedations. It is time for us to become a very much smaller part of the Earths life forms. I've flown over most of this country and have seen no part of it that wasn't heavilly damaged by our presence. The center of our country looks like a horribly huge food factory, no place for life other than our own. Time to grow up, childhoods END.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOver population is what you all want to believe? LOL...just another way to put us under ONE WORLD control, by assuming an Eart cannot last several more billions of years. Mother Nature would be insulted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you meant "depredations" rather than "trepedations".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe power eilites will not change their methodolgy of control through greed. economics is brain damage. we are reaching the tipping point and yes we cannot see the clock but it looks more and more that the mayans predicted the end of their calendar most acurately.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat is it with most of you?. It shows how "brainwashing" is so effective. You can only "see" from the perspective that "overpopulation" is the problem and try to think around it. Look at Bangladesh, sub Sahara Africa ,India and China. Heavily overpopulated, in modern terms, but not the biggest resource users. Most of the planet is vacant or under utlilised by people. Pollution is the biggest problem, and there IS enough food produced every year to feed ALL the people of the earth. Distribution is the problem due to many political and economic (greed) reasons. We live in a "throw" away culture, that has been promoted by corporate strategy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe population of the western world would be stable or in decline if it was not for mass immigration. Western society is aging rapidly and "baby boomers" will become a real burden very shortly, as these societies have not been producing children at a rate comparable to the past due to cultural conditioning. The "greenie" agenda has been with us now for over 30 years, and it WAS NOT produced because people like me started to see the damage modern society and humans were doing in general, to the planet. Fractional reserve banking and the fiat money system has allowed a "super elite" to emerge world wide and they,like most minorities , stick together. They truly believe they are elite and they, not us, decide where the planet and us are going. It is THEIR AGENDA that we are over populated. THEY can only control so many people, and thats what they want, as they already have too much money, so total power is their goal. Look at things like the Georgie Guidestones....put their by someone with too much money and an agenda. Their brainwashing is complete ie AGW and how NO opposition views are allowed.
So no, food and over population are not the problem. Pollution and deforestation is.BUT amazingly the last thing these people want is non pollutioning free energy, which could stop so many of these problems. Read their websites and literature ie Earth First, and individuals like Ted Turner, Maurice Strong, Paul Ehrlich, Al Gore etc.
What, then is your solution? Ignore it and it will fix itself? I'm sorry, but this mentality is precisely why we are all in this mess, especially the young and future generations. Such willful ignorance should be criminal and will be judged the the extended bellies and fly infested corpses of our grandchildren.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmen!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExplain how educating the world's women is ethnocentric. In case it has not occurred to you, America's women are among the world's women. Your assumption that they are not implies that, in your head, American women are somehow different from the "world's women," which would imply that it is your mind which sees America's women as somehow exceptional and different from all others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, to those of you who choose not to have children, just know that you are doing so that that the children of ignorant others may live a little less agonizing life. The peace of the childless comes from knowing that their children and grandchildren will not suffer because of the mistakes we continue to make.
Awesome! ;)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne British general of yore, whose name I have sadly forgotten, quipped something along the lines of "We are all only two missed meals from total anarchy." Its a quote well worth pondering...even the most "civilized" of peoples will revolt angrily and chaotically if more than a litle hunger were to set in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimple but painful answer may be to eat what you can grow. It may come to that anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell daid. John Hansen, Greenville, SC 29615
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent Article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no problem with religious views, but overpopulating earth makes little sense regardless. If we assume the goal is to maximise the soul-output of earth, then a stable and sustainable human population will produce many more souls over the long term, than a boom and then a bust. God will be a lot happier with sustainable soul farming I expect.
With my apologies, Deva, let me further explain what I thought was a clear and concise statement. In the grand scheme of Mr. Brown's cooked/incomplete/half-truth data and absurd conclusions and recommendations, this is a minor point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe idea promoted in this article (and by several brainwashed adherents in this thread) is the arrogant notion that American reproductive control methods can be "taught" to the world. Simply, this concept fails to consider the cultural differences of these, as of yet(!), independent countries and regions. If they are receptive - fine; but it sounds like you want to impress your beliefs and culture unduly upon them. Forcing our president, as some have suggested here, to create (read - fund with your tax dollars) a world-wide women's reproduction education program is ridiculous and will likely fuel further global anti-American resentment. I must agree though that what you propose is something Americans do well. I can't walk through a European city without finding a Starbucks or Burger King.
Let's follow the real data here and develop real solutions. It's funny how many of our former "top" American politicians have latched onto various "the sky is falling" environmentalist groups. Since they have sought power and money all their lives, I suspect there must be a similar selfish promise at the end of their "green" rainbow (e.g., speaking engagement fees, "consulting" with lobbyists, government grants, tax credits, and a whole new financial market based on carbon(!))
A note to one of my critics: let me address your litmus test assumptions of my socio-politcal tendencies: I am pro-choice, I rarely attend a religious institution, and I'm often amazed at the amount of Al Gore and Ted Turner kool-aid the American public will imbibe.
Article: "A fourth of this years U.S. grain harvestenough to feed 125 million Americans or half a billion Indians at current consumption levelswill go to fuel cars. The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV tank with ethanol could feed one person for a year."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe U.S. is well aware of this fact-making the decision to "feed" cars instead of feeding people incredibly cruel, ruthless and immoral. GRAINS MUST BE GROWN TO FEED PEOPLE - NOT CARS! And the current bills in Congress that will DESTROY small farms must be stopped!
Ask Israel for help! The Jews transformed desert and swamp into rich, agricultural land!
When I was a senior, Paul Ehrlich's book "Population Bomb" came out. It was well promoted by the establishment and had a profound effect on myself and society. Among the dire forcasts was that the air would not be breathable in any major city by the mid 80's, etc. When Ehrlich turned out to be not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong, rather than being humiliated for being a dour idiot, he is still at the top of the list of futurists for the establishment. It amazes me to see him trotted out and asked "what do you think will happen?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll this negativity is just a regurgitation of Ehrlich. The problems are greater today, without question, but if you research the problems, you will find that each and every one of them is caused not by overpopulation, but by government "inemptutude."
I remember when Scientific American was about science. This article is a ludicrous repetition of half-baked ideas from Malthus which have been shown to be wrong by every test they have ever been put to. China now exports food. India now exports food. Anyone over 40 remembers when this would have seemed impossible. This happened because of science - the kind of hard biological science which Scientific American used to publish. What a disappointment!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole "AGRI-FUEL" mess in the United States is a perfect example of what happens with pork barrel spending and special interest groups. It is a MAJOR problem and needs to be ended. I am not as optimistic as I used to be in my younger days. The same politicians, farmers, and business persons will try to block any restriction or reduction, when what we need is ELIMINATION of grains for fuel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe waste so many different grains for fuel, junkfood, food additives and food products. Corn Syrup is a major reason for the OBESITY epidemic in the U.S. Hydrogenated vegetable oil is another. Talk about a CRISIS, the younger, OBESE generation running out of food!! There would be chaos. I fear there will be a mass extinction event at this point and because we have spent 40+ years exascerbating the problem, we are already past the point of no return.
I support August West's viewpoint on this issue. Also, the author gives alarming data and doesn't provide a sane solution. These situations he describes are created intentionally by a few elite. They do NOT "just happen". The solution is to educate people - not slam them for their errors. The more understanding there is about your own life and that of others AND the planet and its needs, the more responsibility each one can take. I come from Africa and I see the result of interference instead of education and raising responsibility in each individual through sane (not greedy to the few) solutions. I wonder whose agenda the author is following. Who will decide who is unfit to live? Reducing populations is what Hitler did. His programs annihialated millions of "undesirables". You cannot presume to play god and decide who is unfit. The only solution is educating people. Also, how come the government is suddenly putting attention on global warming when it was completely ignored before? Submitted by Pro-People
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe choice we have: We can reduce our population to a sustainable one either by starvation, war, or by controlling our birthrate through law and custom.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is the choice we do not have: We cannot sustain our population at either the current or a higher level.
Conclusion: We will either successfully confront and defeat those forces bent on not interfering with population growth, or we will arrive at the same inevitable result, lower population, by far less attractive means.
All these extraordinary steps even if taken tomorrow will be utterly useless unless everyone stops popping out more babies like there is no tomorrow. The sustainable level of human population on earth may be one billion, or two, or possibly even three. And this problem will be solved, inevitably and quite soon, in one way or another.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGreat article, he covered the real issues. As I see it we need a global tax and support of the rain forest and all forest in general. Trade and purchase agreements to support ad replant.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps a portion of the carbon tax. We also need to move away from beef, get over having a hamburger for lunch and a slice of cow for dinner. This is by and far one of the greatest consumers of water (5,000 gallons per delivered pound) , grain, and forest being turned to range land or wheat feilds to support cattle. We need to push forward Alternate energy, decentralized , This will stimulate an economic recovery and assist the new generation in seeing the world with out the box.
My thoughts.
