Over Population

[jammy 0]

  I was very worried about over population for a while but I now don't care to be honest.

I have just found some research which reads...

DOOM-MONGERS have got it wrong - there is enough space in the world to produce the extra food needed to feed a growing population. And contrary to expectation, most of it can be grown in Africa, say two international reports published this week.

The first, projecting 10 years into the future from last year's food crisis, which saw the price of food soar, says that there is plenty of unused, fertile land available to grow more crops.

"Some 1.6 billion hectares could be added to the current 1.4 billion hectares of crop land [in the world], and over half of the additionally available land is found in Africa and Latin America," concludes the report, compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

If further evidence were needed, it comes in a second report, launched jointly by the FAO and the World Bank. It concludes that 400 million hectares, straddling 25 African countries, are suitable for farming.

Models for producing new crop land already exist in Thailand, where land originally deemed agriculturally unpromising, due to irrigation problems and infertile soil, has been transformed into a cornucopia by smallholder farmers.

As in Thailand, future success will come by using agriculture to lift Africa's smallholder farmers out of poverty, aided by strong government measures to guarantee their rights to land, say both reports.

This information is extracted from newscientist.com

Therefore we don't have to worry about food production, also the population will peak in 2050 at 9 billion, then fall back to 7 billion in around 2100 and then rise back to 10 billion in 2200 where it is expected to stay for the forseeable future.

 

[Easy Bakes 253]

^^^ Man those are some long articles and reports.

Read the June 2009 National Geographic and the Sept 2008. Both go into th e problems of feeding a starving world.

Thomas Malthus famously warned that the growth of the human population might outstrip its ability to produce food. But as the population soared, Malthus's famine was averted as the application of science and fossil-fuel energy to agriculture allowed food production in industrialised countries to keep pacequote>

There talking there about the "green revolution" were the grain crop yields skyrocketed due to farming inovations, which for the most part were pesticides, Irrigation and fertilizers, all of which were over used and created unusable farmland after doing that for a long time.

the population is still growing faster then food production is increasing yields.So what they do is cutdown more  jungle and forrrest to create fresh crop lands to over farm then move on because thats the cheepest way to do it.

Sustainable farming is expensive and most African are poor or in chaosso it dosent get done.

Overpopulation usualy solves itself with starvation, famine and war.

[Kryptowhite 9]

Well the problem is that a) no matter how many models and stats we have, we cannot predict human nature and how our population will grow. Afterall, how many people thought our population would be at [what is it, 6 billion?] in the 1900s?

and b) you have to factor climate change and desertification into that. If things go the way that they are forcasted, than alot of that african farm land will become desert or otherwise unusable because of climate related issues.

[hamsterTK 93]

Overpopulation on a global scale or on a local level?

Our modern lifestyle typically leads to low birth rates. modern societies that consume more tend to grow less. However, in the third world, or in extreme religious societies, yes I would be worried.

It's a lot more complex that the simple malthusian scenario, which in any case was disproved with the demographic transition model.

[Duke87 1,070]

Let's actually read that report, shall we? Here's a couple excerpts:

Currently cultivated world arable land is estimated at about 1.4 billion hectares. Over half of the additionally available land is found in Africa and in Latin America. Furthermore, with estimates of 2.435 and 2.084 million km2, respectively, these regions account for most of the land that has the highest suitability class for rain-fed crop production.

These figures of suitable land are gross "optimistic" estimates, since they do not take into account the fact that while certain areas of land may be suitable for cropping; they have already been allocated to other competing and socially-acceptable land uses (e.g. forests, urban areas, protected areas). Suitable land resources in these latter areas are thus effectively unavailable for conversion to cropland, except at high social/environmental costs of conversion. For many purposes, it is therefore be more realistic, to consider net estimates of the availability of suitable land.quote>

As I suspected, some of this "available land" is rainforest and other such things we don't want to just turn to farms.

The net land balance value (NLB) is derived from the GLB by excluding areas which are currently allocated to either forests, urban areas or protected areas. As expected, the gross availability of suitable cropland decreases when other competing land-use categories are taken into account. For 54 out of the 148 countries for which data are available, competing land uses reduce the gross land balance by more than 10%.quote>

10% off. And here's where we arrive at that 1.6 billion hectare figure:

The competing land use which contributes the most frequently to reducing notably the availability of suitable cropland is forestry. However, the loss of suitable land to urban uses is also important. These numbers suggest that at the world level, some 1 560 million hectares are effectively available for crop expansion. Most of this available land available resides in Africa and Latin America, with the smallest shares in North America and Europe. While there are significant quantities of land available for expansion, it does not reside in the currently high output zones of temperate world agriculture. Indeed, further expansion in both North America and Europe appears limited in relative terms.quote>

They do make the point that the available land is in typically low yield regions. The areas where industrial farming produces crops efficiently have little room for expansion. Not that such things couldn't be stepped up in what's now the third world, but there's the issue of $$$.

