Keith, What you read was my first post here, I apologize for my lack of tech-saavy-ness. I was not familiar with the > system, hence my confusion on the author.
Let me try to restate....with some questions, since you guys are obviously more knowledgeable than I in these topics. What I meant was....perhaps small efficient farms are the best solution to producing good food with the least energy input, however, what about the world we live in? Small eficient farms would be great, and perhaps only 1 acre is needed to feed a family of four (for example, from another post), but what percentage of the population owns 1 acre of usable land? So, I was saying this would be a great solution, if all borders were erased, all cities destroyed, and we started all over again with an empty earth and the land was alloted 1 acre per every 4 person family. But I live in southwest America. I live in a city were there are thousands of people crammed into a small city, most of which is paved or housed, and the remainder of which will grow nearly nothing, not even weeds. From here, what do we do? And perhaps this is the case for most of the southwest, which millions of people call home, but most of the land seems unfertile in my eyes. I understand that there is a Nigeria for every Bangledesh, but those excess Bangledeshis will not move to Nigeria in order to balance things out, so what solutions do we have despite this? As far as the Bangeldeshis are concerned, THEIR world is overpopulated to the extent that they cannot feed their families sufficiently. Brian --- Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Mish, (or Keith?) > > It's clear which is which, unless your emailer > doesn't do >'s, in > which case I suggest you get another emailer. > > >True perhaps, as far as sustainability and > efficiency > >are concerned, small farms are the best solution. > >However, we have overpopulated this planet to such > a > >degree that there would never be enough land to > >support our populations with only small, efficient > >farms. > > Not true. The overpopulation problem is more > realistically a > marginalisation problem. There's plenty of room and > resources for > everyone and everything else too, except the greedy. > Check it out - > eco-footprinting's a not-bad place to start, it's > developed a lot in > recent years. Look at which societies exceed their > due allotment and > which don't, check the groups within those societies > which exceed > their due allotment and which don't. > > "Myth 3 - Too Many People. Reality: Birth rates are > falling rapidly > worldwide as remaining regions of the Third World > begin the > demographic transition -- when birth rates drop in > response to an > earlier decline in death rates. Although rapid > population growth > remains a serious concern in many countries, nowhere > does population > density explain hunger. For every Bangladesh, a > densely populated and > hungry country, we find a Nigeria, Brazil or > Bolivia, where abundant > food resources coexist with hunger. Costa Rica, with > only half of > Honduras' cropped acres per person, boasts a life > expectancy -- one > indicator of nutrition -- 11 years longer than that > of Honduras and > close to that of developed countries. Rapid > population growth is not > the root cause of hunger. Like hunger itself, it > results from > underlying inequities that deprive people, > especially poor women, of > economic opportunity and security. Rapid population > growth and hunger > are endemic to societies where land ownership, jobs, > education, > health care, and old age security are beyond the > reach of most > people. Those Third World societies with > dramatically successful > early and rapid reductions of population growth > rates -- China, Sri > Lanka, Colombia, Cuba and the Indian state of Kerala > -- prove that > the lives of the poor, especially poor women, must > improve before > they can choose to have fewer children." > http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/s98v5n3.html > 12 Myths About Hunger > > There's a very large amount of evidence for that. > > "A smaller increase in production would suffice if > its growth were > accompanied by more equitable access to food. This > could be achieved > through redistribution - of food itself, of the > means of producing it > or of the purchasing power needed to buy it -- to > those currently on > the lower rungs of the food access ladder." > Unfortunately, the > experience of the past thirty years shows no > significant decline in > inequity of access among households in most > countries." -- FAO > http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/OIS/PRESS_NE/PRESSENG/2001/pren0169.htm > > "Overpopulation" is a symptom, just as poverty and > hunger are > symptoms, and the cause is an inequitable economic > system. If > overpopulation were a reality it would indeed be an > intractable > problem; if poverty and hunger existed, and > increased as they do, > because there just wasn't enough to go round, that > too would be an > intractable problem. But a dysfunctional economic > system is not an > intractable problem. > > That's why I said this: > > > > >So instead of Manning's problem of agriculture, > we > > > have instead the > > > >problem of power, rather more convincing, IMO. > > > > > > > >Huxley said only angels can handle power > > > responsibly but they're not > > > >interested in the job, or something like that. > Most > > > people aren't. > > > > >=== message truncated === > > I don't believe that's an intractable problem > either. It went on: > > >>"It's said that 'power corrupts', but actually > it's more true that > >>power attracts the corruptible. The sane are > usually attracted by > >>other things than power. When they do act, they > think of it as > >>service, which has limits. The tyrant, though, > seeks mastery, for > >>which he is insatiable, implacable." (David Brin) > >> > >>Humans are just fine, nearly all of them. Their > institutions are > >>another matter. The story of history, the one vs > the other. It's a > >>story of steady progress, with constant setbacks. > > To go back to this: > > >True perhaps, as far as sustainability and > efficiency > >are concerned, small farms are the best solution. > >However, we have overpopulated this planet to such > a > >degree that there would never be enough land to > >support our populations with only small, efficient > >farms. > > Your logic defeats me. Would there then be enough > land to support our > populations with only large, inefficient farms? I > don't think you > meant to say "small, inefficient farms" - either > way, the first > doesn't seem to make any sense, and the second's > plain wrong: small > farms are indeed much more efficient and productive > than large farms, > everywhere in the world, including the US. That is > well documented. > > Your reading of the message you're responding to > seems strangely > patchy, if you even read it all. For instance, you > miss one entire > half of the picture, that of pastoralism, which is > not yet extinct > and counters just about everything you say. But > maybe you just fitted > it to your views and skipped the bits that didn't > fit. > > You quote Robert: > > >"So if people developed agriculture as a means to > >prevent starvation, > >and if the four major cereal crops contribute to > the > >break down of soil > >fertility, it seems very ironic that the strategy > used > >to ensure our > >survival and domination as a species could > contribute > >to our downfall." robert luis rabello > > But Robert wasn't attesting to that, he was doubting > it. There's not > much of a case for the idea that people developed > agriculture as a > means to prevent starvation, certainly not if they > were > hunter-gatherers, the hunter-gatherer strategy is > highly successful. > Agriculture arose in fertile river valleys, with no > such factor as a > dry season to bring hunger and force long forays. > There's no case for > the idea that the four major cereal crops > necessarily === message truncated === __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
