World food prices have hit their highest level on record in January, the United Nations has said.
It said on Thursday that its Food and Agriculture Organisation Food Price Index rose for the seventh month in a row to reach 231, topping the peak of 224.1 last seen in June 2008.
It is the highest level the index has reached since records began in 1990.
"The new figures clearly show that the upward pressure on world food prices is not abating. These high prices are likely to persist in the months to come," said Abdolreza Abbassian, an economist for FAO, which is based in Rome.
Rising food prices have been cited among the driving forces behind the recent popular revolts in north Africa, including the uprising in Egypt and the toppling of Tunisia's long-time president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.
In response, some countries are increasing food imports and have built stockpiles to meet their domestic needs.
Among them is Algeria, wary after food riots in early January. It has made huge wheat purchases to avoid shortages, and on Thursday it announced plans to lift a 19-year-old state of emergency in
a bid to to avert spreading protests.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/2011/0...91195.html
Hungry people are dangerous people. Add in the economic crisis, global population and government stockpiling the coming decade could be one of global restructuring.
Too many people.
I agree.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 04, 2011, 06:14:28 PM
I agree.
All we have to do is increase the food supply by 200 quarts of wheat per minute, and the transportation infrastructure with it, until people decide to stop having more than 1 kid per adult.
It's easy.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 04, 2011, 06:15:49 PM
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 04, 2011, 06:14:28 PM
I agree.
All we have to do is increase the food supply by 200 quarts of wheat per minute, and the transportation infrastructure with it, until people decide to stop having more than 1 kid per adult.
It's easy.
The reality of that horrible movie, ZPG.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 04, 2011, 06:12:11 PM
Too many people.
Nope, nothing to do with it.
Food price increases are a result of speculation on the commodities futures market which are being funded by mass injections of cash into the US banking system by the Fed, the "QE2". Certain banks, such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanely and some others, are given special exemption from restrictions on speculating on key commodities, using loopholes originally introduced to aid those who actually produced said commodities.
Food prices first started to rise when Bernanke gave the go ahead for QE2. The Fed are now discussing QE3, and the food prices are suddenly shooting up again. Many currencies are pegged with the dollar, meaning US commodity price increases feed directly into their economies.
Quote from: Cain on February 04, 2011, 06:19:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 04, 2011, 06:12:11 PM
Too many people.
Nope, nothing to do with it.
Food price increases are a result of speculation on the commodities futures market which are being funded by mass injections of cash into the US banking system by the Fed, the "QE2". Certain banks, such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanely and some others, are given special exemption from restrictions on speculating on key commodities, using loopholes originally introduced to aid those who actually produced said commodities.
Food prices first started to rise when Bernanke gave the go ahead for QE2. The Fed are now discussing QE3, and the food prices are suddenly shooting up again. Many currencies are pegged with the dollar, meaning US commodity price increases feed directly into their economies.
I gotta disagree just a bit, Cain. The population of the world now exceeds 7 billion people. A person requires a quart of wheat - or the equivalent - per day to survive, and we're adding 200 (net) people a minute.
That means we need 7 billion+ quarts of wheat per day. There isn't any way to produce that much food without trashing arable land. Sooner or later, demand outstrips capabilities...That might not be now, given what you've posted, but we can see it from here.
The problem is set to worsen after a massive snowstorm in the United States and floods in Australia. And economists warned that chaos in Egypt could push prices up further and foment more unrest in the region.
Sugar prices also have surged to three-decade highs on fears of the damage that Cyclone Yasi would bring to the Australian cane crop.
Prices for Malaysian palm oil, a cooking staple in the developing world, hit 3-year highs on flooding.
Big companies have had to adjust to higher raw material costs.
Reducing demand would help a lot though.
Incidentally, that comes out to 2.6 trillion quarts of wheat (etc) per year, if the population stabilized this minute.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 04, 2011, 06:22:22 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 04, 2011, 06:19:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 04, 2011, 06:12:11 PM
Too many people.
Nope, nothing to do with it.
Food price increases are a result of speculation on the commodities futures market which are being funded by mass injections of cash into the US banking system by the Fed, the "QE2". Certain banks, such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanely and some others, are given special exemption from restrictions on speculating on key commodities, using loopholes originally introduced to aid those who actually produced said commodities.
Food prices first started to rise when Bernanke gave the go ahead for QE2. The Fed are now discussing QE3, and the food prices are suddenly shooting up again. Many currencies are pegged with the dollar, meaning US commodity price increases feed directly into their economies.
I gotta disagree just a bit, Cain. The population of the world now exceeds 7 billion people. A person requires a quart of wheat - or the equivalent - per day to survive, and we're adding 200 (net) people a minute.
That means we need 7 billion+ quarts of wheat per day. There isn't any way to produce that much food without trashing arable land. Sooner or later, demand outstrips capabilities...That might not be now, given what you've posted, but we can see it from here.
And I have to disagree there. Rice prices do not shoot up 10% in a single month due to "population growth". Is population growth a long term factor? Probably. Is it causing near double digit prices rises on commodities like corn, pigs and cotton within a four week period? I seriously doubt it. This is speculation related.
The last time food prices rose so high was in 2008, and we know that was speculation driven, because the major banks were forced to admit it during the various Capitol Hill hearings their flunkies attended. The EU and France have both blamed the current crisis directly on market based speculation as well
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/04/uk-food-crisis-idUKTRE7132NZ20110204
Quote from: Cain on February 04, 2011, 06:30:01 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 04, 2011, 06:22:22 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 04, 2011, 06:19:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 04, 2011, 06:12:11 PM
Too many people.
Nope, nothing to do with it.