Many other things should be done. Cutting down the mangrove forest along the Bangladesh coast has allowed salt water intrusion thus ruining a tremendous amount of farmland. Following the Arab conquest, they likewise cut down the coastal mangrove forests. This ended the mists given off by the mangrove leaves through transpiration. That mist had watered the olive trees beneath which the arab horsemen rode. Replant the mangroves, the olive trees, and rebuild the dams in the desert.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChina has turned one fifth of their farmland into dust bowls. The United States knows how to fix dust bowls. We should insist China allow us to sell them the machinery and know how to fix their dust bowls. In fact, the United States should be fixing the many dust bowls between Beijing and the Atlantic Ocean. Instead of exchanging oil for wars, we should exchange oil for dust bowl repairs.
I'm not exposing some groundbreaking story here, but this is all linked to our inability to realize the damage we are doing to the Earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen are we going to learn that our choices have consequences? A perfect example of this is the fact that there are some who are against a cap and trade system.
Here is a short article that really does a nice job of uncovering the hypocrisy of many who are against a cap and trade system.
http://progressnotcongress.org/blog/?p=440
As one reads the comments, a theme is that "we" must cut back on just about everything, including procreation. What is not said is that western nations are already below fertility replacement rates and that it is other nations, cultures, where the population growth is highest. So, take your PC analysers and find a way for Asian (except Japan), African, and Latin/South American to cut back on their procreation. Also, be sure to note that the same nations that have the lowest rates of population growth are the nations that are doing the most about AGW, if it exists. So go PC India, China, and Russia about their polluting ways. Until the rest of the world sees the truth, the way, and the light, get off my back.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this*From the perspective of a high school student*
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, it seems that a good deal of the current, new generation does not realize the full consequence of ignoring these problems. I see them (and being one) I can say that as opposed to productive ventures, the educational system encourages us to think in a counterproductive manner. Likewise, the very same archaic systems that many educational institutions subscribe to are "fundamentally flawed" (it seems this phrase pops up everywhere). Even worse, there seems to be a perpetual cycle of homework and of "having a life", on the flip side (though this does not apply to all) that creates virtually no escape. Many have written on the subject (Alfie Kohn is one notable example). As some know, this problem is beyond education, finance, or any one factor. Teachers and schools (even very good ones) have held onto these old and counterproductive means of achieving an output (namely "learning and education").
What are these means?
They include grades, homework, etc.
Though they create some control and order, they often inconvenience good students who have desires to learn that need not be perpetuated by these "carrots-and-sticks" and the objective power of numbers (after all, when you are taught that your achievement can be represented by a set of numbers[grades], you have very interesting things occur).
Bad students, on the other hand, get away with little or no improvement, and thus, stricter measures are implied which again the bad students evade while the good students must bear the additional work.
So yes, you have order, and say theoretically that all the bad students TODAY complied with all of the rules; by then, the damage would have already been applied.
Even worse (and the damage mentioned above) is the near complete murder of creativity and the fear of "trying something new is bad."
But how? (as some of you reading this may be inclined to ask)
Again, as a student, even I have this built-in fear of using new vocabulary on tests based on the fear that I may misspell it or may use it incorrectly. Most of my quality work only appears OUTSIDE of school or with teachers who are more open.
I seem to have run out of characters, so I was not able to fully expound on this issue, but I will reply to any comments that I am made aware of.
This email forwarder will reach my real email- (l3iwm5302@sneakemail.com)
Except that there has been no warming for a decade now. Further, global population is going to peak in the next couple of decades, as developed countries birth rates have dropped below replacement rate. Evidence indicates that lower birth rates accompany economic development. My guess is that by 2100, most of these will be non-issues, provided we tell the enviro-thugs to shut up, and proceed with a capitalist system improving the lives of all countries citizens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, I forgot to mention,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not fully agree with the article that it is due to overpopulation, but rather a lack of means to supply for this population.
One point. Your altruism in limiting your offspring means that you will tend to breed those traits out of existence. European cultures are already being destabilized by Muslim immigrants who have no intention of changing their ways. When pushing for Darwinisim in the schools, think about what it means in a social context. The future belong to those who show up. Most of the solutions above amount to cultural suicide.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the key sentence: "Many of their problems stem from a failure to slow the growth of their populations."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo response to food shortages will work while significant population increase is present and while population levels exceed carrying capacity (which is probably in the 2-4 billion range vs the 7 billion we are now closing on.) It's a bit like trying to rebuild the engine of a car while it's running.) We are now in overshoot . (To abuse the car analogy again, visualize a car sailing smoothly, but quite temporarily, through the air after having been driven off of a cliff.)
A great resource for data on agriculture and ocean food resources (and the effect of overpopulation on them): Bruce Sundquist on environmental impact of overpopulation http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/
Others include:
Bandura etc.
http://growthmadness.org/2008/02/18/impeding-ecological-sustainability-through-selective-moral-disengagement/
Albert Bartlett on the exponential function as it relates to population and oil:
http://c-realm.blogspot.com/2008/12/kmo-interview-with-albert-bartlett.html
Approaching the Limits www.paulchefurka.ca
How Many People Should The Earth Support? http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html
Video short on exponential growth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2rTQpdyCFQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fin-gods-name.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F03%2Ftoo-many-people-too-much-consumption-by.html&feature=player_embedded
Carrying Capacity
http://iere.org/ILEA/leaf/richard2002.html
The Oil Drum Peak Oil Overview - June 2007 (www.theoildrum.com/node/2693)
...and of course the classic "Overshoot" by Catton
Gentle: you must be kidding. Tell me if I understand the logic you support in the progressnotcongress blog.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCap and trade dramatically increases energy costs as the higher costs of energy production (due to taxes) are passed on to the consumer. Not to worry though because the revenue the government receives from selling special permits to these high carbon polluting companies is redistributed (no method cited, but I can just guess) to the "average" consumer to mitigate their increased energy costs. The best part is that if you disagree with cap and trade, you must be a Rush fan, a republican, or (oh no!) a conservative. Such demagoguery has no place in an honest debate of ideas.
"Average" consumers beware, this is a government cash grab. I don't know where to start in dismantling the nonsensical arguments of the blog you referenced. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of the government controlling every aspect of my life.
What a fool I am for following the link you posted!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisoverconsumption is a factor among the wealthy. americans waste 15% of the food they buy ( from treehugger.com )
a statistic about overconsumption would be nice if it can be measured americans and canadians could easily reduce calories by 1000 on average and be healthier. NA is overfed and undernourished. overconsumption probably compares to america's economic development . At its height USA used 65% of the world's resources for 5% of world population. china would use 250% unless is remains as frugal in development as it has been in food consumption and stays (e.g. organic agriculture, simple comfortable housing ....) or becomes " green ' sustainable ; like alternative energy and fuels , organic is part of green and TCM is part of green or Ayur Veda in India . ayur veda diet advice in particular is crucial to sustainable food supply . India's maharishi transcendental meditation liberates a state of consciousness needed for all things green , happy, economical
A very interesting article and Lester Brown is right that we should be concerned. However, his analysis seems curiously myopic at several points.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, there's his assertion that there has been no progress, or even any effort to deal with environmental problems: "Even a cursory look at the vital signs of our current world order lends unwelcome support to my conclusion. And those of us in the environmental field are well into our third de��cade of charting trends of environmental decline without seeing any significant effort to reverse a single one."
You could barely breath in downtown LA back in the late 1960s, due largely to auto exhaust. Back then most city's idea of "sewage treatment" was to pipe it to the nearest river and dump it in. The Cuyahoga River used to be so full of petrochemical waste that it regularly caught fire! But thanks to a lot of hard work by a lot of concerned individuals air and water quality standards were established and a lot of the worst of the mess has been cleaned up. We've still got a long way to go and we can debate whether we've done enough, but don't tell me we haven't done anything. (Granted, Brown's focus is on the international situation, and there the environmental efforts have been weak, at best.)
Then there's Brown's assertion that the surge in world grain prices in 2007 and 2008 represents "A New Kind of Food Shortage" that's not "event-driven" by drought, monsoon, or heat wave like previous spikes in grain prices, but rather "trend-driven". Brown concludes that because the trend he sees is going nowhere but up, so will the price of grain.
A light application of Occam's Razor leaves this analysis a bloody mess. Rather than creating an elaborate explanation of the international trends that culminated in the spike in grain prices -- and which I'll grant probably had some effect -- isn't it simpler to note that, unless you're scratching in the ground with a stick, it takes a lot of motor fuels to grow grain? The price of a barrel of oil hit $140+ during 2007-2008, nearly quadrupling the cost of motor fuels. Quadruple the cost of production and what do you suppose will happen to the cost of the commodity? Yet Brown's analysis fails to consider the increased cost of production driven by the spike in motor fuel costs. The "event" -- the spike in motor fuel costs -- has largely passed. Thus, the price of grains should go down this year. We'll see.
In a nutshell, Brown appears to be a victim of The Law of The Hammer. Every single global problem is *not* related to the environment.
