Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

World Bank's Zoellick: Food Prices High Until 2012

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 05:30 PM
Original message
World Bank's Zoellick: Food Prices High Until 2012
Source: ABC News

World Bank President Robert Zoellick said on Saturday he expected food prices to remain above 2004 levels until at least 2012 and energy prices would also remain high and volatile.

He repeated that with food and fuel prices in a "danger zone" there was a need for $10 billion to provide food and cash handouts for the world's poorest.

Soaring oil and food prices have fuelled inflation across the globe at the same time as economies slow, posing a sharp dilemma for policymakers.

Earlier this week, leaders of the Group of Eight rich nations in Japan agreed on the need to address global inflation, particularly elevated oil and food prices.

"I think the statement on food security was a good statement, but the test will be on the delivery of the action," Zoellick said.


Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=5361409



And the BFEE you served is a good part of the reason you POS!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
skooooo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. Mayan calendar ends in 2012
I'm just saying.

:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crazy Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. I wonder if by 2012 millions will have died from starvation and...
malnutrition therefore lower demand, lower prices
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yup.
I don't believe much of this at all. Government regulation of commodity market speculation, new rules about levereged speculation in those markets, regulation of Dark Markets and hedge funds, and prosecution of market manipulators will take the starch out of them fast. Release of oil from the SPR and major alternative energy initiatives will also make a dent.

Zoellick is one of them. He will say what they want him to say. He is invested in the present status quo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AdHocSolver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 07:11 PM
Response to Original message
4. The reasoning behind Zoellick's" comments.
*******
World Bank President Robert Zoellick said on Saturday he expected food prices to remain above 2004 levels until at least 2012 and energy prices would also remain high and volatile.
*******

The reason he knows this is because the groups he represents are going to continue to keep prices high so as to enrich themselves beyond reason.


*******
He repeated that with food and fuel prices in a "danger zone" there was a need for $10 billion to provide food and cash handouts for the world's poorest.
*******

With the corporations and their executives realizing hundreds of billions of dollars in extra profits, $10 billion is pocket change to them, and it will not address the millions who will starve because their greed has so upset the world economies.


*******
Soaring oil and food prices have fuelled inflation across the globe at the same time as economies slow, posing a sharp dilemma for policymakers.
*******

"Soaring oil and food prices" are the CAUSE of the slowing economies, NOT merely coincidental with it. When people have to spend MORE for food and fuel, they have LESS to spend on other goods and services. The dilemma for policy makers is how to appear concerned when their greed is the CAUSE of the economic problems the world faces.


*******
Earlier this week, leaders of the Group of Eight rich nations in Japan agreed on the need to address global inflation, particularly elevated oil and food prices.
*******

Easy solution. These "concerned" leaders should just stop the global thievery, and economies will return to "normal".


*******
"I think the statement on food security was a good statement, but the test will be on the delivery of the action," Zoellick said.
*******

In other words, the world's leaders aren't going to do anything about the problem until their greed is sated or the rest of us are broke. One of these conditions is estimated to occur by the year 2012.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galileoreloaded Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Or is it a "Population Bomb"??
Most scientific evidence supports that with out cheap, easy to get oil (EIEROI of 1 to 20 or more) and cheap fertilizers (byproduct of refining and nat. gas production) that have greatly boosted production farming, that the planet can only effectively support about 500 Million people. I think TPTB are injecting this stuff into the "noise" of the constant barrage of information we get daily, so they can come back and say, "see, we tried to tell you". Heck, as far as food production goes, a global warm-up moves the frost line up 25-75 miles for every .5 degree, ie. more food produced in places like Canada and Brazil to feed the logarithmically increasing hordes worldwide. This might not be about politics, but a warning based on science. I thought fundies were the ones that didn't care about science and objective thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24HRrnr Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. In 1750
the world population was about 800 million. Definitely pre-oil.

To what age do you think we will roll back to?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AdHocSolver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Plantation farming destroyed the small farmers who were capable of producing enough food.
Just as Wal-Mart destroyed small businesses, the big agribusinesses and plantations made it impossible for the small farmer to make a living.

In third world countries, the most fertile land was taken over by the colonial plantation owners to grow commercial crops for export. Locally grown cheap food became extinct. Outfits like the World Bank favored the plantations over local agricultural by subsidizing the plantations with loans and grants.

In the "pre-industrial" era, farmers outnumbered city dwellers. They grew enough food to support their populations. The limit to population growth was not lack of food, but lack of modern medicine which is able to prevent or cure diseases that used to kill a lot of people.

