Journal "Science": Agriculture’s Next Revolution—Perennial Grain—Within Sight

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.wsunews.wsu.edu/pages/publications.asp?Action=Detail&PublicationID=20510&TypeID=1

Biggest Agricutlural Breakthrough in 10,000 Years?

Journal "Science": Agriculture’s Next Revolution—Perennial Grain—Within Sight

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Contact:
WSU Science Writer Eric Sorensen, 509/335-4846, [e-mail]

PULLMAN, Wash. –Earth-friendly perennial grain crops, which grow with less fertilizer, herbicide, fuel, and erosion than grains planted annually, could be available in two decades, according to researchers writing in the current issue of the journal Science.

Perennial grains would be one of the largest innovations in the 10,000 year history of agriculture, and could arrive even sooner with the right breeding programs, said John Reganold, a Washington State University Regents professor of soil science and lead author of the paper with Jerry Glover, a WSU-trained soil scientist now at the Land Institute in Salina, Kansas.

“It really depends on the breakthroughs,” said Reganold. “The more people involved in this, the more it cuts down the time.”

Published in Science’s influential policy forum, the paper is a call to action as half the world’s growing population lives off marginal land at risk of being degraded by annual grain production. Perennial grains, say the paper’s authors, expand farmers’ ability to sustain the ecological underpinnings of their crops.

“People talk about food security,” said Reganold. “That’s only half the issue. We need to talk about both food and ecosystem security.”

Perennial grains, say the authors, have longer growing seasons than annual crops and deeper roots that let the plants take greater advantage of precipitation. Their larger roots, which can reach ten to 12 feet down, reduce erosion, build soil and sequester carbon from the atmosphere. They require fewer passes of farm equipment and less herbicide, key features in less developed regions.

By contrast, annual grains can lose five times as much water as perennial crops and 35 times as much nitrate, a valuable plant nutrient that can migrate from fields to pollute drinking water and create “dead zones” in surface waters.

…

(Video available at the link.)

[exboyfil]

1. Very exciting research area

I had not given it much thought before now. I will definitely read the Science paper. Being in the tractor industry it is very fascinating to think of the impact on equipment sales.

[GliderGuider]

2. The last major agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago

Helped us raise the human population from 7 million to 7 billion. Should we expect another 1000-fold increase from this one? Why do we assume that anything that paves the way for ever more people is a priori a good thing?
How about this? There is enough food, there are enough people. Enough, already. :banghead:

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Re: There is enough food, there are enough people. Enough, already.

Is there enough food? Why does the UN believe a http://www.wfp.org/">World Food Programme is needed?

What sort of ecological impacts come from producing our food in the ways we do now? Would it be a good thing to reduce them?

[GliderGuider]

4. Does producing more food help?

We produce 350 kg of grain per person per year. That's enough for a kilo of grain per day. That represents between 3000 and 4000 kcal per day, not even counting any other food sources. There is enough food. The "problem" is, as it always was, regional disparities.

Producing more food doesn't help reduce regional differences. Rising food production is also one of the enablers of continued population growth, leading to a Red Queen's Race between food and mouths. As Worldwatch Institute says, "In recent decades the growth in grain production has matched population growth." I wonder why that is...

If we accept that there is enough food to go around today (if it was magically distributed), and that 7 billion people is enough to accomplish anything humanity needs to do, then, as I said, "Enough, already."

If all future agricultural research was devoted to reducing the ecological impact of producing a constant volume of human fodder,then I'd be fine with it. The skeptic in me says that's not going to be an agribusiness goal any time soon.

[Nederland]

5. Interesting mind set

7 billion people is enough to accomplish anything humanity needs to do

The first thing that jumps to mind when I read this is to wonder who gets to decide what exactly "humanity needs to do"? The second is that you obviously do not view the 7 billion people that inhabit this planet as individuals with goals, dreams and desires that are completely independent of what "humanity needs to do". In your mind, the sole purpose of individuals is to serve the greater population by accomplishing what "humanity needs to do".

Yeah, I'm still fuzzy on that one. What exactly is it that humanity "needs" to do? Who gets to decide what that is?