There can be no doubt there is a direct link between environmental scarcity and violence. Unfortunately this requires a sophisticated systemic understanding of the complex variables even to see the context of the issues in each specific place - for each region will have different ethnic and economic and historical contexts that will dictate how the solutions are framed- On top of this, over the last 30 years people who have spent their time on the ground in developing regions have come to understand that it is important, nay critical to build trust through long term presence in the community. If we care, then it is going to be those groups who have been there on the ground for a long period that are going to have the legitmacy to facilitate change and we need to seek them out and support them and fund them properly! If we can not physically go to places ourselves then we need to put our money where our mouths are... great article Mr. Brown maybe as a follow up a article online where people who want to support groups that are making a difference can be found and donated to? cheers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinally, there's Brown's "Plan B": "Similar in scale and urgency to the U.S. mobilization for World War II, Plan B has four components: a massive effort to cut carbon emissions by 80 percent from their 2006 levels by 2020; the stabilization of the world’s population at eight billion by 2040; the eradication of poverty; and the restoration of forests, soils and aquifers."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow that's a tall order. In fact, I'd argue that it's scope considerably exceeds that of our mobilization for WWII because we wouldn't be mobilizing just the US, we'd be mobilizing the world. Can we cut carbon emissions by 80%? Sure, we probably could in the US through massive development of new nuclear capability, but you'll notice that Brown never says the dread "N-word". Then, if co2 is the problem, it's not enough that the US cut it's carbon emissions, the whole world must. Last time we suggested something like this to China and India they gave us the traditional British two-fingered salute. China and India are throwing up coal-electrification plants like mushrooms, without their support you're not going to do a darn thing about co2 levels. So much for the first component of the Plan.
Then we should stabilize world population, presumably by providing birth control instruction. Great Idea! One wee problem though. Half the world's population doesn't want women to learn to read and you want to teach them birth control? Good luck with that.
The eradication of poverty. Another great idea, but how do we get the rich elites to share the wealth? Socialism doesn't share the wealth, it just insures that the proles share their poverty equally. Capitalism allows anyone with education, ability, motivation, and a bit of luck to become wealthy but, as we've learned in our "War on Poverty", not everyone has education, ability, motivation, or luck. In fact, some folks seem to lack all those things. If we must eradicate poverty -- and fairly quickly -- in order to save civilization I'm afraid we're toast.
And finally, the restoration of forests, soils and aquifers. Urgently. Civilization will collapse in, say, 10 years if we don't.. Wait, how long does it take to grow a tree again? Oh, and it takes thousands of years for water to percolate down to some of those aquifers. Screwed again!
Well, except that Brown says that Plan B is our only option because the current world food shortage is trend-driven. If the current world food shortage is more due to the past spike in motor fuel costs -- the simpler explanation -- perhaps our circumstances aren't quite so dire?
Don't get me wrong. I sincerely believe that environmental protection is a worthy effort and goal (I have to, it's what I do for a living). But I also believe that we'll accomplish more by making small improvements whenever and wherever we can than by continually scaring the crap out of people with predictions of impending doom. Particularly after a few of those predictions have failed to materialize.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe've been Robert Ehrliched and Rachel Carsoned and Al Gored. We've been told we'd be crushed by glaciers, fried by the sun, and poisoned by every substance known to man, if we weren't first stung to death by African bees. We've been beaten over the head with "The End Is Near!" signs by so many nitwits that it's hard to keep them straight without a program.
It's just me, but I'd recommend more science and less Chicken Little..
Ah, but the things warned against HAVE materialized and are continuing to do so. Ehrlich & Malthus were not wrong, they were merely early. See the links from my prior post. "Small improvements" or comfortable gentle nonthreatening course corrections are insufficient when you are rushing towards a granite wall.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'The idea promoted in this article (and by several brainwashed adherents in this thread) is the arrogant notion that American reproductive control methods can be "taught" to the world.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAugustWest, these things can be taught anywhere. That doesn't mean they can be -learned- anywhere. And don't put America ahead of the others; we haven't exactly learned it either! How many teen moms have you seen on the street or in high school and some already have another on the way? We're not even on the field for solving this issue, much less on the scoreline.
Also, I am amazed at some of the ideas that have been submitted here. People claim that these crises are the result of an elite-operated new world order, as if it actually has any hope of success. Whoever quoted that Brit had the right idea; as soon as we feel the pinch on our waistlines we are going to have a massive breakdown. When food becomes the new currency, no amount of dollars or savings bonds are going to protect anyone.
I also find it interesting that so many here cannot grasp the meaning of over-population. It doesn't mean that we've taken up all space on the planet or all the food. It means we're operating at a level that cannot be sustained indefinitely. The very fact that the aquifers are -draining- and farmland is turning into dustbowls should be a clue to you people! If we stop population growth today we will still deplete every resource this planet has to offer. That's overpopulation.
Swen, you just might be the most reasonable person I've ever read on the threads here at SA. Bravo. And I agree with your assessment, fear mongering is really little more than the entertainment of the latter 20th century and apparently making great headway into the 21st. Unfortunately, that's what makes the news. People aren't interested in hearing about non-urgent or even urgent-but-slowly-developing issues. These are considered "mundane" and not news worthy. So people invent crises to try to spur action. I'd actually support it if it accomplished its goal, because really, it's hard enough to motivate people to do anything. However, the most popular response is usually a resurgence of doomsday cults and street-corner sign-wavers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBravo Swen. Not every problem is a nail!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for elevating the content of this thread with real data, observations, and analysis.
Edible landscaping will be most important to feeding what is left of us when TEOTWAK arrives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think we have a real food crisis brewing for the world. Not enough young farmers replacing the old, we will run low of fertilizer as the NG dries up and that food which is grown is devoid of nutrition and not healthy. And to make matter worse, fewer people can even afford to buy produce.
If that was not enough, rainwater runoff from all the concrete jungles we have built is fouling our waters. When you combine this with all the hormones, antibiotics (from people pissing them out) and PCB's that make their way into our water supply it is mutating the frogs to have 5 or 6 legs and become hermaphrodites as well as some fish to exhibit hermaphrodite tendencies.
With the recent food shortages in the news I have to wonder as Richard Heinberg brought up "Who will be growing our food 20 years from now?"
"The average American farmer is 55 to 60 years old. The proportion of full time farmers younger than 35 years of age has dropped from 15.9% in 1982 to 5.8% in 2002. Who will be growing our food 20 years from now?" from "Peak Everything" by Richard Heinberg
"Amish farmers can't compete in conventual agriculture farming. 40 years ago 90% to 95% of the Amish were farmers. Today less than 10% are farmers." Ffrom: "How the Amish Survive" DVD
And even if the farmers keep up with production, many people cannot afford the high prices of produce. At Krogers a butternut squash was $7, a large apple was $1.85, a rutabaga was $3, an artichoke near $5 and a lemon was $1.35, a bag of cherries was $14.75, ONE organic yam was $8.25.
And these high priced produce are being offered when times are still relatively good What will this stuff sell for when gas is $10 or $15 a gallon? As people buy less produce due to affordability issues and the produce stops selling and rots on the shelves, the farmers will grow less produce that just rots unsold and less potential farmers will be entering that field.
We have been worshiping the wrong God all these years. We should have been making farmers our God. We should have been worshiping the farmer and doing everything we could to make their life a better one and kiss their asses for producing healthy and nutritious food for us.
Our food supply has degenerated unbelievably in recent years and getting worse every day that goes by. A societies well-being is based on healthy food that the farmer produces.
Just as cows go mad with poisonous, unnatural diet - so will society.
People will be headed off the deep end more and more as global warming starts to cook us, the oil and natural gas dries up and our excessive desires cannot be fulfilled any longer.
If the poison food does not drive us crazy, the salty and unnatural combinations and nutritionally bankrupt content will do the job as we get cooked from the inside with EMF and radio wave radiation for every direction.
The food being fed to us is factory made, genetically engineered, poison. But besides the greed for money, the drive for GMO food is that of necessity. We are overpopulated and our land is devoid of nutrition so they monkey with the food to try and keep pace with the insatiable demands of feeding the US.
In addition, there are not enough farmers in the US to feed us any other way than the way they do now. If the US went to organic farming with the same amount of farmers we have now - we would starve to death.
"In 1935, the number of farms in the United States peaked at 6.8 million as the population edged over 127 million citizens. There are over 285,000,000 people living in the United States. Of that population, less than 1% claim farming as an occupation."
http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/demographics.html
If we look at the trends of farming in the US it goes in just one direction ... DOWN.
Much of the citrus groves in Fla and CA are disappearing due to skyrocketing real estate values. You know farming is tough work and many times nature deals you a blow with disease, pests and inclement weather that destroys crops.
So why would a farmer want to put up with all that when they could get $5,000,0000 or $10,000,000 for prime real estate?
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Oct/19/bz/hawaii710190345.html
http://www.californiagreensolutions.com/cgi-bin/gt/tpl.h,content=1039
It is really a tough life 'just finding' some decent food to eat nowadays unless you happen to live in a town with a good natural grocer and have lots of money. But money is still no guarantee. I bought some 'organic peaches' last summer at Krogers for $3 a pound...they rotted before the ripened ....went straight in the trash.
When I was a kid growing up in L.A. we could pick apricots from a tree in the alley and they had fabulous flavor even when somewhat green. What do you get now with apricots...tasteless rubber for $3 a pound.
The peaches have lost their fuzz since they are picked green, buffed and waxed with poisons and anti fungals. You can't wash it off either.
