You. Will. Not. Be. Able. To. Get. Food.

[robertpaulsen]

You. Will. Not. Be. Able. To. Get. Food. - report on trends
Written by Jan Lundberg
Culture Change Letter #189, June 20, 2008
The empire of cheap food is crumbling

You. Will. Not. Be. Able. To. Get. Food. Need this be spelled out any more plainly? It is time to consider that the stage has been set for petroleum-induced famine.

We have "innocently" accommodated rising population with greater and greater food production via technology and the profit motive. But now we have run out of room to grow, as biotechnology, for example, has severe limitations -- major ones being petroleum dependence and topsoil loss. The biggest wild card for our existence is climate change, as we see with floods and other extreme weather affecting our food supply.

We are headed for massive shortages of food and other essentials, mainly brought about by the depletion of geological fossil reserves of cheap energy and water. The situation is demonstrated regularly with easy arithmetic based on statistical indicators from the United Nations, Worldwatch Institute, World Resources Institute, Earth Policy Institute, and numerous governments. Usually the full force of the message is offset by predictions of huge rises in future human population growth that are simple extrapolations of historical trends.

No one can say with certainty that the worst effects of today's crisis will occur tomorrow or by any particular date. But it is irrational to assume there will only be gradual tightening of supplies until some solutions miraculously come to our aid. One ought to at least admit that one year ago few people thought we'd be going in the direction we're going in, this fast, today.

http://www.culturechange.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=179&Itemid=1

:wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow:

So, is anyone here prepared for this? How big is your stockpile?

[villager]

1. Yes. Grow as many vegetables and fruits locally as possible. And first step will be "no meat"

...since the grain inputs for a lb. of meat are too vast, and people will need the grain itself...

[Arugula Latte]

2. Personally, I'd be thrilled if the factory farming system went extinct

and people stopped eating pigs and cows, etc.

Now, if we couldn't get enough grains and vegetables, that would be absolutely terrifying.

[RebelOne]

5. I've already made the first step. I'm a vegetarian.

So meat will the least of my worries.

[yardwork]

21. Beef uses a vast amount of water to produce, too.

We simply don't need to eat beef, pork, or most other types of meat. I gave them up and I'm still too fat. I'm certainly not malnourished! Other than being 20 pounds overweight, all my health indicators are great. I eat fish and occasionally eat natural organic chicken. There are plenty of good sources of protein.

[knitter4democracy]

41. Unless you get locally raised pasture fed animals.

If you don't buy from those farmers, they'll go under, and we need them.

We get locally pasture-fed (no grain) bison and lamb from a couple of different family farms, free-range eggs from another, and we've started getting chicken from a small free-range farm that's not too far from here, too. They all use the same local butcher, and that family has been in business there for three generations now.

[villager]

59. out of curiosity, what part of the country is this?

n/t

[Two Americas]

87. most of the Midwest

Knitter is from Michigan, as am I. The Midwest is still dominated by family farms, is still very diverse, and the population is more closely connected to the farms than in much of the rest of the country.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

88. Me too--here in Minnesota

There are a lot of sources of small-lot, pasture-raised meat, free-range eggs, organic dairy products, and the like. As an apartment dweller, I can't really have a garden, and that's not my thing anyway. But we have farmers' markets a couple of times a week.

[Two Americas]

95. yes

I am working with farmers in the Pacific Northwest for the first time, and do I ever miss the Midwest. The clash in the PNW between gentrification and agriculture is beyond anything I ever could have imagined. I think that this tension is driving much of the debate about agriculture in liberal circles. People on the coasts have no clue about agriculture, and the farmers are deeply resistant and resentful about any pressure from the left, because they can see that it is mostly advancing gentrification and is therefore part of the main threat they face. Slapping an "organic" or "CSA" label on that gentrification fools no one. All it does is put more pressure on agriculture and force a greater need for factory farming methods and give more momentum to global "free market" capitalism controlling the food supply. The polarization between the agricultural communities here and the suburbs is greater than anywhere I have ever seen, as is the gap between the haves and have nots. Those are where the lines are drawn, not between right and left. Recognizing that is the key to restoring the New Deal coalition, bringing the Democrats back into power, rebuilding our communities and restoring our public agricultural infrastructure, and solving our food and environmental problems.

No wonder that west coasters don't know what we Midwesterners are talking about and why they think we are "working for Monsanto" or other such nonsense when we defend farmers. They see it as all black and white, because on the coast it very much is black and white - gentrification versus farming, and the haves (liberal or conservative, what's the difference?) versus the have nots. The drama between the gentrified conservative people and the gentrified liberal people, which has come to dominate our politics, is not of much interest to rural people and poor people because the net effect is the same and only the window dressing is different. Wealth and power drive things, not "personal positions" on "issues" nor superficial lifestyle choices. Those only make sense or are important in a gentrified suburban setting, and only matter to a relatively small and upscale segment of the population.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

128. That's for sure

I lived in Oregon for 19 years, and the demarcation between the Green-leaning Democratic cities and the libertarian-leaning Republican rural areas was extreme.

The forestry sector is screwed up, too, with the Weyerhaeusers of the world blaming "environmentalists" for the loss of wood products jobs, when it's their own overcutting, mechanization, and export of raw logs that has caused much of the problem.

[Two Americas]

163. it really surprised me

Here is what is happening, I think. The gulf is so wide that communication has broken down. Farmers here think (and not without justification) that the organic and environmental people are asking for an impossible standard or a return to hunter and gatherer living, so they tune it all out. Then, the liberals see all the farmers as "conventional" and as red necks and idiots who "are poisoning us" and therefore will not bother to learn anything about agriculture or get to know farmers. Right here on DU we have people who know nothing about agriculture, yet think they know everything and are completely resistant to learning or hearing things from the farmer's point of view.

I had no idea, coming from the Midwest, that the coast was so politically polarized, and this explains for me why the party has been stumbling so much lately. When you make the opposition, or the imagined opposition, into irredeemable evil enemies, and refuse to compromise or communicate or persuade or explain, or to listen to and empathize with others, or respect others and see that they may know more than you do, no progress can be made. The battle is no longer between left and right, it is between gentrified and non-gentrified, and this is creating opposition to the left that is unnecessary and easily overcome. The goal for too many liberals has become "being right" and seeing others as bad and wrong, and exaggerating and increasing those differences, rather than going for real world results.


on edit - It is not politically polarized on the West Coast, so much, as it is culturally polarized, and to most people outside of activist circles that looks like a divide between the haves and the have nots, with liberals appearing to side with the haves. Unfortunate, and politically very bad for the party.

[mntleo2]

259. Where are you located?

...I am in Seattle, low income, and an activist for low income folks. The rural poor are in some ways worse straits than the urban poor, mostly because of transportation as well as the digital divide because rural areas still do not have fiber optics, and satellite is horrendously expensive, so there is less communication. I agree that the concept within urban folks is that the WEALTHY rural are more likely to be conservative and narrow minded. However, here the poor have found one another because poverty is a knitting factor, at least in the activist world of the poor. We urbanites know that in rural areas that especially people of color are struggling and the white poor are with them, because we all are aware that classism is the new racism ~ it just includes whites as well now. We work together for legislation and change. We are surprised when a person of means has sympathy with us, and whether liberal or not, are wary of the wealthy as they just do not understand poverty and either demonize us or idealize us. There are already very solid bridges built between the races and urban/rural folks within the poverty community. I believe the most difficult bridges to be built are with the upper income folks and the poor ~ though the middle class are fast becoming allies. Finally they are realizing the poor have been the canary in the mines and they are next.

Recently I was at a function geared for women with upper income women working for empowering immigrant and lower income women. I really met a lot of wonderful women of wealth. Knowing well I was a poster child, I made them laugh when I jokingly introduced myself as their "token poor person" for their cause. Talking with other low income afterwards there was this sense of disgust that I would even want to rub elbows with these folks as it is deemed "hopeless" that anyone will actually listen to the plight of the poor because of the idealism ~ which is accurate in many ways.

However, I have learned from my own mentor, a woman deeply respected among both camps, that there are ways we can help one another if we can just put a real face on who we are and reach out to one another in real ways. There is huge multi-cultural wealth, artists, poets, the highly skilled and just plain wise in the community of the poor that has not been mined for its diversity. This is what was killed in New Orleans because that diversity, wisdom that has come out of deep pain that actually has solutions within, this is not valued enough to want to preserve. The upper income who actually listen will learn much, if they just stop to do it but most do not. Some upper income folks are listening and we do have to celebrate that ...though I will say it is not so much among men as women of many classes and cultures who seem to find it easier, if easier is the correct term.

My 2 cents

Cat In Seattle

[defendandprotect]

265. Our first problem is crops burning up; obviously animals as "meat" will end ---

common sense makes that clear ---

and this cruel system will be attacked by nature in many ways ---

IMO, the debate on whether we should be throwing fecal matter and/or petroleum based fertilizers

all over our farmlands is over. Of course not!

The question now will simply be how to bring vegetables and fruits closer to consumers.

I heard somewhere the other day that the average product on our shelves travels 1300 miles-!

Overpopulation is also a huge problem --- think about it!

[knitter4democracy]

148. I think you're on to something with that theory.

When so many on the coasts live so far removed from their food sources, it would make sense they'd look at it differently than we would.

[knitter4democracy]

147. I live in Michigan.

We are only second to California on the different types of produce we grow and amount of foodstuffs we grow and sell.

[kineneb]

68. shouldn't be too much of a problem here, either

lots of local livestock, and smaller-lot farms. I get all of my fleece for spinning locally. If I felt adventurous, I could raise a couple of goats and chickens in the backyard. Ahh, the joys of rural life.

[knitter4democracy]

149. I prefer getting mine locally.

After looking up the superwash process for a friend, I won't be buying any more of that stuff. I won't get rid of what's already in my stash, but I'm going to stick to wool where I know the name of the sheep.

[Jackpine Radical]

203. We've been doing more-or-less the same thing for years.

Beef, pork, chicken, turkey all free-range.

And let me add that probably the healthiest meat available to us where I live is venison. Our deer herd is enormous, largely due to the amount of corn being grown + all the private land closed to hunting.

Venison has a cholesterol profile better than chicken.

[knitter4democracy]

250. That's true about venison.

I grew up on it--both stepbrothers hunt, and my ex-stepdad hunted. A lot of people around here still hunt, and we have a couple of hunters who give at least half of their venison to our priest and his family every year to help them keep afloat (small church--can't pay much at all).

[Jackpine Radical]

301. We give a lot to low-income Hmong people who have settled in our area.

There s a program in which people make contributions to pay to have the meat professionally butchered for distribution.

[knitter4democracy]

313. That's a great idea!

I know our local food bank takes donations. I wonder how they handle it and what they need.

[eilen]

232. The best idea is to just

stop feeding animals grain. They are not suited for it. Grow grass (which is inedible for humans) on land unsuitable for crops and graze the animals. I like meat and humans ares suited to eat it. We are omnivores. Of course this eliminates the viability of factory farming and may bring back the cattle ranchers of the West. They might need to knock down a few deserted exurbs to reclaim the land though.

[defendandprotect]

267. The reality of what Hansen is saying is getting to you and you're planning to

keep trying to eat animals --- ??? !!!!

[Grinchie]

274. There is a balance you know

Humans have been using animal protein for eons, and stating that people should give up Chicken or fowl portrays extremely shallow thought.

I have raised Chickens and Ducks for over 40 years, and the truth is that they are very efficient conversion machines. They produce eggs, meat and feathers, as well as provide entertainment through their behavior.

When I raise a flock of birds, I know that I am causing an imbalance by creating an artificial increase in population. They roam free until I see the impact on the land as well as increased competition between the individual birds. Roosters will kill each other off due to their natural territoriality. Thats when it is time for a Chicken dinner.

I also am not sad when a Hawk drops by and takes a chicken for itself. The hawk was here first, and I allow 10% to nature.

There is no way that you can support a chicken through its natural life. You'd go broke on feeding it, or it would cause an imbalance on where it is foraging.

For true free range chickens, you need about 1 acre per bird, and that's in a Tropical environment.

[defendandprotect]

276. True. . . "The Earth In Balance" is distorted by animal killing --

Humans have NO need for eating animals ---

You not only "raise" animals . . . you're in the animal-killing/animal-exploitation business --

As you can see from your own descriptions of what a "chicken" needs --- it's NOT in blance --

and not in accord with nature.

And, when you decide to eat . . . it's a little blood-letting before dinner???

Find something else to do --

[krispos42]

291. If we don't eat them, they're going to go extinct

Unless you want a pet cow, perhaps?

[defendandprotect]

333. It's your job to eat chickens so they won't "go extinct" . . . ??!!!!

Why don't you just leave that to nature . . .

[eilen]

341. what is the big difference?

if a hawk, a wolf or dog will eat a chicken just as easily as a human. Bfd Other mammels aren't nancypants about dinner, if they had opposable thumbs and appropriate dendrites, they too, would farm chickens and sheep, manage their herds to ensure adequate food supply to their pack. Native Americans att meat, in fact there is not an indigenous group on earth ever that did not eat meat.

[Liberty Belle]

262. You can still fish (if your lakes aren't polluted) and raise chickens

in many areas for poultry meat and eggs. Even a non-vegeterian could be self-sufficient if one is willing to just give up red meats.

[Fredda Weinberg]

3. When I was young, you bought eggs in an egg store

Literally ... a room filled with cartons from floor to ceiling. Do we have to go back to that distribution system in NYC? Probably not again, in my lifetime.

We'll adapt. We've been through worse.

[eleny]

20. I had an uncle who used to sell eggs

He had customers he'd deliver eggs to every week. I don't know if he also sold to stores. But he sold "Jersey eggs" in NYC - mostly Brooklyn and Queens. He had a small storefront in Brooklyn where he'd candle the eggs. Then he'd load them in his truck and make deliveries just like the milkman.

[Fredda Weinberg]

29. And they call it progress ... we'll adapt ... we always have

Best wishes to the family!

[eleny]

65. We have neighbors around the corner who sell eggs

I haven't tried them yet. But if things get really bad, we have enough room here to raise some chickens for eggs and poultry. Push come to shove I believe that I could deal with killing chickens once in a while for meals.

:hi:

[Fredda Weinberg]

138. I'm not surprised you know your neighbors. That's the character

we need. Thank you for sharing with me.

[ClayZ]

227. We all need eggloos!

http://www.omlet.us/products_services/products_services.php?view=Chickens

[midnight]

51. I use to drive with my grandpa to the egg farm... I went to school

across the street from the egg farm. So stinky on some days. We had to shut down school.

[eleny]

67. Some chickens can really smell strong

To put it mildly!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

89. When I was young, you literally went to the farm to get fresh eggs

It was common knowledge that they were better quality.

[Fredda Weinberg]

139. We have community gardens here in Brooklyn. I worked with one of

the first in the early seventies with activist Ruth Klein, bless her memory.

We'll be fine - we don't have to go backwards.

[NightWatcher]

4. wish we had an "Emergency Preparedness" Forum here

so that we could exchange ideas with some people who were not all batshit crazy (as have infiltrated the rest of the survival blogs)

[Arugula Latte]

11. There was an excellent and very informative thread on DU about this maybe a couple months ago

If I get time, I'll try to find it

[NightWatcher]

12. there were actually two threads about trying to start a forum

[Arugula Latte]

16. Here is one thread I was thinking of ... There might be another similar one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2840068

on edit: I know there was another thread that got very long. It was packed with good information.

[robertpaulsen]

39. Thanks so much for that link. Yes, we need an Emergency Preparedness Forum!

I wish I had been online when that was proposed, I would have recommended it and joined it. With the twin threats of Global Climate Change and Peak Oil threatening civilization, we need as much helpful information as possible.

[Mojorabbit]

28. I don't know what happened

with that, there were more than enough people who wanted the forum. I wonder why it never got started?

[Arugula Latte]

45. I don't think I've ever been this scared about the future.

I think it's a great idea to have a forum like that.

(Funny, I used to laugh at those militia survivalists in the 90s ... )

[Hekate]

81. Propose it to the Admins. It may be time. nt

[onethatcares]

111. is there a "sustainable living" forum?

or did I miss it?

[MadMaddie]

174. That's not a bad idea..

[arcadian]

6. People better learn how to forage real quick in a scnario like that.

I recommend this book:

[countingbluecars]

7. I just got some

weird Soylent Green vibes.

[Blue_Tires]

50. i hear it tastes like people...how bad can it be?

[uppityperson]

8. 1 yr. Then my medicine runs out and I die.

