View Full Version : Climate change may disrupt global food system within a decade, World Bank says
Captain Obvious
08-27-2014, 11:12 AM
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-may-disrupt-global-food-system-within-a-decade-world-bank-says-20140827-108w8x.html
The world is headed "down a dangerous path" with disruption of the food system possible within a decade as climate change undermines nations' ability to feed themselves, according to a senior World Bank official.
Rising urban populations are contributing to expanded demand for meat, adding to nutrition shortages for the world's poor. Increased greenhouse gas emissions from livestock as well as land clearing will make farming more marginal in many regions, especially in developing nations, said Rachel Kyte, World Bank Group Vice President and special envoy for climate change.
"The challenges from waste to warming, spurred on by a growing population with a rising middle-class hunger for meat, are leading us down a dangerous path," Professor Kyte told the Crawford Fund 2014 annual conference in Canberra on Wednesday.
http://images.smh.com.au/2014/08/27/5710632/1409125297639.jpg-620x349.jpg
Peter1469
08-27-2014, 11:18 AM
I posted something a while back that showed that the current factory farming system (mono-crop system) is much more to blame for potential famine that climate change. Farmers have dealt with climate change since the beginning of farming.
Mister D
08-27-2014, 11:19 AM
The problem is that western science and medicine that have allowed Third World populations to explode in the last 50 to 60 years. Combined with atrocious post-colonial governance you have a disaster on your hands.
Peter1469
08-27-2014, 11:23 AM
World population is stabilizing. (http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C40/population_2011)
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/indicator1_2011_popgraph.PNG
Mister D
08-27-2014, 11:27 AM
World population is stabilizing. (http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C40/population_2011)
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/indicator1_2011_popgraph.PNG
Growth was explosive in the latter half of the 20th Century and I wouldn't call a projected increase of approximately 3 billion (mostly poor) people over the course of the 21st Century "stable".
Mister D
08-27-2014, 11:28 AM
Coupled with the liberal fantasy of boundless consumption...:shocked:
Peter1469
08-27-2014, 11:34 AM
The larger lesson was that Maltus was not just wrong, but consistently wrong.
Mister D
08-27-2014, 11:35 AM
The larger lesson was that Maltus was not just wrong, but consistently wrong.
Malthus isn't the issue.
Peter1469
08-27-2014, 11:45 AM
He predicted that man could not grow enough food to support the population in the late 1700s.
See the chart on population growth above.
Ethereal
08-27-2014, 12:22 PM
Let me guess. The solution requires more research grants to study "climate change", carbon taxes and credits to help cap and offset emissions, and infrastructure that will be financed by the World Bank and IMF.
Mister D
08-27-2014, 12:23 PM
He predicted that man could not grow enough food to support the population in the late 1700s.
See the chart on population growth above.
yes, I know that but that isn't the issue.
Ethereal
08-27-2014, 12:25 PM
Growth was explosive in the latter half of the 20th Century and I wouldn't call a projected increase of approximately 3 billion (mostly poor) people over the course of the 21st Century "stable".
Assuming those projections are correct, it's "stable" because a logarithmic growth curve implies a negative feedback loop, which further implies a stable system. That doesn't mean it will be without difficulty, though. It's just a technical term used in systems analysis.
Peter1469
08-27-2014, 12:27 PM
yes, I know that but that isn't the issue. Spell it out for me. I am dense. :smiley:
Mister D
08-27-2014, 12:32 PM
Spell it out for me. I am dense. :smiley:
Clearly, much of the global population has indeed outstripped its food supply or is very close to it. Moreover, the greater the human population the greater potential danger any sort of ecological or political calamity poses. Liberals...:rollseyes: :kiss:
Mister D
08-27-2014, 12:33 PM
Assuming those projections are correct, it's "stable" because a logarithmic growth curve implies a negative feedback loop, which further implies a stable system. That doesn't mean it will be without difficulty, though. It's just a technical term used in systems analysis.
I have no idea what that means. :smiley:
Peter1469
08-27-2014, 12:39 PM
Clearly, much of the global population has indeed outstripped its food supply or is very close to it. Moreover, the greater the human population the greater potential danger any sort of ecological or political calamity poses. Liberals...:rollseyes: :kiss:
Sustainable agriculture (http://www.sustainabletable.org/246/sustainable-agriculture-the-basics) is the key.
Ethereal
08-27-2014, 12:43 PM
I have no idea what that means. :smiley:
The projection that Pete provided for global population is a logarithmic growth curve.
http://i629.photobucket.com/albums/uu20/KEG1984/022264a25264494d993e8031a71bad43_zps639fc71c.jpg
In systems analysis, unstable and stable systems are a function of positive and negative feedback loops, respectively. A logarithmic growth curve implies a negative feedback loop, which further implies stability.
However, "stability" in this context does not necessarily mean "good" or "without difficulties". It just implies certain mathematical properties for a system.
World population is stabilizing. (http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C40/population_2011)
http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/graphs_tables/indicator1_2011_popgraph.PNG
Maybe all that Arab killing is doing some good.