Soak a buffed peach in water and you will get a rainbow oil slick on the surface of the water composed of poison...no matter how many times you rinse it. Each summer I make it my mission to try and find a few edible peaches with the fuzz still on them...I usually fail unless I drive great distances and luck into a 'real' farmers market. (I've noticed some roadside farmers stands just buy their produce in normal channels to resell)
We will run out of natural gas, just as we deplete our crude supplies in the not so distant future. Our population boom was fueled by synthetic fertilizers made from natural; gas. Once the natural gas dries up so does the fertilizer and a shortage of fertilizer equals a shortage of food...aka STARVATION!
http://www.amazon.com/High-Noon-Natural-Gas-Energy/dp/1931498539
Mr. Brown should testify before the House Energy and Commerce committee while they are drafting the American Clean Energy and Security Bill of 2009. His target of 80% emission reductions from 2006 levels by 2020 is way more than what is being sought in that Bill, as currently drafted. I would also like to hear his argument against Bjorn Lomborg who says we should ignore climate change and ecosystems for now and focus entirely on poverty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy don't you support your local farmer? By doing so, you will help us all out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a cause and effect to shopping for fresh produce at Kroger's. The least of which is less money in your pocket.
What poison's have you extracted from your peaches? You should send your assay results to the FDA. They can follow up with the grower and the supply chain.
Lester Brown's comment that "World Banks will alleviate poverty" reveals him as a collectivist with motives other than human salvation. The only way a Word Bank knows how to "alleviate poverty" is to enslave millions of taxpayers in debt and transfer the wealth while keeping the larger share for the World Bank. World banks have deliberately caused our current multiple crises with policies of enslaving the world in debt, profiting from military adventures and contrived disasters, and exploiting workers and taxpayers worldwide through the taxing powers of their governments. Unfortunately, as evidenced by their natural motives and proven track record, World banks will never have a role in any global human solution. To fail to recognize World Banks as obvious villains is to ignore all of history and science. Lester Brown apparently is a propagandist for the super-wealthy, which would explain all those lofty "awards" he's received. Localization and individual freedom and accountability are where hope lies. In thousands of examples for thousands of years it has been shown to be impossible to institutionalize without corruption, greed and administrative overhead defeating the intended institutional assignment. It is now clear that we may not rely on bureaucracies, exploiters and their self-appointed "leaders". We must rely on ourselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust like Wall-E!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can appreciate your concern. I am not so sure that calm, cool reason combined with incremental remediation is the best answer though. The big-picture Cassandras seek to tap into the instinct for self-preservation, a powerful motivator. So I think that as long as each articulation of a looming threat is countered with a well considered remedy then I am comfortable with that. What really scares me are the ones who say we've got these immense problems, but there isn't a damn thing we can do about them. Or the ones who say that we can fix these problems in ten to twenty years! I tend to focus on the remedies being proposed rather than the recapitulation of the threats which are by now like the development part of a story that we know very well. The problem with Mr. Brown's remedies is that they seem unrealistic. For instance, I do not think it is conceivable that we cut global carbon emissions 80% by 2020, or that we can somehow 'ban deforestation worldwide.' Neither will we be able to eradicate poverty (at least he didn't give us a deadline year for that one). I find that his remedies are more like declarations of ideals and are not commensurate responses to the scope and scale of the problems he presents. On the other hand to think that we can address these problems in small increments whenever we can is to misapprehend the severity and criticality of the problems. These problems are producing enormous amounts of human suffering today and we should be putting all our resources and brain power into their long term remediation. Neither our reactions nor our remedies should be like Chicken Little. They have to be carefully considered, scientifically based, of a scope and time-scale commensurate with the complexity of the problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of the readers of this compilation of interrelated profoundly negative impending ecodisaters... the proverbial "perfect storm"... understand that these warnings have a firm basis in current reality, and the consequences if even partially ignored, will be dire for the human species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApart from the usual religious conservatives parroting tiresome tripe... or attacking strawmen, the response from those free of dogma is positive... although there are legitimate differences on how we get from our current morass (Point A) to Point B.
Any one with a modicum of intelligence realizes the force driving this runaway train is OVERPOPULATION. It is central and fundamental to the extreme pressure at every link in the chain... from loss of habitat and forrestation... to desertification... to topsoil loss... loss of critical fauna and flora... loss of potable water... & crops, all exacerbated by AGW.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that when resources are scarce, people compete, often violently, to control them. Quality of life declines dramatically... then life itself.
Overpopulation also makes pandemics far more likely. Nature has a way of thining the human herd... and always has the last laugh on irresponsible human reproduction and wholesale environmental abuse.
Catholics... Mormons... fundamentalist christians and Muslims need to be stop their blind, spawning stupidity and become ethical, morally responsible stewards of their alleged "god's creation" by limiting their "selfish genes" in favor of a greater good.
I have been a strong and consistent advocate during my professional career as a physician for a radical concept, hardly ever seriously discussed on a national level: PLANNED PARENTHOOD. However, most super-sized Americans spend far more time planning their next major purchase at WalMart rather than concern themselves with such "elitist propaganda".
Cheers!
we must be Aware and very concerned about a Global Failed State Hot Spot in Africa of 17 countries North, West and South of Kenya that is 30 million people more populous than the USA, and more than 1,500,000 km2 larger than either the USA and Canada but where the average country had a failed state index of 96/120 and where the average resident has an annual income of only $605/year or about 1.3% of the income of the average North American income.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of the data will be Before the Global economic meltdown, we know the direction of negative change but can hardly grasp its true magnitude as food costs have risen and food availability shrinks because of wide spread and very serious drought conditions in East Africa. In other words the situation is probably worse than indicated here
In this region the power of the State is mainly used to enrich Corrupt Politicians at the top of the food pyramid, with very little regard to the rights, plight and welfare of ordinary citizens.
My intention here is to draw your attention to Africa's 17 State Failed or Failing State Hot Spot and show that Kenya and the trouble that the Samburu have had with their government are smack in the middle of this regional malady.
STATE FSI AREA KM2 Human Pop DENSITY water $/person $ GDP billion HDI Uhuru yr colony of % islam % Christian % Trad 0ther
1 Somalia 114 637657 9560000 13 1.60 $600/p $5.56 NA 1960 UK 99% <1% NA
2 Sudan 113 2505813 39380000 16 6.00 $1519/p $87.89 0.521 1956 UK 70% 5% 25%
3 Zimbabwe 112.5 390759 13350000 33 1.00 $188/p $2.20 0.513 1965 + 1980UK na 95% na
4 Chad 111 1284000 10780000 8 1.90 $862/p $8.39 0.39 1960 France 54% 34% na
6 DR Congo 107 2345410 62600000 25 3.30 $184/p $11.59 0.361 1960 Belgium 10% 80% 10%
10 CAR 104 622436 4220000 7 0 $458/p $2.00 0.384 1960 France 15% 50% 15%
16 Ethiopia 96 1133880 84500000 70 7.00 $324/p $27.00 0.389 1943 Italy 31% 67% 2%
17 Uganda 96 241038 30900000 119 15.40 $453 $36.90 0.493 1962 UK 12% 84% 4%
24 Burundi 94 27835 3590000 271 7.80 $389 $3.10 0.413 1962 Belgium 10% 67% 23%
26 Kenya 93.5 582646 38000000 59 2.30 $857 $30.20 0.521 1963 UK 10% 78% 12%
29 Malawi 92.4 118484 13900000 118 20.60 $312 $4.30 0.457 1964 UK na na na
43 Rwanda 88 26338 10200000 343 5.30 $ 465.00 $4.46 0.435 1962 Belgium 5% 94% 1%
44 Eritrea 87 117400 4400000 37 0 $295 $1.48 0.483 1942, 1992 Italy 50 50 0
63 Zambia 82 752614 11860000 16 1 $1150 $14.3 0.434 1964 UK 5 95 0
71 Djibouti 80 23200 500000 22 0 $1252 $1 0.516 1977 France 94 6 0
75 Tanzania 79 945087 40000000 41 6.2 $521 $20.72 0.503 1961 UK 35 35 30
85 Mozambique 77 799380 21397000 25 2.2 $465 $9.64 0.366 1975 Portugal 23 45 17
125 S Africa 63 1221037 47900000 39 0 $5693 $277 0.674 1910 UK 2 80
161 USA 33 9826630 306301000 31 6.8 $46859 $14264000 0.95 1776 UK 0.6 74 16 none 9.4
167 Canada 26 9984670 33630000 3.2 8.9 $45428 $1511000 0.967 1897 UK 2 78.5 15.5 none 4
Total AFS ave FSI 96 11444150 337240000 29.5 4.8 $605 $260 Billion av HDI0.423 1961 < 50 years av 35% 57% Chris
9.9% Trad
17 States
Compliled by Mike Rainy 27 April 2009 from Failed States Index site and State data on wikipedia
Now my power point skills are not brilliant, But I recall that the first TARP or so-called Troubled Assets Relief program was about $700 Billion and that barely bailed out US Banks and investment houses and Motor Companies.
The point I would like to make about the mix of religions in these countries is that Neither Muslim, Nor Christian countries have been able protect people from corrupt governance and that might be part of the problem as AfricanTraditional
Value systems are on average held by only 10% of the populations
We have all been shocked at how little real accountability was shown by CEO's in their use of these funds. If there are Banks and Companies that are TOO BIG TO FAIL, WHAT ABOUT AN AFRICAN REGION OF THIS SIZE AND POPULATION?
IF THERE WAS EVER A TIME AND PLACE TO GET GOING WITH PLAN B, SURELY THIS IS IT!!