[GliderGuider]

6. Who says anyone decides anything at that scale?

The question for me is whether there is anything humanity might ever do that would actually require our population to be larger than 7 billion? Is there any intrinsic value to having a population this big? What is the value of a growing population? Is it simply to ensure that as many of us as possible get to experience the joys of whelping?

[Nederland]

7. No one decides, and that is the point

No one decides what humanity "needs to accomplish". Individuals decide what they wish to accomplish for themselves. Sometimes those decisions benefit humanity, sometimes they don't. My point is that a system that allows people being able to make those decisions for themselves is far better than one that restricts their freedoms in an effort to avoid the nastiness associated with freedom. And guess what? Societies with the greatest individual freedoms are those that have the lowest population growths. The problem isn't freedom, it's lack of freedom. You seem to deride the fact that we give people the freedom to "experience the joys of whelping". The fact is, when you give people that freedom, they have fewer whelps.

Your mistake is to think that the availability of food is what determines how many children people have. You fear a new technology that would increase the amount of food the world has because you believe the result will be more people. Yes, we have seen population growth rise at a rate that matches food production. However, you are mistaking correlation for causation. The reason I know that you are wrong, and that increased food does not cause larger populations, is because I observe that the societies with the most food are the ones that are having the fewest children. Abundance is not the problem, lack of freedom is.

The real cause and effect is this: Freedom results in technological advancement. Technological advancement results in abundant material wealth. Abundant material wealth creates a feeling of security in the future. Feeling secure about the future reduces the desire for children.

[GliderGuider]

9. "Freedom" doesn't correlate well with low population growth

Among the twenty-five countries with the lowest population growths are nations that are remarkably "unfree". From Wikipedia:

 UN	 Country     Fertility rate 
Ranking               (2005-2010)

170 	 Georgia  	1.41
171 	 Moldova  	1.40
172 	 Armenia  	1.39
177 	 Russia  	1.34
179 	 Bulgaria 	1.31
191 	 Ukraine  	1.22
193 	 Belarus  	1.20

The question of what the underlying factors of population growth "really are" turns out to be quite tricky -- a lot more complex than I at first imagined when I began to look at it a few years ago. It was emotionally satisfying to me to imagine that I had discovered a single strongly correlated parameter like food supply, energy supply or sociopolitical system, but each attempt to reduce population growth to the influence of a single variable has turned out to be a fool's errand. As Einstein said, "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

My current position on population growth is that it is strongly multifactorial. The main driver is our overall ability to control our environment and render it more benign for human beings. The main inputs to this control process appear to be energy, food supply and recorded knowledge (which is the source of technology). Wealth is the abstraction of this ability to control the world, while factors like health care, sanitation and technology (especially communications) are the significant enablers of that control. As knowledge accumulates over time (though writing and other recording technologies) the degree of our environmental control increases correspondingly. This gives rise not only to population growth, but to the growth of wealth, the growth in social complexity, the increasing exploitation of the non-human world and the subsequent degradation of the planetary environment. To simplify the idea, our fate was sealed when we developed writing.

I still think that humanity will bump up against biophysical limits to the growth of civilization, but I no longer think that will necessarily stop population growth. Certainly running into one limit alone probably will not do it. On the other hand, I'm a strong proponent of the idea that we live in a complex, interdependent system that is showing various signs of fragility and brittleness. If that is the case then a failure in one factor like our energy supply could have cascading effects into other areas. However, so long as we maintain the ability to record and communicate knowledge, we may find that the human condition can deteriorate very significantly without any overall reduction in our numbers.

I have no idea how or even if the size of the human population can be stabilized. However, I'm still strongly convinced that when it comes to human numbers "more" does not equal "better".

[Nederland]

11. Partially Agree

I would agree that the rate of population growth is strongly multi-factorial. However, I see no evidence that the availability of food is a factor that influences the number of children people choose to have. I would make a subtle distinction between population growth and the desire to have children. The availability of food does not affect how many children are born, but it certainly does determine how many children survive and go on to reproduce. I believe the real problem is the western interference in third world affairs that occurs in the name of charity and humanity. The fact of the matter is that for millennium human populations all over the globe existed in an equilibrium: people had lots of children, and a fair percentage of them died. If the "overpopulated" nations of the world were left alone, this equilibrium would continue just as it always has. The delivery of aid in the name of charity however, destroys the equilibrium that once existed.