Food price increases are a result of speculation on the commodities futures market which are being funded by mass injections of cash into the US banking system by the Fed, the "QE2". Certain banks, such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanely and some others, are given special exemption from restrictions on speculating on key commodities, using loopholes originally introduced to aid those who actually produced said commodities.
Food prices first started to rise when Bernanke gave the go ahead for QE2. The Fed are now discussing QE3, and the food prices are suddenly shooting up again. Many currencies are pegged with the dollar, meaning US commodity price increases feed directly into their economies.
I gotta disagree just a bit, Cain. The population of the world now exceeds 7 billion people. A person requires a quart of wheat - or the equivalent - per day to survive, and we're adding 200 (net) people a minute.
That means we need 7 billion+ quarts of wheat per day. There isn't any way to produce that much food without trashing arable land. Sooner or later, demand outstrips capabilities...That might not be now, given what you've posted, but we can see it from here.
And I have to disagree there. Rice prices do not shoot up 10% in a single month due to "population growth". Is population growth a long term factor? Probably. Is it causing near double digit prices rises on commodities like corn, pigs and cotton within a four week period? I seriously doubt it. This is speculation related.
The last time food prices rose so high was in 2008, and we know that was speculation driven, because the major banks were forced to admit it during the various Capitol Hill hearings their flunkies attended. The EU and France have both blamed the current crisis directly on market based speculation as well
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/04/uk-food-crisis-idUKTRE7132NZ20110204
It's not just the rise in demand, it's a hit in the ass on supply. Here's a little nightmare fuel:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12252
Now, I'm NOT arguing the point that speculators are driving the crisis faster than necessary, and I don't doubt your information. But even without the speculators, there's a really, really nasty series of events on the way.
In fact, just typing "food prices commodities speculation" into Google News will give you a wealth of articles on the topic. Well over a thousand on just today's news about France, the FAO and the European Commission.
Quote from: Cain on February 04, 2011, 06:34:02 PM
In fact, just typing "food prices commodities speculation" into Google News will give you a wealth of articles on the topic. Well over a thousand on just today's news about France, the FAO and the European Commission.
Sure. Just like the bastards did with oil 2-3 times last decade.
Like I said, I don't doubt you a bit...But what the speculators are doing is advancing the problem, speeding it up...It's going to happen anyway.
Short term solution: Feed the speculators to the Algerians.
Dialectical overcoming: too many people with some assholes speculating :thumb:
The "too many people" is the long-term slow rise while the "assholes speculating" is the short-term recent spike.
this is all very interesting. I'm still forming an opinion, & digging around for articles on food production. I came across this: http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/food-3/
The gist of the article is that no nations are at "peak food production" yet. The US's production rate has been climbing steadily. Corn yields, for example, have risen linearly (with no slowing) since WWII.
We are warned that if we hit peak food production, it would be very bad because the population will keep climbing while food production does not (duh). But the article suggests that we're still pretty far from there. There are many nations who are still using pretty old farming techniques, and could be producing quite a bit more food if they had the resources to do so. And the bright side is that the maximum potential yield keeps rising as we invent new technologies and better learn how to genetically engineer food.
it's all debatable though. There are some solid rebuttals in the comments.
How nice it would be if science was really a cornucopia.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 04, 2011, 06:58:45 PM
this is all very interesting. I'm still forming an opinion, & digging around for articles on food production. I came across this: http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/food-3/
The gist of the article is that no nations are at "peak food production" yet. The US's production rate has been climbing steadily. Corn yields, for example, have risen linearly (with no slowing) since WWII.
Yeah, and the runoff of pesiticides and fertilizer from farmland into the Mississippi River has created a dead spot the size of Louisiana in the ocean, starting at the mouth of the river. That spot is growing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)
You can do anything you want, for a certain period of time.
One billion people in developing countries will face shortages of fish, their main source of protein, within 20 years because of the world's growing population and overfishing, a study says. According to the Malaysia-based WorldFish Center and the International Food Policy Research Institute, only strong growth in fish farms will prevent an even more critical situation. They said that some fish species would disappear from markets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/01/world/world-briefing-world-fish-shortage-would-hurt-poor.html
It's not just farming.
Fuck, that was an old article. Still, google will present some more current results.
The problem, as I see it, is this. There is only so much land on this earth. As well, only so much of it is open land that can be farmed. This is not something that is open for negotiation, it just is.
We can only add so many hormones and other chemical boosts to the seeds we plant and the animals we raise for food.
At some point, either a global law of population control is going to have to be put in place or they are going to have to invent those food replicator things. As I don't see food replicators being a prime goal, people are going to have to stop popping out kids.
We can't make more land and no matter how well you farm it, everything has a limit of production.
If you just wait long enough, the people popping out kids will be the food replicator.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 04, 2011, 07:18:29 PM
If you just wait long enough, the people popping out kids will be the food replicator.
Which will open up whole new meanings to "Is this locallly grown?"
This just means we all need to get into the Jenkem business.
It seems that right now it's more about affordable food.
The land space issue might potentially be solved through vertical farming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#Plans). There are plans to start building prototypes to see how viable they are.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 04, 2011, 07:24:29 PM
It seems that right now it's more about affordable food.
But I love people. Especially on a nice pita, with lettuce and mayo, maybe some dijon mustard. Maybe you're right, though. Finding a nice rack of man for an affordable price is getting a bit ridiculous.
(I kid 'cause I love. Rack of man would be terrible on a pita.) :lulz:
On a serious note, I think that the issue here is a little bit of all of the above. Viable solutions I ain't got.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 04, 2011, 06:33:21 PM
It's not just the rise in demand, it's a hit in the ass on supply. Here's a little nightmare fuel:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12252
Now, I'm NOT arguing the point that speculators are driving the crisis faster than necessary, and I don't doubt your information. But even without the speculators, there's a really, really nasty series of events on the way.