I found this article to be sounding the alarm of death. While I agree the world is reaching its limits in food production and even seeing a decline in food production due to soil erosion, water depletion and global warming, I can't help but be skeptical of the examples cited as reference points. While there are numerous examples of countries struggling to survive, there are also examples of countries increasing their agriculture productivity. I want to also add that the state of the world is always one of in flux. I agree that "new technology" is not the answer to our problems and that we are indeed facing very serious problems--however the problem is also one of inequalities of wealth, subsidies of grain products, and the market demand for cash crops often promotes good land to be used for export crops. These problems involve more than just the environment they directly involve the politics and economics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAugustwest thanks for keeping the listserve in check. Its a little alarming how absurd most of these ethnocentric are!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome measures can be taken immediately:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Reduce beef consumption to one meal a week. This will liberated huge quantities of cereals to feed the world.
2) Pay third world farmers carbon credits to produce biochar as did amazonian indians. see www.eprida.com
3) Plan efficient public transport and ban cars.
4) Wear warm clothing indoors to reduce central heating etc
Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization? Only for Africans, where there is no civiliztion anyway. I was part of a well digging program where we left a perfectly workig well with trained people to keep it up. It fell apart after 4 months. People just shrugged when asked why they didn't oil the system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany respondents, agreeing with Lester Brown, see major problems ahead for our civilization. As individuals we are powerless to affect the outcome except by making them worse. What kind of government could ameliorate the human predicament - and would it be electable? Keith Palmer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany respondents, agreeing with Lester Brown, see major problems ahead for our civilization. As individuals we are powerless to affect the outcome except by making them worse. What kind of government could ameliorate the human predicament - and would it be electable? Keith Palmer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore CO2 means more food. Plants must have it to survive and prosper. Studies show 30+% more growth because of increased CO2 from 200 years ago. Sequester it and there is less food. IF GW happens, which is in doubt, warmer temperatures mean longer growing seasons. The article doesn't mention GW policy of turning food into fuel, which already has put 100 million into starvation. What about GW policy that uses 100 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of ethanol? What about GW policy that encourages putting marginal land into production which reduces top soil? What about ecopolitical policies that prevent retrieving fallen timber which could have been used for product or fuel, and insteads allows it to rot and release CH4, which is 22X more efficient than CO2 as a GW gas? Business owners actually think longer term than government workers, and much longer than politicians.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow right this article is! The fools of the previous administration and the religious community prevented greater population control and promoted the ethanol from corn disaster. Let's hope the Obama administration is smart enough and strong enough to start the necessary actions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhomever said "It is only when the disaster is unavoidable that we act to mitigate the worst of the impact" is onto something. But often we are trotting out the wrong solution and way too late in the game to do any good. Take Mr Gore's campaign on global warming ... it is hopelessly complicated by the fact that although we've a record number of no-sunspot days over the past eight years (leading to cool winters and making the poor man look irrelevant) the backdrop for that is 60 years of the most solar activity in a millennium. So we're now heading into solar max 24 with zero ability to do anything about the coming drought even after Mr Obama doubles our energy costs with cap-and-trade strategies. Come 2012, it won't be just the third world going through food shortages and high prices, because nobody is ready for the coming seven lean years ... and there is no faithful steward of the public trust like Joseph anywhere to be found.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAugustWest - we understand. We were once where you are, lost in denial and stuck in our old paradigm. Change is happening and you will eventually come to acceptance, just like we have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt takes longer for some, and that's perfectly ok and normal.
You'll come around.
AugustWest - we understand. We were once where you are, lost in denial and stuck in our old paradigm. Change is happening and you will eventually come to acceptance, just like we have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt takes longer for some, and that's perfectly ok and normal.
You'll come around.
These issues have been front and center for MANY years, unfortunately the pessimist in me doesn't see substantive change coming. Environmental resistance is snapping back. We've maxed out on our environmental capital and there's nothing left, but a downslope. There will be pockets of success, but the vast majority on this planet are going to languish in misery and deprivation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople should be advised to not reproduce at all, or, to commit to only one or two children, max. That is just for starters. Brown's article lists several countries that are in danger of failing. Others have said if we lose the continent of Africa, we are done. People are starving the world over. Food systems are failing - I live in the Midwestern US and farmers here report a dramatic loss of top soil, how will crops grow without that? I conduct research on the Pacific salmon fishery - the oceans are in danger too. August - if your personal freedoms to wear a condom, or not, was all there was to worry about, that would be fine. You need to wake up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnbnv
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCounterpoint article link: http://www.reason.com/news/printer/133282.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlan3354 Sorry, I did not realise you were referring to my comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as I am concerned a god does not exist, however various versions of the bible do. For those who point to the bible, I say it is an historic document which reflects the evolution of our ethics. At the time of Lot it was considered an honourable thing to offer your young daughters to townsfolk who wanted to rape your male visitor.
If a god existed none of us would be around. When I look up my family tree I see a few nasty bastards.
I don't see anything wrong with civilization falling apart, and whole country starving to death. We have too much overpopulation in the world, and this planet cannot support it. If human beings refused to limit their numbers,then nature will do it for them. The usual way is, the four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: war, starvation, plague, disaster of weather. Human beings are not going to limit their numbers, they haven't gotten any smarter since the ancient ages.anybody who is stupid enough to try and make a "world order" to save all these countries from themselves, is a fool. You're not taking into consideration the psychology of human beings; not at all! All those starving people are all going to kill each other over food and water. There's going to be huge wars, plague, starvation, and brutality. If you think that the leaders, and countries are going to choose to be rational, calm, and do the logical efficient thing to survive, you're out of your mind. No way! And, you're not going to be able to tell all these countries, and their people what to do. The UN is a farce. Nobody is going to listen to you; you're braying into the wind, towards deaf ears.WHY are you worrying about this? You do not have any control over what is going to happen, because you do not have control to make the population and countries do logical rational things.the problem with scientists is that they think the general population is efficient and rational like they are, and are completely out of touch with reality. If I were you, I would go and start buying fire arms, practice with them and arm yourself to the teeth. Already, there is a huge shortage of ammunition in the country, because everybody is buying it all up. In Oregon, you can't get any ammunition anywhere!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not see a rational, practical, realistic anthropologist here, trying to explain how human beings actually function in the world, and what they actually do in reality. Or, a sociologist, or a psychologist. Or, even a historian. Oh, sorry there is somebody with history here, isn't there? Well, I suggest you all look at history. When there are too many people, overpopulation and not enough food, people go to war against each other and kill each other off for it. That is exactly what's going to happen. If they bring down civilization, there's no way to stop it. This is completely futile to try and control a huge momentous future that is inevitably going to happen. Of course it is.you cannot control mankind, instinct, and nature. You cannot save mankind from himself.
hi
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am surprised to find such a shallow and unscientific article in SciAm. AGW is worse than a hoax since it promotes remedies that will be far worse than the problem. "Carbon Sequestration" will waste resources we do not even have. And it will have with a near ZERO benefit. Unless we count the benefit for those, who lobby for it and who will get their cut from the "cap and trade" business.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr look at government mandates for Biofuels. There is a common pattern and you will find it by "following the money". And contrary to green propaganda, it will not lead you to "Big Bad Oil" but to something else that keeps getting bigger and worse: government!
"Old man" in his post brings it to the point by writing "Yes, food shortages caused by such things as not having enough profit in the growth to sell and survive...
Or... Some ding-bat, half backed 'environmentalist' idea of turning food crops into fuel, to raise the price of a can of corn by $1, and not be usable in the winter... and not feed the hungry with something besides diesel...
The vast majority of over 130 replies points out similar fallacies. There are of course limits to growth and the Club of Rome pointed this already out 40 years ago. But according to their predictions we would have run out of all resources 20 years ago. So much for alarmism!
The name of the game is Adaptation to uncontrollable change. Cultures that fail to adapt will fail. "Global" solutions are folly and it is folly to believe that Darwinism will not apply to humans as well. Adaptation cannot be centrally planned but it will be discovered by human ingenuity, free to study, to understand, to try, to fail, to succeed and to learn. Adaptation is essentially "local" and so is failure.
This article contains its own solutions. Eating meat and dairy products deprives billions of people from eating sufficient cereals. If we ate less meat in rich countries, we could feed the entire world, which would in turn reduce demographic expansion, thereby reducing pressure on ressources. Indians are mainly vegetarians, meat only really being recommended for pregnant women. Less meat also means less colon cancer!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFood production relies on photosynthesis and carbon dioxide. Reducing carbon dioxide to 200 will stop production and 200 - 300 will endanger it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is our current problem. The world population occupies about 1.4 of the land area. That is not a problem.
