Grant Morrison @ Disinfocon

[Kai]

As already proven in another thread, China has about 900 square meters of farmland per person.  The methods they use, and the land they're on, only generates 222 days worth of food per person per year.  They're compensating by overfishing, etc, and when the fish stocks are wiped out (as they have been on the Grand Banks), then the fun begins.

ETA:  Africa isn't much different.  Land is nice.  Arable land is better.  And population density is more important than absolute numbers.

You can blame PETA for a lot of that shit.  They convince people in these cultures to reject modified food that would feed more people, and then these people starve because they are afraid of "Frankenstein Food".

I've got two words to answer the question of too many people, not enough food:  Norman Borlaug.


However, we are getting sort of off topic here.

I'm sorry Hoopla, but I've got to call you out on this. It sounds as crazywrong as economists who talk about infinite growth.

[hooplala]

As already proven in another thread, China has about 900 square meters of farmland per person.  The methods they use, and the land they're on, only generates 222 days worth of food per person per year.  They're compensating by overfishing, etc, and when the fish stocks are wiped out (as they have been on the Grand Banks), then the fun begins.

ETA:  Africa isn't much different.  Land is nice.  Arable land is better.  And population density is more important than absolute numbers.

You can blame PETA for a lot of that shit.  They convince people in these cultures to reject modified food that would feed more people, and then these people starve because they are afraid of "Frankenstein Food".

I've got two words to answer the question of too many people, not enough food:  Norman Borlaug.


However, we are getting sort of off topic here.

I'm sorry Hoopla, but I've got to call you out on this. It sounds as crazywrong as economists who talk about infinite growth.

Which part? 

[Kai]

As already proven in another thread, China has about 900 square meters of farmland per person.  The methods they use, and the land they're on, only generates 222 days worth of food per person per year.  They're compensating by overfishing, etc, and when the fish stocks are wiped out (as they have been on the Grand Banks), then the fun begins.

ETA:  Africa isn't much different.  Land is nice.  Arable land is better.  And population density is more important than absolute numbers.

You can blame PETA for a lot of that shit.  They convince people in these cultures to reject modified food that would feed more people, and then these people starve because they are afraid of "Frankenstein Food".

I've got two words to answer the question of too many people, not enough food:  Norman Borlaug.


However, we are getting sort of off topic here.

I'm sorry Hoopla, but I've got to call you out on this. It sounds as crazywrong as economists who talk about infinite growth.

Which part? 

"overpopulation is thoroughly debunked"

[hooplala]

As already proven in another thread, China has about 900 square meters of farmland per person.  The methods they use, and the land they're on, only generates 222 days worth of food per person per year.  They're compensating by overfishing, etc, and when the fish stocks are wiped out (as they have been on the Grand Banks), then the fun begins.

ETA:  Africa isn't much different.  Land is nice.  Arable land is better.  And population density is more important than absolute numbers.

You can blame PETA for a lot of that shit.  They convince people in these cultures to reject modified food that would feed more people, and then these people starve because they are afraid of "Frankenstein Food".

I've got two words to answer the question of too many people, not enough food:  Norman Borlaug.


However, we are getting sort of off topic here.

I'm sorry Hoopla, but I've got to call you out on this. It sounds as crazywrong as economists who talk about infinite growth.

Which part? 

"overpopulation is thoroughly debunked"

This video explains it well, and gives a link to the science backing it up:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM

[Doktor Howl]

As already proven in another thread, China has about 900 square meters of farmland per person.  The methods they use, and the land they're on, only generates 222 days worth of food per person per year.  They're compensating by overfishing, etc, and when the fish stocks are wiped out (as they have been on the Grand Banks), then the fun begins.

ETA:  Africa isn't much different.  Land is nice.  Arable land is better.  And population density is more important than absolute numbers.

You can blame PETA for a lot of that shit.  They convince people in these cultures to reject modified food that would feed more people, and then these people starve because they are afraid of "Frankenstein Food".

I've got two words to answer the question of too many people, not enough food:  Norman Borlaug.


However, we are getting sort of off topic here.

Actually, this IS topical.  It concerns Morrison's predictions.

Also, PETA has very little to do with it.  China and Africa aren't exactly picky about what they eat, and they don't have the money for Monsanto's brigandry.  

And it doesn't matter how much food you can grow, if you're trashing your farmland.  TOO MANY MONKEYS.  It's not just farmland, it's deforestation for fuel (the Congo is nothing but wood smoke nowdays, it's like a permanent fog), excessive waste (garbage, sewage...which reacts with itself when pooled in large quantities, becoming incredibly toxic), etc.

[hooplala]

As already proven in another thread, China has about 900 square meters of farmland per person.  The methods they use, and the land they're on, only generates 222 days worth of food per person per year.  They're compensating by overfishing, etc, and when the fish stocks are wiped out (as they have been on the Grand Banks), then the fun begins.

ETA:  Africa isn't much different.  Land is nice.  Arable land is better.  And population density is more important than absolute numbers.

You can blame PETA for a lot of that shit.  They convince people in these cultures to reject modified food that would feed more people, and then these people starve because they are afraid of "Frankenstein Food".

I've got two words to answer the question of too many people, not enough food:  Norman Borlaug.


However, we are getting sort of off topic here.

Actually, this IS topical.  It concerns Morrison's predictions.

Also, PETA has very little to do with it.  China and Africa aren't exactly picky about what they eat, and they don't have the money for Monsanto's brigandry.  

And it doesn't matter how much food you can grow, if you're trashing your farmland.  TOO MANY MONKEYS.  It's not just farmland, it's deforestation for fuel (the Congo is nothing but wood smoke nowdays, it's like a permanent fog), excessive waste (garbage, sewage...which reacts with itself when pooled in large quantities, becoming incredibly toxic), etc.