Oh, and there's more:

The estimates of NLB do not include another possible source of competition, which is that for growing livestock numbers. Livestock populations are growing and with higher incomes, and particularly in populous countries such as India and China, meat consumption will increase in the future. Therefore, pasture land will remain in high demand and may further limit crop expansion.quote>

Well, livestock is still producing food, just not as much per acre.

Now here's the best part:

Furthermore, the boom in bio-fuel demand risks to further limit the amount of cropland available for food production, as feedstocks are provided to biofuel production.

The emergence of carbon markets will also affect land availability because some of the options (biofuels and sequestration) compete for the same land resources.quote>

in case you doubted the claims you've heard from myself and others before that this whole ethanol as a fuel thing is a problem because it cuts into food production... there you go. It's in a UN report.

I'm not going to start quoting it, but the report also discusses the matters of water and climate change (both important factors to consider).

My own personal point to add is this: while theoretical maxima are nice and all, there's a difference between what's possible in theory and what's practical, and a further difference between that and what will actually happen. Or, in semi-mathematical terms:

theoretical maximum > practical maximum > actual number     

...and not just now. Farming and crop yields are not something I can see nearing a practical maximum worldwide at any point in the foreseable future. There will always be untaped resources and unpursued possibilities in some places for one reason or another. Politics, religion, money, apathy, etc.

[Randomtaskk 1]

/wouldn't really mind if there was a benefit based one child policy the world over.

[Mayor K 1]

yeah but if you go with that then you have what you have in china families killing off female newborns or rampant abortion rates as families favor male children. now a thing i found intresting was the idea of roof top farms where tennants grow produce which saves up on land space and can reduce the retention of heat in cities.

another intresting study is Japan's population. thier population is expected to shrink in half to 50million by 2050 because people are too busy working to have time for a family.

[Duke of York 23]

Yes I agree roof top farms seems like a good source for some extra resources.

To be honest I'm not worried about overpopulation at all...I feel that as population grows

or ability to handle that population will grow due to technology and efficient polices...

And maybe in the future we will have to regulate urban sprawl....If we regulated urban sprawl

.that would make room for more farming capabilities...It would also lead to less Co2 emissions

and would have an effect on our Oil crises...In my opinion it seems that a perfect situation would

be a society where everyone lived in cities using mass transit and only owned an efficient car

for that occasional ride...But until the farmers are desperate for so much land that isn't necessary

and that plan would also regulate a individuals freedom of choice when it comes to real estate...It

should only be practiced out of desperation...And we must think about Government irrigation investment.

There is allot of land mass out west that cannot be farmed...If we made more of an attempt to irrigate those areas

through private investment or Government insensitive that would expand our crop resources drastically...

Anyway I don't see over population a problem as long as we all are willing to adjust to the demands of

Humanity.

  - Duke of York-

[hamsterTK 93]

Well it is interesting how sometimes the best farmland is threatened by urbanization. Typically cities grow in these types of areas for obvious reasons.

But like I said, modern society is not very reproductive, if we can avoid catastrophe maybe things could balance out provided the developed world remains stable.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

Well it is interesting how sometimes the best farmland is threatened by urbanization. Typically cities grow in these types of areas for obvious reasons.

But like I said, modern society is not very reproductive, if we can avoid catastrophe maybe things could balance out provided the developed world remains stable.quote>

Plano Texas is one of those Citys, farm land is highly sought after for housing developments.

Mostly because ( at least in plano ) Its very flat and has been cleared of big trees so there is a minimal of prep work need before starting to build, which saves money and time.

[blade2k5 1,523]

Why would I be worried about over population when mother nature will take of it anyways?

[PattyO 0]

See blade, "Mother Nature's way" isn't the neatest or most humane way of dealing with overpopulation. If there's not enough food in the world, people will starve to death. This on top of a multitude of other ways that "Mother Nature" can attempt to limit the population.

My stance on this is that we, as a civilized society, need to acknowledge that the world is only so large and contains a finite amount of resources, and that those resources will only allow a certain population to live above the threshold of poverty and famine, or to live reasonably comfortable, safe and secure lives. Only time will tell what that magic threshold is, whether we've already passed it or whether it is still looming in the future, either foreseeable or unforeseeable. What is most important is that we acknowledge this fact; all that we rely on is limited by the size of our planet and once it's gone, it's never coming back. This is a real change in attitude from the rest of human history. Relating back to farming in Africa, acknowledging the lack of resources is the difference between clear-cut farming, followed by abandonment of farms and movement of crops elsewhere, and sustainable use of what remaining (possibly) arable land we have left. Plus, preventing expansion of un-arable lands by desertification or urbanization.