Lester Brown , like Paul Ehrlich, has been banging this same drum for so long he's given every thinking person a headache. If any of your readers have read Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist, they will remember how many of Lesters predictions have actually come to pass. Like the prophets of old, proclaiming doom pays a good living. How many books and magazines has Lester sold selling doom? Get a real job.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is particularly timely in its appearance. We at the Stranded Wind Initiative have recently published an update to the National Renewable Ammonia Architecture. We don't have answers for phosphorus and potassium shortages (yet) but we've set forth a foundation for a discussion about how to handle our nitrogen fertilization needs. Fertilization is just the start as ammonia makes a fine fuel and can serve to drive plant based carbon sequestration, too. We hope you'll take the time to Google and read about our 'silver BB' for the palette of problems Mr. Brown describes in his article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author is correct in many respects. Now, more than ever before, identifying the real problems, and taking correct and palatable solutions may prove crucial to this iteration of the genus' Homo continuation. So why did grain prices rise so dramatically in 2008? Research into the subject quickly identifies one major gadfly. Biofuels. Deforestation doubled in the Brazilian Amazon last year due to clearing of land primarily to produce biofuel grain, a new trendy way to make money. You don't have to spend much time realizing that this sort of misguided intelligence will wreak havoc on all manner of resources, notably water, biodiversity and yes energy. There would seem to be some need to, at some relevant point, recognize, and give credence to the other brooding 800 pound gorilla's in the climate change room. The first such problem, with its nose just poking through the intellectual fog, might be population. In 1999 Kofi Annan announced we had just passed the 6 billion mark. Ban ki-moon announced at the food conference almost a year ago that we would top 10 billion by 2050. Even in our most basic factory configuration, a single human requires considerable resources throughout its lifetime, and especially so in Western Plush trim. A recent UN report concluded that 80% of all arable land was now in production, the population bomb could reasonably be concluded to be simmering. In terms of climate change, another 800 pounder ready to pounce, can anyone provide a future fantasy (model result) that negates any and all possible effects of our present triple canopy rainforest devastation trajectory? A quite massive psychological study concluded in the 1970's that the human being is nine times more susceptible to rumor than it is to fact. If you do the math on that this either means that 88.9% of the time we get it wrong, or only 11.1% of us ever get it right. Either we change that, or it will be changed for us, and perhaps not so long for now. While we fritter away our resources predicting the obvious to some repercussions of ddoubling the concentration of CO2 from less than one tenth of one percent of our atmosphere, to a mind boggling still less than one tenth of one percent in 300 years, the Holocene, at 11,500 years old just so happens to be at precisely one half of a precessional cycle old. Which makes it the same age as the previous 6 interglacials dating back to the Mid Pleistocene Transition. One fact you never hear discussed is that it would seem to take an ice age to actually increase our braincase capacity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe should not be turning grain into motor fuel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a farmer. We run cattle, sheep and goats for meat, using grass rather than grain to feed our animals, without external inputs and without irrigation. Personally I can't do anything about the global population at this stage of my life. However, I can, on my farm of 50 hectares, reverse the loss of top soil and increase the aquifer recharge. In fact I can and do build top soil on one of the driest continents on the Earth. This may seem an insignificant contribution to the world's current woes, but it is working in the right direction. By choosing farm management options that regenerate the soil, without the use of external inputs, for every 1% I increase soil carbon to a depth of 30 cm, I sequester 6,600 tonnes of carbon dioxide. For those of you who believe that all you need to grow plants is photosynthesis and carbon dioxide, you have obviously never grown anything in your life. There needs to be a balance between the carbon in the soil with its resulting soil biota and the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and there also needs to be sufficient water plus about 50 minerals in various concentrations. By increasing the carbon content of my soil, I also increase its water holding capacity, increase the recharging of our aquifers, increase our biodiversity, increase our yield, and improve the health of our soils, plants and livestock. Whether or not we are experiencing the effects of global warming is only distracting to the debate. I believe we are, but I would farm this way regardless. What I do know is that farming is becoming increasingly difficult with more frequent and severe droughts. The measures I am using to survive are simultaneously countering many of the problems described by Lester Brown – on a local scale. Did I discover my way of farming? No. I have been following the advice of some incredibly innovative farmers. Could my way of farming be extended to other farmers around the world? Absolutely. Would it solve the problem of food shortages? It would certainly contribute significantly to the solution. Would it solve the problem of overpopulation? No. Would it solve the problem of loss of topsoil? Yes. Would it solve the problem of dropping water tables? Not on its own, but it would contribute to the solution. Would it solve the problem of global warming? No, but it does have the capacity to buy the world about 30 years of time to get its house in order and reduce emissions. For more information, see www.carboncoalition.com.au
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to read the comments. Clicking on "read comments" returns me to this box for writing a comment & this has now happened numerous times. Please advise on how to click through to read the comments. Edie.Frederick@gmail.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to read the comments! Clicking on "read comments" has returned me numerous times to this box for submitting a comment. Please advise how I can access the comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you.
In general I agree with what Mr. Brown says in his article. I do however detect a slight American view of the world in the article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI live in Africa, and I can see the effects of "overpopulation" on a daily basis. It is not so that overpopulation "will" cause bad things to happen such as failed states and wars - it is happening right now, at a higher rate and frequency than Mr. Brown seems to imply.
As example: Even though there is a national scheme for providing antiretrovirals for people with AIDS, 1000 people per day die of aids. This means that there is a "natural" way for nature to reduce the population as the human based way to save this population cannot keep up, due to ineptness, corruption, mismanagement and misappropriated education on the virus. So here the requirement of the commodity AVR's have already outstripped the demand.
Other symptoms of the problem are murders (80 per day), rapes (250 per day), 40% unemployed, malnutrition and starving.
As part of Mr. Brown's solution is to "educate" the world and so make the problem diminish.
In my country the government is corrupt to the core, the judiciary has been compromised, High level jobs are handed out to friends and family, the remaining people with education and skills (that haven't left before) are leaving the country and taking their skills with them, critical positions in the public service are left vacant rather than place available skilled people that has the wrong skin color according to labor legislation that is racially structured, in direct contrast to a constitution that prohibits differentiation on the base of race. This country is on a one way path to a failed state and there is nothing the "West" can do about it.
Population Management doesn't feature in any priority lists.
For America (or the West) to come up with a Master Plan that will solve some of the mentioned population problems is just not practical. Even the culture of the majority of the people in my country is to have many children as possible - 5 to 8 is not uncommon, while one husband may have many wives - for one male to spread his genes over to 20 children is also not uncommon. To say that every couple must have 1.5 children is just not an option. In fact just to mention the population problem is taken as the West prescribing their value system to the Africans.
This sad situation is prevalent in most other countries on the continent, and in many cases much worse. To even think of convincing these governments to accept any dictates on population planning is a waste of time.
I wondered how long it would take for someone to come up with Malthus and how his crazy ideas have been proven wrong in every possible way. Well I don't believe his theories have even nearly been tested and proven wrong in all possible ways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA small though experiment if I may. Let's assume Malthus is wrong and by some means, let's say by use of technology, the human population can keep on growing in perpetuation. At some point the physical space on earth will start to run out and only standing room would be available. We can "easily" solve this problem by pumping dry the oceans, store the water in space, and let the people live on the dry seabed - up to the point that again there is standing room only. We can solve this problem by building a second story of standing room on top of the first and wait till that is filled up. And then a third story and so on, up to the point that the people on the highest stories start having difficulty in breathing the thin air (some 10 Km up). No problem, we just feed them oxygen together with they daily portion of food and water. Going higher and higher will mean we have to supply them with fully fledged spacesuits. At that time it might just be simpler to build massive orbiting space ships and put the excess people on these. This ridiculous idea can now be expanded on and on until the whole Solar System followed by the Galaxy and then the whole universe is filled with people standing around in massive spaceships - others might have found some habitable planets they they also have filled up to multi-storied standing room only.
At some or other point in above expansion there will come a point and a time when the naturally available resources providing food, water air and spaceships to all the standing multitude will become depleted, and at that very point, Malthus' theory becomes true. My first guess would be a water problem, but basic food or air might be the first.
Even if we look at the situation today on earth there are pockets of areas on earth where people have hit a local resource problem, and this is causing the people to live in horrid environments that causes death by illness and starvation (also crime and wars). Even at this point to say Malthus is completely wrong in every possible way puzzles me.
Another point of confusion (to me). If we take a situation such as described above above (a localized area where human resource demand outstrips resource supply) and the situation becomes so bad that the death rate equals the birth rate, we can see that there is now a natural balance with zero population growth. There is also a lot of suffering. The human race cannot accept such misery so what to we do? We send them massive food aid to stop the dying from malnutrition, and we send in an army of medical aid practitioners and supplies to stop them from dying from illnesses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are now not so hungry and sick so instead of dying they can go ahead and procreate, and multiply, and of course start using up more resources than before, even those that have been sent by food and medical aid. This will go up to the point that they again get to a (new) balancing point where resource demand outstrip supply, and again the misery of death by malnutrition and disease will be the same as before, only the numbers will be higher. We can now send them still MORE food aid and MORE medical aid, and for a while things will go better, up to the point that the next balancing point have been reached, and we're back to square one, albeit again with greater volumes than before.
So exactly what problem has the sending of food and medical aid solved? It's just a matter of time before the exact same problem arises, but only with higher volumes.
There must be a better way to solve this problem, as the current way of doing things solves exactly nothing. It only makes it worse.