I would suggest you research Norman Borlaug.  It can be done.

[Doktor Howl]

As already proven in another thread, China has about 900 square meters of farmland per person.  The methods they use, and the land they're on, only generates 222 days worth of food per person per year.  They're compensating by overfishing, etc, and when the fish stocks are wiped out (as they have been on the Grand Banks), then the fun begins.

ETA:  Africa isn't much different.  Land is nice.  Arable land is better.  And population density is more important than absolute numbers.

You can blame PETA for a lot of that shit.  They convince people in these cultures to reject modified food that would feed more people, and then these people starve because they are afraid of "Frankenstein Food".

I've got two words to answer the question of too many people, not enough food:  Norman Borlaug.


However, we are getting sort of off topic here.

Actually, this IS topical.  It concerns Morrison's predictions.

Also, PETA has very little to do with it.  China and Africa aren't exactly picky about what they eat, and they don't have the money for Monsanto's brigandry.  

And it doesn't matter how much food you can grow, if you're trashing your farmland.  TOO MANY MONKEYS.  It's not just farmland, it's deforestation for fuel (the Congo is nothing but wood smoke nowdays, it's like a permanent fog), excessive waste (garbage, sewage...which reacts with itself when pooled in large quantities, becoming incredibly toxic), etc.

I would suggest you research Norman Borlaug.  It can be done.

I'll look into it tonight.  But evidence suggests that it ISN'T being done.  Poor farming techniques, deforestation, etc...I do hope Mr Borlaug isn't suggesting that these things can all be fixed if everyone, all together, acts rationally.

[hooplala]

As already proven in another thread, China has about 900 square meters of farmland per person.  The methods they use, and the land they're on, only generates 222 days worth of food per person per year.  They're compensating by overfishing, etc, and when the fish stocks are wiped out (as they have been on the Grand Banks), then the fun begins.

ETA:  Africa isn't much different.  Land is nice.  Arable land is better.  And population density is more important than absolute numbers.

You can blame PETA for a lot of that shit.  They convince people in these cultures to reject modified food that would feed more people, and then these people starve because they are afraid of "Frankenstein Food".

I've got two words to answer the question of too many people, not enough food:  Norman Borlaug.


However, we are getting sort of off topic here.

Actually, this IS topical.  It concerns Morrison's predictions.

Also, PETA has very little to do with it.  China and Africa aren't exactly picky about what they eat, and they don't have the money for Monsanto's brigandry.  

And it doesn't matter how much food you can grow, if you're trashing your farmland.  TOO MANY MONKEYS.  It's not just farmland, it's deforestation for fuel (the Congo is nothing but wood smoke nowdays, it's like a permanent fog), excessive waste (garbage, sewage...which reacts with itself when pooled in large quantities, becoming incredibly toxic), etc.

I would suggest you research Norman Borlaug.  It can be done.

I'll look into it tonight.  But evidence suggests that it ISN'T being done.  Poor farming techniques, deforestation, etc...I do hope Mr Borlaug isn't suggesting that these things can all be fixed if everyone, all together, acts rationally.

He died last year, so he's no longer suggesting anything, but his methods live on.  At least I sure as fuck hope they do.

Here's a little blurb from the introductory section of his Wiki article, to whet your appetite:

"During the mid-20th century, Borlaug led the introduction of these high-yielding varieties combined with modern agricultural production techniques to Mexico, Pakistan, and India. As a result, Mexico became a net exporter of wheat by 1963. Between 1965 and 1970, wheat yields nearly doubled in Pakistan and India, greatly improving the food security in those nations.[4] These collective increases in yield have been labeled the Green Revolution, and Borlaug is often credited with saving over a billion people worldwide from starvation.[5] He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply."

(emphasis is mine, wiki rarely uses bold, which is something of a shame)

[Doktor Howl]

Hmmm...Borlaug did interesting work in India, and it's still working.  However, India's population is still growing.  At what point does the model fail, will it work in all situations, and most importantly, what happens when you lose all your topsoil from fuel-based deforestation?

[hooplala]

Hmmm...Borlaug did interesting work in India, and it's still working.  However, India's population is still growing.  At what point does the model fail, will it work in all situations, and most importantly, what happens when you lose all your topsoil from fuel-based deforestation?

That, admittedly, I do not know.  I can look into it tonight though and see what I find.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'll have to do some digging, but I was reading recently that Monsanto's claims of higher yields are being disputed.

[Eater of Clowns]

Borlaug's work was a successful aspect of the Green Revolution, but there are some consequences to it that weren't foreseen that we're just dealing with today.  Blanketing soil with nitrogen based fertlizers, factory farming leading to soil depletion, vast monocultures, etc.  Creating high yield disease resistant crops was obviously a great thing, but how long until a disease mutates to bypass those defenses and wipes out everything planted with only that one breed?

[Kai]

Borlaug's work was a successful aspect of the Green Revolution, but there are some consequences to it that weren't foreseen that we're just dealing with today.  Blanketing soil with nitrogen based fertlizers, factory farming leading to soil depletion, vast monocultures, etc.  Creating high yield disease resistant crops was obviously a great thing, but how long until a disease mutates to bypass those defenses and wipes out everything planted with only that one breed?

THEN WE BUILD IT BACK STRONGER, FASTER, HARDER....

lol coevolutionary arms races.

[hooplala]

Planting with only one breed wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

[Kai]

Planting with only one breed wouldn't be very scientific, would it?

people = irrational monkeys.