I'm sorry but this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. First of all, he's a gold nut writing for a conspiracy website, which automatically makes him wrong. And secondly, the FAO's own data shows that in 2008-9 there was a massive food surplus produced on the wheat and cereal front, with minor, but still noticeable gains in meat and fish yields as well. Yeah, 2010's production was not great, partly as a result of what he talked about, but it was still above the production rate of the previous five years (thanks at least in part to parts of the world he didn't talk about having massive booms in production) and meant, with the surplus from the previous year, this is probably the best position we've been in with regards to global food stockpiles in almost a decade.
I have no doubt that, eventually and as a background factor over the long term, population pressures will drive the price of food up. But, at the moment, it does not appear to be a factor. Demand is stable and production is above the required. If anything, the collapse of the international freight market worries me more since, historically speaking, famines have been more of a problem of distribution than they have of production.
I think Cain's on the correct motorcycle here and I've been telling my friends to watch the price of oil pretty closely as well if they want to see the real damage being done by Ben Bernanke and crew. Even with unemployment still hovering around 9% in places (and that's not counting people who've stopped looking or no longer qualify for unemployment insurance) the CPI is still rising, and that's because of the inflation of the money supply.
There was a decent article on CNN last month about this:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/14/news/economy/cpi_inflation/index.htm
QuoteNEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- American consumers saw prices rise on everything from rent to food to gas last month, as inflation pressures around the world creep higher.
The U.S. Consumer Price Index, a key measure of inflation, increased 1.5% over the past 12 months ending in December, up from 1.1% in November, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said.
On a monthly basis, CPI rose 0.5% in December, from 0.1% growth the previous month -- the largest monthly move since June 2009. Economists surveyed by Briefing.com had expected a 0.4% rise in December.
Most of that increase was due to gasoline prices, which surged 8.5% in December alone, as commodities rallied.
While the increase is a sign that the economy is picking up steam, higher prices can eat into the purchasing power of Americans at a time when unemployment is still high and wages are barely growing.
"It is disconcerting that inflation is starting to accelerate, and you have to wonder, with gas prices moving above $3 a gallon, whether the rate of inflation will continue to escalate," said Bernard Baumohl, chief global economist with The Economic Outlook Group.
Even though American consumers are beginning to feel the pain of surging commodity prices at the gas station, they're still not feeling it at the grocery store, where prices ticked up a mere 0.1% during the month.
Sooner or later, economists argue, producers will have to pass on the cost of rapidly rising agricultural prices, which surged more than 60% in the second half of 2010.
Core CPI, which strips out volatile food and energy prices, is still at a historic low, after rising a mere 0.8% for the entire year, and only 0.1% for the month.
Rising prices around the globe
While prices are increasing worldwide, U.S. inflation still lags behind that of its major trading partners.
The euro zone recently reported its CPI rose 2.2% in 2010, while China's CPI rose 5.1% in the 12 months ending in November.
Stripping out some of the volatile components, the three are much closer in line, with Europe reporting a 1.1% increase in core inflation for the year, and China reporting a 1.9% increase in inflation, minus food prices.
"In general, what you're seeing is the U.S. has the lowest rate of inflation, although not way out of line," said Jay Bryson, global economist with Wells Fargo.
Meanwhile, central banks around the world are pursing different policies to combat inflation.
In November, fears of sluggish inflation led the U.S. Federal Reserve to initiate a controversial $600 billion bond-buying program to stimulate the economy. Critics have argued that the move, referred to as quantitative easing, may cause inflation to rise too rapidly.
"If the economy is growing on its own, is it really a good idea for the Fed to continue to pursue quantitative easing?" Baumohl said. "The concern is now, the Fed may be behind the curve, as far as controlling inflation down the road."
China's economy, on the other hand, is hurling ahead so rapidly that its central bank is trying to ease on the brakes. After hiking interest rates twice last year, the People's Bank of China raised the level of reserves banks are required to hold to a record high on Friday.
It marked the seventh time in the last year that the bank has used higher reserve standards to try to pull money out of the economy and tame rising prices.
The Fed's inflation hawk
Europe, on the other hand, is struggling with a debt crisis and a much slower economy than the emerging markets. But its inflation numbers came in greater than expected in 2010, leading European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet to turn slightly more hawkish on global inflation on Thursday.
Noting the rapid growth in emerging markets, he indicated rising inflation could be a worldwide threat going forward.
"Inflationary threats present some kind of general feature in the emerging world; it's something you don't see necessarily in advanced economies," Trichet said. "It's clear that it is extremely important that we all keep control of inflation expectations, and that calls for appropriate decisions."
The comments led some traders to forecast an ECB interest rate hike sooner than originally expected.
Quote from: Cain on February 04, 2011, 07:53:26 PM
I'm sorry but this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. First of all, he's a gold nut writing for a conspiracy website, which automatically makes him wrong.
:mittens:
As always, Cain cuts to the chase. :lol:
Teach me to post a source without access to sourcewatch (lol, nannywall). I couldn't even see the whole website.
TGRR,
Eating his ownage with a smile.
The Ministry of Agriculture said the drought had worsened in some wheat-growing regions despite snowfalls.
Large swathes of China have had almost no rain since October, affecting millions of hectares of crops and leaving many short of drinking water.
Analysts say crop shortages in China could affect prices around the world.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12497459
YEEHAW!
Can we finance trips to the grocery store?
It shouldn't effect the prices in America much (only about 2% of what you pay in the grocery store actually represents the cost of food, the rest is profit margins, processing, and distribution). Its the third world that's screwed.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 04, 2011, 07:28:47 PM
The land space issue might potentially be solved through vertical farming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#Plans). There are plans to start building prototypes to see how viable they are.
This, and other ideas in this thread to boost food production all sound good.