There seems to be no other solution than to introduce some kind of population management in some way that does not violate any person's human right or dignity. This of course disallows forced abortions ala the Chinese way. If it isn't done, nature will do it for you with associated suffering and misery.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay 28, 2009
Editor, Scientific American
One must be pleased that your prestigious publication has featured and recognized the dire planetary condition described by Lester Brown in his article, Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization in your May 2009 issue. The problem of feeding our burgeoning world population was as is well known long ago predicted in his 1798 Essay on the Principle of Population by the often pooh poohed in recent years Thomas Malthus. However, the seminal facts Mr. Brown raises in his splendid article have often in recent decades not received any urgent notice. However, in his perspicacious 1997 book, A Bicentennial Malthusian Essay: Conservation, Population and the Indifference to Limits (ISBN 1-890394-00-9) conservationist John F. Rohe, revisited and reevaluated Malthus using many of the same arguments as Mr. Brown! Thankfully, now, you have put this urgent population/food issue on high visibility alert!
Donald A.Collins, President
International Services Assistance Fund
5620 Oregon Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20015
202 363-3664 or 244-7485
FAX 202-966-5881
eMail Dcoll28416@AOL.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay 28, 2009
Editor, Scientific American
One must be pleased that your prestigious publication has featured and recognized the dire planetary condition described by Lester Brown in his article, “Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization” in your May 2009 issue. The problem of feeding our burgeoning world population was as is well known long ago predicted in his 1798 “Essay on the Principle of Population by the often pooh poohed in recent years Thomas Malthus. However, the seminal facts Mr. Brown raises in his splendid article have often in recent decades not received any urgent notice. However, in his perspicacious 1997 book, “A Bicentennial Malthusian Essay: Conservation, Population and the Indifference to Limits” (ISBN 1-890394-00-9) conservationist John F. Rohe, revisited and reevaluated Malthus using many of the same arguments as Mr. Brown! Thankfully, now, you have put this urgent population/food issue on high visibility alert!
Donald A.Collins, President
International Services Assistance Fund
5620 Oregon Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20015
202 363-3664 or 244-7485
FAX 202-966-5881
eMail Dcoll28416@AOL.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMay 28, 2009
Editor, Scientific American
One must be pleased that your prestigious publication has featured and recognized the dire planetary condition described by Lester Brown in his article, “Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization” in your May 2009 issue. The problem of feeding our burgeoning world population was as is well known long ago predicted in his 1798 “Essay on the Principle of Population by the often pooh poohed in recent years Thomas Malthus. However, the seminal facts Mr. Brown raises in his splendid article have often in recent decades not received any urgent notice. However, in his perspicacious 1997 book, “A Bicentennial Malthusian Essay: Conservation, Population and the Indifference to Limits” (ISBN 1-890394-00-9) conservationist John F. Rohe, revisited and reevaluated Malthus using many of the same arguments as Mr. Brown! Thankfully, now, you have put this urgent population/food issue on high visibility alert!
Donald A.Collins, President
International Services Assistance Fund
5620 Oregon Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20015
202 363-3664 or 244-7485
FAX 202-966-5881
eMail Dcoll28416@AOL.com
Dear Mr. Brown,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour article is appaling, one of the most through analyses of the global food situation. Especialy worrying is the depletion of fossil water reservoirs. But I have two comments:
1. I do not understand the final conclusion that "there is no box" : The box exists and it is our planet! Think globaly, act localy is the motto of the green movement here in Europe.
2. Instead of helping the poor have you ever thought of putting a limit to the income and fortune a person can have in your country? Is it by any means normal for a person to posess 1.000.000 times more money than his fellow citizen? Our planet is limited, so greed and luxury should have a limit as well.
Best regards,
Alexandros Argyropoulos
Civil engineer
Member of the ecogreens party
Athens, Greece
Please forgive my 2 spelling mistakes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisappalling, one of the most through analyses" should read:
appealing, one of the most thorough analyses
All the best,
Alexandros Argyropoulos
How about business, literature, sociology, math ,..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe best form of birth control is an educated woman.
What a strange thing to say John.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the author meant but "there is no box" that our thinking has to change altogether. We cannot just shift a little here and there - get in the box and now get out. He means there is literally no box - we need to transform ourselves, and the systems we have created.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI totally agree. We need a wide scale program to go into cities and villages and absolutely make sure the girls and women are getting a good education and become less and less economically dependent on men. They will marry later and have fewer children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthejpro - We must educate people about the environmental catastrophy that is the meat industry. Not only does it cause untold damage to the environment, but it is heartless and cruel to the animals themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod helps those who help themselves. So ......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat we do is totally and completely and absolutely relevent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is real magic coming out of the Asian Biochar conference.
15 ear per stalk corn with 250% yield increase,
Sacred Trees and chickens raised from near death
Multiple confirmations of 80% - 90% reduction of soil GHG emissions
The abstracts of the conference are at
http://www.anzbiochar.org/2009presentations.html
Sir, you are a moron. You apparently think that the ONLY obligation we have in life as human beings is to assure ABSOLUTE individual freedom for the few, regardless of the effects the exertion of that individual freedom has on the COLLECTIVE interests of ALL life on the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSir, you are a moron. You apparently think that the ONLY obligation we have in life as human beings is to assure ABSOLUTE individual freedom for the few, regardless of the effects the exertion of that individual freedom has on the COLLECTIVE interests of ALL life on the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSir, you are a moron. You apparently think that the ONLY obligation we have in life as human beings is to assure ABSOLUTE individual freedom for the few, regardless of the effects the exertion of that individual freedom has on the COLLECTIVE interests of ALL life on the planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe following comment I made was supposed to be linked to the comment I replied to, but it was not. Thus, below is a copy of the comment I replied to, followed by my comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAugustWest at 09:03 AM on 04/22/09
This is quite possibly the most absurd article I have ever read in Scientific American. One interesting aspect of this article is that it effectively describes how all the half-baked solutions to "save the planet" are systematically linked. In Mr. Palmer's new world order, liberty, freedom, and personal beliefs cease to exist as he dictates how many children you can have (and your birth control methods!), what energy sources are suitable for you to use, and the amount of taxes you will pay to fund methods to abate poorly analyzed environmental and economic data.
cdresearch at 02:23 AM on 06/16/09
Sir, you are a moron. You apparently think that the ONLY obligation we have in life as human beings is to assure ABSOLUTE individual freedom for the few, regardless of the effects the exertion of that individual freedom has on the COLLECTIVE interests of ALL life on the planet.
Without sufficient resources (food, water, oil, soil) humanity will be thrown into greater conflict, social unrest, disease, poverty, refugee migration and misery. We are truly entering a new era. Marshall Vian Summers, in The Great Waves of Change, claims that these crises leave us open to exploitation and ultimately takeover by extraterrestrial forces. You gotta read his stuff!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt all comes down to OVER-POPULATION!!! We need to start putting limits on the amounts of children couples are allowed to have. EDUCATION AND EASILY AVAILABLE BIRTH-CONTROL DEVICES ARE IMPERATIVE!! OTHERWISE STARVATION, GREATER THAN IS ALREADY OCCURING, and ANARCHY AROUND THE WORLD WILL BE THE RESULT! And if they refuse to agree.... then Birth-control chemicals in everyones food..... at the factories, aand all food distribution centers.! And we must dispose of the Katholickass church..... the enemy of the human race!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think theres a threshold of large scale disaster on that path of reducing ever more people to subsistence. The variety of disasters that befall large groups of desperate people would seem to be many and varied.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFood shortage for the world as a whole is not what brings down the civilizations of the rich directly, of course. Food is the last resource to become unaffordable, of course, not the first. Well be brought down by the things making all our other resources ever more expensive and complicated to use. That will push all our resources beyond our means the same way depleting resources are pushing the price of food beyond the means of the poor. Everything that used to be cheap will become too expensive to use, and so our systems would eventually be drained of vitality and decline something like Romes did.
Our economic decline may be more rapid than Romes. That would be due to the variety of disasters that befall large groups of desperate people , especially if combined with significant ecological collapses and disruptions as seems clearly coming (if we dont reduce the scale of resource exploitation and start using the real meaning of sustainable in discussing the subject)...
The catch is the structural growth of investment that profits a few and continually drives up debt as it also drives up demands on depleting resources. That's the error of growth, it makes everything we use prohibitively expensive.
www.synapse9.com
Lester,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read bit of your work
including
a book
Eco Economy
as well as the piece
"Plan B"
and all I can say
is that we have a reactor
7 minutes away.....
hydrogen fusion
sends us our UV rays
reddens my face in IR
and as I release CH4 and H20
today
I can't say
which way
we
will find
ourselves
after all
this albedo's
changed.
My father however
continues to say
he believes in the power
of Thorium reactors
he calls them "fast breeders"
Remember this fact: E=Hv
as my work function
gets misplaced.
Food shortages will not be the proximate cause of the downfall. Non nutritiously or marginally feed BORED people are more dangerous than near starving, who become weak. I feel Mr. Brown's fearful predictions are well founded but not proven. Extensive analysis should be undertaken to support a widened awareness and motivate effective action.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClass struggles may increase the number of faltering and failing states before hunger. The crisis may be coming sooner than we think. "... anticipate sudden change."