[IDemo]

38. I guess that's where I'm at as well

Kinda hard to forage for this stuff

[FedUpWithIt All]

142. Jerusalem Artichokes

As a pre-diabetic i am planning to plant some of these as well as Gurmar (if i can find it).

http://www.newspiritservices.com/gurmar_sugareater.html


http://plantanswers.tamu.edu/vegetables/jerusart.html

Another thing that is recently causing a bit of noise is the use of (gack) cow urine to treat diabetes. Apparently some seeds soaked in cows urine and then brewed into teas might have a significant affect on blood sugar levels. :shrug:

http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84286&feedType=VideoRSS&feedName=Technology&videoChannel=6

Just some things to look into if indeed the shit is about to hit the fan.

[uppityperson]

161. Mine is thyroid. Would need a whole bunch of pigs to get their thyroid glands.

Not sure how many pigs I'd need, but it would be a bunch. I wonder if rabbits would work?

[FedUpWithIt All]

195. My mistake...

I thought you had said you were diabetic.

I am sorry about your thyroid condition.

I honestly don't know if the thyroid glands of rabbits would work. I have been trying to establish a small library of books about things like herbal remedy, natural healing and other things relevant to our possible future. The recommendation (this of course is in addition to regular medical care)is a plant called Bugleweed. Maybe a google search could shed more light on it.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

220. Interesting problem that affects millions of people.

I don't know how many millions of people suffer from hypothyroidism in the U.S., but I know it's estimated to be in the tens of millions.

What if we had to freeze-dry the sheep glands? Which is what Armour Meatpacking already does.

Hmmmm....

[uppityperson]

303. read 1/3 people in USA have thyroid issues, very sensitive gland

and lots of things are affected. Anyone who has carpal tunnel syndrome, depression, fibromyalgia should get tested as it can contribute to all of these. Armour is dried porcine thyroid gland, pigs not sheep.

[knitter4democracy]

312. It's extremely common.

Hubby finds more in his patients all the time. I've often wondered what in the heck is messing up so many of us. Then again, most people who have trouble are living past the average life expectency up until just a hundred years ago.

[Liberty Belle]

264. I read an article that said there's a chemical found to cause thyroid problems;

a rocket fuel pollutant found in our water supply and used in dry cleaning. When people got it out of their system, they got better.

[uppityperson]

304. Ours won't recover, 1 of us got nuked, other surgically removed.

1 was over reacting auto-immune thing, other unspecified tumor. Thanks for that info as I try to be aware of related issues and had forgotten about those. Radiation affects the thyroid also, hence people living near or downwind of nuke plants should have whatever-the-type of iodine tablets to take in case there is a leak, since this will help keep their thyroids healthy/alive.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

324. Autoimmune diseases of all kinds are more common.

I think the chemicals in the environment are part of it.
Diabetes, RA, Sjogren's syndrome, Hashimoto's thyroiditis (the most common form) -- are all autoimmune disorders.

[corkhead]

9. I'll be eating chicken

I have enough insects on my property to feed 100,000 free ranging chickens.

[Zodiak]

317. Lots of insects are edible, too!

As an entomologist, I'd thought I would just throw that one out there.

[corkhead]

320. If deer flies, mosquitoes, horse flies, and Japanese Beetles are among those then I won't starve lol

[Zodiak]

332. well...

Well, flies are not so good for humans to eat. Their larvae eat nasty things and the adults don't taste good, either. They are great for catching fish, though. Or trapping small animals and birds if that is your thing in a pinch.

Japanese beetles....the adults are probably a bit too crunchy to be any good, but the larvae eat roots for a living. They are big and fat and easy to dug up. They might be a bit earthy in flavor, though. Also good as fish bait.

Mosquitoes....useless bastards. To hell with the lot of them, except to feed the dragonflies and other such critters dependent upon them.

No...if I were to raise bugs for human consumption, I'd go with grain beetles, larvae fed on grains (insects have HUGE food/wt. gain ratios...85% in many cases) and other leftovers (peaches, etc.). Beetle larvae are great for taking on the flavor of what they feed upon, so they can be flavored for a week or so before eating.

The same can be said for crickets and grasshoppers, which can be fed on various spicy plant matter to take on the flavor of the plant. Catching these guys during the right time of year is really easy and gives a good return on nutrition per calorie spent hunting them.
...especially in the south where they grow 3-4 inches long.

As long as the creepy crawlies are around, people should not want for protein (winter is another matter, though). All people usually need to try it is an open mind and an empty belly.

[Mojorabbit]

10. I live on a spring fed lake

filled with fish. My husband hunts wild pigs. I have a garden and multiple fruit trees as well as berry bushes. I am getting ready to harvest my first bananas and mangos this month. I have four chickens and a hive of bees. I have spent the past four years trying to be prepared. I keep a larder filled with six months worth of food and have a solar freezer. I still do not feel like I am prepared enough but I think I can get my family thru some moderate bumps.

[Jane Austin]

15. Tell us about your solar freezer!

I've never heard of that.

Thanks.

[Mojorabbit]

26. Here it is

http://www.sundanzer.com/Products.html
I have the 8.1 cu feet one. Works wonderful. It was not cheap after buying the battery and panels but after we got hit with three hurricanes in a row I swore I would not be without ice again.

[eppur_se_muova]

314. Finally, a top-loading refrigerator!

So the cold air doesn't get dumped out every time you open the door ... what an energy waster that is.

[yardwork]

25. That is so impressive!

[The_Casual_Observer]

13. Last year everything was great. This year we are facing famine & global collapse of civilization.

The process has been taken over by underemployed Hollywood script writers.

[knitter4democracy]

42. Unless you live in Michigan.

We've been up shit creek for over five years now. Everyone else is finally starting to catch on.

[Freddie Stubbs]

69. Famine in Michigan? How many have starved to death?

:shrug:

[knitter4democracy]

151. We're having trouble, which is odd considering how much we grow.

There have been rumors of families in harder times than they've ever seen. That usually means only one meal a day, and that's from the local food bank or church. I wouldn't be surprised if people were starving to death in the cities, what with transportation costs off the charts and food stamps not buying enough these days (and the massive cuts they've done just to keep the state gov't budget balanced).

[Two Americas]

167. it is a travesty

Both the farmers and the eaters are being controlled by the corporate "middle men" and prices to farmers are down, and prices to consumers are up. The scarcities and higher prices are all being artificially created by the big money people, with the public suffering and the farmers under increasing pressure.

Why should the "players" - the investors, brokers and speculators - be making more than half of the consumers' food dollar, while the farmer gets a penny out of the deal and more and more people are struggling to be able to afford to buy food? Who does that serve? This is so obviously a political problem, not an agricultural problem, or a "personal choice" consumer problem, and is exactly the sort of political problem that the Democratic party has successfully attacked in the past and garnered broad public support for doing so.

[knitter4democracy]

246. Exactly. I've often wondered that.

It's part of why I buy directly from the farmer as much as I can.

[defendandprotect]

268. Past years were great, only if you weren't aware of environmental changes . . .

Here in NJ . . . we're at least 25 degrees above average temperatures --- !!!

[yella_dawg]

14. For the last six weeks

I've made between $125 and $300 every Saturday at the local farmer's market. This year is a learning experience. I hope to be serious this time next year. And I can culls and overage. I think a shortage situation is upon us.

[Dukkha]

17. steal it from the gluttonous rich

Find an SUV leaving the grocery store with the usual ribbon magnets and W stickers and rob their loot old stagecoach style. Though it'll probably be all fattening junk food.

[Leopolds Ghost]

96. "Hand over your groceries and SUV. We're doing a scientific experiment."

[SmokingJacket]

18. Everyone who can should get chickens.

Homegrown eggs are delicious and extremely nutritious. Chickens convert bugs and weeds into omelettes. I have 20 chickens, and I can keep my family and maybe two other families in eggs for very little money.

A little more self-reliance is in order. A first step would be to make chicken-keeping legal in the suburbs.

[yardwork]

27. Yes, the suburbs and homeowner's associations will have to adapt.

Right now, it's practically impossible to get a solar panel on one's roof in many neighborhoods, much less get permission to raise chickens.

[knitter4democracy]

48. I'm going to see if I can talk with our city councilman about it.

It's time to re-write the zoning here. It would be nice to have a few chickens.

[yardwork]

58. You go girl! I'd love to have a hive of bees outside my condo.

[undergroundpanther]

189. I'm getting two chickens pretty soon

Looking at coop plans,to build them a coop with an enclosure so they have some shelter AND run around room.There are dogs in my neighborhood and wild critters I don't want to lose my chickens to them..They will be kept as pets,and for eggs.One of my friends lives on a local farm out here.She's giving me the chickens as soon as they are old enough and my coop is done. I had chickens growing up.They are awesome birds. I got very attached to them..And the chicken poo and corn crumbs and whatnot that accumulates under the coop I can toss it in a mulching pile and that will help fertilize whatever I can plant that will grow ok here as the soil in this yard sux.

[knitter4democracy]

248. I really wish I could do that.

I looked it up, and it's against our zoning. All I want are three or four hens. That's it. I'd need a small coop and fencing and all (with the coons and the cats and dogs, I'd have to), but we have the room for it. It seems so unfair that I can't have them.

[Leopolds Ghost]

97. Ironically, in certain cities, such as the DC area, immigrants bring chicken coops to the suburbs.

Nobody seems to mind. My town even adopted one of the local chickens :shrug:

[a la izquierda]

245. My neighbors had chickens in suburban NJ.

It was no big deal except the noisy roosters.
I buy eggs at the farmers market. Otherwise, my husband and I are vegetarians. We get by fine.

[Tafiti]

273. Think that's bad?

In some neighborhoods, CC&Rs prevent people from saving energy by drying their laundry on a clothesline. Apparently the sight of someone else's clothing and (gasp!) underwear offends some people's sensibilities. :eyes:

[snappyturtle]

247. We have chickens....only eighteen....we keep five families in eggs.

It's surprisingly cheap to feed chickens. They scavenge for bugs and we serve up a little scratch, pellets (for their egg shells) and cracked corn. They also eat the fallen birdseed from the wild bird feeder. We also have a small garden....which needs to be expanded and have started on a rain collection system....although we're in a drought. We've been at our present location for 18 months and I have the distinct feeling that although we've worked hard we're no where near what we need.

I have the House on the teevee right now and they're talking way down the road...wish they'd get the relief we need NOW settled and then wholeheartedly attack future needs. President Carter had such a good start on all of this and then raygun took down the solar panels on the WH.

[bluedawg12]

339. What do thet eat? Grain? What if chicken food runs out? n/t

[DS1]

19. That's. Great. Because. I.Will.Be.Reading. In.A.Malnourished.And. Stunted.Manner

:eyes:

[LaurenG]

44. I have a big enough house - you can live with us (bring your So..)

We have a garden. :7

[DS1]

150. *jots down name*

:thumbsup:

[formercia]

22. I planted another patch of beans this Morning.

I am gradually turning every useful bit of soil on my property into producing food. Slowly, the flower beds are being reduced in size and veggies are taking their place.
Right now, we can afford to buy at the store, but if it comes to the point where we have to decide where to cut back, food won't be so much of an issue.

I feel sorry for people that live in cities and don't even have a porch or balcony to set out a few planters for some fresh greenery.

[cobalt1999]

23. America has one of the largest food surpluses in the world.

Even if food production is reduced and becomes more expensive, we'll still eat.

Countries that depend on food imports however...

[Two Americas]

114. hmmmm

Food reserves are at their lowest level ever, and we now import more food than we export.

"Food becoming more expensive" is WHY people can't eat, and that is a political, not an agricultural, problem. Saying that "food will become more expensive but we will still eat" implies a very small "we."

[Hannah Bell]

154. reserves are low because it's deliberate policy to keep them

low, not because of an inability to produce more food.

[Two Americas]

173. correct

Thanks.

[bhikkhu]

129. No - the US is a net importer

"US Becomes a Net Importer of Food: One of the hidden surprises in the ballooning, out-of-control US budget and trade deficit data is that, for the first time in half a century, the US now imports more food than it exports"

http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2004/12/18.html

[Hannah Bell]

157. not according to usda. i fell for that same website, but when i

checked around, i couldn't find back-up.

http://www.fas.usda.gov/scriptsw/bico/bico_lout.asp

compare export w/ import figures.

[Two Americas]

185. interesting

I received from the USDA a report saying otherwise. Might have been an error, or I may have misunderstood it.

Looking it up now...

Pretty close in 2007, $81 billion out $70 billion in, looks like.

I stand corrected. Thanks. I will see if I can find that report from a couple of years ago.

[Two Americas]

188. it was a forecast, and also in some monthly stats

Can't find the report, but here are some articles from then about it.

Food Imports Close to Matching Level of Exports, Report Says
By ELIZABETH BECKER

Published: November 24, 2004

Next year, for the first time in nearly five decades, the United States could import as much food as it exports, the Department of Agriculture said. Until now, the United States exported more food than it imported. One out of every three acres in the United States is planted for export and agriculture has been one of the few economic sectors that produced a predictable trade surplus.

But in a revised quarterly report issued this week, the Agriculture Department predicted that in 2005 the imports of farm products would equal exports, which are estimated at $56 billion. Foreign competition and record crop production in the United States, which pushed down world prices for grains, oilseeds and cottons, were blamed for the drop in export sales from the record of $62.3 billion set in this fiscal year, which ended on Sept. 30.

With the United States trade deficit deepening, reaching 5 percent of the gross domestic product in its fullest expression, this forecast was unwelcome news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/24/business/24farm.html

The U.S. Ag Trade Balance. . . More Than Just A Number

A decade ago, a scenario in which the value of U.S. agricultural imports would someday exceed that of U.S. exports seemed farfetched. Indeed, the United States has been a net exporter of agricultural products since 1959, an uninterrupted span of 44 years. Today, the improbable has become probable. Since 1996, the agricultural trade surplus has shrunk from $27.3 billion (an all-time high) to $10.5 billion. Although U.S. agricultural exports continue to rise, imports are increasing nearly twice as fast.

The rapid growth of U.S. agricultural imports relative to exports in recent years may come as a surprise to many because the U.S. is still the world’s leading exporter of farm products. In fact, U.S. agricultural exports grew by almost $3 billion in 2003. And, higher commodity prices point to export gains in 2004. But the U.S. is also the world’s largest agricultural importer. Over the last 7 years, U.S. agricultural imports have increased by more than $13 billion, from $32 billion in 1996 to $46 billion in 2003. Agricultural economists Philip Paarlberg and Phil Abbott, both at Purdue University, predict that, if these trends continue, the current agricultural trade surplus will turn into a deficit toward the end of the decade. This forecast is consistent with ERS analysis of U.S. import and export trends.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:ggsz5SLUrm8J:www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/February04/Features/USTradeBalance.htm+food+imports+exports+usda+2004+deficit&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

Economists: U.S. on verge of becoming net agricultural importer

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – For more than 40 years the United States has exported more agricultural products than it has imported. That could change within a few years, said two Purdue University agricultural economists.

The gap between American export and import values is narrowing, said economists Phil Paarlberg and Phil Abbott. They predict imports could overtake exports by 2007, if current trends continue.

U.S. agricultural exports are projected to climb by $500 million in the coming fiscal year, which begins in October, to $56.5 billion. Imports are estimated to jump as much as $3.5 billion in 2003-04.

"What we've seen in the last several years is that agricultural exports have been relatively flat in real dollars while imports have been rising quite rapidly, even through our so-called recession," Paarlberg said. "A couple of years back imports were $41 billion, and last year they were $45 billion. We expect them in the coming year to climb to $47 billion or $48 billion.

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/030919.Paarlberg.imports.html

U.S. Food Imports Now Exceed Exports

THE AGRIBUSINESS EXAMINER
November 10, 2004, Issue #379
Monitoring Corporate Agribusiness
From a Public Interest Perspective

SCOTT KILMAN, WALL STREET JOURNAL (11/8/04): America's appetite for imported food is creating problems for the U.S. economy.

Agriculture, one of the few big sectors of the economy that could be counted
on to produce trade surpluses, has recently generated monthly deficits --- a
development that could worsen the nation's already significant trade
imbalance.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. imported more
agricultural goods than it exported in June and August, the first monthly
trade deficits since 1986, when the Farm Belt was mired in a depression.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/exports111204.cfm

[bhikkhu]

201. Thanks. Being close to parity is a comfort.

And I think we can do a lot better with what we have. It is a blessing that very few in this country know about the horrors of real famine, and I hope my children will never have to know. With that said, the huge surplus mentioned in the post I replied to are very much a thing of the past.

I have a big garden going this year, and plan to every year from now on.

[amandabeech]

164. It is perhaps true on a dollar value, but not on a caloric value.

Think of all the expensive gourmet stuff and out-of-season fruits and vegetables imported from Chile and Peru.

