End Of Cheap Food?

Simple :::::

Reinstitute colonialism and stop the developing nations from getting as greedy as us.

It is our technology and expertise over 100 years that these blighters are using.

So stop the 3rd world wanting more.

They should just be grateful for what they have, that way i can upgrade to a 500 tri amp series system with fffiiinnnn big speakers.

Damn the developing world spoiling our first world fun.

regards a former colonial

David
East Africa, Hong Kong.
Now in the Antipodes.

Hugely complex issue.

I have heard it said that if we planned production sensibly we could easily feed the current, and indeed the expanding, world population. This is particullarly true if we turned away from meat production. I also read an article this weekend about fish farming. The exact numbers escape me but the principle was that much commercial fish farming uses more feed than it produces in terms of fish output. Illogical and vaguely obscene.

I find the biofuel argument very unconvincing. Allowing agricultural land to move away from food production to allow us to continue our devotion to the motorcar appears daft.

Bruce

Personally, I think the population should be culled (not literally!) by adopting China's one child per family rule. There's no need whatsoever for so many people on this grotty rock - humans are a waste of space compared to most other species.

At least t'other species don't rape their environment and kill each other over resources that aren't entirely necessary. You don't need to drive kids to school, for one thing.

Buy local, buy seasonal and don't kill the planet.

Simple really.

Jono

P.S. Technology will be the end of us!

George

The developed world will pay whatever it costs. The developing countries will starve.
It will always be this way.

quote:

Originally posted by Jono 13:
Buy local, buy seasonal and don't kill the planet.

Simple really.

Jono

P.S. Technology will be the end of us!

"the gentle slopes of the Malvern Hills" don't supply enough food for even 1% of its residents: the UK does not provide enough for 50% of its needs.

Simple?

domfjbrown:

quote:

Personally, I think the population should be culled (not literally!) by adopting China's one child per family rule.

Quite frankly I think that would be the must unbelievably disgusting thing imaginable. Do you actually know anything about the one child policy? The unbelievable suffering it causes?

What right do the state, or anyone else for that matter have to regulate reproduction? If they do have that right, why not go further? Why not stop people with genetic problems, or too little income to support a child reproducing, to prevent them becoming a burden on the state and environment? Or even only let the most brilliant intellects and most accomplished athletes reproduce to create the master race?

How are you going to enforce your policy, carry out abortions on women who already have a child, against their will? You want the state to murder millions of innocent unborn children and violate the bodies of women in order to do so?

Why stop there? You have already abandoned all concept of morality. Why don't you gas the handicapped, the elderly and/or infirm, those who oppose your new regime, the unemployed even?

I suppose you think I'm overreacting? I don't think so. The Nazis started off sterilising the disabled. They, like you concluded that it was acceptable for the state to regulate reproduction for "the greater good". Then took that concept to its conclusion, that the state has the right to decide who lives and dies. (It's hardly a large step from deciding that the state has the right to prevent people being born in the first place.) Something that culminated in a systematic eradication of the Jewish and Roma races, gay men, the disabled, all political opposition, Jehovah's Witnesses and other "perverse" religions, even Soviet prisoners of war who were not treated as prisoners of war as they were not regarded to be Aryan and therefore subhuman.

I do not know whether you are entirely amoral, or just incredibly stupid. You must be one or the other to write such a thing.

Seriously although Herefordshire and the Severn Valley do produce a lot of food, whether it is enough to support the local population is a moot point.

Probably not, but as 20% of the population is of 70 years old it will become less important than a ready supply of jumbo nappies .

Jono

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:
End Of Cheap Food?

With wheat price having doubled in the last twelve months, the correspondent on BBC Radio Four [at just after 06:30 GMT] explained that the top reason was that food production is no longer well in excess of demand.

Two factors were said to be at work. Firstly the spiralling human population, and secondly and the rising standards of living in many poorer nations had significantly increased demand.

Should Agriculturalists go all out to grow food at any cost to the environment, or should the Governments of the World's Nations aim to curb the human population, as the current level of food production is already unsustainable given its already huge dependence of fossil fuels and industrial methods of intensive production?

If anyone has any other courses of action that might be taken to avoid a disaster, I am sure that these would also make interesting and even crucial reading.

George

Sorry George,

I always seem to end up going on a rant on your threads! But that really angered me, to my mind the one child policy in China is just about the most immoral thing going on in the world at the moment, probably surpassed only by genocide. That comment about stopping the third world wanting more rather angered me too. Some people are unbelievable.


Back to the original point of the thread. Had it occurred to anyone else that a rise in food prices could be good in some respects? It would encourage people not to waste so much food, and also make it possible for a farmer using less intensive farming methods to make a living from selling produce direct to people, shops and restaurants in the local area.

Regards,


Dom

Time to start digging up and planting the patio!

Andrew

quote:

Originally posted by djftw:
That comment about stopping the third world wanting more rather angered me too.

I think it was meant as a joke, boss.


You can either control the population artificially, as they do in China, or the old fashioned way, with wars and starvation. As Nigel says, it comes down to supply and demand.