You said you have no idea how the size of the human population can be stabilized. I think the answer is rather simple: require people to feed and care for their own children without help from others. Of course, this libertarian vision of the world will never happen so long as people continue believe in idiotic ideas like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

[GliderGuider]

12. Perceived economic opportunity may influence the decision to have children

Food availability is certainly one factor of economic opportunity. There is even a hypothesis called the "Fertility-Opportunity Hypothesis", developed by an otherwise odious anthropologist named Dr. Virginia Abernethy, that argues precisely this. From her Wikipedia entry:

Her most famous work discounts the demographic transition theory, which holds that fertility drops as women become more educated and contraceptives become more available. In its place she has developed a fertility-opportunity hypothesis which states that fertility follows perceived economic opportunity. A corollary to this hypothesis is that food aid to developing nations will only exacerbate overpopulation. She has advocated in favor of microloans to women in the place of international aid, because she believes microloans allow improvement in the lives of families without leading to higher fertility.

While I don't necessarily agree with her hypothesis (it falls victim to the single-factor thinking I criticized previously), it's reasonable to assume that this could in some situations be one of the multiple factors we're talking about.

In your desire to contrast the libertarian and communist approaches you have conveniently ignored all of human history. There has never been a time in which "people fed and cared for their own children without help from others", and there is no evidence that such an extreme situation is either possible or desirable. Most people operate (and have always operated) in interdependent communities, whether nomadic tribes or modern cities, or any aggregation in between.

[Nederland]

18. Perhaps I should have been clearer

In your desire to contrast the libertarian and communist approaches you have conveniently ignored all of human history. There has never been a time in which "people fed and cared for their own children without help from others", and there is no evidence that such an extreme situation is either possible or desirable. Most people operate (and have always operated) in interdependent communities, whether nomadic tribes or modern cities, or any aggregation in between.

You have painted an accurate description how children have actually been raised. However, the "help" that people have always received from extended family and their communities is vastly different from the help they receive from the international community. The help that people get from friends and family is not charity--it is services given with the expectation that at some point in the future the favor will probably be returned. Western aid to over populated countries is vastly different in that it is not an exchange of services, it is merely a transfer of wealth. Western aid therefore serves only to allow poor countries to sustain populations that are unnaturally large. When the resources that a population receives are based upon need rather than ability, you break the natural limitation that ensures that populations will not outstrip their ability to provide for themselves. When you transfer wealth away from those with the greatest ability, you guarantee a situation where the populations with the lower ability will grow faster than those with greater ability. In the long run, this is unsustainable.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. "…given with the expectation that at some point in the future the favor will probably be returned…"

Not necessarily so. See (for example)

http://www.livescience.com/animals/070625_chimp_altruism.html

Animals

Selfless Chimps Shed Light on Evolution of Altruism

By Charles Q. Choi, Special to LiveScience

posted: 25 June 2007 10:19 am ET

Chimpanzees have now shown they can help strangers at personal cost without apparent expectation of personal gain, a level of selfless behavior often claimed as unique to humans.

These new findings could shed light on the evolution of such http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2007/06/25/americans-as-altruistic-as-chimpanzees/">altruism, researchers said.

Scientists think altruism evolved to help either kin or those willing and able of returning the favor—to help either one's genetic heritage or oneself. Humans, on the other hand, occasionally help strangers without apparent benefit for themselves, sometimes at great cost.

To investigate when chimpanzees might aid either humans or each other, researchers studied 36 chimps at Ngamba Island Chimpanzee Sanctuary in Uganda that were born in the wild. In experiments, each chimp watched a person they had never seen before unsuccessfully reach for a wooden stick that was within reach of the ape. The person had struggled over the stick beforehand, suggesting it was valued.

Scientists found the chimpanzees often handed the stick over, even when the apes had to climb eight feet out of their way to get the stick and regardless of whether or not any reward was given. A similar result with 36 human infants just 18 months old yielded comparable results.

