RE: The world's population should be at most 50 million.
October 10, 2018 at 1:04 pm
(This post was last modified: October 10, 2018 at 1:55 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
No, I'm not saying that at all, lol. What I am saying is that the insistence that we need to reduce our population is based solely..on the insistence that we need to reduce our population. It's not actually a fact. Further, the people being pointed to as a good start are not the source of problem we seek to solve with such a reduction in the first place...hilariously, they are our most credible solution to that problem.
My example only shows that in some post fossil fuel future a productive system of ag has 60 weekly hours of labor requirement per .12 acres compared to 22 yearly per acre. There's no clearer way to show the utility of living breathing humans, than that. It's nice that they get paid (a hell of alot) more, too.
Lets put that into context. One man farming 100 acres of mixed veg (conventionally) is, maybe, using 2,200 labor hours. 20 5 acre farms (the most you can reasonably operate solo without fossil fuel based equipment and inputs) are not only more productive because of their intensive management....they are providing 20 incomes with many more labor hours, as opposed to the one. So tell me why, if we had more people operating smaller, more intensively managed farms..we would need (or even could) reduce the pop? We'd have more food, and we'd need more people to make it, but the rate of yield increase outstrips the rate of population increase twice over at a minimum. Meanwhile, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that depopulation would reduce the economic incentives that lead to starvation.
It really is just something that some malcontent a hundred years ago thought up in his feverbrain while thinking of how to deal with the problem of the filthy poors.
We could continue, accepting that even in the greener future some application of fossil fuel is still acceptable. Staple grains, for example. Productivity plays out differently for staple grains. The larger the block the more efficient the planting and the less labor hours required. So, whereas dividing the globes vegetable production into smaller farms would produce more food, more available food, more affordable food, and better wages for producers......dividing up staple crop plantings has the opposite effect, and we need them, no matter how many of us there are. At present, only half of the worlds (poorly utilized) staple cropland is being used to feed people, and again, we already have more than enough to feed everyone. Limiting use to this application would be both reasonable and highly effective, as most of the footprint of staple crops doesn't come from their production - but their transport and marketing.
So..tell me, whats the carrying capacity of the earth, again? Why do we -need- to reduce the pop?
My example only shows that in some post fossil fuel future a productive system of ag has 60 weekly hours of labor requirement per .12 acres compared to 22 yearly per acre. There's no clearer way to show the utility of living breathing humans, than that. It's nice that they get paid (a hell of alot) more, too.
Lets put that into context. One man farming 100 acres of mixed veg (conventionally) is, maybe, using 2,200 labor hours. 20 5 acre farms (the most you can reasonably operate solo without fossil fuel based equipment and inputs) are not only more productive because of their intensive management....they are providing 20 incomes with many more labor hours, as opposed to the one. So tell me why, if we had more people operating smaller, more intensively managed farms..we would need (or even could) reduce the pop? We'd have more food, and we'd need more people to make it, but the rate of yield increase outstrips the rate of population increase twice over at a minimum. Meanwhile, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that depopulation would reduce the economic incentives that lead to starvation.
It really is just something that some malcontent a hundred years ago thought up in his feverbrain while thinking of how to deal with the problem of the filthy poors.
We could continue, accepting that even in the greener future some application of fossil fuel is still acceptable. Staple grains, for example. Productivity plays out differently for staple grains. The larger the block the more efficient the planting and the less labor hours required. So, whereas dividing the globes vegetable production into smaller farms would produce more food, more available food, more affordable food, and better wages for producers......dividing up staple crop plantings has the opposite effect, and we need them, no matter how many of us there are. At present, only half of the worlds (poorly utilized) staple cropland is being used to feed people, and again, we already have more than enough to feed everyone. Limiting use to this application would be both reasonable and highly effective, as most of the footprint of staple crops doesn't come from their production - but their transport and marketing.
So..tell me, whats the carrying capacity of the earth, again? Why do we -need- to reduce the pop?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