It's a complicated question/solution and I wouldn't want to be the one to decide...



Mac

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
George

The developed world will pay whatever it costs. The developing countries will starve.
It will always be this way.

Only because you want it to be, Nigel.

That has got the debate juices going.

It was not quite my intention to get them boiling, but that is part of debate and a good thing.

All I did was listen to a report on the Today Programme this morning and report the proposition and the solutions, which were discussed without any particular sense that any would work.

A few mornings ago there was a Farming Programme discussion on this very issue, and the proposition was that though it may be bad for the planet, in practice food will be produced at an increasingly unsustainable way, with the destruction of the Rain Forests and so on. This was a discussion that was mindful of the fact that the old First World indeed has absolutely no right to tell the old Third World how to run their own countries regardless of the cost and probable eventual demise of a large part of the human race, as a result.

I am making my contribution. I have absolutely no intention of fathering any children however much personal pleasure it might give me, but I see no reason why anyone should follow me in this. I have also got an idea that by carrying on enjoying such simple pleasures as smoking, that I shall ensure that I shorten, possibly significantly, my own life ...

As for the solution, it will take a great change of approach in the whole of the world's population. Governments cannot in my view generally prevent population growth. Nature however can, and certainly will.

George

Someone once told me, in my more politically aware days, that the world produced enough food to feed the population three times over and yet two thirds of the world are starving. Is this not still the case? A serious question, as I am a bit out of touch these days with current affairs. If it is, or close to that, it still seems to me a question of distribution and politics as much as anything else.

But, politics aside, I agree we should try to buy and eat more locally grown produce and eat less meat and fish as, as Bruce mentioned, these are very inefficient methods of producing food.

Steeve

On the issue of increasing per capita food consumption in the old Third World countries, this is entirely due to increasing economic power and individual as well as national wealth. Essentially this is a part of closing the gap in wealth [albeit incrementally] between the old Third World and the old First World. The result is that highly inefficient to produce meat is gaining popularity.

I think a new divide may emerge between nations like Chine and Indian compared to nations that remain resolutely poor as so many in Africa ...

But what has happened is that there is no longer a surplus of wheat and other grains in the commodity markets, and that is worrying, because it also tends to make the poorest nations even less able to afford to feed themselves even on the simplest and most efficient of food production regimes, which remain the human consumption of grains directly by humans rather than feeding grains to animals for meat production.

As a matter of interest it emerges that we are currently producing 60 per cent of our UK food consumption, which is exactly the proportion we were producing in 1945.

George

Dear DFTJW,

I am concerned at your response because of one major reason.

Is it worse to prevent a child being born

or

Allow that child to die slowly and painfully of malnutrition disease etc etc.

I believe one of the worst examples is Brazil where many children are born and are cast out at a very young age to fend for themselves. They are the Favella children.

In the animal world population is regulated by environment. Not enough food, you dont reproduce and you die.

Mankind cheats nature and thus is able to sustain very high density populations despite inadequate food locally.

We import the food to feed ourselves without any thought for where it comes from.

Many peoples in this world grow food for us which they themselves cannot eat as they sell it to us.

Perverse.

Look at the obesity in the 1st world, many people eat enough food to feed a whole family hence their obesity. This is obscene.

my parents generation suffered the privations of the 2nd world war and had to supplement rationing with what they could grow in their gardens and allottments.

Perhaps we should return to food rationing and self subsistence. Dont grow it cant eat it.

Why poach from the poor when we could do so much more for ourselves by eating less and eating more healthily.

regards David

quote:

Originally posted by rupert bear:

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
George

The developed world will pay whatever it costs. The developing countries will starve.
It will always be this way.

Only because you want it to be, Nigel.

So why don't you save the world?

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

quote:

Originally posted by rupert bear:

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
George

The developed world will pay whatever it costs. The developing countries will starve.
It will always be this way.

Only because you want it to be, Nigel.

So why don't you save the world?

I'll need your contribution as well.

OK, So what do we do?

quote:

Time to start digging up and planting the patio!

Funnily enough I started last weekend. preparing to replace plants grown for looks with plants grown for food. Not digging up the patio though.

quote:

Originally posted by djftw:
domfjbrown:
[QUOTE] Personally, I think the population should be culled (not literally!) by adopting China's one child per family rule.

quote:

Originally posted by djftw:
Quite frankly I think that would be the must unbelievably disgusting thing imaginable. Do you actually know anything about the one child policy? The unbelievable suffering it causes?

First off - LEARN TO READ. I'm not advocating killing people already alive. That's a Hitler thing - and if I'd been alive when he was around, I wouldn't now. Read on...

quote:

Originally posted by djftw:What right do the state, or anyone else for that matter have to regulate reproduction? If they do have that right, why not go further? Why not stop people with genetic problems

*I* have genetic problems, and am thus sensible and selfless enough to NOT WANT TO PASS THEM ON. I was born with a rare syndrome, and attended a blind school. Some of my friends there are selfishly reproducing despite disorders that can be passed on. You think *I'm* being selfish? At least I'm not knowingly having kids who are going to grow up with physical disadvantages and prejudice against them. The DDA isn't worth the paper it's written on - try living "in the real world" with physical handicaps - it's a pain in the arse.

quote:

Originally posted by djftw:Why stop there? You have already abandoned all concept of morality. Why don't you gas the handicapped, the elderly and/or infirm, those who oppose your new regime, the unemployed even?