If really necessary, I believe that we could eat less meat imported from Latin America, and turn some corn fields into veggie fields. That's not counting some gardening. There is also marginally productive farmland in various parts of the country that could be put back into production--potatoes in the northeast, for example.

The problem would be "free trade" in food, in which the U.S. consumer might be outbid by China.

Some nations, like India, have already banned exports of key grain.

The U.S. might do that, but the political situation would have to be extreme.

However, I don't think that we can increase our population greatly and still expect to feed ourselves, particularly since good farmland in the eastern half of the country, which normally has adequate rainfall or replaced irrigation, gets turned into waves of townhouses and bunches of big boxes to accommodate more people. There are limits.

[Hannah Bell]

180. please offer some proof for your claim. fruits & veg from peru & chile

are cheap to import: that's why they're imported instead of being produced here.

we export about 1 billion dollars more meat than we import, & the top 3 suppliers of imports are canada, australia & nz, not latin america. latin am imports are small in comparison.

http://www.fas.usda.gov/scriptsw/bico/bico.asp?Entry=lout&doc=981

and there's plenty of fallowed land in the us.

and the only grains india stopped exporting were rice & wheat, during the recent run-up in prices, in order to hold down domestic prices. they're going to lift the restriction.

india produces enough grain for its own people, with enough left to export some. why wouldn't we be able to, with much less the population density? i think you have a skewed picture of the us food situation.

[amandabeech]

244. I would have more interest in looking at your link if you hadn't closed in a snotty manner.

n/t

[Hannah Bell]

271. the only comment that could conceivably be viewed as "snotty"

was "i think you have a skewed picture".

it wasn't intended to be snotty, sorry.

[Jack_DeLeon]

238. Well the big problem is shipping it...

at some point in the future we will start to see actual shortages of oil, and thus we wont have enough fuel to harvest and/or transport the food from all of the farms to all of the cities.

Having plenty of food does no good if it doesnt get to where the people are.

[terip64]

24. Find a Community Supported Agriculture group in your area.

http://www.localharvest.org/csa/

[Two Americas]

327. or an agriculture supported community

CSA doesn't scale up and is not available to the many, and does not work for serious agriculture that is dedicated to public service, as most farmers are.

Most farmers take the opposite view, and do not ask any artificial community of enlightened or upscale people to support them, as though they were a charity case, but see themselves as supporting the community. That is sustainable and egalitarian, and will feed all of the people. No one goes hungry in my community for example, because we won't let that happen. We are agriculture that supports the community, and there are thousands like us - we might look a little red-necky and not live the liberal lifestyle. No questions are asked, no club need be joined, no money must be paid upfront or ever as far as that goes if people have none.

There is a desperate shortage of labor in farming at all levels, including new farm owners and almost anyone who is determined can find the assistance needed to own a farm. Move to an agriculture supported community. Life is better, and you'll never wonder whether or not you are doing something to help. Fresh air, in touch with nature and the seasons, good food, strong supportive communities, 45% or so Dem (and we need more), lots of exercise (forget the expensive imported Italian bike and the bike trail), many challenges and rewards and satisfactions and who cares what the people talk like or how they dress, or what your social status might be? That isn't what liberalism should be about anyway.

For a hundred years people have been leaving the farm in search of glamor, status, income, trinkets, whatever. Then they spend a fortune as consumers trying to recapture what their ancestors had for free. Move on back. Life is better. The glamor and status, the corporate jobs and suburban homes were all an illusion. It didn't work.

[dana_b]

340. wow!

thanks for the link! I just signed up. :)

[The Stranger]

30. This is usually where some strange DUers attack those raising the issue of OVERPOPULATION based on

some perverted sense that concern about OVERPOPULATION is either not an issue because overconsumption is also an issue or that OVERPOPULATION is somehow to be addressed by mass killings, instead of birth control.

[hogwyld]

35. Overpopulation will take care of itself

Either through massive global famine, disease, Global warming, or through world war III over dwindling resources. Another 800 lb gorilla in the room that nobody talks much about is the scarcity of clean, drinkable water in the world. We can live without oil, but we can't live without water.

[The Stranger]

85. I was sort of hoping to avoid the part about the "massive global famine, disease . . . war."

[Hannah Bell]

158. this is usually where some posters start babbling about the

out of control birth rates in the third world.

[Two Americas]

205. yeah

Because of their superstitions.


According to our superstitions, anyway.


Why can't everyone in the world be enlightened American progressives just like us?

[The Stranger]

272. Right on cue.

You're so predictable.

[melody]

31. My dad used to say the same crap

In 1975, he discussed the "end of oil" and how we'd all be starving soon. He had massive accumulations of canned food
and rice, etc, in his apartment closet. He also had a gun and ammo.

When he died twenty years later, we had a lot of crap to clean out of his closet.

I'm stored up with food. I have provisions. But it's the worst case scenario you depict, not the likely one.
Food doesn't have to travel far. There can be emergency systems set in place. They already exist in California.

It's not the end of the world. We'll get by as we always have.

[robertpaulsen]

86. "There can be emergency systems set in place."

Yes, there can be. Sometimes they do a 'heckuva job' too!

Peak Oil is not the "end of oil" or "the end of the world". But try googling The Hirsch Report and then tell me how "we'll get by as we always have."

[melody]

107. I've read the Hirsch Report

And I know it is projecting as much as any similar "report".

I think you ought to grant other people with a modicum of intelligence - *maybe* we see something you do not.

[robertpaulsen]

119. OK, you've read it.

Which parts of the report do you agree with and which do you dispute?

[melody]

133. It's 108 degrees here, Robert

My brain just doesn't work at 108. Can we freeze this topic and discuss it later when it's cooler?

[robertpaulsen]

136. Sure. Good luck finding shade!

Or a functional AC. :)

[robertpaulsen]

322. Feeling cooler today?

:hi:

[TheWatcher]

135. And, as I figured would be the case, that's where the discussion ends.

I'd like to hear more though, from both of you, because I haven't read the report myself.

Could you direct me to it via link? If not I can Google it.

[robertpaulsen]

137. Ask and ye shall receive.

PDF and HTML:

http://www.hilltoplancers.org/stories/hirsch0502.pdf

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:ZMtJSkf22BUJ:www.hilltoplancers.org/stories/hirsch0502.pdf+The+Hirsch+Report&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

The Hirsch Report was one of Project Censored's Top 25 censored stories of 2005. Robert Hirsch also did a follow-up report that put the costs of mitigation in a best case scenario at $20 trillion. I'll try to find that report as well.

[TheWatcher]

153. Thank You robert. :)

It appears I have some reading to do this evening. :)

Appreciate the links, and I do hope you two continue the discussion.

[Catherine Vincent]

32. I tell all my family members that everytime they go grocery shopping,

they should always buy extra canned goods and water and store it. I tell them prices will go up for everything because of the floods and high gas prices. That's all we can do for now. I also mention starting a garden (which I haven't done myself, unfortunately). They always make fun of me because I always talk about emergency planning but hopefully it will sink in.

[bean fidhleir]

43. I hope you also tell them to regularly USE UP the oldest canned goods

and water. They have lifespans. Long ones, but very finite.

[hogwyld]

54. How long is very long?

I know we're supposed to rotate, but sometimes it just slips past us. Would be good to know if those 5 y.o cans of beans are still good or not. No, there's no date code stamped anywhere, but the cans look normal and not swelled.

[bean fidhleir]

57. It seems to vary with the product. I went to my pantry just this instant

and pulled out 3 tins (bought last year, I think) to check:

Contadina tomato paste: "best by Mar 31 09"

Old El Paso fat-free spicy refritos: "27NOV09"
(no legend, but in the future therefore not the packing date)

Campbells tomato soup: "Jan 16 2010"
(same reasoning)


Are you sure there're no numbers? I thought it was law these days.

[knitter4democracy]

251. Homecanned stuff only lasts a year.

At least, after that it starts losing flavor. I'd bet that most commercially canned foods wouldn't last more than two.

[eilen]

233. Every month I buy an extra bag of rice and an extra sack of flour and

put them in the freezer. They are not big bulk bags or anything but I have to work within my budget. I am also considering a pressure canner and dehydrator but first I want to see how my garden does. This is my first year gardening and I am a neophyte. I have herbs on my side garden (sage, tarragon, chives, roses, horseradish). I also have a grapevine that doesn't really grow grapes but I can pick the grapeleaves and brine them.

[northzax]

297. strange, isn't it?

everyone thinks that oil prices are increasing because of some sort of hoarding, but we are told to hoard food? no one needs more than a few weeks worth of food, max. if everyone goes out today and buys six months of food, guess what happens?

ever seen a supermarket the day before a snowstorm is supposed to hit? try and buy toilet paper and bread. it's a joke.

so if you want to insure prices rise, keep hoarding and get all your friends to as well.

[Mojorabbit]

306. But everyone will not go out and do it

Most people could not afford to stock 6 months worth at a time. A few extra things each visit and it adds up plus you save money in the long run as food is going up in price like gangbusters.

[northzax]

309. doesn't change the fact that you are recommending hoarding

that is plainly irresponsible. you are hoarding at the expense of others. people who grow their own food and can it, or hunt and freeze it, fine. but you are advocating taking food for storage that others could eat, creating artificial scarcity and raising the price, during a time of crisis.

in war, people get shot for hoarding.

[Mojorabbit]

318. It is not hoarding

when there is not a shortage. It is storing. Hoarding is when there is a shortage and you are hoarding at the expense of others. Not irresponsible at all to store food.

[Catherine Vincent]

331. I agree. nt

[roody]

33. Plant edibles. Let everything go to seed.

I have lamb's quarters, favas, mustard, radish (it now comes up as volunteer everywhere), broccoli, collards, arugula. I have planted berries, fruit trees and nuts. I have very little grass; I am slowly replacing it with clover, also edible.

[conscious evolution]

141. Good advice

My commune is doing the same.
We are building up heirloom seedstocks and letting stuff go to seed naturaly.
For instance,today we found acorn squash and cucumbers growing wild in last years composting plot.We also have herbs growing wild all over the nieghborhood from people letting their herb crops seed on their own.
One my housemates and a nieghbor are also learning beekeeping.The harvested the first crop a couple of weeks ago.Absolutely awesome stuff.An added benifit to having such local honey is everyones pollen allergys have gone away.
In addition to the food crops we also have medicinal herbs growing.

We are also working on removing ourselves from the grid.We already have a well and we are working on getting an alternative electrical source.

A shitstorm is coming.It is best to be prepared for it.

[Marrah_G]

34. I started a garden- am learning to can food, and have stocked up on a few things.

I also started hanging my clothes out to save on the ever rising price of energy.

If only I could afford solar panels.

[knitter4democracy]

49. Hubby and I really got into canning last year.

It's cheaper in the long run than freezing, and it's a lot easier than I'd ever thought, especially with a partner. My mom's planning on doing a couple of tomato batches with me this summer, too.

[Marrah_G]

52. I have 9 tomato plants - not sure if I should get a few more or not.

[knitter4democracy]

53. I think we're up to ten.

I'll never forget the year my stepmom put in 43 tomato plants. You can just imagine the rotten tomato fights the four of us kids had that fall. Ugh. She canned enough tomato sauce to last us two years--in a family of six. Crazy.

[eilen]

234. Yeah, I wish solar panels were not so expensive

Those big generators are much cheaper. Even with the tax rebates they are still prohibitively expensive. Only the wealthy can really afford them. Since the payoff (especially where I live in the NorthEast) takes so long, it is very likely you won't even be in your current home long enough to realize it. Maybe one of the after effects of the subprime mortgage mess is that people will stay in one place longer but I don't have high hopes because people move for jobs.

[Fireweed247]

36. They are looting the world- we need to expose this crap, not find a way to put up with it!

Maybe Obama will help us out here...

Obama Calls For Closing "Enron Loophole"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3503113&mesg_id=3503113

[Subdivisions]

37. Holy crap, Robert! I just came from reading this article only to

see it as the first listing in GD at that instant. Had no idea you had already posted on it. As you know, and as you have done, I and we have been sounding this alarm for some time now. No one seems to want to face it. There's already turmoil in the trucking and shipping industries. When grocery stores begin to fail to receive food, people WILL wake up to oil depletion.

[melody]

61. On the headstone of the hypochondriac

"See, I told you I was sick."

[robertpaulsen]

You've got that right.

Love the image on your signature!

[Subdivisions]

143. Thanks =)! I was inspired.Buy a t-shirt and help fund my preps =)! n/t

[Trillo]

40. No, not really.

Following the "trend" to its logical conclusion, one day we all have to accept death.

Humans have been cannibals before, and if the food situation becomes dire enough, it will happen again.

Best strategy IMO to avoid that outcome is for women to "say no" to childbearing and to voluntary shrink the total population as quickly as possible.

[Jack_DeLeon]

239. Kind of a dumb strategy IMO...

the people smart enough to make that kind of decision would probably be the kind smart enough to prepare for the future atleast in some way.

I dont see why someone would want to take themselves out of the gene pool and surrender the earth to the kinds of people who dont plan or think things through.

IMO it would be better to raise yourself a family, prepare as best you can, and pass on your way of life. Better to fight.

[FreepFryer]

46. EAT. THE. RICH. (n/t)

[Connonym]

99. their attitudes may taste like shit but they go real good with wine

[conscious evolution]

328. Red or white?

I get so confused keeping track of which wine goes best with the rich.








:hide:

[SammyWinstonJack]

258. !!!

:thumbsup:

[knitter4democracy]

47. I'm not so sure. I think it'll depend on where you live.

Here in Michigan, while we're dying economically, many of us are trying to buy as much locally as possible. We live well up here, what with the CSA that delivers produce every week (and much of their stuff is organic), locally raised bison (that pasture on a reclaimed gravel pit) and lamb (only milk and pasture fed, no grain), and local free-range eggs. Heck, I'm getting so that the only wool I buy for spinning is from a Michigan farm. I have more than enough to spin that way, and it's gorgeous stuff.

The rural areas will survive. They'll hurt, and yes, people would die (rural poverty in this country is sickening--I went to high school in the late '80s-early '90s with kids who had dirt floors and outhouses), but there's food in the rural areas, and people still remember how to grow it and preserve it. Those of us in the suburbs from the farming areas are already stockpiling (like usual), canning, freezing (I am really tempted by that solar freezer), and drying our food.

The people I worry about are the homeless and the chronically ill. They can't garden or can/dehydrate/freeze food, and they're the ones who will be the first to die if we don't take care of them.

[melody]

64. We'll just have to reach out to others if the worst happens

I agree. I live in the Antelope Valley of southern California (which is only an hour away from LA). We're surrounded by farmers markets and local grocers. Los Angeles is, too. If anything, it just means more power will be placed in local hands. That will
also make for far more nutritious food.

[aikoaiko]

55. And the sky will fall.

[On the Road]

56. Bit of an Alarmist, No?

Any trend means the death of either society or the planet if straight-lined far enough into the future.

[melody]

63. Oh, don't spoil their fun

My dad used to love to get with his buddies and revel in the apocalypse to come. They always chortled about how
THEY'D be ready and all the "stupid people" will be in denial.

Meanwhile, the rest of us exist in the real world.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. No, actually no

people who understand this expect a great die out in the BILLIONS

Don't take my word, do use the google

[dysfunctional press]

70. not around here.

people in the u.s. who are stockpiling food now better keep a close eye on the expiration dates- because it's going to go bad LONG before it's ever actually needed- if it ever is.

[Mojorabbit]

288. Actually

it is like money in the bank these days. The stuff I bought two years ago was a whole lot cheaper than what I buy today. I store what I use and rotate.

[melody]

78. They're hoping for a great die-out in the billions

While they rub their hands in glee. It's the same people who were so hoping for the end of civilization after Y2K.
Meanwhile, the fear monger writers of the books rake in the bucks.

The world survived prior to automobiles, believe it or not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

103. What was the population density and the expectation for dying of old age?

The exponential growth of human populations is actually married to the green revolution

No, humanity will not go extinct, but we will get a lesson in environmental carrying capacity

[melody]

104. We also have a stronger ability to manage our environment than in the past

I think we'll all survive ... maybe just but we will.

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. Look at the Maya Collapse for an example

of what we may be looking at

And Diamond is not just making money... he KNOWS what he is talking about

Now the people in the Maya plain didn't go away...

But a good percentage did

The Maya are still around

But not in the density they once were

And you are forgetting global warming

Look the planet simply does not have the CARRYING capacity for eight billion in the long term

Yes, it is that simple

It is biology

[melody]

110. We have the technological capacity to address it

We just do. We network information now, which the Maya did not. We have central databases to which we have access, which
the Maya had not. We have technology now that the Maya did not have.