The problem today with food being unaffordable is that agribusinesses control the food supply. Only a small proportion of the population is now involved in growing food. There is no competition. With companies like Monsanto patenting seeds and creating "terminator" seeds which require farmers to buy chemicals from them to grow food, a large part of the world's population is not able to afford what they charge.

The biggest problem with global climate change is not the temperature rise, but the shifting of the seasons. The heavy rains and flooding experienced in some areas together with the unusual occurrence of drought in other areas is playing havoc with farmers' ability to grow food.

A farmer explained it this way. Heavy spring rains coming late in the season delays planting. The late start means that the growing season is delayed into fall when the days are shorter and the plants get less sunlight. So plant growth is stunted and crop yields are less.

Plantation farming is resulting in the cutting down of the rain forests to grow crops to raise cattle. This is destroying earth's ecology and further altering the weather.

All these bad things are occurring so that the multinational corporations can increase their already bloated profit margins. They are destroying the environment and impoverishing the earth's population.

Your reasoning is scientifically unsound.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24HRrnr Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-12-08 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Please Explain, Oh Wise One
1. Why farming can not return to the substitance level of 1750. Seed stock is avaibable if not the most "modern" and efficeint. "Bio"-fertilziers are available. I grow my tomatoes in horse manure. Without oil, manure could conceivably get deeper - though it might be hard to imagine.

2. Why won't people, in order to survive, not revert to the habits on 1750, ie. become farmers.

3. Please explain how large multi-national companies that require oil for their existance will not only survive but control all agriculture - without the oil that they use to create the fertilizers, etc. I have a walnut tree in the back yard that is 100 years old. These nuts are viable. Why can I not sell them for palnting or plant them myself?

3. The climate has changed precipitiously in the past, warmer and cooler. The period of the 1750's was part of the Little Ice Age in which snowfall was at record levels and "springs and summers were oustandingly cold and wet" cite: Lamb, Hubert H. (1995). "The little ice age", Climate, history and the modern world. London: Routledge, 211-241. ISBN 0415127343

Please explain how the population grew larger by SIXTY percent of the estimate in the post that I responded to during this conditions of privation. Since temperatures warmed thereafter, explain why the population continued to grow.


4. Please use numbers where ever possible. The statement (yours) "A farmer explained it this way. Heavy spring rains coming late in the season delays planting. The late start means that the growing season is delayed into fall when the days are shorter and the plants get less sunlight. So plant growth is stunted and crop yields are less." is anecdotal, not scientific. Please support the statement that the world can only maintain a population base of 500 million people without oil when it has done so in the past.

5. Please explain how a dimishment of 90 percent of the population will not result in large expanses of previously plowed, planted, or concrete soil to revert to a wilder state incresing wildlife and natural food supplies.

6. Please define the pre-tax profit margin of the following businesses: Walmart, Merck, ADM, ConAgra, Progressive Insurance, ExxonMobil and Qwest Communications. Which ones are bloated? Why?

I suspect my reasoning is sound. Your "reasoning" appears to be bullying, lacking in specific detail, long on emotion and suspect - from a scientific prespective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. The biggest problem with going back to 1750 farming technical is HOW not if.
Today's best farm land is corporate owned (or owned by large farmers). These corporate farmers use tractors and other mechanized farming technical to maximize crops on a per worker per acre basis. Thus they produce food at prices traditional farmers can NOT match (Thus you see even in Africa a movement to the Cities from the Rural areas). Until that is NO longer the case, they will NOT be a switch to any traditional farming technical by farmers whose main source of revenue is farm products (hobby farmers will convert as will many a back yard gardener, but such peoples main source of Income is some other activity NOT farming, and that other activity pays the cost of their home and other needs).

Now such hobby farmers and Gardeners can, and often do, produce food at substantially less costs then corporate farmers, but not in sufficient quantity to pay for their other needs (including taxes). I suspect this will change as the price of Oil goes up, but until tractors are NO longer more profitable then horses small farms will NOT be profitable enough to pay their overhead.

Now, while Corporate farms are more efficient on a per crop, per acre, per man-hour basis, they are NOT the most efficient on a TOTAL crop per acre basis. The main reason is that for mechanized farming to work, you have to rely on one crop per field (and the larger the field the more productive you can be). In the old Soviet Union (and today's Russia) the Farming Collectives copy fairly accurately what corporate farms do in the US (Do to management errors the Collectives are less productive then US corporate farms but that is the product of bad management then anything else). The Soviet Union managed to feed itself NOT off its Collectives but off the products of the peasants who worked on the Collectives in the fields each peasants were permitted to have an grow food for themselves and their families. These plots were quite small, but do to the fact the peasants could, and did, plant various crops that could grow together, such plots were extremely productive on a TOTAL crop per acre basis (I.e. grow Corn, Beans and pumpkins on the same acre, each slightly less productive then a US Corporate farm as to that crop, but the US Corporate farm would NOT have the other two crops on the same piece of land).

