India's population expected to pass China's by 2030

[DanS]

BS. I am from a rural area and I am appalled that there is less than 1% of the original tallgrass prairie, and not a damn thing can be done about it because farmers have a lot of political power via the Senate, and the majority vote Republican.

Don't get me wrong. I agree that subsidies distort the agricultural market. But for our purposes here, it is sufficient to note that if the "natural" process were allowed to run its course, large swaths of the Midwest would be uneconomical to farm, and would revert to the wild.

This is despite the fact that our population has doubled within the last 50 years (and I would bet that not much tall grass prairie has been destroyed within the last 50 years). It's clear that not even our agricultural resources are finite.

[Odin]

Originally posted by DanS


Don't get me wrong. I agree that subsidies distort the agricultural market. But for our purposes here, it is sufficient to note that if the "natural" process were allowed to run its course, large swaths of the Midwest would be uneconomical to farm, and would revert to the wild.

DanS and I AGREE on something for once!

[fdgfx]

We have only used up a tiny fraction of available resources and people are complaining about running out of them.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
It's clear that not even our agricultural resources are finite.

Oh no, they're definately finite. It's just we aren't anywhere close to reaching that limit yet.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by fdgfx
We have only used up a tiny fraction of available resources and people are complaining about running out of them.

Which is why the oceans are running out of harvestable fish. I just saw Chilean sea bass in the supermarket for over $25 a pound. Ten years ago it was 1/5th that price.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by DanS


Don't get me wrong. I agree that subsidies distort the agricultural market. But for our purposes here, it is sufficient to note that if the "natural" process were allowed to run its course, large swaths of the Midwest would be uneconomical to farm, and would revert to the wild.

This is despite the fact that our population has doubled within the last 50 years (and I would bet that not much tall grass prairie has been destroyed within the last 50 years). It's clear that not even our agricultural resources are finite.

Where do these "infinite resources" come from, exactly? Oh yes... because if we have it now, we can only have more of it in the future! The favorite fantasy of economists; endless, limitless, and exponential growth of everything...

Here's David Suzuki's take on this, since I happened to be reading this just last week:

The effect of human activity on soil did not begin with modern mechanized agriculture ... But it was the invention of agriculture that altered the rate and scope of change, and in the second half of the twentieth century the techniques of modern industrial farming, such as the use of heavy machinery, irrigation and the extensive use of chemical fertilizers, have had a devastating impact on the soil. Modern techniques have increasd productivity per hectare, but the organic material produced is not returned to the soil to complete nature's cycle; instead, it often ends up in sewers, landfills or incinerators.

The incredible increase in Earth's human population in the past fifty years has been matched by a similiar increase in agricultural productivity. But this productivity has been achieved by deliberately overriding the natural limits of the soil and the living system that makes the soil so productive. According to Nobel Prize winner Henry Kendall and the population biologist David Pimentel, modern farming methods now deplete topsoil... 16 to 300 times faster than it can be replaced. Worldwide soil erosion has caused farmers to abandon about 430 million hectares of arable land during the last 40 years, an area equivalent to about one-third of all present cropland.

It takes an average of 500 years to build 2.5 centimetres of topsoil. Today, Pimentel says, the global loss of topsoil exceeds new soil production by 23 billion tonnes a year, which is 0.7 percent of the world's soil. At that rate, when my fourteen-year-old daughter reaches her sixtieth birthday, more than 30 per cent of the world's current supplies of topsoil will be gone, but humankind's numbers will have doubled.

Earth's diverse living things cleanse, alter and regenerate air, water and soil - elements they help to create and depend on absolutely. Yet now one species out of untold millions had commandeered almost half the planet's soil. According to Dr. Bernard Campbell, we humans "either use, coopt or destroy 40% of the estimated 100 bilion tons of organic matter produced annualy by the terrestrial ecosystem." By this means we drive many other organisms who are keeping the planet habitable to extinction.

[el freako]

In a slight aside....

One interesting thing about the UN's World Population Prospects 2004 revision is that it has again sharply revised up it's forecasts of european population in 2050 - especially compared to the US (which has seen it's forecast population revised downwards).
In the 2002 revision, by 2050 the US's population was forecast to be 39m more than the EU15's now it's forecast to be only 8m more.

Since the 1998 revision Italy's forecast 2050 population has risen from 37m to 51m and Spain's from 32m to 43m

[Lawrence of Arabia]

yeah, there is definitly a finite amount of resources. the reason we have all these environmental problems is mostly the fault of the goverment: overregulation on some sectors, underregulation in others.

fish stocks are being depleted because no one owns the fishing grounds. same with other endangered species (especially mammals like elephants.)

weve got farmers in washingston st who dont pay for water use, and grow RICE and other water intensive crops that should never be growing there in the first place. farmers in the midewest get paid to produce things we dont even want.

[Kuciwalker]

I think DanS meant to say "not even our agricultural resources are infinite".

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I think DanS meant to say "not even our agricultural resources are infinite".

Not likely, it was the second time in this thread that he's explicitly claimed that there are no finite resources. (and he as 'inexplicitly' made similiar claims in almost every post in this thread)

[GePap]

Certainly, metals and energy resources are probalby more than plentiful for us to come for many decades, if not centuries. BUt soil and potable water are not ifinate resources, and since people run on food and water, not iron and oil, we will be running into problems at some point.

And Che is very correct in the essential rape of the oceans.

[korn469]

I think Dan's point is that modern civilization seems to have an infinite capability to work around resource limitations. If that is what he means then I agree with him. Though if I'm wrong and he thinks that a limitless supply of oil exists, then I completely disagree.

However, with our current technology humanity has reached carrying capasity throughout most of the world. Unless we develop new techniques our continued expansion will cause serious environmental damage. As we expand habitat for many other (but certainly not all all) species decline. That in itself demonstrates that resources have limits.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara What do you mean, "as far as it goes?" Do you people not see the environmental devestation around you? Do you honestly think that we can keep growing forever?

We're not going to grow forever. The worldwide rate of population growth has gradually slowed. Population predictions have been shrinking. China appears to be entering the in the 4th stage of development (sorry, I forget the exact terminology), where population rates drop permenantly. That's the same thing that has happened in all developed countries.

India will reach this point as well. I suspect that we'll reach the peak of human population by 2050-2100. After that, every nation on earth will have a declining birthrate.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia

weve got farmers in washingston st who dont pay for water use, and grow RICE and other water intensive crops that should never be growing there in the first place. farmers in the midewest get paid to produce things we dont even want.

OMG, OMG, OMG! WE MUST SAVE THE FAMILY FARM OR IT WILL BE THE END OF AMERICA!!! WE WILL BECOME DEGENERATE LIKE THE ROMANS!!!

(My history proffesor, sounds like this. )


The oceans is an excellent example of why deregulation is nearsighted, it almost always causes a tragedy of the commons.

[GePap]

Originally posted by korn469
I think Dan's point is that modern civilization seems to have an infinite capability to work around resource limitations. If that is what he means then I agree with him. Though if I'm wrong and he thinks that a limitless supply of oil exists, then I completely disagree.

And how has this been demonstrated, particulalry with soil?

Over the past 100 years we have been able to better and more efficiently exploit various resources, like soil, but there are limits as you said.

If someone wants to become a trillionaire, figure out a way to replace lost soils fast and cheap.