HOWEVER,
If there are too many damn people on this planet,
why in the world would I want to do anything that would lead to an increase in the number of people?
the way is see it the main problem is animal farming for each field of cows ten fields of food is needed so if we stopped the fast food culture we would be closer to a solution besides to my knowledge the European union is keeping massive food storages in case of emergency 8)
Quote from: Cramulus on February 04, 2011, 07:28:47 PM
The land space issue might potentially be solved through vertical farming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming#Plans). There are plans to start building prototypes to see how viable they are.
Aquaponics could also help here, it's a fairly new technique, but it's been taking of in Australia and is getting more popular in other places as well.
Combine fish farming with hydroponics, with the fish water serving as the nutrient bath for teh hydro section. It allows for fish farming without massive water use, hydro without expensive nutrients, and actually has a better yield than classic Hydro, all while requiring no arable land at all and using about 95% less water than dirt farming.
Hey guys, turns out over $80 billion was added to the Commodity Price Index over the last year.
Yeah, there was a bad drought in a couple of places, but a bad drought doesn't cause double or triple digit increases in costs over a single year.
However, throwing free money at banks to let them speculate on prices does, as we saw in 2008.
I am disturbed by everybody's assumption that to feed 7 billion people, we need to farm more. I'd just like to point out that vegetables and grains taste like crap unless they are side dishes next to a steak. Also, farming the shit out of the land causes the foods you grow on it to be pretty devoid of actual nutrients. Americans currently consume somewhere between zero and none of the iodine they should have, because all the corn fields have been depleted of iodine, and everything we eat is made out of corn.
So even if we grew all the food needed to keep people from starving to death, we'd still have a population of undernourished people.
The solution, obviously, is not to devote every square inch of available land on Earth to farming. It is to build giant domes on the Moon and raise cattle and pigs there. And if we build the right kind of slingshot, we could just fling them off the Moon's surface at earth, and they'd already be cooked by the time they landed.
Plus there would be cowboys on the Moon.
Quote from: postvex™ on March 22, 2011, 04:30:48 AM
Plus there would be cowboys on the Moon.
I'm sold. Where do I sign up?
Quote from: postvex™ on March 22, 2011, 04:30:48 AM
I am disturbed by everybody's assumption that to feed 7 billion people, we need to farm more. I'd just like to point out that vegetables and grains taste like crap unless they are side dishes next to a steak. Also, farming the shit out of the land causes the foods you grow on it to be pretty devoid of actual nutrients. Americans currently consume somewhere between zero and none of the iodine they should have, because all the corn fields have been depleted of iodine, and everything we eat is made out of corn.
So even if we grew all the food needed to keep people from starving to death, we'd still have a population of undernourished people.
The solution, obviously, is not to devote every square inch of available land on Earth to farming. It is to build giant domes on the Moon and raise cattle and pigs there. And if we build the right kind of slingshot, we could just fling them off the Moon's surface at earth, and they'd already be cooked by the time they landed.
Plus there would be cowboys on the Moon.
I am against this new GMO* food!!
*(Gravity Modified Organisms)
Quote from: postvex™ on March 22, 2011, 04:30:48 AM
I am disturbed by everybody's assumption that to feed 7 billion people, we need to farm more. I'd just like to point out that vegetables and grains steak taste like crap unless they it are is aside dishes next to a steak vegetables and grains. Also, farming the shit out of the land causes the foods you grow on it to be pretty devoid of actual nutrients. Americans currently consume somewhere between zero and none of the iodine they should have, because all the corn fields have been depleted of iodine, and everything we eat is made out of corn.
So even if we grew all the food needed to keep people from starving to death, we'd still have a population of undernourished people.
The solution, obviously, is not to devote every square inch of available land on Earth to farming. It is to build giant domes on the Moon and raise cattle and pigs there. And if we build the right kind of slingshot, we could just fling them off the Moon's surface at earth, and they'd already be cooked by the time they landed.
Plus there would be cowboys on the Moon.
Quote from: Donald Coyote on March 22, 2011, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on March 22, 2011, 04:30:48 AM
I am disturbed by everybody's assumption that to feed 7 billion people, we need to farm more. I'd just like to point out that vegetables and grains steak taste like crap unless they it are is aside dishes next to a steak vegetables and grains. Also, farming the shit out of the land causes the foods you grow on it to be pretty devoid of actual nutrients. Americans currently consume somewhere between zero and none of the iodine they should have, because all the corn fields have been depleted of iodine, and everything we eat is made out of corn.
So even if we grew all the food needed to keep people from starving to death, we'd still have a population of undernourished people.
The solution, obviously, is not to devote every square inch of available land on Earth to farming. It is to build giant domes on the Moon and raise cattle and pigs there. And if we build the right kind of slingshot, we could just fling them off the Moon's surface at earth, and they'd already be cooked by the time they landed.
Plus there would be cowboys on the Moon.
I don't know... I think vex had it right the first time. but then I'm a bit of a carniwhore, so that's a biased opinion.
the more of the food chain you can consume in a single dish, the better.
There are four food groups.
1. Meat. (If you can't define that, you're one of the people who fall under #3.)
2. Accessories. This is anything that goes with meat, like, potatoes.
3. Decorations. The green shit they put on the table for OTHER people to eat so there's more meat for the real people.
4. Dessert. ANYTHING (with enough sugar on it or in it) can be considered dessert.
Quote from: Luna on March 22, 2011, 03:18:11 PM
There are four food groups.
1. Meat. (If you can't define that, you're one of the people who fall under #3.)
2. Accessories. This is anything that goes with meat, like, potatoes.
3. Decorations. The green shit they put on the table for OTHER people to eat so there's more meat for the real people.
4. Dessert. ANYTHING (with enough sugar on it or in it) can be considered dessert.
I've often said
If something hasn't died for my consumption I'm not happy with it.