American Indians introduced Corn, Beans and Pumpkins to the First settles in the US, and these were the top three food products in the US till after 1800 (When Wheat slowly became the main form of bread replacing Corn). Beans and Pumpkins were not compatible with wheat, but Wheat could be shipped to Europe. US Wheat started to be shipped to Europe before the War of 1812. The Dukes of Wellington's Army in Spain fighting the French was mostly feed American Wheat. This developed into a weird situation during the War of 1812. During War of 1812, the British blockaded the US Ports EXCEPT for New England, which had been shipping wheat to Spain every since the Duke of Wellington invaded Spain to drive out the French while BEFORE the start of the War of 1812, it was weird, if a British ship saw an American Ship coming out of almost any port they would take it as a prize, but if if came out of a New England Port they would escort it to Spain. This seems to start the shift from Corn to Wheat production in the US. The year without a Summer of 1816 confirmed the Switch, since the cold that started during the Summer that year occurred after the Wheat crop was in, but before the Corn crop. Those farmers who grew Wheat could feed themselves that year, those that grew corn could not. It still took another 50 or so years for Wheat to become the main cereal food in the US (and even then wheat was planted do to the ability to ship it overseas, something that could NOT be done with Corn, for outside of the New World and Africa, Corn is generally NOT eaten by Humans, being viewed as strictly a crop for animals).

Anyway my point is the problem is NOT if we switch to smaller farms but how that will be done. It is the transition that will be difficult, maybe taking decades to complete. The present controllers of the land will oppose any changing, even of that means bankruptcy for themselves. Bankruptcy will force many of the changes but every other solution, good, bad or worse will be tried first. Only when it becomes clear that the only solution is smaller farms and more intensive human farming techniques will such farms become the norm.

The year without a Summer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_A_Summer
http://www.dandantheweatherman.com/Bereklauw/yearnosumm...
http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/history/1816.htm

On Squash, Corn and Beans:
http://books.google.com/books?id=xGzF54OaJE4C&pg=PA49&l...
http://www.chaddsfordhistory.org/history/3sisters.htm
http://www.reneesgarden.com/articles/3sisters.html
http://www.wampanoagtribe.net/Pages/Wampanoag_Education...
http://www.theorganicreport.com/pages/519_the_three_sis...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17651062?ordinalpos=...
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jmf.2006.2...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24HRrnr Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I'm not disagreeing that such a transition would be challanging.
I am arguing that the 500 million figure is hyperbole designed to scare people. Again, why can we not devolve to the standards of the 1750's when the world population was 800 million? I keep asking that question. No one is answering. I get replies that discuss everything but the probability of that occurrance. And in the non-answers, I think an answer is suggested. The 500 million figure is indeed hyperbole.

You can't kill 90 percent of the world's population and make it a pleasant experience. It won't be. But human beings, with less knowledge than is possessed today, supported a population 60 percent greater than was claimed as a "maximum".

And the Soviet Union did not feed it's population. It was a net importer of food stuffs and the largest importer of grain in the world in the 1980's. Privitization may have closed the gap but they did not feed themselves.

I haven't checked the numbers for the US - I know we export a lot of food (hell, we waste a lot of food) but we also import a lot of speciality food - fruits out of season, for example. Probably a net exporter but willing to accept data that indicates otherwise.

To return to the question at hand: why is the maximum population that can be supported on this planet set at 500 million?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. I do not buy the argument that we will have to lose anywhere near that population.
There are ways to increase food production and improve food usage to avoid any need for any severe drop in population. I can see a slow drop, as people decide to have only 1-2 children, but no sudden drop in population do to lack of food.

The main reason for this is that in my area of the Nation (The Appalachian mountains) you have thousands of acres of land that could be put back into production if mechanization is abandoned. The grade a farmer could plow behind a horse is much higher than what can be plowed with a tractor (Tractors tip over if the grade is to high). Most of such land is now pasture, but can be plowed. Furthermore, while a horse needs some pasture, as the price of food goes up, more people will opt for a lower meat diet. Lower meat diet means less cattle be raised. Less cattle, more pasture can be converted to non-meat food production. Thus as we shift to a healthier diet, there is more grain for everyone.