Chris
08-27-2014, 01:03 PM
The projection that Pete provided for global population is a logarithmic growth curve.
http://i629.photobucket.com/albums/uu20/KEG1984/022264a25264494d993e8031a71bad43_zps639fc71c.jpg
In systems analysis, unstable and stable systems are a function of positive and negative feedback loops, respectively. A logarithmic growth curve implies a negative feedback loop, which further implies stability.
However, "stability" in this context does not necessarily mean "good" or "without difficulties". It just implies certain mathematical properties for a system.
Interesting. So, Ethereal, what do you think some of those negative feedbacks are? I think wealth is one, that as a people become wealthier, they don't need children to work the farm or factory to bring in income. Our wealth, lifestyle, has certainly improved:
http://i.snag.gy/99fFt.jpg
(Gregory Clarck's A Farewell to Alms)
Technology too has driven us apart in that sense too.
Ethereal
08-27-2014, 01:07 PM
Interesting. So, @Ethereal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=870), what do you think some of those negative feedbacks are? I think wealth is one, that as a people become wealthier, they don't need children to work the farm or factory to bring in income. Our wealth, lifestyle, has certainly improved:
http://i.snag.gy/99fFt.jpg
(Gregory Clarck's A Farewell to Alms)
Technology too has driven us apart in that sense too.
Yes, wealth is certainly part of the negative feedback loop, but the fundamental negative feedback in population growth is always resource scarcity.
Peter1469
08-27-2014, 01:28 PM
Yes, wealth and prosperity cuts down on population growth. Education, particularly of women as well.
Chris
08-27-2014, 02:38 PM
Yes, wealth is certainly part of the negative feedback loop, but the fundamental negative feedback in population growth is always resource scarcity.
IOW we never truly escape the Malthusian Trap.
Chris
08-27-2014, 02:39 PM
Yes, wealth and prosperity cuts down on population growth. Education, particularly of women as well.
Education another.
Peter1469
08-27-2014, 02:53 PM
IOW we never truly escape the Malthusian Trap. There is no Malthusian trap.
PolWatch
08-27-2014, 03:03 PM
Corp agriculture is responsible for most food crops today. They settle in and group the same crop, year after year. Small farmers know to rotate crops to keep the soil alive. Huge corp farms just add more chemicals. I wonder where the breaking point is...where you can't add enough chemicals to make up for the drained soil?
Chris
08-27-2014, 03:06 PM
"That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence" is true, population growth is limited by limited resources.
Corp agriculture is responsible for most food crops today. They settle in and group the same crop, year after year. Small farmers know to rotate crops to keep the soil alive. Huge corp farms just add more chemicals. I wonder where the breaking point is...where you can't add enough chemicals to make up for the drained soil?
Will you favor us with proof please to back up your claims? PolWatch
I don't know but it makes sense to me that your corporation farmers know about crop rotation also and follow best practices.
PolWatch
08-27-2014, 03:09 PM
"That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence" is true, population growth is limited by limited resources.
population control by means of famine?
PolWatch
08-27-2014, 03:14 PM
If you look up the major ag corps you will see that they each specialize in a particular crop. Click on the link provided by Peter...it explains it better than I can.
Captain Obvious
08-27-2014, 03:17 PM
population control by means of famine?
Chairman Mao was a master at it.
PolWatch
08-27-2014, 03:18 PM
famine & disease was an effective method of population control before medicine and improved farming methods. We have improved ourselves into a problem.
The Sage of Main Street
08-27-2014, 03:45 PM
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-change-may-disrupt-global-food-system-within-a-decade-world-bank-says-20140827-108w8x.html
http://images.smh.com.au/2014/08/27/5710632/1409125297639.jpg-620x349.jpg Maybe if they weren't too lazy to work at farming instead of indulging in the exciting psycho activity of warlord genocide, they wouldn't be starving.
The Sage of Main Street
08-27-2014, 03:51 PM
Sustainable agriculture (http://www.sustainabletable.org/246/sustainable-agriculture-the-basics) is the key. The low-IQ hunter-gatherer tribes follow the "Eat What You Kill" rule. They kill someone and then eat him.
Captain Obvious
08-27-2014, 04:29 PM
Maybe if they weren't too lazy to work at farming instead of indulging in the exciting psycho activity of warlord genocide, they wouldn't be starving.
I'm not sure how to react to that statement.
Chris
08-27-2014, 05:53 PM
population control by means of famine?
Pretty much, though this was a major factor in days past, modern agriculture has allowed an increase, but even it has its limits.
donttread
08-28-2014, 12:37 PM
So its all the weather and nothing to do with 7 billion of us over running the planet
The Sage of Main Street
08-28-2014, 01:22 PM
Maybe if they weren't too lazy to work at farming instead of indulging in the exciting psycho activity of warlord genocide, they wouldn't be starving.
I'm not sure how to react to that statement. Sorry, but I can't provide a link to some paid scribbler that would give it some Internet credibility.
Chris
08-28-2014, 01:30 PM
Sorry, but I can't provide a link to some paid scribbler that would give it some Internet credibility.
Explaining what you meant would probably do?
The Sage of Main Street
08-28-2014, 01:31 PM
So it's all the weather and nothing to do with 7 billion of us over running the planet We could fit a lot more if we encouraged our best minds properly, instead of letting the jealous and the parasites handle that. Investors are static, inventors are dynamic.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.