Quote from: Donald Coyote on March 22, 2011, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on March 22, 2011, 04:30:48 AM
I am disturbed by everybody's assumption that to feed 7 billion people, we need to farm more. I'd just like to point out that vegetables and grains steak taste like crap unless they it are is aside dishes next to a steak vegetables and grains. Also, farming the shit out of the land causes the foods you grow on it to be pretty devoid of actual nutrients. Americans currently consume somewhere between zero and none of the iodine they should have, because all the corn fields have been depleted of iodine, and everything we eat is made out of corn.
So even if we grew all the food needed to keep people from starving to death, we'd still have a population of undernourished people.
The solution, obviously, is not to devote every square inch of available land on Earth to farming. It is to build giant domes on the Moon and raise cattle and pigs there. And if we build the right kind of slingshot, we could just fling them off the Moon's surface at earth, and they'd already be cooked by the time they landed.
Plus there would be cowboys on the Moon.
Worst edit of 2011 so far. Congratulations. You can turn in your canines now. :lulz:
Um, regardless of a kind of retarded and childlike argument about what kind of food you like to eat, I am simply not seeing any benefit to there being more people on the planet. What's the point? Do we win a toaster if we outpopulate the chickens, rats, and cockroaches?
More humans = more potential customers.
Quote from: Nigel on March 22, 2011, 04:21:01 PM
Um, regardless of a kind of retarded and childlike argument about what kind of food you like to eat, I am simply not seeing any benefit to there being more people on the planet. What's the point? Do we win a toaster if we outpopulate the chickens, rats, and cockroaches?
Is there anybody that actually wants the population to increase?
i mean i have heard of groups that want
their population to increase (e.g. the quiverfull movement), but i've not heard anybody shouting that we need more people on the planet in general...
That's why our economy was doomed from the start. It's a fact of existence that everything that grows, dies. Hello.
A growth-based economy can work for a short period of time, but unless you're a fucking moron with only slightly more intellectual capacity than a pony, it's blatantly obvious that growth is FUCKING FINITE, FUCKING RETARDS.
What the hell is wrong with people. I swear, we don't deserve oxygen.
Quote from: Iptuous on March 22, 2011, 04:27:58 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 22, 2011, 04:21:01 PM
Um, regardless of a kind of retarded and childlike argument about what kind of food you like to eat, I am simply not seeing any benefit to there being more people on the planet. What's the point? Do we win a toaster if we outpopulate the chickens, rats, and cockroaches?
Is there anybody that actually wants the population to increase?
i mean i have heard of groups that want their population to increase (e.g. the quiverfull movement), but i've not heard anybody shouting that we need more people on the planet in general...
Then what the fuck is the debate about feeding all these retarded assholes?
Quote from: Nigel on March 22, 2011, 04:42:49 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 22, 2011, 04:27:58 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 22, 2011, 04:21:01 PM
Um, regardless of a kind of retarded and childlike argument about what kind of food you like to eat, I am simply not seeing any benefit to there being more people on the planet. What's the point? Do we win a toaster if we outpopulate the chickens, rats, and cockroaches?
Is there anybody that actually wants the population to increase?
i mean i have heard of groups that want their population to increase (e.g. the quiverfull movement), but i've not heard anybody shouting that we need more people on the planet in general...
Then what the fuck is the debate about feeding all these retarded assholes?
i guess i missed something? :?
i saw people arguing how to feed the people that are already here.
of course, that will just lead to an increase in population, but i didn't think that was anybody's
aim.
if there were a way to feed everybody, while at the same time keeping the population flat or declining, then i think just about everybody would be on board. except that, like Roger pointed out before, the only ways to do that would appear to be despicably evil...
Quote from: Rip City Hustle on March 22, 2011, 03:38:39 PM
Quote from: Donald Coyote on March 22, 2011, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: postvex™ on March 22, 2011, 04:30:48 AM
I am disturbed by everybody's assumption that to feed 7 billion people, we need to farm more. I'd just like to point out that vegetables and grains steak taste like crap unless they it are is aside dishes next to a steak vegetables and grains. Also, farming the shit out of the land causes the foods you grow on it to be pretty devoid of actual nutrients. Americans currently consume somewhere between zero and none of the iodine they should have, because all the corn fields have been depleted of iodine, and everything we eat is made out of corn.
So even if we grew all the food needed to keep people from starving to death, we'd still have a population of undernourished people.
The solution, obviously, is not to devote every square inch of available land on Earth to farming. It is to build giant domes on the Moon and raise cattle and pigs there. And if we build the right kind of slingshot, we could just fling them off the Moon's surface at earth, and they'd already be cooked by the time they landed.
Plus there would be cowboys on the Moon.
Worst edit of 2011 so far. Congratulations. You can turn in your canines now. :lulz:
:thanks:
Quote from: Iptuous on March 22, 2011, 05:00:35 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 22, 2011, 04:42:49 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 22, 2011, 04:27:58 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 22, 2011, 04:21:01 PM
Um, regardless of a kind of retarded and childlike argument about what kind of food you like to eat, I am simply not seeing any benefit to there being more people on the planet. What's the point? Do we win a toaster if we outpopulate the chickens, rats, and cockroaches?
Is there anybody that actually wants the population to increase?
i mean i have heard of groups that want their population to increase (e.g. the quiverfull movement), but i've not heard anybody shouting that we need more people on the planet in general...
Then what the fuck is the debate about feeding all these retarded assholes?
i guess i missed something? :?
i saw people arguing how to feed the people that are already here.
of course, that will just lead to an increase in population, but i didn't think that was anybody's aim.
if there were a way to feed everybody, while at the same time keeping the population flat or declining, then i think just about everybody would be on board. except that, like Roger pointed out before, the only ways to do that would appear to be despicably evil...
