How to Feed the World

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Joe84 wrote:
I agree, countries should look after themselves and not worry about overpopulated bumfuck countries that can’t seem to understand the concept of not bringing mouthes they can’t feed into the world.

This is a fallacy. There is no such thing as “overpopulation”. It’s like saying “overproduction.” Many non-industrialized nations are heavily dependent on agriculture as a mainstay of their economy and would do well with a larger population of laborers to work fields with a corresponding lack of agricultural related capital. The real problem is the fact that the populations that exist are not being utilized to best serve their own productive capacity. The governments that exist in many of these countries actually create the disparity we associate with “overpopulation” by over-regulation and a lack of respect for property. There are more than enough resources to feed the world population; its just a matter of government getting out of the way to let people feed themselves.

People will always reproduce when the benefit of an extra pair of hands is outweighed by the mouth that needs to be fed in the meantime to get those productive hands. We see this as the law of marginal utility. For example, in the US we have little need for a family of 10 to run a farm anymore nor do most American families see a potential benefit in an extra pair of hands compared to the cost of raising a child to a productive capacity – for that matter children are no longer looked as productive property anymore because of industrialization. In developing nations the extra mouth to feed is still seen as a positive investment. More people always mean more potential for productivity.

The concept of overpopulation is a conspiracy created by enviro-nutjob, tree-huggers and government. Somehow the most densely populated regions of the world (India and China) have figured out how to feed themselves yet the least densely populated (African nations) can’t manage because of government corruption and moral hazard created by foreign gov’t aid.

To answer the OP, it is a matter of supply and demand (cost and price) that will determine what foods a given population can and will enjoy.  Buy meat now while it is cheap due to farmers selling at a loss because of rising grain prices.  Next season there will be less meat produced and prices will rise.  

(By the way, there is no such thing as all grass-fed meat unless it is roaming wild when it is killed.  Even farm-raised, grass-fed beef is fed a grain diet for at least 90 days before going to market to help it gain weight.  Ask your butcher for the specifics.)[/quote]


Ahh, I don't think so, there is such a thing as over population, it happens all the time in the wild. Over population is the carrying capactiy of a piece of land given the resources that are on it.

I'm aware that they don't use their resources properly and could get more food out of their land, however it does not matter because they aren't doing it currently. If their current way of life cannot support their population then they are over populated.

Perhaps you like the densely crowded shithole cities that occupy many countries, I do not,and I don't see why anyone would encourage it. The less poeple there are the more resources there are available. 

[quote]Joe84 wrote:
Perhaps you like the densely crowded shithole cities that occupy many countries, I do not,and I don’t see why anyone would encourage it. The less poeple there are the more resources there are available. [/quote]

What does it matter how many resources there are when there are no productive hands to utilize them and make them usefull?

You could have all the resources for your existence at your disposal on a deserted island but have no access to them due to a lack of skill in producing them. This is the equivalent of poverty. On the other hand, you could have all the population you need to produce the goods you desire on this island but instead have a problem with OVERCONSUMPTION – which also leads to poverty. Production must alway at least meet the levels of consumption to be sustainable. More people always mean the potential for more productivity.

Famine is nothing new to civilization.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Get out the Door wrote:
Im 3 weeks into macroeconomics here in spring semester, and one of the first topics we covered is about economic growth and the link to governments respect for personal property and value.

After you are done with your state sponsored economics class you will need to be educated back to reality. Read the following short (comparatively) pdf book and then revisit your class notes:

I think it will help explain some of the concepts your prof could not.[/quote]

Thank You

To feed the world get rid of Genetically Modified seeds.

I sympathize with some of Pollan’s positions and have enjoyed his books but the idea that we should all just eat corn and grain for the good of the masses is pure shit.

Human population growth decrease naturally once a society achieves complete electrification and mass mechanized labor. This decrease in population growth is simultaneously accompanied by increased literacy and a decline of infant mortality. Quality over quantity.

The solution is improving the worlds energy infrastructure and production capacity and population stresses including food scarcity will naturally take care of them selves.

The dubious viability of corn as a biofuel in North America is a valid point but hoping people will lose their natural taste for meat for the good of poor populations is stupidity and wishful thinking at best and fascism at worst.

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
I sympathize with some of Pollan’s positions and have enjoyed his books but the idea that we should all just eat corn and grain for the good of the masses is pure shit.

Human population growth decrease naturally once a society achieves complete electrification and mass mechanized labor. This decrease in population growth is simultaneously accompanied by increased literacy and a decline of infant mortality. Quality over quantity.

The solution is improving the worlds energy infrastructure and production capacity and population stresses including food scarcity will naturally take care of them selves.

The dubious viability of corn as a biofuel in North America is a valid point but hoping people will lose their natural taste for meat for the good of poor populations is stupidity and wishful thinking at best and fascism at worst.

[/quote]

Well said.