We all go together when we go. We can't let certain people "die off" just because of some perceived "overage" of humanity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. Technology will not save us from ourselves

this is biology... this is carrying capacity

As is the green revolution has not prevented famines... it will just get worst

As I said, humans will most likely survive

But what we are facing is equivalent to the black death (where one third of Europe died off)

It is biology and carrying capacity... and SCIENTISTS involved in this realize this as well

The technology supposed to supplement, if not replace, the green revolution was Genetics... and it has not done even one tenth of what it was supposed to do

And yes, even in the US we will see food shortages and perhaps even the same kind of despearate quiet starvation we saw in other periods, such as the great depression... and on the surface for SIMILAR reasons

I wish technology could save our asses, but it simply cannot reverse global warming fast enough, nor can we start producing and distributing enoguh food to deal with this. All species, when faced with limits to carrying capacity, face this.

And we are INSDE nature, not outside it.

[melody]

132. Technology is a reflection of our biology

Look, nad, if you need to believe we're all going to die, go to it, but most of that is in your head.

End of thread. There's no point in continuing this discussion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

166. First I did not say we are going to die

second I said a GOOD PERCENTAGE of humanity is going to die, for reasons based in things such as CARRYING capacity

And the only point to discuss this it to make sure people understand collapse does not mean extinction and collapse is The next to worst case scenario... the worst case, which usually does not happen is extinction

That said, HUMANS will go extinct sooner or later... 99% of all species who have EVER lived on this planet have gone extinct

What makes us so special?

:banghead:

Is science so difficult for people to get?

[melody]

177. We are a unique primate species in a unique situation

We can manipulate our entire environment. An ape can't uproot a tree, carry it across the jungle and replant it.

Previous rules do not apply.

[nadinbrzezinski]

181. To me that is magical thinking

sorry

There are limits to what we can do... and we are doing, in fact, exactly everything wrong

Not that climate scientists have a clue, or for that matter peak oilers.

We are LIKE EVERY OTHER SPECIES ON THIS PLANET

and sooner or later we will join the other 99% of species that have gone extinct

And we may very well do this by our own hand.

And all magical thinking ain't gonna help it

What we need is REALISM, and REALIZATION of where we are and then we MIGHT be able to change route

But so far I see DENIAL on both the RIGHT and the LEFT

For the right it is Climate change, for the left it is peak oil

Both are wrong and engaged in magical thinking

We will survive, only if this magical thinking is replaced by the realization that yes, things are that fucked up and we need to act YESTERDAY. But science alone will not save us...

[melody]

191. To me, yours is reductionist thinking

Yours is not realism. Your perspective is nihilism. One has to be optimistic or else we might as well all lay down and die.

[nadinbrzezinski]

197. Not quite melody

hope, and not whatever obama is peddling by the way,. is the last thing to die

BUT... having a FIRM understanding of what is happening is the ONLY way to change the way things are done

And this blind belief that science will save us is not that different from the great deity (insert name here) saving us

By the way, this is pervasive in western though

First step, understand what or where we are

Second step, do something about it

Third step, and in this particular case, realize that you need to do RADICAL changes for them to actually WORK

But I am not ready to surrender all hope to a deity, or science... expecting it to magically have that effect

Sorry

If you think that is nihilistic, fine... but I am not laying down to die... but doing what I CAN DO at my level to help based on what I know is going on with the science of both global warming and peak oil

[Two Americas]

213. science has saved us

The application of science - within a public infrastructure that was achieved through political action - has already "saved us." Medical science, agricultural science, control of food and water borne pathogens. Those things quite literally saved people, and a pretty high percentage of us right here at DU would not be here had we been born 150 years ago. We would have died from infectious diseases in childhood, no? I guess we should know whom you consider to be "us" and what we are being saved from?

[nadinbrzezinski]

214. and science has also gotten us (partially mind you) into this pickle

look, if you want to believe that discussing the end of the green revolution is not part of a national food policy, or that science will save us once again when the less than favorable results of that technology are getting us into this pickle I can't help you

By the way, it is the law of unintended consequences

Oh well...

I guess I'd better pray to great Rostafarian to save me! The Great Spaghetti monster is as good as many others

(and no I am not a luddite, but I also realize that we may be at a point where science alone cannot save us and that this blind belief that it will save us at the last second is not healthy)

[Two Americas]

223. I agree

Science alone cannot save us, but science didn't get us into any pickles either. Politics. Politics is what got us into the pickle and what will get us out. This is the realm of social problems, that require public policies and that means political solutions and that means addressing this in a political context. Change the politics and we change the energy, food, and environmental equations. That is the only way we will change them.

Could you please stop referring to me as some lost cause or hopelessly ignorant or blind person? ("then I can't help you.") lol. Oh on second thought it is kind of your style and I will bear with it. Carry on.

Damn nadin, on the issue of the Constitution and the growing tyranny we are seeing all around us, you are willing to see that BOTH sides in the partisan fray are wrong, and that a third approach is not a compromise but a rejection of two positions, both of which are weak and compromise on the Constitutional principles and protections. All I am asking you to do here is to take a similar strong approach and reject both sides of the partisan debate - for science, against science etc. Being for PEOPLE is what is important here, all of the people.

[HamdenRice]

343. Nihilism! Nail meets head of hammer

So many of the "we're all going to die" crowd first rub their hands together with the orgasmic prequel idea "all those nasty, dirty, brown people in the third world are going to die first."

Both mega death fantasies are variants of nihilism.

[greyl]

206. "We can manipulate our entire environment" ? Pure mythology. nt

[melody]

228. Not in the least

My field is cultural anthropology. We are unique in our ability to entirely change our environment ... our
habitat.

[greyl]

336. No, totally.

Your statement "We can manipulate our entire environment" is not based on empirical data. In fact, the data fly in the face of your statement. It's pure cultural mythology.

[HamdenRice]

342. What a bizarre argument -- of course we manipulate our environment

If we couldn't manipulate our environment, we would be hunter gatherers passively gathering whatever ecological outputs nature produced.

We have created farms and pastures out of forest, built cities on plains and in natural harbors, built roads, dug mines, even strip mined the tops off entire mountains.

How on earth can you possibly try to maintain the idea that we have not manipulated our environment?

Perhaps you are writing in a very unclear way and trying to express a more complicated idea -- "we can manipulate our environment, only at the cost of unanticipated and sometimes deliterious consequences"?

Is that the idea your were trying to get across?

Because if not, your argument is simply completely unhinged from reality. I write this as I look out my window on an urban street environment that obviously has been manipulated to change from the deciduous forest that was here in the 1600s. What unmanipulated environment are your writing from?

Even if you were trying to express the more complicated idea, you are completely missing the point that the anthropologist was trying to make -- which is, that as a species, we are able to consciously and change our environment in ways that alter ecological outputs.

[Two Americas]

210. 100% are going to die

Every person now living on the planet is going to die.

This is not really science you are presenting, nadin, it is a specific application of certain science - mostly computer simulations, which while useful are not the last word - to the areas of public policy and politics and social problems. Nothing wrong with that - I think we should do more of it - but it is not strictly speaking "science."

Isn't this a question of whether we do or we do not have a moral obligation to each other and to future generations? I think so. Science can't help us with that question. Then there are questions about the quality of life for those of us here while we are here - again we are inevitably into the realm of politics, and morality, and not science, in my opinion.

But it also seems to me that we first and foremost have a moral obligation to feed and care for the people who are here now. I guess that is why I am resistant to tinkering with farming - whether by corporations or activists, all from well-fed people far removed from the farm. I get suspicious when people want to start talking about farming, of all things, as being unsustainable, when farming sustains human life, and if human life is not the first priority, then what is, and upon what basis are we setting priorities, and perhaps most importantly who is it that should determine the priorities for us?

[nadinbrzezinski]

212. You may be resistant but people in the field of feeding people

know that there are several problems at the head, not only land based agriculture but apiculture and other forms of getting food

I guess people who WORK in the field have a smidgen of a clue

By the way I have actually worked in a farm, getting eggs to market.

Damn chickens! They are the most stupid animals ever, after turkeys that is!

[Two Americas]

224. I know

Big problems. Deal with them every day.

I work in the field, by the way. I hope I have a smidgen of a clue lol.

Don't work with turkeys, but have seen enough turkey manure the last few years to last a lifetime.

[A HERETIC I AM]

126. It's also the same people that think a recession or a market pullback is the end of the world.....

that because the stock market is down 3000 points since October, we are all going to be in soup lines next week. Next week, BTW was in February, in case you missed it.

Oh look! There's one now.

[melody]

134. yup, exactly n/t

[bhikkhu]

209. I am hoping the population does not double again

as it did in the span of my memory. Much of what I loved as a child has been paved over, built over, crowded out, and is gone. There is no glee in hoping that something will be left for my own kids, and that they won't have to struggle through resource wars and starvation, and watch the extinctions of so many more species without even caring, because when you are truly hungry you don't care.

I want to see a better world in my lifetime, and a realistic approach to agriculture and its current problems, energy and its current problems, and population and its current problems. Open your eyes. please.

[melody]

240. There is if you want your children to survive but others to die

Sorry, I think that's reprehensible.

[bhikkhu]

260. Who here wants that?

It would be reprehensible if anyone said or implied it...perhaps I missed something.

[Two Americas]

302. how then?

There most definitely are people saying that the problems faced by humans are that there are too many humans, and who are advocating eliminating much of the population. Contradiction there, in my view, but how exactly are we to eliminate the "right" number of humans? If we do not tackle that very difficult question, we are being irresponsible in suggesting it. I don't think that there is any acceptable way to bring this about, and besides, who does the deciding about this?

I think there is a strain in the modern ecology movement, just as there was in Germany in the early 1900's when the ecology movement started, that is distinctly anti-human and aristocratic and bigoted. "We" - the favored ones - are feeling too crowded and need lebensraum, and "they" - the poor, ignorant, Catholic, or whatever - are breeding too much and putting too much pressure on "our" way of life. So we enlightened ones need to force those other slobs to get with the program.

There is something disturbing and obscene about privileged people from the US lecturing the rest of the people in the world about how to live and speculating about how many of "them" we are willing to tolerate on "our" planet.

I often see human beings described as "a cancer" or " a virus" or "a plague," people described as "breeders" and "superstitious" and therefore in "our" way, and all sorts of other horrific and anti-human things right here at DU. Couple that with the pervasive "personal responsibility" doctrine that has now permeated liberalism and that comes up every time we try to discuss the poor and homeless and abused and forgotten people right here in our country, and a very disturbing pattern emerges of arrogant and aristocratic thinking that is far too suggestive of racist ideas and movements and colonial doctrines to ignore or accept.

[bhikkhu]

334. A birth-rate lower than "replacement"

It is very easy to predict every sort of disaster in the future, and to "prove" the inevitability of famine, war, injustice, genocide, etc, based upon historical models demonstrating consistent human nature and responses.

But that really just creates drama and anxiety rather than useful responses. If we can talk about the good things we might see as people and the good things we may be able to do with our planet if our population were less, a simple solution is natural attrition. If each family has two children or less, then population as a whole shrinks.

It is worth saying that the largest body over the past century assuring us that "this is impossible" and growth must inevitably and beneficially continue has been the most purely capitalist countries in their attitudes toward the rest of the world. And one consistent movement over the past century has been the movement of capital and exploitative production to those areas of the world where population has become destabilized and "surplus" populations living in desperate poverty have developed.

[donco6]

83. If I had a nickel for every one of these I'd read. eom

[tom_paine]

316. Hi, ribofunk.

:hi:

How are you doing? It's been awhile. I hope you and yours are doing well.

[On the Road]

337. Hi, tom_paine

Yes it has been awhile. Things are fine. You?

[NeedleCast]

60. What about Sci-Fi Channel?

Will I still be able to get Sci-Fi channel and Comedy Central?

[htuttle]

74. Maybe, but they will only show reruns, already cancelled series and bad B-movies

Oh, wait...nevermind. You probably won't notice any difference there.

[NeedleCast]

76. With Battlestar Galatica wrapped up

You're pretty much right. I'll miss knowing what the ultimate ending of Stargate Atlantis will be though.

[Leopolds Ghost]

100. Only on premium. And you'll have to pay for broadcast TV

We can reenact classic movies orally, like the ancients, though.
The "sweding" process is already moving in this direction. :-)

[leftyclimber]

62. Yes. I. Will.

I. Have. A. Big. Vegetable. Garden.

[dysfunctional press]

72. So. Will. I.

For. The. Same. Reason.

Plus. I. Don't. Think. That. It. Will. Get. That. Dire. In. This. Country. Anytime. Soon.

[Two Americas]

71. food is not dependent on oil

The use of oil on farms allowed most of the population to move away from the farm into cities. It is suburbia that needs oil, not farming, and without oil most people will just need to move back to the farm. We are too close to the modern suburbanization trend to put things into perspective. Having such a large proportion of the population so alienated from the farm, from their food source, is recent and unique, and cannot be sustained.

What cannot be supported without oil is an agriculture that allows suburbanization to continue. Most of the talk about what needs to change about farming are predicated upon the assumption that suburbia must be preserved, and most of the problems in agriculture come from the need to keep suburbia sustained and fed, and from the encroachment of suburban development into farm land.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Not quite, quite a bit of fertilizers in the green revolution

do depend on hydrocarbons

As well as the industrial production methods we use for raising food

[Two Americas]

84. still the same dynamic nadin

Gas in tractors, or fertilizer, the same dynamic applies. Both allow fewer people to feed more. That allows more people to leave the farm. Nothing else changes. Already, all of the growers I work with are using manure because of the increased price of fertilizer. So what? Nothing changes. It is getting the food to people, and the lack of workers that drive the need for increased production. The farmers don't care and can easily move back to feeding fewer people. That will mean more people working on the farm, that's all.

The Green revolution is about supporting suburbanization, and has little to do with farming.

There aren't any "industrial production methods" used in farming, and it has changed very little over 12,000 years. What has changed is the expectations of the eaters and their lifestyle, and farming has been forced to adapt to that. What has also happened is the domination of the food supply system by unregulated "free market" predatory capitalism.

Don't buy into the propaganda that blames farming for our food problems.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. I'm not blaming farming

but this little thing called carrying capacity (google it up) is real

And we have EXPANDED it using industrial methods

And if you think an automated combine is not more efficient than a horse drawn one... oh well

Or that threshing using mechanical threshers is not that far more efficient than manual threshing.

[The Stranger]

112. They are still in denial about it. It is too late for them to come around.

[Two Americas]

118. who?

Me? What am I in denial about, do you think?

[Two Americas]

116. ok, yes

I see what you are saying now. Agreed, but this is something of a different issue than what I was talking about.

I didn't say that an "automated combine" was less efficient than a horse drawn one. So what? Let's say it takes ten times as many combines to work the same acreage. It is not food production that decreases in that scenario, rather labor goes up and more people need to work in farming in order for everyone to eat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. Food production has also increased due to industrial techniques that are not

sustainable, such as using oil to replace nitrogen on the land, unlike the old standbyes, such as letting land be fallow every seven years... not a biblical commandment, but an observation on how to keep land producing

Or the ever so popular rotating of crops.

Many of our fields produce the same crop season after season, after season, because we have oil based fertilizers, that have INCREASED land production quite a bit... as in tons.

Once that oil is gone, not only are you going to have to go back to the old stand by methods, that will also reduce your yield.

This means less food overall.

You don't have your combine... nor your fertilizers

I wish it wasn't this way... but the green revolution needs hydrocarbons

Now there are ways to get them... but it is very expensive...

[sofa king]

127. There's more to it than that.

One could argue that the rise in human population actually presaged the advent of petroleum by about fifty years. However, that early population rise starting in the 1850s came directly from the total harvest of the so-called "guano islands" throughout the Pacific.

That guano is gone now, so barring some newer fertilizer-making technology that works independent of petroleum, we can expect the planet's sustainability to drop back to pre-1850 levels, minus the inevitable total destruction of large producing areas in the war and famine to come.

World population in 1850 was slightly over one billion people.

[Two Americas]

172. nitrogen

Plants do not care where the nitrogen comes from, and there is no more and no less nitrogen on the planet no matter what we do.

You are describing a political problem, involving power and economics, not an agricultural problem.

The "old stand by methods" do not necessarily "reduce the yield." Just because Monsanto says their way increases yields, that does not make it so, and it is not progressive to mindlessly take the "opposite" position while not challenging Monsanto's assumptions.

Then you say that without the Green Revolution, we will have less food. You are arguing FOR corporate agribusiness. Can you see that?

You are also arguing against ecology, as though things "disappear" or are used up, rather than being part of a cycle. The resources necessary to produce food are not disappearing or flying off the planet. Everything gets re-cycled. It is in the management of the resources that we need to make changes, continuously, and that is what farming is about.

