Gene,
You seem to miss my point again. I don't disagree with you that the
world could possibly sustain a higher population with an alternative
diet and that we could divert more oil and energy to food production if
we reduced our consumption generally, so that we would consume less oil
and thereby postpone the crunch when we have to start meeting all our
needs with less and less oil. But that is merely postponing the moment
when we will face the problem of a world wide decline in the supply of
food. It is not only a problem of declining availability of oil, but
also of water and, in the long run even more serious, a decline in the
supply of soil capable of growing crops. (see the growing literature on
'peak soil'.) All of these problems are exacerbated by climate change.
These are the factors that scientists take into account when they
calculate carrying capacity. The three billion figure I quoted was
based on the assumption of REDUCED consumption levels to an 'adequate
but healthy' diet so it takes into account the changes that you mention
(e.g. more grain, less meat). Still, it means a reduction in the world's
population by over half. Even if these scientific estimates err on the
low side by half, we are talking about a maximum population of 4 to 5
billion, well below the current population. As one writer on this
subject has noted, either we begin to reduce population by equitable and
humane policies -- including such things as increased education for, and
empowerment of, women, more promotion of and incentives for birth
control including pensions for childless and/or male childless couples
in developing countries, etc. -- or we take the business as usual path
and wait until nature does it for us through the Four Horsemen --
famine, war, pestilence and disease.
Paul Phillips
Eugene Coyle wrote:
Paul,
I thought your original post was very important. In my response I
wrote that the DISCUSSION veered off into Malthus and population, not
that you did. I did and do disagree with your emphasis on population
at the expense of discussing the consumption of the affluent, north
and south. What population can the world sustain? I don't know. But
it can sustain a lot more if people are eating grains instead of
feeding grain to beasts and then eating those. My point is that what
and how much people consume is important and, I think, needs to be
addressed head on and immediately. Yes, we are eating oil, but we are
also air conditioning large and larger houses with it, propelling
large and larger cars with it, flying more and more miles with it
etc. Or, more carefully, the affluent are.
Gene Coyle
--
Paul Phillips Professor Emertus, Economics University of Manitoba Home
and Office: 3806 - 36A st., Vernon BC, Canada. ViT 6E9 tel: 1 (250)
558-0830 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