The presumption of 500 million population assumes present meat consumption AND use of land. Neither will occur as the price of food goes up. People will shift to a less meat diet, and with the demand for meat down, the grain presently used for such meat will become available for humans. In addition back yards, present day pasture land etc will be converted back to crops do to the increase demand for food. Nothing happens in a vacuum, thus as the price of oil goes up, the price of food will go up. As the price of Food goes up, people will shift to using less expensive food items (i.e. less meat) and since the demand for meat will be down, it means more grains for people.

People tend to forget we will NOT be returning to the age before oil, but to a new post-oil ge. Many of the roads we have today, will continued to be used for Centuries after any ability to build similar roads are long gone, but roads are MUCH easier to maintain then to build. The Roman Appian way is a good example. Built during the days of the Roman Republic it continues to be used to this day. It has had to be repaved, but often all that is needed is the stone blocks to be re-set (and people can do that long after HOW to build the road was forgotten).

Generators are simple to build, all you need is two sets of magnets and a way to rotate one around the other. Thus electrical power is possible even if the only transport is what a horse can haul behind it (i.e. the iron to produce the magnets may have to be hauled in from someplace else). Solar panels require sophisticated equipment, but if made people will travel thousand of miles on foot and horse to haul it back home (and haul whatever the maker of the solar panels want in exchange, i.e. food or other items). Furthermore it may be cheaper to pay people to maintainer a satellite system to exchange information over the remains of the internet then to return to books (i.e. you pay so much alcohol to X, who then collects the Alcohol to propel rockets to maintain the communication system.

I go into the above to show that the post-oil age will be different then the present oil age AND the pre-oil age. I use the pre-oil age as a guide to how far the present system CAN go down. I do NOT expect it to go down that far, but if I use it as guide and then adjust that history to the fact we will be a post-oil age not a return to a pre-oil age.

Hopefully we will do better than post-Roman Britain. Archaeologist when they find a Celtic hill top fortress, have learn how to quickly see of the fortress is pre-Roman or post-Roman. Pre-Roman Celtic hill fortress are always larger for they were intended for everyone in the Community. Post-Roman Celtic Hill Fortresses are smaller, for they were for the upper elites only, the peasants were on their own (probably because the peasants ended up backing the "invading" Saxons, for as Saxon peasants they had more rights then as late Roman Empire peasants, which is how the Post-Roman British ruling elite seems to have viewed them). The technology was about the same in both periods, the difference was how the upper class viewed the lower classes. It was the chief reason the British ruling elite lost out to the Saxons. I bring it up for it shows a pre period and post period are NOT always the same, things change during the middle period and those changes will survive while into the post period. The same with out much improved highway system and communication system. Both, even if we ignore the use of oil, are vast improvements over what was the transportation and communication systems of the 1750s. The Appalachians Mountains were a serious barrier to any form of transport, but the roads built since 1750 have made them a less formidable barrier. Even if these roads turn to mud, the fact that they are flat and level and produce gradual climbs over the Mountains means transportation will still be possible, even if the road turn to mud.

My point is we need to look at the 1750s as how things were done then before we had access to oil to better judge how will be live without oil, but we have to keep in mind we are entering into a post-oil age, not returning to a pre-oil age.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24HRrnr Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Dude, You and I are not disagreeing.
The post I have been beating my head against is from galileoreloaded who catagorically stated that

"Most scientific evidence supports that with out cheap, easy to get oil (EIEROI of 1 to 20 or more) and cheap fertilizers (byproduct of refining and nat. gas production) that have greatly boosted production farming, that the planet can only effectively support about 500 Million people."

I have said consistently that I think his number is bogus.

We have large supplies of oil available in various forms. We have newer technologies that are coming on line in the next 10 years - I would watch what happens in the biotech field - there are very exciting advances taking place that will be interesting as they develop. And the biotech is for energy production, not for food production. I think that the numbers would be much higher tahn 500 million without any dietary changes. Please note the I "think" - that is my opinion unsupported by fact. I try very hard to be honest in my statements.

In response to my posts to him (and to another twit), I have received propoganda and the comment that my views were "scientifically unsound". Great.

Peak population is coming (and may arrive before true peak oil - if we account for all oil sources rather than the most easily extracted) and the Malthusian pressures will begin to recede. new technologies will continue to emerge and will assist the effort.

