Certain subjects are immune to logic?

[roflwaffle]

That's true, but we still only use ~1% of energy for agriculture, and most of that is because we're growing grain to feed to livestock. IIRC, cutting meat consumption down to what other first world countries are at would free up enough farm land to feed a ~billion people using grain.

[chuckm]

Originally Posted by Bicycle Bob

Modern agriculture is totally dependent on oil, so current trends cannot continue. Part of California's central valley is being lost to salt accumulation from bad irrigation, and many other productive areas are dependent on aquifers that are quickly being depleted. Desalinization is energy-intensive, as would be running rivers backward to the fields.
GM crops are less productive than traditional seeds - they are designed to sell chemicals and promote a monopoly, while causing health problems.
Aquaculture is dependent on converting less-desireable ocean species to salmon, etc, at a great loss in protein overall, while the farms spread disease and overfishing, ocean acidification, etc, are only helping the jellyfish. My own well was ruined by nearby aquaculture hatchery tanks when I lived on the coast. The fish farms in Chile crashed recently, and the ones in BC are always in trouble, or making trouble for the wild population.
If the whole world copies our high-energy, non-sustainable practises, climate chaos is certain. What would really ease the situation is more awareness that vegetarians who get a good variety of plants live longer, healthier lives on a small fraction of the land needed to raise and slaughter animals for food.

A couple of items:
Is modern agriculture really "totally dependent on oil"? Point 1: Many fertilizers are fossil-derived, true. But the primary source of fertilizer nitrogen is ammonia, produced via natural gas, not oil. But as it becomes more economical, ammonia derived from agricultural urine will likely gain more traction. Point 2: Tractor and combine use of oil, which constitute 19% of agricultural energy consumption, will benefit from many of the technology advances in automobiles. Moreso, really, considering the difference in use cycles.

Regarding irrigation and desalination: Agreed... but with some additional thoughts. As the problems become more apparent in the US, we have the good fortune of being one of the few countries facing both the need and having the economic capacity to develop and deploy desalination technologies. That's why I said, "within ten to fifteen years, high volume production {of potable water from seawater} will be far more economical." Companies will compete where there is money to be made (again, need and economic capacity).

"GM crops are less productive than traditional seeds" - I'm not sure what figures you are using to get here, but they are patently false. (I'm including selective interbreeding of crop strains into my definition of GM.) For example, Borlaug's work in developing nations resulted in increases in wheat yield from 750kg/Ha in the 1950s to ~2300kg/Ha, with India acheiving almost 4500kg/Ha. "Bt" cotton farming greatly reduced pesticide use while increasing productivity.

"{GM crops} are designed to sell chemicals and promote a monopoly, while causing health problems" - True... but only in parts. Pesticide and herbicide resistance are only two of the commonly GM components. Others include inherent insect resistance, virus immunity (yellow mosaic for example), rust immunity, etc. The "Roundup Resistant" crops are not the end-all of GM crops. As for the health problems, I've yet to see a properly vetted and confirmed study showing any resulting health issues. Certainly, if you eat any wheat-containing products, you already eat the results of Borlaug's work in developing hybridized wheat.

Regarding aquaculture: I actually was not referring to oceanic fisheries, but to oceanic hydroponic farms (hence the "not to distant technology" remark; fisheries are a "here and now" tech). The current harvesting of kelp and other seaweeds is merely the tip of the iceburg.

Re vegetarianism: I don't have any problem with the idea that vegetarianism is less resource intensive than omnivorism. But if you are truly opposed to GM crops, even vegetarianism is screwed.

[Bicycle Bob]

I'm all in favour of plant breeding for better yields. Our local economy is based on the work of schoolchildren who competed to select the very best wheat seeds for a tiny test plot. Direct genetic tinkering, however, is well known for reducing soy output by 10%, and high-fructose corn is widely implicated in health problems. The pollen from these varieties is destroying the option to farm organically. There is no more organic canola, for instance.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

It's worked sometimes and other times it hasn't worked, so I don't think simply stating it's an option w/o more depth is correct. Sometimes people will oppose something violently and achieve their goals (American Revolution), and sometimes people will oppose something violently and be slaughtered (Bosnian War). Just because we say something will work doesn't mean it will actually work.

I don't see how people who consume ~30 times more energy per capita can complain about someone in another country having twice as many children. Maybe if people in this thread were all using ~50kWh/month of electricity, drove vehicles that averaged ~350mpg, and so on, then they would have a platform that was at least not riddled with hypocrisy, but as it stands that isn't the case AFAIK. Complaining about other people of similar consumption habits having more kids makes sense I suppose, but not complaining about people having twice as many kids when they only consume a thirtieth of the resources.

My POV is it's about QUALITY of life, something that hasn't been considered in the strict "is it physically possible to max out human pop per square inch" discussions. Do the Haitians use 50 kwh/mo? Do their vehicles get 350 mpg? They may be consuming 1/30 the resources of the average American but I'd wager they aren't consuming 1/30 the resources I do. Even if they were, it still comes down to quality of life; I'm not going to eat dirt in order to gain some moral ground here. I think it's sad and pathetic that they selfishly choose to put more people (their children and everyone else there too) in that situation... and for what? Nobody can ever explain what purpose it serves to max out one's reproductive capabilities. I think it's because they don't want to admit it is nothing more than egomania.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by chuckm

I have problems with postulate B. Regarding food production, thanks to Norman Borlaug's work, we are still far from mass starvation due to an inadequate food supply. The problem today is the economics of food distribution. But consider how many farms have gone fallow in the US alone (we are the world's most productive agricultural powerhouse, both in terms of total harvest and, more importantly, in yield per acre). If current US agri practices could be implemented worldwide, our population could comfortably double. Continuing the advances in genetic engineering of crops, I think we could well sustain triple (or more) the current world population. Throw in the not too distant technology of oceanic aquaculture, and the real food production potential is unbelievable.
The other primary resource necessary for life, water, is a stickier issue. However, current technology puts large-scale purification of ocean water within reach. Again, the problem is the economics. I firmly believe that, within ten to fifteen years, high volume production will be far more economical, enough that even many of the poorest nations will be able to afford the technology.
Other necessities (shelter and power) are also technologically within reach. Once again, it is the economics. That's why I am strident in my belief that bringing about economic prosperity in third-world countries, not a first-world return to "simple" living, will produce the best results. "Green" or environomentally friendly tech is available only to those who are able to afford it.

I don't think so, but I'll suspend that for now and play along. The question then is, why would we want to do this?

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

That's true, but we still only use ~1% of energy for agriculture, and most of that is because we're growing grain to feed to livestock. IIRC, cutting meat consumption down to what other first world countries are at would free up enough farm land to feed a ~billion people using grain.

Oh goodie, another billion!

I yoosta be able to go from point A to point B, just like that. In the space of 30 years, now between A and B it has all been filled in with "development" and I have to stop 40 times. Old days = cruise right through; Now = accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. Right? Right. That's how it is. In California the population doubled in the last 35 years. What will it be like 35 years from now? Here's a hint: accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait.

[roflwaffle]

In terms of quality of life we can only apply that judgment to ourselves, not others IMO. Resource consumption otoh, is a quantity, and is something we could reasonably compare each other w/, although it's not even like the two are exclusive. People can have relatively high energy consumption and low quality of life and vice versa.

[Frank Lee]

I believe it can be quantified to a useful degree.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Oh goodie, another billion!

I yoosta be able to go from point A to point B, just like that. In the space of 30 years, now between A and B it has all been filled in and I have to stop 40 times. Old days = cruise right through; Now = accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. Right? Right. That's how it is. In California the population doubled in the last 35 years. What will it be like 35 years from now? Here's a hint: accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait. accel, brake, stop, wait.

Or not...

What's with the whining anyway? If ya don't like sprawl, up and move to the boonies.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I believe it can be quantified to a useful degree.

You also believed that population was growing exponentially.