A lot of the problem is too many people are having too many children. In england it is becoming more of a trend for working class young girls to have lots of children. They tell us that more women are not having any children at all, this may be true on a small scale if compared to a time in the past when all women had to have children. In reality an increasing number of women are having more then two children early on in life making it possible for several generations of one family to be alive at one time. In some parts of the world religion is the reason for high birth rate. Many may think it is bad to live in a system where we are told the max amount of children we can have, but if people continue to be able to have as many children as they wish then nature is going to be killing them with starvation. If for the past 50 years resources and labour had gone towards research into food production instead of producing none needed things to sell, then we may have had moon bases by now. If fields were not wasted growing lots of cotton to make clothes for fashion to be disposed of and instead fewer more functional clothes were produced, there would be more space to grow food. . The problem is that production of everything is not about need for the thing in question, its about weather it will sell as people always want to buy the things they do not need. This is why communism would be good for the future. The riots in places where food is scarce shows the true nature of humanity. All those with ideals about the future of humanity in a world where the system has gone are in for a shock, human nature is dark and the only thing that is keeping society together is not some meme that humans are more advanced or evolved these days, its just that at present in the west the people at the top and the middle classes who run everything have all they need. If this changed there will be no government or public services as all those at the top and all the middle class people will just behave like animals, they will be no different or no more advanced then those in jail. The more freedom we get in law the less we get in practice, this is shown by the increase in street crime as young people have been given more rights. Now people do not have the same right to freedom of speech or to walk the streets as there is more crime. The more rights individuals have the more they seem to reduce the freedoms of others, humans just are too driven by there animal instinct, this is why a switch to a structured communist system is needed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTick Tock
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumanity needs to come to accept the death and starvation of the lesser among us, and to accept that while a rich American banker merits three limousines in a garage attached to a mansion, and perhaps ownership of three or four likewise equipped mansions, many Brits, Scots, and other Europeans merit going without lunch, while many Africans outright die of starvation, as in Darfur! We must come to realize that riches come to the conquerors, the fast knives, and the heartless, and look to American Capitalism and corporatism for lessons on how to live! Look at Israel, in a dead and unproductive desert, with no oil at all, thriving! by what? Certainly not secret knowledge no one else has access to! Why not Darfur? Just what the hell is the real unemotionalized difference? Telling the truth in this matter may show the way for others to make the difference, if they so choose. and that is the crux of the matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHumanity needs to come to accept the death and starvation of the lesser among us, and to accept that while a rich American banker merits three limousines in a garage attached to a mansion, and perhaps ownership of three or four likewise equipped mansions, many Brits, Scots, and other Europeans merit going without lunch, while many Africans outright die of starvation, as in Darfur! We must come to realize that riches come to the conquerors, the fast knives, and the heartless, and look to American Capitalism and corporatism for lessons on how to live! Look at Israel, in a dead and unproductive desert, with no oil at all, thriving! by what? Certainly not secret knowledge no one else has access to! Why not Darfur? Just what the hell is the real unemotionalized difference? Telling the truth in this matter may show the way for others to make the difference, if they so choose. and that is the crux of the matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought the "Jig" was up when the Asian non-hormone milk or meat fed girls at the Olympics appeared so young compared to American standards, yet were proven ages! We have a whole generation of under-aged over-sexed and very confused children to deal with and this is not healthy or normal! These children no longer fit the "norms" of our own society! They do not fit the school structures, job structures, of any other social structures we have! This is the disaster, we wish not to admit! We are doomed to accommodating little girls who want to procreate, and are capable to do so at ages before their psyches can cope! We have poisoned our own system this way! God Bless America? Hell no! God save Americans from themselves! Food supplies, the least of our most pressing problems, will continue forever in this blessed land, cred for by reponsible farmers watchfully cropping as to provide for sustainablilty, culturing trees to maintain water supplys, ever vigilent, not greedy, God like and our protectors, the holders of the keys for future generqations of Americans, unwaivering in their thankless priesthood, against giants like monsanto and Beyers, they unflinchingly do battle for Americans very fat bellies, and win the good fight to keep us larger better fed and healthier than any other nation! We are so lucky to have this "Super Breed" among us, so fortunate to have perpetual fertility in our unsaltable perpetually fertile fields and farmers giving us the richest purest milk, cheese and meat, we thank them now and sacrifice them to the Factory Farms for ROI as is the custom in America, corporatists to the end a power not even the gods can hold back, human greed driven humans out for a fast buck at all costs, the essence of corporative law, above all other law, the Shareholder reigns supreme!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs someone who took Harrison Brown's classic, The Challenge of Man's Future to heart and decided against having children, I can testify that there are more than three times as many humans on the planet than when I was born and the limits of certain resources were already becoming apparent. Starvation, chaos, and devastating conflicts over what remains are more likely now than when I made the decision not to bring children into this world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHopefully.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGoody! Let's take the rest of our corn and other grains and make alcohol out of it, and borrow more money so we can subsidize the distillation so it can compete with oil we can drill and easily get that is a significantly more efficient energy source. Also available in the barren North Slope, lots of places in California, the Dakotas, and many historical sources of the stuff. What's lost in the Malthusian argument is that trend lines show that as societies advance materially the birthrate goes down. A better solution to world hunger is to economically advance the third world, not cut everyone's nads off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are born with free will, and God has very little to do with our situation, since it is a result of our politics. But, of course, adopting a communist system as you so desire would certainly thin out the world's population, following the model in the 1930's in the USSR during the farm collectivization. And it would remain at a pretty low level due to that until it too got overturned and a more capitalist system adopted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just found out about this company that offers healthy food with a 15+year shelf life. It may be time to stock up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.shawnaustin.mysundanceglobal.com
Guaranteed 15+ Year Shelf-life
Health Food Quality Ingredients
Tastes Like Gourmet Restaurant Cuisine
Easy Preparation (boil water and simmer for 10-20 minutes)
No Genetically Altered Food (GM Food)
Absolutely No Transfats or MSG (monosodium glutamate)
Packed Fresh and Date Stamped
I just found out about this company that offers healthy food with a 15+year shelf life. It may be time to stock up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.shawnaustin.mysundanceglobal.com
Guaranteed 15+ Year Shelf-life
Health Food Quality Ingredients
Tastes Like Gourmet Restaurant Cuisine
Easy Preparation (boil water and simmer for 10-20 minutes)
No Genetically Altered Food (GM Food)
Absolutely No Transfats or MSG (monosodium glutamate)
Packed Fresh and Date Stamped
I just found out about this company that offers healthy food with a 15+year shelf life. It may be time to stock up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.shawnaustin.mysundanceglobal.com
Guaranteed 15+ Year Shelf-life
Health Food Quality Ingredients
Tastes Like Gourmet Restaurant Cuisine
Easy Preparation (boil water and simmer for 10-20 minutes)
No Genetically Altered Food (GM Food)
Absolutely No Transfats or MSG (monosodium glutamate)
Packed Fresh and Date Stamped
Many interesting comments on the issue of food shortages. For us to think, "What can I do", against a large issue seems overwhelming. It would feel better to just not think about it, but we must. The old saying, more hands make lighter work come to play here, regardless of how you feel politically, religiously, or not at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe answer lies, with trust in God, first, of course, but also in this profound statement from the U.S.Constitution....."We the people." As many have said here, government will most likely not get the job done, but, the job needs getting done. I am watching a movement rise to its greatest numbers in the 21st century, more than ever before. Here is where some things can really happen, and I am watching one company, at least, step into this exact arena, giving We The People, a chance to show how it can be done.
We can create sustainable food supply to feed the estimated 9 billion people that will occupy the earth in 2050.
- Joe
Technology is not going to save us from these issues. In fact, technology is partly to blame, since that is what enabled us to continue with our bad habits far longer than we otherwise would have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe premise of this article IS ridiculous--and for the very reason that the author mentions: it is pointless to worry about all of the highly unlikely possible disasters which might afflict our civilization. What's more likely than food shortages leading to the degradation of our social structure? People dying. Lots of them. Meanwhile, rich people in rich countries will go on living as they always have.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think anyone who truly understands the nature of the global situation knows that the world is NOT overpopulated. Not by a long shot. The real problem lies in the scientific dictatorship wielded by a small minority of Malthusian eugenicists and elites who want depopulation for their own purposes. The have cleverly woven their radical propaganda into the mainstream and latched their agendas onto governmental policies all around the world to manipulate society into thinking humans are bad and we're running out of stuff because we consume too much, or there are too many of us, etc. In reality the scarcity they claim is artificially created. They will get their Malthusian catastrophe because people, with their survival instinct, will kill each other because 99% of the population has been allocated 1% of the resource. Further, "global warming" is caused by solar activity, not by minuscule human CO2 output. I'm sorry to all you government educated people. CO2 is NOT a poisonous gas, it is good for the earth. The war on CO2 is the war on humanity by the elites. Period. STOP BEING CONNED! In reality, it will be all the manipulated and propagandized individuals who believe in their lies about scarcity who will be the downfall of humanity. I have heard it said to "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" and it's true. If you were truly dedicated to this false sustainability doctrine you would go kill yourself. Two words to remember - "artificial scarcity".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the event of a real crisis, the average person in the US is a mere hours away, like 24-72 hours, from refugee status. Like no water, no food, herded into hastily set up emergency centers, national guard patrolling to prevent looting, curfew, round-ups and detention if you refuse a lawful order. <a href="http://www.siaganews.com">The News Star</a>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscomprised of an excellent useful connection which will afflicted me with a a lot of knowledge about this kind of change lives
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://forex1.eu/">forex </a>