The solution, which is not only blatantly obvious but also proven, is to reduce the population using the tools of education and choice. The fundamental conflict is that our doomed, primitive, imperialistic economy requires serfs, and a real solution to overpopulation and neediness eliminates serfdom.
Nigel probably hasn't been reading Emmanuel Todd, but he predicted the demise of the Soviet Union (and was talking about US decline in 2002) and he made exactly the same points. Both about education and about economics.
Fortunately, going by overall trends, literacy tends to lead to a lower birth rate and literacy is trending upwards in the world. Unfortunately, we are now in a global economic crisis without precedent, and education funds are being pillaged and cut. Plus there may be some unintended consequences of the whole "war of the civilizations" thing between Islam and Christianity, breathing some extra life into what was previously the dying cult of fundamentalist, violent Islam. Both being religions which tend to demand large families. And have a traditional approach to economics (Protestant Work Ethic vs Islamic history of trade and commerce).
Not saying this is simple to implement, but it really makes me happy that education and intelligence really can have the potential to change the world for the better. It resonates with me, and makes me happy.
Quote from: Cain on March 20, 2011, 12:13:46 PM
Hey guys, turns out over $80 billion was added to the Commodity Price Index over the last year.
Yeah, there was a bad drought in a couple of places, but a bad drought doesn't cause double or triple digit increases in costs over a single year.
However, throwing free money at banks to let them speculate on prices does, as we saw in 2008.
Incidentally, thanks everyone for totally ignoring the fact
I was right and commodity speculation
is driving the current rises.
I kind of took it for granted that you were right...
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 22, 2011, 06:53:53 PM
Not saying this is simple to implement, but it really makes me happy that education and intelligence really can have the potential to change the world for the better. It resonates with me, and makes me happy.
Todd also believes it tends to greater democratization as well. Decreasing birth rates and increasing literacy were, as he saw it, the weak fundamentals of Soviet totalitarianism.
On the other hand, Todd outright states that France, the UK and the USA have gone in the other direction (oligarchy) since, but that tends to be a self-correcting problem (see: French Revolution).
Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2011, 06:53:58 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 20, 2011, 12:13:46 PM
Hey guys, turns out over $80 billion was added to the Commodity Price Index over the last year.
Yeah, there was a bad drought in a couple of places, but a bad drought doesn't cause double or triple digit increases in costs over a single year.
However, throwing free money at banks to let them speculate on prices does, as we saw in 2008.
Incidentally, thanks everyone for totally ignoring the fact I was right and commodity speculation is driving the current rises.
I was in agreement back on page 1 or 2, though I prefer to call it by the root cause of speculation in commodities markets, inflation. I didn't think there was anything to add that you didn't cover or the article I posted didn't cover.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 22, 2011, 06:53:53 PM
Not saying this is simple to implement, but it really makes me happy that education and intelligence really can have the potential to change the world for the better. It resonates with me, and makes me happy.
hate to burst your bubble but because people who attain education breed later and fewer children, that just means the less educated and intelligent are going to out breed the ones who do. I think they did a movie about this that I couldn't sit through more than once.
I think I read someone here say that over population is a self correcting problem, the exponential growth of population will likely mean that we don't realize it's a problem until it snowballs, and when it does, it will move fast. very, very fast.
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 22, 2011, 07:12:22 PM
hate to burst your bubble but because people who attain education breed later and fewer children, that just means the less educated and intelligent are going to out breed the ones who do. I think they did a movie about this that I couldn't sit through more than once.
Don't remind me. Even remembering it makes my brain hurt.
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 22, 2011, 07:12:22 PM
hate to burst your bubble but because people who attain education breed later and fewer children, that just means the less educated and intelligent are going to out breed the ones who do.
Oh, Idiocracy is now considered a documentary source, is it?
:pwned:
Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2011, 07:30:07 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 22, 2011, 07:12:22 PM
hate to burst your bubble but because people who attain education breed later and fewer children, that just means the less educated and intelligent are going to out breed the ones who do.
Oh, Idiocracy is now considered a documentary source, is it?
Nah, was a moronic movie. On purpose.
However, it was (loosely) based on the fact that a woman's education level HAS been linked to her number of children.
QuoteA women's educational level is the best predictor of how many children she will have, according to a new study from the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The study, based on an analysis of 1994 birth certificates, found a direct relationship between years of education and birth rates, with the highest birth rates among women with the lowest educational attainment.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/97facts/edu2birt.htm
It's an old study, but I don't see anything more recent with a quick look, at work so I don't have time to properly research.
"in periods of rising birth rates, persons with higher intelligence tend to have fertility equal to, if not exceeding, that of the population as a whole."
Vining Drj (1982). "On the possibility of the reemergence of a dysgenic trend with respect to intelligence in American fertility differentials". Intelligence 6 (3): 241–64.
And, for those of you who haven't been paying attention, worldwide, birth rates are going down. Maybe not fast enough to prevent total overpopulation. Maybe not as fast as many would personally like. But they are going down.
And whatta ya know, intelligence is a polygenic trait and the degree to which intelligence is inherited is hotly contested, with wildly varying answers given. In fact, there is a very interesting study which suggests the lack of intelligence amongst lower social classes is far more to do with environment than genes, and given the right environmental opportunities many would have improved score results, whereas among higher social classes differences are almost entirely genetic in origin.
And that's before I even go into how flawed most testing for intelligence actually is...
Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2011, 07:45:09 PM
"in periods of rising birth rates, persons with higher intelligence tend to have fertility equal to, if not exceeding, that of the population as a whole."