If I'm sounding frustrated, it's because I really hate bad science and galileoreloaded and AdHocSolver are purverors of the worst sort. Which is why they won't reply.

I don't want to argue with you. I think you're right.

Capiche?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. I believe Peak oil was hit in 2005
The present run up of prices seems to confirm that to be true. The problem is most people do NOT understand the Peak oil theory, they confuse it with running out of oil. Peak oil occurs when about 1/2 of the oil in the world is gone. That is the easiest oil to get at and thus used first. The second 1/2 will follow a mirror image of the increase in oil till we hit peak. In simple terms e have been pumping oil since 1859, increasing production till 2005 or for about 146 years. Decline will follow a mirror image, which is a problem (Demand is expected to increase while supply declines). On the other hand oil will still be pumped for at least 140 more years, just in declining amounts. By 2010 we will be pumping about the same amount of oil world wide as we did in 2000. In 2035 we will be pumping the same amount of oil world wide as we did in 1975. In 2040 the same as in 1970 (The last year the US was self-sufficient in oil). In 2060 we will be pumping the same amount of oil as we did at the end of WWII. We thus have plenty of oil, but the price will sky Rocket and it will be reserved more and more, to those groups who are willing to pay the most (i.e. the poor, for they are willing to pay 100% of their income for food produced with oil, it is the upper class that will object, they will have to outbid the poor for the oil, something the Upper Class dislike doing. The classic Example is Zoning laws.

Zoning laws were introduced in New York City just before WWI to prevent people from building Apartments buildings for the Poor in the Upper class areas of New York City. The poor were willing to pay a higher per foot rate for housing then the Upper Class (The Upper Class wanted their large mansions and were shocked when they found out some of their neighbors wanted to tear down their mansions and put up apartment buildings, for the Apartment building provided a greater return on investment then the Mansions, if you viewed both as property to be rented out). This prejudice against the poor, and their willingness to outbid the rich is the main reason Zoning laws ere passed nationwide. To pass constitutional muster other reasons were given, i.e. "everything in its own place", "We Zone for everyone,even the poor" when the real reason was to keep housing for the poor out of the better sections of town. The poor thought nothing of having 3 or more generations of family members in their household. They thought nothing of renting out rooms to other poor people. With this increase in population the poor (and the Working Class) could often outbid the Upper Middle Class when it came to housing. To prevent this the Upper Middle Class enforced Zoning, including forbidding more then one family from living in one house, or preventing any body other then a blood relations from living in the house (Multiple generation families were also banned, but even the Supreme Court could not buy that argument so is presently permitted, but occasionally still attacked via Zoning Laws).

People forget most of the problem we will be facing are NOT real shortages of things, but people wanting to preserve what they believe are their "rights" do to the fact they have money. Such "Rights" are regularly destroyed during times of Crisis, when it become clear such "Rights" interfere with the ability of a Country to survive as a united nation. I do foresee some wars, mostly Civil Wars, over resources, but these will be quick for the side that can use the resources better then the other will prevail (Sometime outside forces can delay such a result, as in Latin America when the US was at its height, 1900-1980, but once these forces are withdrawn, the side that uses the nations resources better will prevail). Now, let me make it clear, what I mean by using a Nation's resources better, I mean those resources are used to support more people. Sometime that will be on the side of Private property, but other time redistribution of such property if it is NOT being used to its best purpose. This will be a slow process, as what is the best way will take a long time to work out, but sooner or later it will work out and that side will prevail.

Now, I suspect the best solution will be a return to smaller farms so to permit more hand harvesting which permit multiple crops on the same land. Now, it may be better in some circumstances for larger farms to exist do to the crops being grown and the climate the farm is in (The dryer the climate the more important it is to leave the land alone i.e. no crops, thus larger farms may make sense in such situations). Another situation could be when a Dam has to be maintain via the proceeds of the Farm (Through this may be done via taxation, including some sort of "labor tax" i.e. a farmer has to work on the dam so many days per year to pay off the tax, no money just labor). I am speculating based on what various countries have done in the past. I may be right, but more likely wrong as to the details. All I can accurately predict is the trend and that will be back to smaller farms that can be farmed via horses or manual labor.