Oil-based fertilizer is not the reason for mono-cropping. Rotating crops would happen a lot more were it not for the public screaming about "paying farmers to not grow food." Oil based fertilizer is in production because of economics and politics, not because of philosophies or agricultural methods.

We would not need such high yields per acre if the land costs were not so high. Again, that is a function of development and sprawl and suburbanization, as well as real estate speculation, and has nothing to do with how farmers are or are not farming. That is a political issue.

[nadinbrzezinski]

211. No I am not arguing for agribusiness

explaining why we are in the hole we are does not mean I LIKE the way things are

But it is a reality that if you cannot replace nitrogen in the fertilizer, you cannot really do it in other ways but to rotate crops and let fields go fallow

Which is the way it was done until about 1850

That is unless you can find a new technology that will allow us to get the nitrogen them plants need... that will allow for current practices

Otherwise, yields will drop

Look on the bright side...

Monstanto's business will not be that profitable any longer

(By the way GMOs was partly an effort to find a solution to this little problem and have plants fix nitrogen more efficiently than they do today... it has not worked as advertised and people are resisting them... partly out of ignorance of what they are.)

[Javaman]

243. Actually the fertilizers come from natural gas. It's the sulfur in the fertilizers

that come from oil.

[Two Americas]

294. or rock

Sulfur, amd other trace elements in fertilizers also come from mining. Not sure how much anymore, but in different places at different times it has been significant.

[Two Americas]

117. one more thing...

About the carrying capacity idea...

My point is that we can "carry" a lot more people when most are engaged in agriculture then we can now when less than 10% are. See what I mean? Yes, innovation has enabled us to feed more people who are not engaged in agriculture.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. I realize that but if your TOTAL YIELD goes down

as you do not have the same fertilizers you had, and are forced to go back to old practices, the carrying capacity goes down

It does not matter if I have one hundred people working the farm, instead of ten, If I still have less yield, people are going to go hungry if they surpass that carrying capacity

We are, as a civilization, at that point... or on the brink of it

Oh and historically we had recurrent famines... it is the last fifty years or so that we have mostly avoided them (in the first world), but as recently as the Great Depression famine was a specter for many, even in the US.

[Two Americas]

124. maybe

If the yield per acre goes down, then more acreage goes into production.

I am not denying that there is no theoretical ultimate limit to carrying capacity. But it is much more complex than you are suggesting.

Also, people are already starving, and "our civilization" - if by that you mean the U.S. - is not very representative and is far from reaching maximum carrying capacity, when compared to other places.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. Unfortunately I am not talking of the US exclusively

but of the planet in general

And as is due to global warming deserts (even in the US) are growing in size, reducing arable areas.

And by the way, ideally I'd like to put all of Orange County in California back into producing Oranges, for example. There is a single tree in a museum left from all the groves...

Tell me, what are you going to do with all those MILLIONS?

And no I am not making carrying capacity more complex than it is... this is the definition

Carrying capacity refers to the number of individuals who can be supported in a given area within natural resource limits, and without degrading the natural social, cultural and economic environment for present and future generations. The carrying capacity for any given area is not fixed. It can be altered by improved technology, but mostly it is changed for the worse by pressures which accompany a population increase. As the environment is degraded, carrying capacity actually shrinks, leaving the environment no longer able to support even the number of people who could formerly have lived in the area on a sustainable basis. No population can live beyond the environment's carrying capacity for very long.

http://www.gdrc.org/uem/footprints/carrying-capacity.html

By the way, getting those tree farms in Orange County, though feasible, will be hard... since the environment has been significantly degraded

[Two Americas]

146. slippery and meaningless definition

We need to know what we are talking about here. That "definition" is an ideological opinion. "Degraded environment" isn't defined, and what methodology are we using for determining "natural resource limits?"

The amount of Nitrogen on the planet doesn't change, and it does not disappear because of farming. The amount of water doesn't change, or sunlight... those are natural resources, and they do not disappear when they are used for farming, and can be re-cycled indefinitely. So what are these "natural resource limits?"

What is the connection between automation and Nitrogen? We are mixing things up here.

From your link...

"A common fallacy is to equate existing and seemingly open or 'unused' spaces with the kind of resources and ecologically productive land needed to support human life under modern conditions."

What are "modern conditions?" What is "ecologically productive land?"

That page sounds all science-y and stuff, but it does not say anything.



I think what we have here is an anti-human agenda - humans are too expensive, cost too much to care for, are using too much, there are too many of them - masquerading as some sort of commentary on agriculture or ecology and as being scientific.

[nadinbrzezinski]

159. This slippery definition is the accepted definition under BIOLOGICAL science

sorry.

And environments DO degrade

They can be rebuilt, but they do degrade

Is this a convenient sciency stuff is not science if it does not meet my definition? Global Warming deniers work the same way by the way

[Two Americas]

168. yes and no

Of course environments degrade. No one denied that.

Don't drag global warming into the deal, really. I am not a "denier" of anything, nor "working the same way."

That page you sent us to does not say anything. If you think that it does, put it into your own words and explain it to me. I am not "for" or "against" anything here or taking up some "side." Define your terms. Asking you to do so is to advance the discussion, not to play games or deceive you or advance an agenda.

How, in your view,m exactly are environments degraded. What is the connection to oil, farming, high yield, fertilizers, population and the other topics that have been raised.

Don't see me as the enemy nadin, just dig in and discuss it if we are going to discuss it. You know I am fair and honest, and you know that I am not one to be peddling some right wing or corporate line.

we have a big problem with corporate domination of our food supply, and with the collapse of traditional sustainable agricultural communities around the world. Let's hone our arguments, know what we are talking about, and move toward effective political activism on the issue. It is too important an issue to fly off half-informed or to turn into some idiotic crossfire talking points brawl.

[nadinbrzezinski]

182. Ok what I gave you was the ACCEPTED definition

sorry.

I'm done

Horses can be led to water.. but magical thinking is powerful for so many people, it is not even funny.

[Two Americas]

192. ok

Your choice of course but I wish you wouldn't quit because I value your perspectives and input. I was trying to avoid getting into an adversarial discussion with you.

Do me one favor. Tell me what it is you think I am denying or where my magical thinking is exactly. I don't quite follow what you are saying, and for all I know I may agree with you. Just explain your main thesis (sorry if I am slow.)

As with the GMO debates, where my concern with the anti-GMO arguments is that they are weak. ill-informed and ineffective, not that I favor GMO tech, so too the arguments presented here are not very well honed.

Oil does not make food. A significant amount of the food needed to maintain the current levels of consumption is reliant upon fertilizers produced from natural gas. Oil is required to free up much of the population from farming, and to get the food to people as farmland and living areas compete with each other and get farther apart.

[nadinbrzezinski]

196. Use the google to find out just how much nitrogen based fertilizers

use oil

[Two Americas]

198. natural gas

Estimates are that about a third of the food production is dependent to some extent on the process of extracting ammonia from natural gas, if memory serves. Most of the manufactured fertilizers are produced this way - not sure but I would guess 80-90%.

No disagreement there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

200. And that is the point

yes, we could bring hydrocarbons from Jupiter (the technology is almost here)

But once they are gone here, or they are so expensive to mine (peak oil), then the end of the green revolution is here

That is the point

And we will have to go back to older methods that are not as efficient.

We go back to carrying capacity

And the part that hurts is that we (as a world community) could have done something about this before we reached this hedge at the pass

IF and this is a big IF, we do the things we need to do, we will reduce the consequences and these include massive birth control WORLD WIDE Carbon credits, major research into alternative technologies, and I could go on

And look at birth control, Not only in the usual suspects, but WORLD WIDE, so we can reduce populations to a more sustainable levels, after peak oil is done for. Try selling this even at this late hour and the usual suspects start screaming. Yes, even here.

[Two Americas]

202. understood

Population reduction and eliminating dependence on fossil fuels, then?

Peak oil and global warming - would you say those are the main concerns?

Thanks for hanging in there. I really wasn't sure where you were going.

The connection to food and agriculture still seems a little tenuous to me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

204. Yes, at this point peak oil and climate change

could potentially (mind you potentially for the moment) be an extinction level event for HUMANS, not only other species

And we need to do what we need to do to survive as a species, mind you not as the US, or China, but as a species

And the connection to food will become clearer as the crisis deepens

I remember having those doubts when I took a class talking about this, round the edges, twenty years ago... It just didn't compute back then. Mind you, a lot of it didn't compute back then.

Now, after doing research on what the green revolution needs, the connection became clearer over the years. You may even say, scarier.

Some researchers think we still have time... lots of time.. a few think we are over the tipping point... to me we still have some time to correct our course as a species

[Two Americas]

219. ok, agreement

"Yes, at this point peak oil and climate change could potentially (mind you potentially for the moment) be an extinction level event for HUMANS, not only other species. And we need to do what we need to do to survive as a species, mind you not as the US, or China, but as a species."

OK, we agree right there on the bolded part. Damn, I knew there was fundamental agreement between us on this somewhere.

Now....from that point on I am talking methods, practical methods with an emphasis on political solutions to social problems, not ideology or beliefs.

We need to keep feeding people, and this is not trivial manner. I trust you are not advocating letting most people starve for the sake of those remaining living in a more sustainable world.

I am trying to tell you that farming is the tail, not the dog. It responds to the needs of the people and is subject to political and economic forces. I am also trying to tell you that the amount of nitrogen and other elemental nutrients is fixed and they are recyclable. It is politics and economics that are determining how we get these nutrients to the plants, what gets planted and where, what is raised and how. There are many other ways to do this that do not require fossil fuel, but that are not "economically feasible" now. What does that mean? If we saw "the economy" as serving the people rather than as some disconnected force that we must all serve - and that again is a matter of politics - then all sorts of things become economically feasible, to include increased crop rotation and nitrogen fixing plants and leaving fields fallow and taking nitrogen from the atmosphere by other processes.

Growing crops does not "take" nutrients or water. Those resources are not destroyed or removed. Farming uses them and cycles them. Human beings cannot be seen as a burden, consistent with a determination to look out for humans - which you said was the goal. Of all of the things we use fossil fuel for, does it not make sense that food production is the most vital? After all, we could all stop driving and survive, yes? We are talking about a small fraction of our fossil fuel use that is being used to make fertilizer, which right now is absolutely essential - whether it was smart or not to go down that path - to feeding people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

221. I'm not saying we should let people starve

but given the record of the last twenty years it will happen... sorry, that sad realization that we, as a species, are pretty shitty and will allow millions to die perhaps even billions. That is human nature at its most tribalistic level. That is the nature of how things have been done since oh... for evah, from recorded history. Why Joseph went down to Egypt and was followed by his brothers... it was a famine.

As to agriculture not needing nutrients or water, yes, yes it does, it is just a matter of HOW you get them back to the ground that makes the difference

And yes, a lot of it is political some of it is science, and some of it, (people who work the land will say otherwise, as in a larger component) is luck. And depending on your weather how well you do from year to year.

But me personally not advocating letting people die... will not matter

Worst case scenarios for the end of oil, I will be busy staying alive

[Two Americas]

226. we agree then

I agree completely.

It will take a multi-faceted approach, as always.

Keep in mind that much of the world is already facing starvation. Keep in mind also that it is not possible to separate out the Green Revolution from the IMF and World Bank and predatory neo-colonial activities of corporations.

You said earlier that part of the promise of GMO was crops that were better at fixing nitrogen. That reminds me of back when we saw the advent of digital audio tech as the end to the stranglehold the record companies had over the music industry. In theory, yes, but politics - economics and power, who has it and who does not - is the main variable in getting from theory to reality. There was a time when those of us on the left first and always looked in that direction when tackling social problems. Today it is rare, and I believe that is what makes these challenges so difficult to solve.

[bhikkhu]

207. Its all about the green revolution

In the seventies the population was 3.5 billion or so and there was talk of starvation, of an inability to feed expanding populations. The "green revolution" integrated several factors - irrigation to improve water supplies, petroleum based fertilizers to bolster marginal soils, and high-yielding plant varieties to maximize production given the beneficially manipulated growing environment. Overall, the slow roll-out of the green revolution has doubled crop production, during a period when the human population also doubled.

Both water and oil are becoming problems. Even GM crops need soil nutrients and water to grow...I think it may be a truism now that there is no technology on the horizon that will allow another doubling of the human population.

[Connonym]

231. I strongly, strongly recommend the book The Omnivore's Dilemma

http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dilemma-Natural-History-Meals/dp/0143038583/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214301398&sr=8-1

<<From The Washington Post's Book World/washingtonpost.com
Most of us are at a great distance from our food. I don't mean that we live "twelve miles from a lemon," as English wit Sydney Smith said about a home in Yorkshire. I mean that our food bears little resemblance to its natural substance. Hamburger never mooed; spaghetti grows on the pasta tree; baby carrots come from a pink and blue nursery. Still, we worry about our meals -- from calories to carbs, from heart-healthy to brain food. And we prefer our food to be "natural," as long as natural doesn't involve real.

...

The first section is a wake-up call for anyone who has ever been hungry. In the United States, Pollan makes clear, we're mostly fed by two things: corn and oil. We may not sit down to bowls of yummy petroleum, but almost everything we eat has used enormous amounts of fossil fuels to get to our tables. Oil products are part of the fertilizers that feed plants, the pesticides that keep insects away from them, the fuels used by the trains and trucks that transport them across the country, and the packaging in which they're wrapped. We're addicted to oil, and we really like to eat.

[Raksha]

123. "The green revolution is about supporting suburbanization..."

That makes a LOT of sense. I've been following this thread with great interest because I have a growing feeling my life may depend on this kind of understanding (and lots of follow-up action) in the near future.

That sounds like one of the keys to understanding what has happened to us, is happening, and will happen.

[Two Americas]

199. thanks

What is more difficult to see is that organic and CSA are also about supporting suburbanization, because we think of those movement as the "good guys." But both sides in these arguments promote arguments and solutions that rest on the same premises and assumptions - suburbanization must be preserved at all costs! It is also difficult to see suburbanization for what it is, because the activist community is so throughly suburbanized. So we look everywhere else for placing blame for the problems - the fundies, the farmers, the idiots and on and on. Right wingers have a different list of scape goats, but they serve the same purpose. American suburbia is where the wealth and power lies, where the decisions are made, where public opinion is driven and controlled, where trends and standards are set, where people have the wealth and power to force their will on the rest of the country and the world. It is based on - is an expression of - American exceptionalism, white privilege, aristocratic rule, destruction of community, self-actualization and bootstrap individualism, sprawling "growth" and development, modernism, corporatism, consumerism, and the entire rotten and destructive and bullying framework of modern American "success."

Much of the public looks at modern liberalism and sees 90% of it as promoting suburbanization and gentrification, 9% various isolated liberal causes, and only about 1% of what the party once stood for - advocacy for the welfare of the common people and protection for all of us from the ravages of a culture of dog-eat-dog and every-man-for-himself.

[SpiralHawk]

241. No one is blaming farming, but Coporate Industrial Agriculture

is a massive polluter, a massive consumer of petrochemicals, and is foisting massively mutant food facsimile product crapola on the world...and has the support of a cadre of fact deniers, just like corporate denial of global climate change. Corporate money talks (bullshit).

[knitter4democracy]

252. It's time to get rid of them, too.

I hate ADM and Cargill. They've really messed up our future in a million ways.

[Two Americas]

285. you can't know that

How can you know whether or not you are blaming farmers? Farmers all think you are with vague statements like you just made. Are they all wrong about that? I don't think so. Had you said "corporate agri-business" I would agree with your statement, and there would be no blame of farmers implied. Agriculture is not to blame for "massively mutant food facsimile product crapola." When you say "agriculture" you are talking about farmers and all of the thousands of dedicated and progressive support people in research, education and inspection and regulation. In other words, the good guys. But you lump it all together - the good guys and the bad guys - and then think that merely because you say that you are not blaming farmers that you are not. When you make no distinction between the good guys and the bad guys, and apply no rigorous political analysis to the problem, you are blaming everyone in agriculture.

Why is "agriculture" targeted rather than "corporations," which are ruining everything, not just farming? Because that would take political courage, and beating up on agriculture makes people feel good and self-righteous and costs nothing to the zealot promoting anti-farming messages.

Why is a cultural battle fought, rather than a political battle? Food policy is a public issue, a social problem that demands political solutions. Why not fight it as a political battle? because the anti-farming movement is gentrified and upper class, that is why, and will not take up the traditional left wing battle against big capital. So instead we have feel-good advocacy that sees farmers and farming as somehow backward and dangerous, and it is easy to get gentrified suburban people, ignorant about farming, to rally around emotionalized causes and send in millions of dollars in donations to support the people who are in the business of alarming and scaring the public.

