nickdutch wrote:There are too many people in the world for us to return 100% to an old time. We need to keep everyone alive. .
there are already too many people on this planet and we dont have the land (even with GM) to feed everyone.
Hi Bulldog eagle and NickDutch,
I do not agree with your statements.
There are 15 million square kilometres of viable agricultural land on plant earth. Assuming a daily calorific requirement for good health of 2400 calories per person and taking the actual world agricultural produce over the 12 months Sep. 10 to Aug. 11 (Everything from Corn to cows) we can calculate the average calorific product per square kilometre. Dividing one number into the other would suggest that we can support 23 billion people on earth at current agricultural production levels.
There are local factors that would reduce this figure in real terms (for example, Rhodesia, Sorry Zimbabwe, could feed the entire African continent with ease (and historically almost did) but some local recent political difficulties reduced output by 75%).
The figures above do not take into account any food resource available from the seas and oceans so this would defray the prior negatives somewhat.
Tommy
Whilst the numbers seem real enough, people even today in an industrial society are starving. I don't have an issue with the amount of resources or potential resources being left if SHTF but it will be those persons ability to access and leverage them that becomes the determining factor. What percentage of born and bred city folk do you think could farm, forage, collect resources once the supermarkets are picked clean?
nickdutch wrote:There are too many people in the world for us to return 100% to an old time. We need to keep everyone alive. .
there are already too many people on this planet and we dont have the land (even with GM) to feed everyone.
Hi Bulldog eagle and NickDutch,
I do not agree with your statements.
There are 15 million square kilometres of viable agricultural land on plant earth Dividing one number into the other would suggest that we can support 23 billion people on earth at current agricultural production levels.
Tommy
tommy, the trouble is, with more people we have to take land to build houses for all that extra population, every house you build diminishes the land available to grow food or breed animals, eventually you get to a point where there isnt enough land to feed ALL the people, to say nothing of the demands on infrastructure, power, heat, waste disposal including human waste, transport etc.etc. in any case i dont think i would want to live in a place that has so many people, my opinion has always been that the human race will BREED itself out of existence.
Am I the only one who doesn't care about Africa? or India or Timbuktoo or Outer Mongolia either!
If things get any tougher than it then life isn't going to full of loving kindness to other people. Charity begins at home and in hard times you need to look after your own. I know you'll all go mad at me for that but it's true. When people are really desperate then kindness goes out of the window fast.
diamond lil wrote:Am I the only one who doesn't care about Africa? or India or Timbuktoo or Outer Mongolia either!
If things get any tougher than it then life isn't going to full of loving kindness to other people. Charity begins at home and in hard times you need to look after your own. I know you'll all go mad at me for that but it's true. When people are really desperate then kindness goes out of the window fast.
Lil, You are not alone, whilst I have symapathy for others, I have to look after me and mine first.
Two is one and one is none, but three is even better.
diamond lil wrote:Am I the only one who doesn't care about Africa? or India or Timbuktoo or Outer Mongolia either!
If things get any tougher than it then life isn't going to full of loving kindness to other people. Charity begins at home and in hard times you need to look after your own. I know you'll all go mad at me for that but it's true. When people are really desperate then kindness goes out of the window fast.
Whilst it may be true that some seasonal religious dude may have once said some two millennium ago, "love your neighbor as yourself", that does presuppose that you have loved yourself FIRST to the point whereby you are strong enough to be able to care for another.
There is nothing wrong in your statement.
I don't see you as an uncharitable person otherwise you would not be sharing your knowledge and being a part of an online British community.
We may all need to rely upon each-other one day.
Lets stay as friends
reperio a solutio
Resident and Co-Ordinator of AREA 2 Area 2 = Hampshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Bucks
What percentage of born and bred city folk do you think could farm, forage, collect resources once the supermarkets are picked clean?
[/quote]
not many, past what they can do in their own garden, most city people do not like/are afraid of the countryside and would not have the first clue what is or isnt edible, how many city folk these days can lay and light a fire even if the had resourses to hand? most city people-especially the younger ones- have no idea where their food comes from-apart from the supermarket, once that is gone they dont even know what animals are indigenous to this country.
clearthedecks wrote: in a world of diminishing resources the only sustainable systems will be those that are pre oil. The future lies in the past and returning to an agrarian life.
Saloth Sar (1925-1998) held a similar opinion.
Tommy
Bet I wasn't the only one who had to google that name [/quote]
I used the birth name rather than Pol Pot because I felt that that was too confrontational. My intention was not to belittle or disregard Clearthedecks point of view, it was to point out that some approaches have unintended consequences or outcomes.
I am always very careful when I post on this particular forum as some folk seem to be really touchy.
I used the birth name rather than Pol Pot because I felt that that was too confrontational. My intention was not to belittle or disregard Clearthedecks point of view, it was to point out that some approaches have unintended consequences or outcomes.
I am always very careful when I post on this particular forum as some folk seem to be really touchy.
I wouldn't worry too much about people being touchy, a good debate/argument is always good, at least until it strays into personal insults (guilty m'lud...but he did deserve it ), as long as people can back up their argument with facts or logic then we can all learn something
Life would be boring without the odd argument...unless of course you all agreed with me then the world would be perfect