Vining Drj (1982). "On the possibility of the reemergence of a dysgenic trend with respect to intelligence in American fertility differentials". Intelligence 6 (3): 241–64.
And, for those of you who haven't been paying attention, worldwide, birth rates are going down. Maybe not fast enough to prevent total overpopulation. Maybe not as fast as many would personally like. But they are going down.
And whatta ya know, intelligence is a polygenic trait and the degree to which intelligence is inherited is hotly contested, with wildly varying answers given. In fact, there is a very interesting study which suggests the lack of intelligence amongst lower social classes is far more to do with environment than genes, and given the right environmental opportunities many would have improved score results, whereas among higher social classes differences are almost entirely genetic in origin.
And that's before I even go into how flawed most testing for intelligence actually is...
Granted. And, intelligence <> education.
Some of the brightest people I know didn't finish school because it bored them brainless.
Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2011, 07:30:07 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 22, 2011, 07:12:22 PM
hate to burst your bubble but because people who attain education breed later and fewer children, that just means the less educated and intelligent are going to out breed the ones who do.
Oh, Idiocracy is now considered a documentary source, is it?
didn't say it was. dick.
but then, I suppose fictional stories containing concepts that have echos in the real world should never be used as examples when trying to illustrate a point without being able to immediately produce case studies to back that idea up. NEVER. EVER.
something about art imitating life or something or other.
I did laugh, but you just seem like you're being a dick because it's [EDIT]
easier funnier than asking for data.
(which I completely support)
Quote from: Iptuous on March 22, 2011, 05:00:35 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 22, 2011, 04:42:49 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on March 22, 2011, 04:27:58 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 22, 2011, 04:21:01 PM
Um, regardless of a kind of retarded and childlike argument about what kind of food you like to eat, I am simply not seeing any benefit to there being more people on the planet. What's the point? Do we win a toaster if we outpopulate the chickens, rats, and cockroaches?
Is there anybody that actually wants the population to increase?
i mean i have heard of groups that want their population to increase (e.g. the quiverfull movement), but i've not heard anybody shouting that we need more people on the planet in general...
Then what the fuck is the debate about feeding all these retarded assholes?
i guess i missed something? :?
i saw people arguing how to feed the people that are already here.
of course, that will just lead to an increase in population, but i didn't think that was anybody's aim.
if there were a way to feed everybody, while at the same time keeping the population flat or declining, then i think just about everybody would be on board. except that, like Roger pointed out before, the only ways to do that would appear to be despicably evil...
GMO crops with birth control chemicals in them.
Quote from: Nigel on March 22, 2011, 04:42:49 PM
Um, regardless of a kind of retarded and childlike argument about what kind of food you like to eat, I am simply not seeing any benefit to there being more people on the planet. What's the point?
Annoy TGRR?
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 22, 2011, 07:57:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2011, 07:30:07 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 22, 2011, 07:12:22 PM
hate to burst your bubble but because people who attain education breed later and fewer children, that just means the less educated and intelligent are going to out breed the ones who do.
Oh, Idiocracy is now considered a documentary source, is it?
didn't say it was. dick.
but then, I suppose fictional stories containing concepts that have echos in the real world should never be used as examples when trying to illustrate a point without being able to immediately produce case studies to back that idea up. NEVER. EVER.
something about art imitating life or something or other.
I did laugh, but you just seem like you're being a dick because it's [EDIT] easier funnier than asking for data.
(which I completely support)
Historical evidence shows that when Tokyo is in trouble, it tends to be related to civil wars, being bombed by America, global economic crises, or a massive earthquake. On the other hand, there are a lot of movies about giant monsters coming out of bumfuck nowhere and stomping on Tokyo.
According to your argument, which of these two sources of information should we be paying attention to?
Quote from: Golden Applesauce on March 22, 2011, 11:48:59 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 22, 2011, 07:57:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2011, 07:30:07 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 22, 2011, 07:12:22 PM
hate to burst your bubble but because people who attain education breed later and fewer children, that just means the less educated and intelligent are going to out breed the ones who do.
Oh, Idiocracy is now considered a documentary source, is it?
didn't say it was. dick.
but then, I suppose fictional stories containing concepts that have echos in the real world should never be used as examples when trying to illustrate a point without being able to immediately produce case studies to back that idea up. NEVER. EVER.
something about art imitating life or something or other.
I did laugh, but you just seem like you're being a dick because it's [EDIT] easier funnier than asking for data.
(which I completely support)
Historical evidence shows that when Tokyo is in trouble, it tends to be related to civil wars, being bombed by America, global economic crises, or a massive earthquake. On the other hand, there are a lot of movies about giant monsters coming out of bumfuck nowhere and stomping on Tokyo.
According to your argument, which of these two sources of information should we be paying attention to?
Godzilla was meant partly to serve as an allegory about nuclear weapons.
Owned by BH. that's gotta hurt.
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 22, 2011, 07:57:57 PM
I suppose fictional stories containing concepts that have echos in the real world should never be used as examples when trying to illustrate a point without being able to immediately produce case studies to back that idea up. NEVER. EVER.
something about art imitating life or something or other.
I noticed that you completely missed Cain's citation that shows the concept that you believe "echos in the real world", actually doesn't.
I also noticed you implied that
Idiocracy is art.
So, you're misguided, ill-informed,
and have bad taste. Nice trifecta.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 23, 2011, 02:12:40 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 22, 2011, 07:57:57 PM
I suppose fictional stories containing concepts that have echos in the real world should never be used as examples when trying to illustrate a point without being able to immediately produce case studies to back that idea up. NEVER. EVER.
something about art imitating life or something or other.
I noticed that you completely missed Cain's citation that shows the concept that you believe "echos in the real world", actually doesn't.
I also noticed you implied that Idiocracy is art.