Agriculture is NOT a massive consumer of petrochemicals, relatively speaking. ALL aspects of modern life consume petrochemicals - ALL. Of all the things that we burn fossil fuel for, I would think that feeding people would be the very best trade-off. That is not to defend the fossil fuel industrial culture, but look around at the dangerous, destructive, polluting things that are going on for little or nothing of real value in return, and then explain why food production should be targeted as an egregious offender.

Sure, farming is the worst of all things when we ignore suburbia and take THAT as a given, which most activists, being from suburban backgrounds, do. Pollution, pesticides, fossil fuel consumption, energy waste, destruction of eco-systems, unsustainable lifestyle - why do we never hear the rants against suburbia that we hear about agriculture? because Americans are spoiled, Americans are ignorant about agriculture, because the wealth and power are in the suburbs, and because Americans take suburbia as the norm and as the standard, and farms seem yucky and scary.

"Corporate Industrial Agriculture" tells us nothing, other than to raise the specter of some big dark evil force lurking out there. Corporate everything is a disaster - "massive polluter, a massive consumer of petrochemicals, and is foisting massively mutant facsimile product crapola on the world..." and that has nothing to do with agriculture any more than the corrupt and exploitative recording industry has anything to do with music - it preys on musicians and on the audience, just as corporations prey on farmers and the eaters.

Insinuations that defenders of farming are "fact deniers" or recipients of corporate money is a smear and not effective argumentation. I know, have net, and speak with the handful of shills on the corporate payroll who defend certain questionable practices. There are not very many of them and there pitch is easy to recognize. It bears no resemblance to anything I have said on this thread, none whatsoever. Only in a all-or-nothing world of cartoon-like good guys and bad guys, with no foundation of knowledge about agriculture, does any or all criticism of anti-farming advocacy sound the same or seem to be defending corporations.

My objection to your statements, and to the OP is that they are absolutely impotent and useless in the cause of overthrowing corporate agri-business and probably even hurt that cause.

[melody]

79. Food will be sourced locally, if the worst happens

That puts the power back into local hands not into the center ... which is the very reason the wealthy can't allow that
to happen.

[Two Americas]

91. right

That is why the focus is always on what farmers are supposedly doing wrong, rather than on the source of the problem and the root causes.

Continuing to demand that farming change to support suburbia is social suicide. It is getting the food to people, the pressure on land prices from suburbanization, and the desire of so many to live alienated from the land in artificial, sprawling and wasteful communities that are causing the problems, as well as the domination of the food supply now by "free market" global capitalism, unfettered and unregulated. Farmers have no power or control over this, and have to continue to ramp up production to feed all of the people who are determined to live in a bubble disconnected from community and food production. It is those people who control the food industry, not the farmers.

We are breaking our agricultural infrastructure by forcing farming to adapt to free market capitalism and suburbanization.

[arikara]

82. True, however there is a bigger picture

Most of the food we eat is shipped to us from vast distances. Trucks use oil. What used to be local farmland has been turned into subdivisions, no land... no food. And I heard a farmer talking about a scarcity of fertilizer, I was not aware that they use oil to make it. And they are now planting a lot of corn for ethanol instead of food for people and animals. This all spells shortages.

[Two Americas]

92. it need not be

Our food need not be shipped from vast distances, and the farmer has no control over that.

Burning crops to feed suburbia is a symptom of a society committing suicide, in my opinion. We will not give up suburbia, so we will risk losing farming.

Farmers could switch to mules and manual labor and little would change except one thing - the number of people that each farmer could feed would be 10% of what it is now. All that means is that the population needs to move back to the farm. Oil reduced the labor needs on the farm, and allowed most of the population to pursue whatever it is they are pursuing in suburbia - status, glamor, trinkets, security.

[amandabeech]

169. Right now, farmers use plenty of oil.

Those huge tractors take plenty of diesel, and the last drop of oil will probably be poured into one of their engines.

Modern farmers don't want to deal with horses. My grandfather couldn't wait to get rid of them, according to my mom. You don't have to feed tractors all winter, and they do much, much more work.

If we had to go back to horses, it would take a long time to change over, and it would mean many, many more people down on the farm.

Then there's truck and train diesel and farm truck gasoline. Farmers couldn't wait to get their hands on the pickup, either, and they won't give them up easily.

They're the ones with the food, remember.

From a former rural American.

[Two Americas]

190. of course

Who wants to deal with a recalcitrant mule at dawn? That is a different subject, though.

Food is not dependent upon oil. 90% of the population moving off of the farm and into cities is what is dependent upon oil.

Fertilizer does not come from oil, it comes from natural gas, and there are other ways to get nutrients to soils.

Yes, the changeover back to horses and mules would take a long time and would require vastly more labor in farming.

[Hekate]

75. I'm about to have my tiny yard plowed up for veggie planting. If it comes to that, the side yard...

...may become a chicken run, as it is gated at both ends. Thank gods I live in a good year-round climate where our biggest problem is summer dryness -- and again, if it comes to that, I know a guy who can install a gray water system for me. The Governator has just acknowledged that California has entered another drought, so water rationing can't be far behind.

Hekate

[Redstone]

77. Ah, bullshit. Not going to happen. Pure fearmongering, right there.

Redstone

[melody]

80. Amen n/t

[LanternWaste]

90. Is it just me

Is it just me, or is this place beginning to look more and more like the Rapture Ready boards, with hoards of starry eyed believers actually wishing that "these things shall come to pass..."?

[GreenEyedLefty]

93. Eek, the Rapture Ready boards!

:crazy:

[melody]

106. Yup, bingo n/t

[Two Americas]

98. true enough

It is fear mongering, but that does not mean there is nothing to fear. I think the main problem is that people do not dig in and do any critical analysis about this, and have identified the challenge and the root causes of the problem inaccurately.

This is blasphemy to say among liberals, but the success of most liberal "non profits" rests today on their ability to successfully fear monger, and their only product is fear under the guise of "educating the public." The only thing the public is educated about is that they should be very, very afraid and keep sending donations to the organization and keep alarming others so they will, too.

The "crises" we hear about are always the ones that are most useful for raising donations. Bees, for example. For some reason that resonates with the segment of the population that is easily fleeced, so we keep hearing about it. I work directly with fruit farmers, with fruit being the crop most dependent upon European honey bees, and probably have access to first hand information from 90% of the growers. One would think that if we had a crisis going on that warranted the hysteria, I would run into it and hear about it. It is one of many challenges, and far from anything that the bee collapse propaganda would lead us to believe it is.

The collapse of our public agricultural infrastructure, the control over the food supply by fewer and fewer big money players, the pressure on farmland from suburban sprawl, and the collapse of the public regulatory and inspection agencies are all cause for concern. Those are the areas that we, as Democrats, should be working on anyway, but they are not sexy and exciting the way "disappearing bees OMG!!!" is.

[Redstone]

113. Hey, thanks for the info about the bees. I did not know that was overblown hysteria.

Redstone

[Two Americas]

175. even the Einstein quote

For over a year, every story about the disappearing bees led off with a quote from Einstein - a phony quote.

Then, for months and months hundreds of stories appeared that claimed that "scientists in Germany had linked cell phones to disappearing bees." The problem is that the actual scientists cited in those articles had done a study and concluded that cell phones did NOT affect bees, and held press conferences to straighten this out to no avail.

Then we had the "organic bees are not disappearing" articles. Problem is there is no such thing as "organic bees" and no one had ever heard of such a thing before those articles made the claim.

[Blue Diadem]

280. Sure there was a lot of BS, but are you saying these people are not telling the truth?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june07/bees_04-03.html

SPENCER MICHELS: Late last year, beekeeper Lance Sundberg brought 2,100 colonies of bees to California from Montana and other states. A month later, he discovered that two-thirds of the bees had disappeared.

snip: SPENCER MICHELS: Colony collapse disorder, a malady of unknown origin, has shown up in 24 states over the last year and could, if not stopped, jeopardize up to $18 billion in crops that bees pollinate.

snip:
LOUISE ROSSBERG, Beekeeper: Every lid we pop open, there's no bees in the box. We lost about 90 percent of our business.

BOB OLMO, Beekeeper: I lost 50 percent of my operation. There's no bees in the box.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/silence-of-the-bees/silence-of-the-bees-update-on-colony-collapse-disorder-oct-2007/41/

Update on Colony Collapse Disorder (Oct. 2007)

Luckily this past September, there was a big break in the case. A team of scientists led by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Pennsylvania State University, The Pennsylvania State Department of Agriculture and Columbia University linked CCD with a virus imported from Australia, IAPV or Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus. Over the past three years, genetic tests on bees collected from stricken colonies around the U.S. found the virus in 96 percent of bees from hives affected by Colony Collapse Disorder.

Silence of the bee full episode online here:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/by-title/introduction-2/38/

[Two Americas]

292. no, certainly not

I am saying that people are drawing the wrong conclusions and exaggerating the problem.

Episodic bee die offs have been recorded through history. We do not know why they happen. With the ever-increasing pressure and competitiveness in farming, because of pressure from imports, corporate control of the food supply, and pressure on land prices, and pressure from Wall Street in the form of energy industry predators, and smaller margins for the farmers, as well as with the collapse of funding for research and inspection, marginal beekeepers are slipping below the threshold of being able to maintain hives.

The keepers experiencing losses are not lying, they are perplexed and grasping at straws, and there are reporters willing to report their musings as gospel because that helps advance the yellow journalism scare stories and "sell newspapers" as we used to say.

I can never remember a time when there was not some beekeeper somewhere complaining about his colony collapsing and speculating as to the cause. It has always been, and still is, the smaller and more marginal keepers without adequate resources who have the most problems. It was not a major news story until Der Speigel published a completely false article about this, and all of their errors and falsehoods have been repeated over and over again. Beekeepers read those stories. Rather than thinking "gee I screwed up and cut too many corners" they are more than happy to blame cell phones or whatever. Human nature I think.

There does seem to be more losses than usual, it is a concern, among thousands of concerns in ag, people are working on it, and restoration of funding for research and inspection and tracking is vitally needed.

Bees are susceptible to virus infections, and keepers have been battling against this problem of viral infections for decades, and most of us in ag all along suspected that a virus was to blame for the recent increase in losses. The work group at PSU is the authoritative source on this, and they have been methodically working through the problem for a couple of years. The smaller less efficient and conscientious keepers would be soonest affected by infection problems - weaker bees, poor feeding and wintering practices - so that is consistent with the reports.

[Mojorabbit]

300. This is not true

The oldtimers say they have never seen anything like this. It spans the big operations to the small.
These are guys who have been doing this for 40 or 50 years and are third generation beekeepers.

[Two Americas]

307. I talk to the same people

There is no argument here.

Clue - there has never been a time in history when farmers did NOT say they have "never seen anything like it." And they are right, too, often. I hear it every time I talk to farmers. Stopping at the local general store in the morning I am as likely to overhear it every morning, as not. We are learning all of the time. Farmers see things.

right now it is fuel prices that we have "never seen anything like" and the flood of phony "organic" produce form Mexico that we have "never seen anything like" and other things - more and more contrails causing so much loss in light reaching the fields that it is becoming significant, and warmer temperatures in January and February that cause the fruit trees to come out of dormancy. every year, maybe every week, you see something in farming that is like "nothing you have ever seen before" and all of it is a concern on some level, all the time.

There have been no massive crop failures in the fruit industry because of a lack of pollination. I understand that bee losses are a worry, and that keepers are struggling.

I haven't looked into this in a few months - it doesn't come up in the conversations I have every day with hundreds and hundreds of fruit growers, researchers, field managers, horticulture experts - but since the confusion continues about this I will dig in and get the latest updates and post them here.

By the way, I have hesitated saying this, but beekeepers are something of an odd bunch and beekeeping is more of an art still than a science. I talked to a keeper last week who is convinced that aliens are causing the die offs. Eccentric people are attracted to farming, loners and dreamers and mystics of one kind or another, and nowhere is this more true than with beekeepers in my observations over the decades.

[Mojorabbit]

319. I went to a regional beekeeping

conference a couple of weeks ago and it was a big topic. One of the old timers who raises queens commercially said this which I found interesting. The queen secretes pheromones on the pads of her feet which guide the hive's activities. Thirty years ago when he would be working with them he would wipe his hands on his jean legs and would end up with tons of bees attached to his jeans from the scent. This does not happen anymore. Only a few. I found this an interesting observation which I think deserves study.


Beekeeping is both an art and a science and I did not find the people there to be eccentric in the least. It is a fraternity of sorts. They all love their bees but I sure would not characterize them as mystics or loners. They all follow closely the latest scientific studies coming out of the university of florida as well as from the rest of the US and around the world but there is also a lore re methods of beekeeping which has been passed down thru the generations which is what I am interested in learning and can get no where else. It is their business and livelihood after all. I am a hobby keeper and do not depend on bees for a livelihood but love learning from those who have been doing it for a lifetime.

[Two Americas]

323. I know

It is a big problem for keepers, absolutely, and the number one topic. No argument there. Also, it is a concern for all of us, no argument there either.

Gene sequencing is being done I understand, and there seems to be a correlation between a particular virus that could be a "trigger" virus causing suppressed immune systems (the infected bees are prey to multiple infections at the same time) and seems to be related to imported bees, maybe from Australia. That gets back to the NEED for imported bees which stems from BKCD - beekeeper collapse disorder, and SFCD - small farmer collapse disorder, since the entire domestic industry has been neglected and in decline for decades, and that gets back to the need for increased funding for research and monitoring and subsidies for agriculture in one form or another, as well as regulatory action and restoration of the public ag infrastructure in general to take some of the pressure off of producers from "free market" global capitalism.

Do the scare campaigns support and promote what truly is needed, or do they not? I am suggesting that they may not, and offer this thread as evidence of that. I am virtually the only one advocating a comprehensive approach, talking about root causes, suggesting political solutions, and taking a traditional Democratic party view of the problem.

[Mojorabbit]

325. I think the publicity

both hysterical and measured call attention to the problem and open up avenues in funding for the researchers. So it does have it's positive aspects.
Re the totality of the problems re agriculture, climate change, population growth,etc., I can't speak to this as I have personal hands on knowledge in only my small area of existence. Maybe there are too many specialists working on their own corner of expertise when there should be teams of specialists in all the areas working together as a team to find the best solutions.

and as an aside, I just got this article in my email.
Adds another twist re bees and a myriad of other things coming together.
snip
The potentially hugely significant research – funded by the blue-chip US National Science Foundation – has found that gases mainly formed from the emissions of car exhausts prevent flowers from attracting bees and other insects in order to pollinate them. And the scientists who have conducted the study fear that insects' ability to repel enemies and attract mates may also be impeded.

The researchers – at the University of Virginia – say that pollution is dramatically cutting the distance travelled by the scent of flowers. Professor Jose Fuentes, who led the study, said: "Scent molecules produced by flowers in a less polluted environment could travel for roughly 1,000 to 1,200 metres. But today they may travel only 200 to 300 metres. This makes it increasingly difficult for bees and other insects to locate the flowers."

The researchers – who worked on the scent given off by snapdragons – found that the molecules are volatile, and quickly bond with pollutants such as ozone and nitrate radicals, mainly formed from vehicle emissions. This chemically alters the molecules so that they no longer smell like flowers. A vicious cycle is therefore set up where insects struggle to get enough food and the plants do not get pollinated enough to proliferate.
more at link
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/why-flowers-have-lost-their-scent-812168.html

[Two Americas]

329. wow

Good stuff, thanks. Of course, this will get buried because no one wants to give up their car and driving and this angle is not dramatic and sensational enough. Easier to beat up on farmers and force them to change then it is to look in the mirror, to take on the pollution from cars or industry or suburbanization, or seriously tackle environmental issues or organize for political action or confront and battle against the corporations. We want all of THOSE goodies that come from that suburban lifestyle and from corporate commercialism and will not give that up, and who cares about food? There is lots of it growing on the supermarket shelf.

On the public pressure driving research thing, what you are describing is a problem not a solution. For example, millions have been spent testing Aspartame - and a foundation and laboratory was started in Italy for the express purpose of finding something wrong with it - when the whole fear campaign about this harmless and naturally occurring molecule began with a mass email hoax a number of years ago. That money could have been much better spent.

[Two Americas]

299. my theory

My theory - or maybe I should say "wild guess" lol - about the causes of CCD.

Cause number one - global warming

The smaller keepers wintering over their bees, rather than taking them South, are having a lot of problems. Warm weather in January and February, which has also been causing problems with fruit trees, may cause the bees to become active, they then have inadequate food supplies, and become weak and more vulnerable to viral infections.

Cause number two - corporate and Wall Street pressure and domination

Pressure from corporations, in the form of development and real estate speculation, competition from shoddy and un-inspected imports, and increasing control over the food supply by a handful of big players are putting more and more pressure on agriculture, and something has to give somewhere.