As I say, that's a Hitler-ish thing, and I'd be a total hypocrite to condone that, since, if we'd lost the war and I was around in the '40s, I wouldn't be here now.

HOWEVER - I fully endorse voluntary euthanasia; if I ever become more of a burden than I am now, I want the freedom of choice to top out without society treating me like a criminal. Everyone should have the right to die as well as the right to live.

quote:

Originally posted by djftw:I suppose you think I'm overreacting? I don't think so. The Nazis started off sterilising the disabled. They, like you concluded that it was acceptable for the state to regulate reproduction for "the greater good".

Since I've been single since forever, I've never considered sterilisation. IF I ever get into a long term relationship, however, you're damn right I'll get the snip. I REFUSE to knowingly have a disabled child through my own fault, and thoroughly resent my natural mum (I'm adopted, thank god - I'd never want to be related to someone that selfish) for keeping me to term. I do alright in life, but I'd still rather not have been me and been someone who isn't disabled, thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by djftw:
I do not know whether you are entirely amoral, or just incredibly stupid. You must be one or the other to write such a thing.

I'm neither. I have mitigating circumstances for what I wrote. China doesn't cull living people for the 1-child per family rule (unless you count parents' messed-up obsession with having male babies).

I'm sorry, but there are simply too many humans on this planet - PERIOD. Peak oil's gone, and we're donald ducked if we DON'T do something drastic. We've outsmarted nature after all - it didn't half try with AIDS, and we are beating it. It WILL find a way of getting rid of most of us if we don't do the job ourselves.

quote:

Originally posted by DAVOhorn:
Simple :::::

Reinstitute colonialism and stop the developing nations from getting as greedy as us.

It is our technology and expertise over 100 years that these blighters are using.

So stop the 3rd world wanting more.

They should just be grateful for what they have, that way i can upgrade to a 500 tri amp series system with fffiiinnnn big speakers.

Damn the developing world spoiling our first world fun.

regards a former colonial

David
East Africa, Hong Kong.
Now in the Antipodes.

A very balanced view.

quote:

Originally posted by rupert bear:

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:
George

The developed world will pay whatever it costs. The developing countries will starve.
It will always be this way.

Only because you want it to be, Nigel.

Hi Rupert

Are you saying it is all Nigel's fault then?
A bit harsh IMHO.

Rotf

Look folks, the answer is here

quote:

Originally posted by djftw:
domfjbrown:

quote:

Personally, I think the population should be culled (not literally!) by adopting China's one child per family rule.

Quite frankly I think that would be the must unbelievably disgusting thing imaginable. Do you actually know anything about the one child policy? The unbelievable suffering it causes?

What right do the state, or anyone else for that matter have to regulate reproduction? If they do have that right, why not go further?

Hi Dom

I'm sure djftw is right in principle; we have to act because Earths' resources are as finite as the environments ability to absorb current human activity. It seems to me The Catholic Churches' teaching & policy re: contraception is just another form of population control.

Unless we do something we, or our children, or their children will be living through an environmental disaster. All is not lost - if we use technology wisely, we can significantly reduce our harm to the environment.

As Friends of the Earth say "Think globally, act locally." Growing your own is a very good start environmentally. Also greatly improves the quality of your food, it's much healthier & much (much!) cheaper IME.

It would be good for Naim to do more for the environment too!

Dom B,

I can read funnily enough, although I may not have made myself clear enough in my anger. All my criticism was directed at your suggestion that a 'one child policy' be adopted. I did not believe that you were advocating literally culling the population.

If you choose not to reproduce in order not to pass on your syndrome I think that is very noble of you, not to mention a hard decision to make. However, unless someone is not of sound mind I do not see how anyone but themselves has the right to make that decision for them. I would agree with your view on voluntary euthanasia on the same grounds, if someone is of sound mind no-one has the right to force them to continue living. However, it would be wrong to expect someone to help you unless they agree with your decision and are comfortable with it.

I pity you that you consider your own life so worthless that you resent your birth mother for not terminating you, but I think that you are not the rule. I have two adopted cousins, one with Down's Syndrome, one with Foetal Alcohol Syndrome and I cannot for the life of me imagine how anyone could think they should never have been born. They are two of the happiest and kindest people I know, and for all that they have been a huge amount of work for my aunt and uncle they love them utterly. I also had a friend at University who had a myriad of problems as a result of Spina Bifida. She died on her 23rd birthday. She once told me her mother had been advised by the Doctor to have a termination, but did not, she was glad that she hadn't. She only lived 23 years, and not all of them in a great degree of comfort. Yet I cannot understand how anyone could have considered denying her those 23 years, or for that matter denying her friends the pleasure of knowing her.

I still regard your views as immoral, although I perhaps understand how you have come to hold them better.

Regards,


Dom T