…

[Nederland]

21. Interesting

This seems to show that altruism is to some extent in our genes. I think you need to ask how it got in there though. I bet the reason is that on a small tribal/clan scale, populations with large numbers of altruistic individuals will tend to be more successful than populations with fewer or no altruistic individuals. A competitive advantage like that and a million years of natural selection means you end up with a species with altruistic traits. This merely serves to prove my point: people are altruistic because on average, they benefit from it. If on average they didn't benefit, the trait would never have found it's way into our genes.

[OKIsItJustMe]

25. Darwin himself actually said as much

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

…

The idea that group selection might explain the evolution of altruism was first broached by Darwin himself. In The Descent of Man (1871), Darwin discussed the origin of altruistic and self-sacrificial behaviour among humans. Such behaviour is obviously disadvantageous at the individual level, as Darwin realized: “he who was ready to sacrifice his life, as many a savage has been, rather than betray his comrades, would often leave no offspring to inherit his noble nature” (p.163). Darwin then argued that self-sarcrificial behaviour, though disadvantageous for the individual ‘savage’, might be beneficial at the group level: “a tribe including many members who...were always ready to give aid to each other and sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection” (p.166). Darwin's suggestion is that the altruistic behaviour in question may have evolved by a process of between-group selection.

…

However, I don't believe it "serves to prove (your) point."

You wrote:

…

You have painted an accurate description how children have actually been raised. However, the "help" that people have always received from extended family and their communities is vastly different from the help they receive from the international community. …

The two are exactly the same. It is in our (better) “nature” to help others altruistically.

[Nederland]

30. They are not the same

Community aid will not result in a population that exceeds the resources of the community. International aid can and has.

[Nihil]

23. This was obvious back in the 60s ...

> Western aid therefore serves only to allow poor countries to sustain populations
> that are unnaturally large. When the resources that a population receives are
> based upon need rather than ability, you break the natural limitation that
> ensures that populations will not outstrip their ability to provide for
> themselves.
> In the long run, this is unsustainable.

40+ years of the blindingly obvious interspersed with commercialised feel-good
gimmicks live "Live Aid" has resulted in serious overshoot, an ironically
photogenic picture of unsustainable humanity ... and still anyone who mentions
gets hounded as being a "Malthusian" (edit: or worse) ...

[The2ndWheel]

15. What happens to a society that has fewer children?

Aren't all of our social institutions built on the idea of a growing population?

It's always a give and take. You have to give something to get something. There has to be some type of cost associated with a technologically advanced society with fewer children. What are we giving up to have that?

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. Well, one of the things that happens is median age increases

As an example, US Social Security system was founded on the idea of having younger generations pay taxes to finance payment to older generations.

The higher the ratio of "workers" to "retirees" the easier this scheme works. (Comparisons to a "pyramid scheme" are easily made.)

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. Is there any "intrinsic value" in the deaths of billions of people?

As you've pointed out, one of the great problems of population growth is exceeding the Earth's "carrying capacity."

Any realistic projections, anticipate (barring a catastrophic die-off) that the human population will likely exceed 9 (or 10) Billion before stabilizing.

As you point out, that kind of population, and the associated agriculture will wreak further havok on the ecosystem, assuming a "business as usual" agricultural system.

Please note that the advances discussed here are not simply ways to produce more food (as you suggest) although they may offer that benefit as well.
http://www.wsunews.wsu.edu/pages/publications.asp?Action=Detail&PublicationID=20510&TypeID=1

...

“People talk about food security,” said Reganold. “That’s only half the issue. We need to talk about both food and ecosystem security.”

...

“Developing perennial versions of our major grain crops would address many of the environmental limitations of annuals while helping to feed an increasingly hungry planet,” said Reganold.

...

[GliderGuider]

10. Half a billion people die every decade already.

That means that between now and the projected moment of population stabilization in 2050, 4 billion people will die "naturally". Since that moment is over a generation away, reductions in fertility rates will play a role in stabilizing our population -- it won't be all up to increasing death rates.