As to the dome sayer, they are to pessimistic to even prepare for the future, that is why I tend to avoid them. The Doom Sayers get so caught up in what will go wrong, that they can NOT see what will go right. Will we stay a primary urban Society? I do not believe so, and if you think that is a disaster it will be. My position having an increase in the rural Population will NOT be that bad, in fact good. Yes it will be harder for such rural people to get to the city and "enjoy the Nightlife" but most will find some other way to entertain themselves, as people did for Thousands of years. Including talking with each other on how the world is going, like we are doing now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buzzard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #8
18. This is interesting regarding food I posted a few snippets but it is a good read.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9...
We will soon be eating genetically modified rice invented by seeds multinational corporations

Someone said, "Monsanto invented the pig.' Very soon we will learn, right here in India and Asia, that US and European seeds multinational corporations "invented" rice. And soon we shall be paying up front royalty to these companies for eating rice. Hold your breath; that situation is upon us.


"Who cares if GMO seeds don't provide any of the benefits that were promised? Certainly not the seed companies. Perhaps benefits to the people of the world were never the point. Perhaps the point was to get those first GMO crops in the ground -- promise them the moon! -- and then allow nature to take its course and contaminate the rest of the planet with patented pollen. The intellectual property lawsuits will come along in good time."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24HRrnr Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Interesting article. thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
galileoreloaded Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Ok, I will give you some more info.
This is for both reply posters. The LARGEST myth promulgated by people who misunderstand the population/commodity problem is by believing that we can step back into 1750 or 1850, because there was no oil and less people. While this should be a model for a possible future outcome, it is not feasible for one very important reason. Lack of natural resources. See, remember when I was talking about EIEROI, well that applies to commodities, or resources as well. Metal ore mined starting in the bronze age was about 30% assay by volume, by 1750 it had dropped to 20%, in the parts of the world that were accessible and able to be efficiently extracted by the technology at the time. Today that is about 0.8% by volume. That means it requires a exponential amount of energy, (BTU=work, doesn't matter whether it is horse, human or tractor diesel)to produce the same yield. This applies to all resources, and guess what, we don't have the vast expanse of the American west, Canada, etc. to go explore. We cant even switch to solar/wind without people dying of starvation, because the basic components are so energy intensive, and standalone the technologies only return 1/500th of a gallon of fuel, they cannot generate enough energy to build themselves. Ethanol sucks, because it is a net loss of energy. Biodiesel is 90% of diesel efficiency and by the 10th crop, you are back to diesel, permanently. And broke too, because the input costs increase by 10 percent each cut.
These are niche technologies, not long term solutions. I would be happy to provide my source if required.
And I am wise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
24HRrnr Donating Member (193 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. In what manner has
Edited on Sun Jul-13-08 01:03 AM by 24HRrnr
the various metals previously mined disappeared from this planet?

The metals previously mined are still here. They would be sufficient for a population that is 90 percent smaller than the currently present. Copper, iron and a wealth of other metals are present in much larger, already mined, volumes than previously existed at substantially higher levels of purity. Just because we run out of easily extracted oil does not mean that the laws of physics (conservation of mass and energy) will be repealed.

Copper is actually a great metal to use as an example. How much copper exists in plumbing, wiring and motors that would not be needed in a doomsday scenario? The amounts are huge. Mining as an industry (other than for coal, near term) would be unneccessary. Resource recovery from abandoned buildings and technologies would be the order of the day. Smelting would be much easier, not harder, due to the high purity.

Likewise, we have larger stands of trees now than in the last 200 years (Yes, I know, outside my parameter). These previously (with coal) provided needed energy. Natural fibers would replace the symthetics in current use which would yield sufficient clothing.

Extraction is a modern problem for a growing world population. That is not the situation that you asserted would exist.

Will there be massive starvation? Under both scenarios, yes. I simply postulated a larger population as a base. I challanged you to provide reasoning for your number of 500 million. So far, you have made a good faith effort to answer. Thank you. I still disagree with your hypothesis - I have yet to see a reason that the rollback cannot be achieved. Given enough energy, larger populations are arguably quite possible.

I would like to see your source - not to beat you about the head and shoulders but to dig into the underlying assumptions that may be within the data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eilen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. actually the population has been decreasing
d/t lower birth rates. Even in the 3rd world. I read an article on DU about that. Europe in general is at a negative population growth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Check out Japan
For some really interesting stats. Whole towns are disappearing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #13
22. UN warns of unsustainable world population growth
"The UN estimates that the number of people on the planet will grow from 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion by the year 2050.

It says the rate of growth is unsustainable when climate change is damaging farm land and reducing water supplies."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/11/2301260.h...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ohio2007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
15. Soylent green makes its debut in 2012
or some other genetically modified 'cheese food' energy source
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. Sounds good. What's in it?
:popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
16. Why should I care what this ignorant sycophant thinks about anything? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Jul 28th 2014, 05:19 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC