Tom,
>I am having difficulty understanding why you feel required to tie this to
>economic or political boundaries.
I don't care much about the type of boundaries as long as there is some data about
the differences betweem both sides.
>Surely the minimum amount of food
>necessary to live anywhere is roughly the same?
Yes, but the perceptions of this minimum is different, which shows that we may not
have a good idea of what it truely is.
>Any way you
>convolute the distribution, if less Big Macs are produced, fewer babies are
>born.
Sorry for not believing. I've yet to see evidence of that, like a higher population
growth where food is cheaper.
>Food is *realatively* cheap for anyone on the planet, because at the moment
>"cheap" is defined without cognizance of land depletion, fouled water, etc.
I'm not disputing that. But I don't get the connection with the rest of the discussion.
>Quit messing with our heads, dude. You were arguing the obverse of this coin
>with Tony only weeks ago.
I often do argue different sides of the coin to different people or at different
scales
(macro vs. micro). But I can not remember what you're talking about. I haven't
argued anything with Tony for a while.
Anyway, you're right. I've been doing too much "crashlisting" lately.
>You can say "yes" to the reverse as well.
Yes, an as long as I can say yes to that many thing, I'm not going to believe in any
determinism in the field and admit I'm pretty much ignorant.
>And against all supposed
>capitalist free market rules, farmers continue to grow food at an economic
>loss.
I'm not sure to understand what you mean. Some farmers have gone out of
business. Quite a lot over the years as a result of low prices. I don't know much
about the US, but why would it only be happening in Europe with similar policies?
>And a very great amount of food is grown outside of the "market",
Of course. Hey, YOU brought trade in this argument.
>I am sorry, but you must work harder to convince me that
>economics is the main engine that drives population.
That's a misunderstranding. What I was trying to say is that economics determine
who is fed and who isn't (in relation with the natural base, of course), not that it
drives
population. Remember, I am a sceptic. I have a hard time beliving that food supply
drives populations anyway (except as a limiting factor of course, and what you said
about death rates).
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