I would argue that limits to global food supplies, while increasing the possibility of immiseration in some regions, would do more to lower fertility rates than to increase death rates. As a result we will probably not see any noticeable die-off.

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. There is evidence is to the contrary

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html

…

The current growth of population is driven by fertility. Figure 2 shows how total fertility rate is a strong function of region. It can be readily seen that the more developed countries ("the North") have lower fertility rates than the less developed countries ("the South"). The fertility rates in the developed world are close to replacement levels (i.e., the population is roughly stable), while the rates in the developing world are much higher. Thus, population growth and level of development are clearly linked.Fertility is largely controlled by economics and by human aspirations. The high fertility of the developing world can be partially explained by the large number of hands needed to perform low-technology agricultural tasks. In these areas, families with large numbers of children realize an enhanced economic status. As technology improves, parents realize that having more children decreases rather than increases their standard of living. A dramatic example of this effect occurred in Thailand, where, as soon as parents realized that future economic status was linked to the secondary schooling (which is expensive in Thailand), the fertility rate dropped from about 6 to 2 in a decade!

…

[GliderGuider]

14. "To the contrary" of what?

I said explicitly that fertility reductions will play a role. What do you think you're objecting to?

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. … limits to global food supplies … would do more to lower fertility rates …

… I would argue that limits to global food supplies, while increasing the possibility of immiseration in some regions, would do more to lower fertility rates than to increase death rates. …

Decreased efficiency of food production tends to increase fertility rates (as parents feel the need to have more children to grow the food necessary to feed their growing families.)

High mortality rates also tend to increase fertility rates, since parents feel compelled to have more children in the hopes of having a larger number survive to produce grandchildren.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html#demotrans

…

The Demographic Transition

This is the name given to the process that has occurred during the past century, leading to a stabilization of population growth in the more highly developed countries. The Demographic Transition is shown schematically in Figure 6. It is generally characterized as having four separate phases or stages.


Figure 6: The Demographic Transition

Stage 1. In this early stage of the demographic transition in Europe, birth rates and death rates are both high. Modern medicine had not yet developed techniques to lengthen life substantially and standards of personal hygiene were comparatively low. Both rates fluctuated depending on circumstances.No demographic transition has occured.

Stage 2. In this stage, standards of hygiene and more modern medical techniques began to drive the death rate down, leading to a significant upward trend in population size. The birth rate remained high, as much of the economy was based on agriculture. Mexico is currently between this and the following stage. Stage 2 and 3 are indicative of a partial or first demographic transition.

Stage 3. Urbanization decreases the economic incentives for large families. The cost of supporting an urban family grew and parents were more actively discouraged from having large families. In response to these economic pressures, the birth rate started to drop, ultimately coming close to the death rate. In the meantime, however, the increased population in Europe led to tremendous societal pressures that caused large scale migration (e.g., to the USA) and extensive global colonialization.

Stage 4. The last stage of the demographic transition in Europe was characterized by a higher, but stable, population size. Birth and death rates were both relatively low and the standard of living became much higher than during the earlier periods. The developed world remains in the fourth stage of its demographic transition. A good example of a country in this stage is Sweden. At stage 4, we speak of countries having completed the second or a full demographic transition.

…

[GliderGuider]

17. Perhaps we're talking about different levels of limitation.

Let's try a thought experiment. Say you have a population of 1000 creatures (any critter will do), each of which needs an absolute minimum of 1000 kcal/day to survive. Now assume you cap their total food supply at 1,000,000 kcal/day, and provide not a calorie more. How much will the population grow?

Yes, I'm still a Malthusian.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. We're not talking about abstract creatures or pure mathematics

We're talking about people.

Living, breathing, breeding, dying people.

The population will not neatly limit itself to 1,000 as you seem to suggest.

There will be ecological devastation, as the population eats anything they can to keep from starving.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22902512/

Haiti’s poor resort to eating mud as prices rise

Cookies made of dried yellow dirt become sustenance, livelihood, concern

updated 1/29/2008 6:43:57 PM ET

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — It was lunchtime in one of Haiti's worst slums and Charlene Dumas was eating mud.

With food prices rising, Haiti's poorest can't afford even a daily plate of rice, and some take desperate measures to fill their bellies.