Cause number three - destruction of the public agencies by the right wingers

Inadequate testing, inspection, tracking, study and research as a result of the attacks on the public infrastructure by the right wing is increasingly leaving us "blind" as to what is happening in the field and makes it difficult to discover, track and respond to problems.

Cause number four - episodic and periodic patterns of collapse

Apparently bees go through a periodic cycle of die offs, since this has been reported in the past. Why this happens, I don't think anyone knows with certainty. But I have read reports from the 1800's and earlier of sudden unexplained mass disappearances of bees.

Cause number five - scare campaigns that create inappropriate and counter productive public pressure

Scarce research dollars, time and effort are wasted responding to public pressure caused by fear campaigns in the media. Researchers are forced to investigate whether or not, for example, "GMO corn" or cell phones usage is causing bee die offs because of ridiculous media reports, or otherwise face the wrath of a public obsessed over some fear the media created in people's minds with false and misleading reports. Anti-GMO people, and other activist groups, latch onto every ag crisis and speculate about GMO "causing" the problem, and use it to promote fear campaigns without regard to the damage being done in other areas. Or, as happened with the CCD work group, the researchers are beset with thousands of irate calls, at the behest of some activist organization and harassed and distracted from their work.

[Mojorabbit]

289. I am a beekeeper

and the bee problem is not a falsehood. I just went to a beekeeping conference and the oldtimers are really worried.

[Two Americas]

295. right

Bee losses are not a falsehood. The hysteria and speculation in the media about it contain many falsehoods.

[NeedleCast]

178. So Refershing to See This Here.

N/T

[glitch]

287. I think it might depend on which part of the country you're in.

A neighbor was asked to host a bunch of hives because he lives back in an inaccessible place. Guess why -- hives are being stolen by other beekeepers who have lost their bees! According to this guy it was a common problem around here (CA Sierra foothills).

IMO most of the time reality lies somewhere between opinions. There are things to learn about and plan for the possibility, that is just practical living. Fear is fairly useless unless you need the adrenaline for immediate flight or fight.

By the way, do you have favorite links to share on farming?

[Connonym]

102. There may not be massive famine but there will be a helluva lot of hunger

not just people unable to afford food but a shortage of available food. Corn is the backbone of our society (I encourage everyone to read The Omnivore's Dilemma). We use petrochemical fertilizer (artificial nitrogen) to replenish the soil instead of rotating crops. You can hide your head in the sand and pretend that there's not a potential crisis headed our way but with the price of oil rising and the HUGE impact of flooding of the midwestern crops and drought of the California crops I imagine about Thanksgiving time you'll be thankful for whatever you can afford to put on your table. Perhaps you may have the financial well being to own land to plant on or afford food no matter what the cost but the reality is that in America millions of people are already hit hard by rising food and gas costs (isn't it convenient how both of those are excluded from inflation?). Food pantries are suffering and as the prices go up not only are more people not going to be able to afford to donate, more people are not going to be able to feed their kids and world wide the situation is going to be far more grim. Remember that the world is bigger than your own back yard.

The answer isn't to stockpile food, although you'd probably see a bigger return on your investment than you would putting the same money into a savings account. The real answer, the long-term answer is to buy locally, buy seasonally and plant your own if you can.

[Ikonoklast]

130. Until a comet smashes into the planet, I'll still be able to buy Cheetos.

And the 'factory farm' people crack me up. I bet the closest they ever got to a real farm was watching "Green Acres".

The reason we enjoy the standard of living that we have in this country is because we grow an enormous amount of food. Without that surplus, the economy of this nation would be substantially different in nature.

[Telly Savalas]

145. But. Every. Word. In. The. Title. Of. This. Thread. Was. Followed. By. A. Period.

It. Must. Be. True.

[Redstone]

162. Oh. shit. I. forgot. about. that.

Redstone.

[earth mom]

94. I'm mentally ready-I think-but we still have so much to do.

We've been stockpiling wood and some food. But our garden make over won't get finished in time to plant veggies for this summer. I am so disappointed that we won't have our veggies this year! We will however, have cherries, strawberries, grapes and several kinds of berries. :9 Oh and some tart apples and some figs that I'm not fond of.

[SidneyCarton]

101. Then we will die.

n/t

[galledgoblin]

109. oh, come on

I agree that our current lifestyle is unsustainable and will probably hit a crisis stage within my lifetime... but people starving to death? total collapse of society? fire and brimstone falling from the sky? please. not in America, at least.

all we need to do is stop the bizarre suburban sprawl patterns that developed over the last 30 years. we will shift back from large-scale industrial corporate farming to small-scale local farming with a mix of industrial (combines and large tractors working coop fields) and organic (let the cows wander around seasonally rotated fields). we will shift back to the cities and stop driving a two hours daily in commutes to and from work.

we'll ADAPT.

I would be interested in seeing India's plans... there's way too many people in too small a space with not enough money to quickly and easily shift. their government better be working on plans right now, or 20 years from now it could be ugly.

[Two Americas]

122. that's it

There is deep resistance to looking at the root causes - a dangerous failure of modern liberalism that has led to a dramatic change in the Democratic party over the last 40 years.

Suburban sprawl and "free market" domination of the food supply are the root causes of the problems. But so many modern liberals will not challenge either of those - will defend them to the death - and ask that we accept them as a given. That leaves nothing to "do" accept thrash around looking for personal lifestyle choice "solutions" - which we always get a lot of posts about whenever agriculture is discussed. Gardening, "CSA," and "organic" personal lifestyle choices are no substitute for public ag policy, in fact they work against it.

[galledgoblin]

152. I wouldn't go so far as to say that personal alternatives work against public ag policy

unless they are the only proposed changes. I think the best public policy would incorporate those alternative agriculture options.

for example, incentives and assistance for conventional farmers to switch to or at least include some organic farming practices.

[Two Americas]

156. they wouldn't need to

They wouldn't need to, but in practical effect they do.

There is no such thing as the imagined dichotomy between "conventional" and "organic" farmers.

Farmers are already given assistance to develop safer and more sustainable farming practices, and always have been. There are many, many programs and constant research. Those need more funding and that comes from more public support. Attaching support to an ideological program, or faith based spiritualized program, which is what the organic movement has become, is counter to the best welfare of the public.

There is nothing to "switch" to, and the pervasive notion among the public that that statement has any meaning is a good example of the damage that the organic movement has done. There is no such thing as an "organic" method of agriculture, nor is there any such thing as a contrasting "conventional" method. There are thousands and thousands of challenges in agriculture, every challenge has many approaches, the science is always evolving, and new methods are always being tested and tried.

"Alternative agriculture options" are already happening all of the time. Thousands of dedicated people are committed to that.

Publicly supported science-based agriculture is what we should always be supporting. We should also be supporting ag policies that feed the entire public, not merely the enlightened and well-off few. CSA and organic - which are ideologies, not agricultural methods - work strongly against building public support for those vital things. They dumb down the public, cater to the upscale few, drain scarce dollars away from real agricultural research, reinforce and promote libertarian "free market" political concepts, and draw attention and support away from the need to restore our public agricultural infrastructure.

[galledgoblin]

165. I've seen ecosystems wrecked by modern farming practices

when I say conventional, I'm referring to use of petroleum-based fertilizers on the same soils every year without rotation. it strips the soil and the run-off saturates the local watershed with nutrients until algae blooms start and suck the oxygen out of the water. it's worse with bigger industrial farms that corporate food manufacturing relies on.

modern farming practices, when used to complement traditional (or what I would call organic) practices, work fine- but balance with nature needs to be a fundamental part of science-based agricultural practices. CSA and organic practices are part of the overall solution.

[Two Americas]

171. of course

I agree. That is a political problem, not an agricultural one.

[Codeine]

131. So. Stop. Eating. Meat.

You. Fat. Fucks.

Seriously, so god-damned much food goes into feeding animals for slaughter it's unbelievable -- water too. Decrease the amount of meat consumed and the problem will solve itself.

[conspirator]

261. no. I. love. my . steaks. nt.

[defendandprotect]

269. And what about the violence involved in that "love" . . . ???

[Political Heretic]

346. I couldn't care less.

[TBF]

140. What a day. First a $600 electric bill, and now no food. I'm thinking we need to move up the

election a few months.

[hogwyld]

279. How do you have a $600 electric bill?

I barely spend that over an entire year. How many grow lamps are you running???

[TBF]

298. Our house is pretty big but I'm concerned about that too. I think I need to have the A/C

looked at to make sure it's working properly. We live in Houston and it's just gotten hot, so I went around turning all the lights off, thermostats up (I keep it at 72 in winter so the heat only kicks in if necessary), etc... but yes it was an eye-opener.

[carlyhippy]

144. I have stockpiles of canned food, and am TRYING to learn how to grow a garden

my poor garden, the only things that are doing well are strawberries :(

[knitter4democracy]

254. Something's been getting to my beans and basil.

I've been getting great advice in the Gardening group, though. They helped me figure out what to do about the tomato that just wasn't thriving. I'm going to head over there and see if I can find a recipe for that soap that kills the aphids and such.

[yawnmaster]

155. To those growing gardens...

If you expect to obtain most or all of your food from your garden, you better calculate the amount of calories you can obtain per unit of time from your garden over whatever you think is the critical period needed.

Depending on the person, you will need 2000 calories (more or less) per day.
If you survived on only tomatoes, for instance (yes, I know, unrealistic), you would need to eat about 40 regular size tomatoes a day - per person.
Be sure you have enough land to plant and tend the required plants.

As a supplement or perhaps a short bridge it would work with a small plot of land, but a family of 3 or 4 will require more than a suburb backyard.

(you will also need room for composting - you will need to fertilize with something )

[knitter4democracy]

255. I've been getting great yields from my square foot gardens.

We're getting enough lettice for a salad every night and enough collards to have them every other night, and it's just early June. My yields are far higher than I expected.

[yawnmaster]

296. good yields here too...

but nowhere near sustenance levels.
I can't wait for my tomatoes to be ripe, but I don't have enough land to grow the 6000+ calories a day my family would need.
(but I don't expect to need to anyway).

Thats not to say a garden can't save money, as mine does.
The main thing I get out of my garden, though, is fresh food that tastes wonderful.

[knitter4democracy]

311. It would be really hard. You'd have to have a couple of acres at least.

Then again, I have many small family farms in a decent driving distance (less than an hour) that I would be able to get food from, should everything really go to heck. I know my stepmom's family farm had a seed company that, while the farm went under, is still around, so I think there are at least a few farms in the area with small seed setups. The big issue is going to be electricity, I think. It takes electricity to run the dryers, to run my water pump, and to cook.

[Edweird]

160. Alarmist nonsense.

[otherlander]

170. Community-supported agriculture, anyone?

[unsavedtrash]

176. We have definitely moved toward being locavores.

Of course there is a lot of room for improvement.
Family and friends have gardens and we all share with each other.
I have someone willing to teach me to can this season so we will have veggies and fruit this winter.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

179. The Moringa tree is he most nutrient rich tree in the world...might save us all

watch the video at the link

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=697838&category=LIFE

Cobleskill professor uses the Moringa to help fight malnutrition




COBLESKILL -- The Moringa tree doesn't look like much. Its skinny, naked trunk supports a leafy plume at the top. It grows in the hottest regions of Earth and survives droughts by dropping its leaves and waiting for better times.


But some people believe the Moringa tree may fight malnutrition in some of the world's poorest nations.

"For the 2 billion or so folks who don't have adequate nutrition," said SUNY Cobleskill professor George Crosby, "the Moringa tree is
a piece of the puzzle. It's one way to supplement the diets they already have."

The so-called "miracle tree" stores a mighty load of nutrients in its leaves. The leaves have more vitamin C than oranges, more potassium than bananas, more beta carotene than carrots and more protein and calcium than milk, according to researchers.

But the Moringa is not a traditional part of anyone's diet. In fact, it tastes nasty. The challenge is to educate the malnourished people throughout the world about the nutritional value of the plant and how to cultivate it as a food crop.

Crosby, a plant science professor, stumbled across the tree when a speaker mentioned it at a conference, and he started researching it.

Crosby has traveled to Uganda and Nigeria to teach subsistence farmers to cultivate the tree. Some trips were funded by SUNY, while others were personal trips organized by a Christian missionary organization called WorldVenture.

In a greenhouse in Cobleskill, Crosby bit into a sprout of Moringa leaves and chewed. He kept a straight face but admitted the leaves taste bitter, a little like arugula. A minute later, the aftertaste lingered.

"Nobody will mistake it for chocolate," he said.

The Moringa tree is part of the plant family Moringaceae. It is native to India, Africa and the Red Sea region, but grows in many tropical locations. The tree has hundreds of names including horseradish tree, as it is known in Florida, and drumstick tree, as it is known in India.

Moringa leaves can be eaten raw, in salads and stews, but dried powder sprinkled on potatoes or other food is the preferred way to eat the Moringa to hide the unpleasant taste. It is recommended that children eat two or three tablespoons of the powder daily, and five to six tablespoons for adults, he said.

Feeding a family

Crosby and his students conducted experiments cultivating the tree as a crop. On its own, the tree grows 25 to 30 feet, like a telephone pole. But if it's cut back while it's young, branches sprout from the trunk and produce a rich canopy of leaves. Crosby found that frequent grooming will keep the tree producing young leaves, enough to feed an extended family with three or four trees.

more


Moringa nutrients

25x the iron of spinach
17x the calcium of milk
15x the potassium of bananas

100 grams of dry Moringa leaves contain:

29 grams protein

8 grams fat

38 grams carbohydrates

10 grams fiber

1924 milligrams calcium

1384 milligrams potassium

267 milligrams phosphorous

28 milligrams iron

1 milligrams copper

15,620 IU (international units) vitamin A

120 milligrams vitamin B

773 milligrams vitamin C

The Moringa Tree is the most nutrient rich tree in the world.

http://portalmarket.com/moringatree.html


Source: Melanie Broin,

Moringanews Network

http://www.moringanews.org

[eppur_se_muova]

315. Interesting, thanks! nt

[Mojorabbit]

326. I planted one of these!

She is still fairly small. I can't wait to try the leaves when she is a bit bigger.

[doublethink]

183. YES I WILL !!! BET ME !!!

[Lisa0825]

184. Ya know, I think this is mainly alarmist, BUT

I am still glad I chose this year to learn to grow veggies!

[gatorboy]

186. I'm thinkin' Arby's

[skooooo]

215. ..

:rofl:

[NNN0LHI]

187. The nut that wrote this was telling us to prepare for a Y2K-induced collapse

Please do just some minimal research before posting stuff from these whack jobs.

http://www.co-intelligence.org/strategy_prepare_collapse.html

<snip>Perhaps "Y2K" will hit us all hard economically and socially-a Greater Depression? Y2K refers to Year 2000-the "Millennium Bug," which may throw a severe monkey wrench into any and all computer systems but the newest. Alistair Cooke has reported for the BBC that it is far more than a bug-a storm on a certain horizon. He is but one of the more well-known names to go with government officials and Wall Street analysts who have issued frightening warnings on Y2K. (An Internet search on the year 2000, Y2K and computers can yield well informed websites and references.) It is not simply a problem on January 1, 2000, that may ball things up for a while we have a holiday. Our digitized society may start to go into a seizure earlier, in 1999, upon beginnings of fiscal year.

Two digits is all that older computers-currently in use-have for the year. Large organizations pose the big problem; not so much one's personal computer. Many "newer" computers are flawed, or are often linked to flawed computers. "00" had been assumed to mean the year 2000, but computers take things literally: zero means zero, or 1900! Some computers don't even recognize anything beyond 99. Imbedded in the economy's infrastructure (electrical grid, transportation, banking, trade, etc.) and bureaucracy (Social Security payments/calculations, scheduling, etc.) are computer chips and programs that have no four-digit reality for the crucial elements of date and time. Imbedded chips are hidden all over the landscape in the "civilized" world. Millions of lines of code cannot be rewritten overnight, or in years even, unless great numbers of workers and managers get on the task. This they will start to do increasingly, soon slowing the economy more and more, I predict.

[Phentex]

275. My neighbor STILL has her water stored from Y2K...

just in case...

[NNN0LHI]

283. My neighbor directly across the street was storing hundreds of containers full of gas in his garage

And his garage is attached to his house. Actually him and his wife slept in the bedroom directly above the garage.

I was sweating bullets over here the whole time waiting for the whole place to erupt into flames.

Don

[NJCher]

308. something like that did happen around here

There was a fire due to someone storing 14 containers of gas.