So, you're misguided, ill-informed, and have bad taste. Nice trifecta.
admittedly, most of the information I've read on the subject is at least 10 years old. The information is always changing, and what we once thought was true gets an update with new studies, but that doesn't mean it was never true.
I implied film is art. What you think of a particular example of that art is subjective.
anything else you want to be a prick about?
Sure! I hate your haircut.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 23, 2011, 02:31:19 PM
Sure! I hate your haircut.
:argh!:
bitch went crazy with the clippers.
wait. how the hell do you know I got my hair cut? :tinfoilhat:
I'd say something about your hat, but it would be disingenuous, as I have a stylin fedora myself I sport on occasion.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 23, 2011, 02:12:40 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 22, 2011, 07:57:57 PM
I suppose fictional stories containing concepts that have echos in the real world should never be used as examples when trying to illustrate a point without being able to immediately produce case studies to back that idea up. NEVER. EVER.
something about art imitating life or something or other.
I noticed that you completely missed Cain's citation that shows the concept that you believe "echos in the real world", actually doesn't.
I also noticed you implied that Idiocracy is art.
So, you're misguided, ill-informed, and have bad taste. Nice trifecta.
:lulz: This post is a thing of beauty.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 23, 2011, 02:12:40 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 22, 2011, 07:57:57 PM
I suppose fictional stories containing concepts that have echos in the real world should never be used as examples when trying to illustrate a point without being able to immediately produce case studies to back that idea up. NEVER. EVER.
something about art imitating life or something or other.
I noticed that you completely missed Cain's citation that shows the concept that you believe "echos in the real world", actually doesn't.
I also noticed you implied that Idiocracy is art.
So, you're misguided, ill-informed, and have bad taste. Nice trifecta.
Except what Cain posted was about intelligence and birth rates, everybody else is talking about education and birth rates. Depending on the intelligence construct you use, the two may have little to nothing to do with each other.
1) I'm not going to get needlessly worked up about your pedantries.
2) Re-read Starfish's post, and reconsider your response.
3) GOTO 1.
Oceana has always had a food shortage.
The most recent books I've read on the subject were The Bell Curve, Intelligence, Genes, and Success and skimming a few of the articles in The Bell Curve Debate before I lost interest in the subject entirely.
that was a little over 10 years ago, and I'm unfamiliar with any recent research in the field.
If I'm wrong, I'm gladly wrong and welcome any recommended reading that might bring back my interest in the subject.
If I remember correctly from those books, there's quite a bit of back and forth on this and may never be a consensus.
Intelligence and education are, indeed, not the same. Research shows that women with more education have fewer children, later in life. It makes sense to educate women for a lot of reasons, and that may be one of them.
There is little or no benefit in having a higher population. We already "won". We don't need more people to win harder.
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 22, 2011, 07:57:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2011, 07:30:07 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 22, 2011, 07:12:22 PM
hate to burst your bubble but because people who attain education breed later and fewer children, that just means the less educated and intelligent are going to out breed the ones who do.
Oh, Idiocracy is now considered a documentary source, is it?
didn't say it was. dick.
but then, I suppose fictional stories containing concepts that have echos in the real world should never be used as examples when trying to illustrate a point without being able to immediately produce case studies to back that idea up. NEVER. EVER.
something about art imitating life or something or other.
I did laugh, but you just seem like you're being a dick because it's [EDIT] easier funnier than asking for data.
(which I completely support)
You're a cunt.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 01:38:50 AM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 22, 2011, 07:57:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2011, 07:30:07 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 22, 2011, 07:12:22 PM
hate to burst your bubble but because people who attain education breed later and fewer children, that just means the less educated and intelligent are going to out breed the ones who do.
Oh, Idiocracy is now considered a documentary source, is it?
didn't say it was. dick.
but then, I suppose fictional stories containing concepts that have echos in the real world should never be used as examples when trying to illustrate a point without being able to immediately produce case studies to back that idea up. NEVER. EVER.
something about art imitating life or something or other.
I did laugh, but you just seem like you're being a dick because it's [EDIT] easier funnier than asking for data.
(which I completely support)
You're a cunt.
This is also true.
And
WHERE THE FUCK DID CAIN GO, AND WHY?? FUCK THIS NOISE.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 24, 2011, 01:38:50 AM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 22, 2011, 07:57:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 22, 2011, 07:30:07 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on March 22, 2011, 07:12:22 PM
hate to burst your bubble but because people who attain education breed later and fewer children, that just means the less educated and intelligent are going to out breed the ones who do.
Oh, Idiocracy is now considered a documentary source, is it?
didn't say it was. dick.
but then, I suppose fictional stories containing concepts that have echos in the real world should never be used as examples when trying to illustrate a point without being able to immediately produce case studies to back that idea up. NEVER. EVER.
something about art imitating life or something or other.
I did laugh, but you just seem like you're being a dick because it's [EDIT] easier funnier than asking for data.
(which I completely support)
You're a cunt.
That post did sound a bit cuntish. Not everyone here responds with the malice that you do, and it's not fair of me to respond to Cain the same way I would to you. You're a cunt on purpose, I don't believe Cain is. I probably could have been more clear, and a lot less serious and just enjoyed the
:hosrie:
my apolagies Cain.
Alphapance, you should give Bruce Springsteen back his soul patch.
No way. I won it fair and square in that poker game.
But I strongly suggest you reconsider wearing that shirt out in public.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on March 24, 2011, 02:08:12 PM
No way. I won it fair and square in that poker game.
But I strongly suggest you reconsider wearing that shirt out in public.
I SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING THERE!
Quote from: postvex™ on March 23, 2011, 03:46:12 PM
Oceana has always had a food shortage.
If those guys got so many oceanea, why don't they grow more aquaponies?