Charlene, 16 with a 1-month-old son, has come to rely on a traditional Haitian remedy for hunger pangs: cookies made of dried yellow dirt from the country's central plateau.

The mud has long been prized by pregnant women and children here as an antacid and source of calcium. But in places like Cite Soleil, the oceanside slum where Charlene shares a two-room house with her baby, five siblings and two unemployed parents, cookies made of dirt, salt and vegetable shortening have become a regular meal.

…

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2010/06/27/niger-people-eat-leaves-and-lizards-to-survive-millions-of-people-are-facing-starvation/

Niger: People eat leaves and lizards to survive, millions of people are facing starvation

Posted On Jun 27

Aid organisations are warning that millions of people are facing starvation from drought and crop failure in the West African country of Niger, and some people are turning to desperate measures to survive.

…

“You don’t see them very often. There are not that many about.”

Moustafa, Karim’s head man, was talking excitedly into his mobile phone. “He’s calling the kids from the village,” explained our host.

“He wants them to climb the tree and get the poor creature down.”

It was hardly surprising, I thought, that the bo was scarce. It is rotten luck to be a delicious animal in a land where people are hungry.

…

Competition for scarce food supplies will lead to violence (i.e. wars) which in addition to killing people, wreak havoc on the environment.

As a "deep ecologist," it may seem paradoxical to you, but the rest of the ecosystem may benefit most from having the human population well fed.

[Nihil]

24. More specifically ...

> We're talking about people.
> Living, breathing, breeding, dying people.

We're talking about too many people.

Too many living, breathing, overbreeding, dying people.

> There will be ecological devastation, as the population eats anything
> they can to keep from starving.

That doesn't require starving people - we are apparently proud to cause
ecological devastation purely for the sake of unnecessary luxury items.
Why only focus on the lowest level?


> The population will not neatly limit itself to 1,000 as you seem to suggest.

Not "neatly" I will agree but it *will* be limited in an involuntary fashion
as soon as resources get tight. We just have to stop moving the goalposts.

[GliderGuider]

26. Do you understand the nature and purpose of a thought experiment?

I did not imply (seemingly or otherwise) that a population would "neatly limit itself to 1,000." It was a thought experiment to point out the nature of hard limits on food supplies.

You can (and I believe you do) argue that the limits aren't yet that hard in the case of human beings, because we haven't eaten all the sparrows yet, and I'd agree. I think there is probably room in the potential food supply for another doubling of the human population, but I suspect the cost to other species and our own quality of life might be a little steep.

[OKIsItJustMe]

27. I am quite aware of "hard limits" and I understand a thought experiment

However, there are "hard limits" (if you will) to the validity of a "thought experiment."

Malthus' theory is easily understood.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4239/4239-h/4239-h.htm

…

I think I may fairly make two postulata.

First, That food is necessary to the existence of man.

Secondly, That the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state.

These two laws, ever since we have had any knowledge of mankind, appear to have been fixed laws of our nature, and, as we have not hitherto seen any alteration in them, we have no right to conclude that they will ever cease to be what they now are, without an immediate act of power in that Being who first arranged the system of the universe, and for the advantage of his creatures, still executes, according to fixed laws, all its various operations.

I do not know that any writer has supposed that on this earth man will ultimately be able to live without food. But Mr Godwin has conjectured that the passion between the sexes may in time be extinguished. As, however, he calls this part of his work a deviation into the land of conjecture, I will not dwell longer upon it at present than to say that the best arguments for the perfectibility of man are drawn from a contemplation of the great progress that he has already made from the savage state and the difficulty of saying where he is to stop. But towards the extinction of the passion between the sexes, no progress whatever has hitherto been made. It appears to exist in as much force at present as it did two thousand or four thousand years ago. There are individual exceptions now as there always have been. But, as these exceptions do not appear to increase in number, it would surely be a very unphilosophical mode of arguing to infer, merely from the existence of an exception, that the exception would, in time, become the rule, and the rule the exception.

Assuming then my postulata as granted, I say, that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.

Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will shew the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second.