Cher

[robertpaulsen]

290. No thanks, I'll leave the minimal research and ad hominem attacks to you.

And I've seen this Peak Oil=Y2K comparison on DU before. Pretty good discussion that shows it doesn't hold up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1209474

[tom_paine]

321. Good find. n/t

:rofl:

[tomreedtoon]

193. I. Will. Butcher. You. And. Eat. You. With. Fava. Beans.

And thanks for additional paranoia. You will make it easier for me to hunt you down. And please keep running; although you will have a lot more muscle fiber when I catch you, you will be flavorful. I'll cut your broiled flesh on an angle like London broil.

I am sick, sick, sick of apocalyptic paranoids leaving posts like this.

[robertpaulsen]

284. Don't. Forget. The. Nice. Chianti.

All cheap laughs aside, try reading up a little on the author next time before passing judgement. Obviously you're not that sick if you can take the time to sprinkle your Lecter references on my thread.

http://www.culturechange.org/about_jan.htm

[guyalapatie]

194. Self-unfulfilling

It breaks my heart to see my upstairs neighbor, a single mother with two disabled children, go on and on about following the bible and John McCain are the only way to keep the country safe. Not for one second does she think about anything substantive. It's all gut reaction. If he was elected, her food subsidies would probably be the first thing to go.

[1]

208. um. i. will . always. be. able. to. get.. food.

because. i. grow. my. own. food.

if. you. don't? so. sorry. for. you.

wake up!

[misanthrope]

216. All you say...

...will come with no warning or foresight. That would certainly break the trend of human history as calamity slips in on cat's feet and is in full bore before most realize its presence.

Grab what pleasure you can now. Live for the present as no one has promised you tomorrow. To rebuke life is to dishonor the dead.

[NYC_SKP]

217. 3000 line up for food in Milwaukee...sign of the times to come?

Most of them not there due to floods so much as general economic conditions?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3509905

[nadinbrzezinski]

222. YEP that is one more sing of where we are going

[robertpaulsen]

347. You. Mean. They. Were. Not. Able. To. Get. Food?

How. About. That.

:P

[Horse with no Name]

218. Some things to do

Grow a garden. Include corn, beans, and potatoes. Visit the gardening forum if you need help getting started.
Stockpile water.
Stockpile some firewood.
Stockpile some rice and beans.
Stockpile canned goods.
Keep matches and charcoal around.
If you have room...buy some chickens.
If you have more room than that...buy some meat rabbits. If you can't stand to eat them...sell them or barter them to others.
If you have more room, buy some meat goats (boer). They are relatively cheap and take very little room and resources to raise AND are actually very lean and good for you.
Food will eventually become more valuable than currency. Grow extra if you can.

[Two Americas]

229. hey horse

Good to see you.

Can I add one thing to your list?

- Speak out strongly for the restoration of our progressive public agriculture infrastructure and regulatory agencies, so that ALL of the people have access to safe and plentiful food.

[Horse with no Name]

230. Hey there TA...likewise

and that is a great addition.
Thanks!

[Two Americas]

293. my opinion FWIW

Within the context of my addition to your list, all good things can happen. Without it, nothing will work.

We need to shift the context, away from "free market" libertarianism, not tweak and argue about the content.

That which advances libertarianism - which personalized solutions and consumer choice solutions, and organic and CSA and fear-mongering most assuredly do - hurts. Anything that promotes public food policy for the benefit of all, and supports and defends and expands our existing public agricultural infrastructure and surviving cooperative agricultural communities, helps.

That would be, in my opinion, the political view, unabashedly and unapologetically from the left, and consistent with the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party as well as providing for the promotion of the public welfare and the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

[solinvictus]

235. And...

...some firearms and ammunition to protect what you've stockpiled. Otherwise, it makes you a target.

[eilen]

236. It is wise to consider what your resources are

in regards to gardening. We eliminated corn from our garden this year because this is our first year and our space is at a premium. Corn produces one ear per plant per season. Instead we are growing squash, vertically. We are container gardening potatoes. Next year we will be better planners but for now, we are just starting out.

[NNN0LHI]

242. Corn produces one ear per plant per season

You are right and a lot of people don't know that. I didn't either before I started living next to a farm field. Before that I thought it was several ears per stalk.

Don

[Liberty Belle]

266. You can grow a lot in a small space; there's a book on this:

Small Space Gardening, or Postage Stamp Gardening.

You can grow cucumbers and pole beans vertically. Let pole beans climb up the corn stalks. Plant fast-harvest crops like radishes close to plants that take months to produce anything. Plant shade-loving crops like lettuce or spinach in between rows of tomato plants. I've even seen people grow melons vertically up a fence; you stake them up and support the growing melons with a piece of nylon stocking or other material.

AMending the soil is key. We followed the directions in the book one year, and had cherry tomato plants grow above the roofline -- one plant yielded over a thousand tomatoes. Grow berry vines on hillsides; we have them trailing up the fence along our driveway. We also grow grapes - guess we could make bathtub wine if we felt inclined.

Dwarf fruit trees can grow tons of fruit in a small space. We have dwarf lemon and orange trees naer our home, as well as large fruit trees in an orchard.
Our lot is 2/3 of an acre, fortunately with some hills, so we are able to have 14 fruit and nut trees, a 600 square foot garden, an herb garden, and still have room for a lawn and flowerbeds. Thankfully we're in southern California, where the climate is suited for growing some crops year-round.

I'm more worried about running out of water than food.

[knitter4democracy]

256. Better yet, get a sheep to live with those goats.

Two sheep are even better if one's a calm ram. Then, you get lamb, and you can shear all of them for wool to sell to spinners or spin yourself.

Oh wait, that's my dream. Carry on.

[greyl]

225. Human Population Numbers as a Function of Food Supply - Hopfenberg and Pimentel

Human Population Numbers as a Function of Food Supply
by Russell Hopfenberg (1)* and David Pimentel (2)

1) Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; 2) Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

Abstract.

Human population growth has typically been seen as the primary causative factor of other ecologically destructive phenomena. Current human disease epidemics are explored as a function of population size. That human population growth is itself a phenomenon with clearly identifiable ecological/biological causes has been overlooked. Here, human population growth is discussed as being subject to the same dynamic processes as the population growth of other species. Contrary to the widely held belief that food production must be increased to feed the growing population, experimental and correlational data indicate that human population growth varies as a function of food availability. By increasing food production for humans, at the expense of other species, the biologically determined effect has been, and continues to be, an increase in the human population. Understanding the relationship between food increases and population increases is proposed as a necessary first step in addressing this global problem. Resistance to this perspective is briefly discussed in terms of cultural bias in science.



1. Introduction

Of all environmental problems, rapid human population growth is arguably the most detrimental. In fact, escalating human population is fueling the acceleration of all environmental problems (Brown and Nielsen, 2000; Plant et al., 2000; Jayne, 1999; Lelieveld et al., 1999; Carpenter and Watson, 1994; Bartiaux and van Ypersele, 1993; Alper, 1991; Brinckman, 1985). The increase in the number of humans is responsible for amounts of pollutants dumped into land, water, and atmosphere. The consumption of land resources has also increased, and at an accelerating rate. Given the fact that the world population is growing (Marchetti et al., 1996; Pimentel and Pimentel, 1997), the population size is also seen as the major determinant of the amount of resources used. The World Health Organization (WHO, 1996a) reports that more than three billion people are now malnourished - the largest number and proportion ever. In other words, in many places the number of humans exceeds the carrying capacity of the area in which they live. With the world population surpassing six billion, the issue of population growth warrants the most serious attention.

Given the numerous effects of increased population on the planet, human population growth is seen as the main cause of other biologically and ecologically destructive phenomena. In this context, these destructive phenomena are seen as the dependent variables on one side of an ecological equation and population size is seen as the independent variable on the other.

Conceptualizing human population growth as an independent variable has led to an unforeseen consequence. That is, human population has been seen as independent of other identifiable ecological, biological, and behavioral variables. Some have proposed that, while natural resources, ecological concerns, and other biological and behavioral variables can limit human population growth, these same variables, when increased, do not serve to escalate population growth (Marchetti et al., 1996). Thus, the causes of human population growth have been left inadequately addressed. Our position is that population growth, the prime environmental problem affecting all ecological, biological, and non-living systems, is a function of increasing food production (Quinn, 1992, 1996, 1998a; Pimentel, 1966, 1996).

More

[bluedawg12]

338. Must see the documentary: Crude Impact- says just this

increase in energy has increased food and population and that strains the whole system, as of now there is no end to population growth.

[Jack_DeLeon]

237. I dont think many people are truely prepared for it....

I know I'm not and dont think I or even all that many people can truely be prepared for such a future, that being said I am doing what I can to make preparations for my suvival and the surivial of those I care about. Regardless of what happens I will do my best.

[L0oniX]

249. Old news and info. You should have already been preparing by now.

I thought about this all a few years ago. There's no way you can grow enough food on your little yard by your house to support a yourself, much less a family. Don't forget, land has to be fertile to grow anything worth while. Don't forget to buy a few guns and ammo because your food will get robbed. Oh yea, while we are all out of work and starving, you will still have to pay for water and electricity and of course property taxes. You might be able to do with out electricity but how are you going to store food? I have a shit load of canned food and water stored up but its about enough to last 3 months. Just how much food and water do you think you can store up?

The best move anyone could make right now is to sell off everything and move out of the country to an agriculture based country. You will find that you just can't move to Panama or Costa Rico or Brazil without some sort of major investment into the country and even then it will only be temp and don't forget the language thingy. Most other countries have very strict laws on immigration and much more so than the USA. Canada is the cheapest and easiest country to move to but still requires $3000 and a steady job for 3 years before you can become a citizen. The only other choices are to move out to the country and try to build up a small farm and co-op with neighboring small farms or join a survivalist group out in Montana or other sparsely populated areas. Good luck ...oh and did I mention ...BUY GUNS AND AMMO.

[pipi_k]

253. Stockpiling food...

It's sort of what we do anyway at my house since we live in a very rural area and it's a 40 mile round trip to any of the larger stores. We've always done it, and with the gas situation the way it is, going into town has become quite expensive.

That being said, though, even if we were to run out of food, there's always the local wildlife to see us through any tough times. Deer...turkeys...fish, etc. I'd hate to have to eat any of them, but if survival depended upon it, you do what you have to do.

I think it's mainly we who live in rural settings who might be best prepared, since we're not as dependent on some of the same services as people in the city.

[defendandprotect]

278. If you stockpile food, other people will have none . . . BUT . ..

are you saying that in making the choice you'd rather eat and burn than starve and die?

Just askin' . . . ??

[bonito]

330. M 2 cents worth

Nightshade plants and calcium depletion, good to know stuff.

[SoonerPride]

257. Soylent Green time!

Yum.

With 7 billion people, surely there's a good way to re-use all that bio-mass?

Anyone hungry for Chinese?

:)

[deaniac21]

281. My boyfriend is Chinese. Every time I eat him I get hungry again

in an hour....

[sui generis]

263. FINALLY. Stockpile hell

I'm gonna eat me a fat republican. Them's good eatin' if you don't mind the bitter aftertaste of koolaid.

:P

[windoe]

270. Do. Not. Panic.

Americans by far have enough fat reserves to last until their victory gardens mature.
My seed bank has been updated, can't hurt, and it is a cheap thing to do:)

[bvar22]

277. We left The City, and moved to The Country in 2006.

We didn't do this from FEAR of a Global Collapse. We are Old Hippies who have always been attracted to a Sustainable lifestyle, and are saying "No Mas!" to Corporate America, a rigged One Corporate Party Political System, and a food delivery system that has become toxic, contaminated, tasteless, and inefficient. We are NOT "Survivalists", and genuinely hope no global food crisis occurs.

We left an exciting, multi-ethnic, Liberal City (Minneapolis), and relocated to a very rural, unspoiled area of the US (The Ouachita Mtns of West Central Arkansas). There are no Big Industries or Factory Farms for many, many miles. We are surrounded by extensive National Forests. Our water comes from a spring fed well, and is clean, cold and bottomless (so far). We are adjacent to one of the cleanest rivers left in North America. Fish and Wild Game abound.

In the two years we have been here, we have started a large organic veggie garden, planted a dozen fruit trees, started a Blueberry/Raspberry Patch, planted several varieties of grapes, started a flock of chickens, and maintain two colonies of Honey Bees which we will expand to four colonies late this Summer. Sometime in the near future, there will be some goats, and hopefully some type of grain crop other than corn.



We are working toward energy independence, but it will be several years before we can achieve this (Wind/Solar combo). We have built a 100 % efficient Solar Powered clothes dryer (clothesline), rigged canvas awnings to shade windows from direct sunlight, and hope to have a solar hot water system in several months. Our heat comes from an unlimited supply of hardwood.

We own guns, but don't love them. We are frightened by people who think it would be fun living in a bunker, eating out of cans, and shooting hungry people.

We love what we are doing, but we do miss The City, multi-ethnic restaurants, diverse entertainment, and crowds of people. OTOH, we seldom wait in line for anything, and laugh about Rush Hour traffic if we get caught at the stoplight in the nearest town.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=246x5729

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=246x7979


Again, I want to stress that we are doing this because we LOVE this lifestyle. The Survival Cults scare us, and we generally keep away from those people (there are a few scattered among these hills). We want to do much more than "Survive", we want to Live Well in a healthy realtionship with the Earth. We have discovered a surprising number of very Liberal old Hippies living in these beautiful hills, and more are moving into this area. Another DUer has already bought land close to us and will be moving next year.

If you are interested in more than just survival...if you are interested in Living Well, there are two good forums here at DU:

The Gardening Group:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=246

The Rural/Farm Forum:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=268


There are also two wonderful publications I recommend:

Mother Earth News
http://www.motherearthnews.com/


Countryside & Small Stock Journal
http://www.countrysidemag.com/

[robertpaulsen]

282. Thank you very much for your informative, thoughtful and positive post.

I think you have the right approach. It's not about, "Hurry! The world is about to end!" as many posters on this thread assume the OP link intends. The author, Jan Lundberg, is the founder of the Sustainable Energy Institute. Obviously, the title was intended to look like an alarm to shake up the sheeple, but a closer look at the man and his life shows he is hardly a crank walking the sidewalks with a "The End of the World is Coming" sign around his chest:

Anti-road activist and publisher Jan Lundberg hasn't owned a car in eleven years. In 1997, he tore up his driveway and planted a garden on the spot - hardly the behavior one would expect from a former oil-industry insider who once drove a Mercedes.

For Lundberg, the convenience and freedom cars offer are just bribes that don't even come close to balancing the costs - not just in gas, service, and insurance, but in loss of life, damage to the environment, and enormous government subsidies to oil and automobile companies. One of the largest of these subsidies is the public expense of building roads. By calling for an end to new road-building, Lundberg hopes to " the rug right out from under the car" and force people to explore other alternatives for getting around.

Lundberg grew up around the oil industry. His father ran Lundberg Survey, Inc., a company that collected statistics on gasoline prices and industry trends. In 1973, just before the oil crisis, father and son began publishing the Lundberg Letter, which became the number-one trade journal for the oil industry and went on to predict the second oil shock of 1979.

After his father's death in the mid-eighties, Lundberg quit the family business and directed his efforts toward energy conservation. (His sister Trilby now runs Lundberg Survey.) By that point, Jan had realized that our "waste economy," as he calls it, is unsustainable and the cause of massive environmental damage and species extinctions worldwide. We are laboring, he says, under the false impression that we can "have it all": the physical comfort of our current way of living and a livable planet.

http://www.culturechange.org/about_jan.htm

I think he would agree with the way you've chosen to live your life. Thank you so much for those great links, too!

[baby_mouse]

286. Less than 3 decades ago my grandad grew his own broad beans

And strawberries and raspberries and peas and marrows and cucumbers and EVER so much stuff, in his fairly small backyard. A lot of what was eaten was grown, not all by any means, but a lot.

Food you see, is magic. It comes out of the ground.

[ZombieHorde]

305. Everyone I know is food.

[theboss]

310. Arby's will never let me starve

God bless those illegal immigrants.

[Nikia]

335. I am not particuliarly concerned about myself

If I take a short drive (or bike ride or walk) out of town, there are vast fields of crops and herds of livestock. Often someone is selling something. There are several food companies of all types within a 50 mile radius. Because of this, many common food items are currently less expensive than most of the country. I don't think that it is unreasonable to say that we will continue to have some food products available for sale even if other parts of the world/country don't.
If worst comes to worst, we live on a large city lot, have a flat roof, and a three car garage. That should be enough room for raising enough food for our family.
If things would get that bad though, I expect that the whole social order would collapse and that might be only one of our worries. For example, I am not sure how we'd survive the Wisconsin winter without a source of heat.

[hogwyld]

344. Kick

[Political Heretic]

345. HOLY SHIT OH MY GOD AND OTHER EXCLAMATIONS OF....oh hell what a huge pile.

:eyes:

[Chuggo]

348. pffft