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

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Dauphin


I may be wrong, but if the US ever found itself dependent for basic food from other nations then that in itself is not a bad thing unless the supplying nation turns hostile or jacks up the price above the cost of home supply. Then, how long would it take to re-engage the home supply of foodstuffs, and how much would it cost to have a store that would last that lag period?

Not long, I'd guess. And they'd probably experience a golden age of good health, much like Britain during the second world war. Assuming that there's no invasion or anything.

[Dauphin]

The Corn Laws were great for Britain the 19th century.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by General Ludd



What's that statistic.... it'd take 40 earths to support everyone (currently) living to the standard of americans?

Absurd. We haven't run out of any resource. the closest we've come to running out of resources is energy and maybe lebensraum and the former could even be over come using present technology.

However recognizing that a thing could be done and doing it are quite different things.

Resources are practically infinite. the problem is obtaining them in a useable form in a way that doesn't further destroy more irreplacable parts of our ecosystems.

The reason people are poor is not resource scarcity and it's not unequal distribution. The problem stems from serious flaws in the global economy. Flaws that are fiendishly difficult to identify with demonstrable certainty much less fix.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap




Excuse me Dan, but some of these problems HAVE NO CORRECTIONS, specially using water from aquifers-there is no way to replenish that water in less than a few centuries. The Us is a modern, rich state, yet soild degredation is increasing in many parts of the country, due to simple biology, and the demands of commercial farming.



And yet, our eocnomy is mo much fantasitcally bigger that the effect of our agriculture is still much more significant in those areas we still farm.

That said, huge overconsumption by Americans means we could cut back and still live fine, healthy lives, but then that would limit profist, now wouldn't it?

if we solve the cheap energy problem how about desalinization to meet water demands?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo


if we solve the cheap energy problem how about desalinization to meet water demands?

And what do we do with all that salt we take out?

Oh, sure, if we had limitless energy, then so many things would be solved- heck, we could have replicators!

Now point to me how realisitc those cheap energy sources are, vs. population growth.

The biggest breakthrough in energy in the last 100 was nuclear energy, and fossil fuels remain, just like 100 years ago, the primary energy sources. Yet in those 100 years the population trippled at least.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


And what do we do with all that salt we take out?

Oh, sure, if we had limitless energy, then so many things would be solved- heck, we could have replicators!

Now point to me how realisitc those cheap energy sources are, vs. population growth.

The biggest breakthrough in energy in the last 100 was nuclear energy, and fossil fuels remain, just like 100 years ago, the primary energy sources. Yet in those 100 years the population trippled at least.

Yeah, I admit it was just wishful thinking.

Without some serious progress on the energy supply front we are going to be in some serious **** even we do develop technologies that reduce the size of humanity's environmental 'foot print'.

I agree with DanS that theoretically no resource is finite in any meaningful sense, but it's a real ***** demonstrating that theory when we are doing such a lousy job enhancing our supply of energy which stands as the most critical technological resource.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
chill, but my oil estimate is off. it should be less than water (cuz it floats on top of water)

2190 oil (very close to 30 weight) is about 8.28 therefore it will float on water. 2110 Hyd oil is 8.26 or so. 9250 Hyd oil or as we call it External Hyd Oil because you can have up 50% contamination with sea water and still work. There was a rumor going around for years that some employee never paid for a drop of oil in their cars.

[alva]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Because apparently oil is "finite" on earth

Well yeah, sure, but.. if we ARE able to go to the end of the universe, then surely oil is redundant, no?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Dauphin
The Corn Laws were great for Britain the 19th century.

If you're including Ireland in that, then no they weren't- authorities holding on to supplies of grain effectively allowed Irish people to starve whilst having the ability (but the not the political will or common sense) to do something to remedy the situation.


It's a strange thing that the diet of the urban poor declined in quality during a period of land enclosures and mechanization of food production, but then when you substitute tea and gin for ale and add in cholera, typhus and overcrowding and tuberculosis, you have a recipe for malnutrition, slow death and epidemics.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by molly bloom


If you're including Ireland in that, then no they weren't- authorities holding on to supplies of grain effectively allowed Irish people to starve whilst having the ability (but the not the political will or common sense) to do something to remedy the situation.


It's a strange thing that the diet of the urban poor declined in quality during a period of land enclosures and mechanization of food production, but then when you substitute tea and gin for ale and add in cholera, typhus and overcrowding and tuberculosis, you have a recipe for malnutrition, slow death and epidemics.

It was sarcasm. I forget sometimes how text has no intonation.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Dauphin


It was sarcasm. I forget sometimes how text has no intonation.

There I was mistaking you for an Adam Smith Institute * zealot. My humblest apologies.


(having watched one decrying the United kingdom's various FairTrade campaigns because supposedly supporting Mexican coffee growers would deprive poorer Ethiopian coffee growers of income).

[Dauphin]

Wasn't his biggest blast against the unfair agri-subsidies of Europe?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Dauphin

Wasn't his biggest blast against the unfair agri-subsidies of Europe?

It may well have been what he wanted to talk about, but to drag in Fair Trade seemed utterly incongruous.

Instead of consumers voting with their spending powers and simultaneously supporting schemes to empower third world producers to shift from a precarious dependence on single agricultural products especially commodities such as coffee and cocoa beans, and lobbying for the reduction or elimination of third world debt, he wanted people to what? write, email or get on the phone to their Euro M.P. .

Great strategy.

[DanS]

Originally posted by mindseye
DanS, I think few would argue with you that high rates of growth are beneficial, but I think the point many are trying to make is that they would be more beneficial if they were affecting a smaller population.

That may be so in the acute sense, but over a relatively short time (less than a generation), the larger population is no worse off on a per capita basis and is better off as a whole.

Adding more and more people only thins out and slows down the advances. The marginal addition to the economy by the large rural populations is minimal, maybe even negative in remote regions. I think you could easily subtract a few hundred million rural Chinese without significantly affecting China's GDP. At the same time there would be more wealth, services, and opportunities to go around. Yet you advocate the reverse this by adding still more people.

Because those rural Chinese may not add much at the beginning, but their contributions are very real over time. Look at it this way. Even 100 million peasants digging ditches is a net positive to society, although, as you say, the value isn't high. But over time, they will move on to much more valuable work.

Maybe instead of looking at Chicago's history, you should consider the example of post-Plague Europe, where survivors experienced a major improvment in the standard of living. In many ways the situation of 14th century French peasants is much closer to that of rural Chinese than 19th century Chicagoans.

The events in post-plague Europe weren't accompanied by mass migrations and modernization at the scale we're discussing. I have no doubt that the majority of Chinese peasants will live a modern existence within a generation, at the current pace.

[Kidlicious]

DanS is looking at things purely from a stockholders' POV.