…

Malthus (however) was wrong. Although the, "passion between the sexes," has not been extinguished, that is not necessary for human populations to not exceed the limits of "the earth to produce subsistence for man."

Once again, although you refuse to acknowledge it, fertility rates in the "developed world" have dropped dramatically, despite much greater food security. Why? Because we have chosen to have fewer children, and have the tools/knowledge to do so.

This flies in the face of Malthus. (It would appear that "the exception" is indeed becoming "the rule.")


http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/UNPD_policybriefs/UNPD_policy_brief1.pdf

What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?

Fast population growth, fueled by high fertility, hinders the reduction of poverty and the achievement of other internationally agreed development goals. While fertility has declined throughout the developing world since the 1970s, most of the least developed countries still have total fertility levels above 5 children per woman. Furthermore, universal access to reproductive health, one of the key goals of the Programme of Action adopted by the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in 1994 and reaffirmed by the World Summit in 2005, is still far from being achieved and unmet need for family planning in the least developed countries remains high. Thus, particularly in the least developed countries, satisfying the unmet demand for modern family planning methods would reduce fertility, moderate population growth and have several beneficial effects on maternal and child health that would contribute to the achievement of other key Millennium Development Goals. Given the synergies between improved access to family planning and other development goals, for every dollar spent in family planning, between 2 and 6 dollars can be saved in interventions aimed at achieving those other goals. This policy brief provides an overview of fertility trends and changes in selected indicators of reproductive health in the least developed countries and a discussion of the policies that underpin them.

For purposes of this brief, the less developed regions include all the countries and areas of the world except Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the United States of America and all countries in Europe. The group of least developed countries (LDCs) includes the 49 countries designated as such by the General Assembly. The rest of the countries in the less developed regions, as a group, are designated by the term developing countries.

Fertility trends and contraceptive use in the least developed countries

Because most countries in the less developed regions have experienced major reductions in fertility since 1970, high fertility is concentrated today in few countries and is particularly prevalent among the 49 least developed countries, 31 of which had fertility levels above 5 children per woman around 2005. Among the rest of the countries in the less developed regions, that is, the developing countries, only Cameroon and Nigeria still have such high fertility levels. Furthermore, fertility remains high in the least developed countries as a group. Thus, in 2005, women in the least developed countries had, on average, twice as many children as women in developing countries (4.8 vs. 2.4, as shown in table 1).

The majority of least developed countries have long been characterized by high fertility, although in the 1960s and early 1970s, high fertility was common in most countries of the less developed regions. Yet, even as early as 1970, total fertility in the least developed countries as a group was nearly one child higher than that in the group of developing countries (6.5 vs. 5.6 children per woman). Moreover, whereas fertility declined rapidly in most developing countries, it has declined very slowly in the majority of the least developed countries. Overall, the fertility of developing countries dropped from 5.6 children per woman in 1970 to 3.6 by 1985 and reached 2.8 children per woman by 1995. In contrast, the fertility of the least developed countries dropped by just 0.4 of a child from 1970 to 1985 (from 6.5 children per woman to 6.1) and was still a high 5.4 children per woman in 1995.

…

[Nederland]

22. The converse is not true though

Yes, if you have a population of 1000 creatures that need an absolute minimum of 1000 kcal/day to survive and you cap their total food supply at 1,000,000 kcal/day, there will be no population growth. This does not prove that the converse--that if you increase their food supply, their population will increase--is true. In fact, we know for a fact that for humans the converse is not true. In 1970 the global population growth rate was 2.1%, today it is 1.24% (http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_grow&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=world+population+growth). In 1970 the number of calories available per capita per day was 2432, in 2002 it was 2804 (http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?theme=8&variable_ID=1856&action=select_countries). So we've seen an increase in the amount of food available while seeing a decline in population growth. If I was foolish enough to believe that correlation is causation, I'd say that this proves the best way to lower population growth even further is to increase the food supply even more...

[Odin2005]

29. Sorry, Malthus has been PROVEN wrong.

In economically developed areas the birthrate has dropped dramatically, and is below replacement level in many places. The reason people used to pop out babies constantly was because the kids were farm hands and took care of the elderly parents.