One thing's for sure - it's easy for people in the prosperous nations like the US, Canada and much of Europe to be apathetic towards the less prosperous parts of the world, but we must all realize that we are all inhabitants of the same world, and sooner or later the changes taking place in Latin America and Africa will affect us; all people have a massive stake in what is happening on all corners of the globe.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

This topic rises again!

I'll just boil down most of what I've already said on this topic, into a semi-coherent group of words:

Paul Erlich is a liar and false prophet, ZPG and groups like it are Final Solutions looking for problems, the Earth can support at least 7 times its current population (based on UN info from the '70s), China's efforts have seriously backfired and their elderly are paying for it, etc etc etc.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

This topic rises again!

I'll just boil down most of what I've already said on this topic, into a semi-coherent group of words:

Paul Erlich is a liar and false prophet, ZPG and groups like it are Final Solutions looking for problems, the Earth can support at least 7 times its current population (based on UN info from the '70s), China's efforts have seriously backfired and their elderly are paying for it, etc etc etc.

quote>

A false prophet?   Who says he is any kind of prophet?   We have prophets walking around these days?  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Well, a secular prophet at any rate. Certainly a guru of the movement. It was a convenient term. All of his predictions from books like The Population Bomb were wrong.

[blade2k5 1,523]

Originally posted by: PattyO

See blade, "Mother Nature's way" isn't the neatest or most humane way of dealing with overpopulation. If there's not enough food in the world, people will starve to death. This on top of a multitude of other ways that "Mother Nature" can attempt to limit the population.

My stance on this is that we, as a civilized society, need to acknowledge that the world is only so large and contains a finite amount of resources, and that those resources will only allow a certain population to live above the threshold of poverty and famine, or to live reasonably comfortable, safe and secure lives. Only time will tell what that magic threshold is, whether we've already passed it or whether it is still looming in the future, either foreseeable or unforeseeable. What is most important is that we acknowledge this fact; all that we rely on is limited by the size of our planet and once it's gone, it's never coming back. This is a real change in attitude from the rest of human history. Relating back to farming in Africa, acknowledging the lack of resources is the difference between clear-cut farming, followed by abandonment of farms and movement of crops elsewhere, and sustainable use of what remaining (possibly) arable land we have left. Plus, preventing expansion of un-arable lands by desertification or urbanization.

One thing's for sure - it's easy for people in the prosperous nations like the US, Canada and much of Europe to be apathetic towards the less prosperous parts of the world, but we must all realize that we are all inhabitants of the same world, and sooner or later the changes taking place in Latin America and Africa will affect us; all people have a massive stake in what is happening on all corners of the globe.quote>

That wasn't what I was talking about

[CryptoQuick 0]

From a resource standpoint, algae will solve everything. They're like little chemical factories that soak up CO2 and make useful things like sugars and oils, and could, in theory, make a lot of it. Fuel and plastics are just a few applications they could be used for.

Of course, nobody's really made a lot of it-- at least, not fuel--, leading some to claim that it's a pipe dream. This is where I'd have to argue that the free market is wrong to let petroleum be sold as such low prices, considering the consequences.

[krbe 193]

There are always NEWater and NEWFood if we start starving.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: krbe

There are always NEWater and NEWFood if we start starving.

quote>

Whats NEWfood?

[krbe 193]

Spirulina, apparently edible waste.

[BattleshipAgincourt 1]

I think we in the US are making a mistake in growing over 90% of grain crops for the purpose of being consumed by animals. Livestock yield food, yes; but only a fraction of what you could have gotten from the grain directly. There is at least a 10:1 ratio of calorie reduction from corn to cattle, but I heard figures as high as 25:1 if you translated all US meat production and used the land for potatoes.

The problem isn't so much the lack of fertile land, but how it's used.

[CryptoQuick 0]

Originally posted by: krbe

Spirulina, apparently edible waste.quote>

Spirulina is a protein-rich algae; it's pretty common in healthy foods, in addition to Chlorella, another algae. When I used to work in a lab, we did a lot of work with Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (to produce hydrogen), but we'd also keep some filamentous algae around as well... probably because it looked cool.

Although I doubt you'd want to eat algae as a primary food source, perhaps it could be processed and fed to animals in lieu of grain crops, as BattleshipAgincourt might suggest. It's already fed to fish such as tilapia, but perhaps there's a way it could be dried, pelleted, and used as feed for mammals as well.

Hey, the green Superfood isn't bad stuff, neither.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

If humans were meant to eat algae as food, we'd have been carp. Superfood (I assume you mean Odwalla's green slimey drink) is something you drink when you're feeling guilty over having eaten 10 cheeseburgers in the last 5 days. It's tolerable in the same way that cough syrup is, without the appeal of cough syrup's alcohol.