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
The dubious viability of corn as a biofuel in North America is a valid point but hoping people will lose their natural taste for meat for the good of poor populations is stupidity and wishful thinking at best and fascism at worst.[/quote]

Very true. Thinking that you can change thousands of years of evolution is well beyond moronic.

[quote]Natural Nate wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
I’m racist. And quite possibly genocidal.

Yes. Yes you are.

Haha!!!

Nominal I dare you to basically agree. You know you want to.[/quote]

Any person who acknowledges the concept of race, even at its most superficial level (for instance, via recognition that “black people” exist as a group distinct from “whites”) is, strictly speaking, a “racist”. Beyond that, we’re arguing semantics.

That’s one way for me to answer the question.

The other way would be for me to say, of course I’m a racist - I’m male. To be anti-racist is to be anti-male.

Discrimination is a basic survival skill. Human life would be impossible without it.

My views on overpopulation categorize me as a humanitarian because I don’t believe in allowing countless millions of people to live pointless lives filled with agony and toil.

Death is a perfectly natural course of action for things that never should have existed in the first place.

We are basically keeping billions on life support by shipping modern antibiotics and vaccines to third world nations.

This represents a planned human intervention into the mechanism of natural selection which is, intrisically, no different from the practice of eugenics. The consequences of this cannot be ignored for long, though some may find it politically expedient to do so.

As a trained economist, I realize that the third world cannot be “brought up” without bringing down the first world, if at all. That’s a trade that I’m not willing to make.

Everyone is trying to save one group at the expense of another. Some people who don’t understand economics (namely, liberals and neocons) fail to realize that the betterment of one group must necessarily result in the downfall of another. At least, this is true as far as statist, wealth-redistribution policies are concerned.

If we are going to practice eugenics - and I have already demonstrated why this must be the case - then I would much prefer them to be applied towards the betterment of the noble, civilized races instead of the savage hordes.

Western governments are quite racist, indeed. They are openly biased towards minorities and against their native, white populations.

[quote]Main Entry:
rac·ism Listen to the pronunciation of racism
Pronunciation:
\�?r�?-�?si-z�?m also -�?shi-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1933

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.[/quote]

I acknowledge that black people exist. That doesn’t make me racist. Saying “[quote]noble, civilized races instead of the savage hordes[/quote]” makes you racist.

And that’s not welcome here. So either fuck off or choose your words more carefully.

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Main Entry:
rac·ism Listen to the pronunciation of racism
Pronunciation:
\�?r�?-�?si-z�?m also -�?shi-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1933

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

I acknowledge that black people exist. That doesn’t make me racist. Saying “noble, civilized races instead of the savage hordes” makes you racist.

And that’s not welcome here. So either fuck off or choose your words more carefully.[/quote]

Don’t you know you’re talking to a ‘trained economist’?

Bwahahahaaaa…Prospect,you’re such a moron.Give it up.

[quote]dk44 wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Stop shipping truckloads of antibiotics and medicines to third world hell holes.

Let overpopulation take care of itself naturally.

Problem solved.

You’re quite the fucking Mother Teresa aren’t ya?[/quote]

I nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
lixy wrote:
You are saying that overpopulation doesn’t exist simply because people die. You don’t even acknowledge that there is such a state where population outweighs resources.

The word “overpopulation” suggests that there is an optimal population that any habitat can support. Show me how overpopulation would be measured. You claim that it is determined by the carrying capacity of a given habitat. Carrying capacity is only theoretical and unmeasurable. By definition the carrying capacity can never be exceeded and, in fact, is only determined by productive capacities. The fact is there have never been deaths caused by “overpopulation”.

What is measurable is productivity and consumption verses a given population (per capita wealth). I’ll stick to those metrics when determining the quality of life of a given population before I believe propaganda put out by Green Peace, et al.[/quote]

FTW.

The biggest indicator of whether or not a population will starve is whether or not they have bad government. Look at Zimbabwe, for example - once a food exporter and now people are starving because they went on an anti-white farmer campaign.

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
To feed the world get rid of Genetically Modified seeds.[/quote]

Huh?

The dictionary definition is for laymen only. It is not accurate from a strict, linguistic or philosophic standpoint.

Argument by appeal to authority is not much of an argument at all. In this case, I reject the authority you cited.

This matter has a lot to do with the philosophy of language and semantics. All of the definitions employed must be very technical.

The fact that you acknowledge the existence of “black people” means that you recognize them as a group entity distinct from other groups on the basis of a certain characteristic or set thereof.

By extension, you recognize that distinct groups exist which differ from one another on the basis of certain characteristics.

That’s racism, plain and simple.

It is a completely neutral term, bearing no positive or negative connotations.

Racism is nothing more than the recognition of race. Any proposed definition of the word whose scope goes beyond the above is untenable.

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Main Entry:
rac·ism Listen to the pronunciation of racism
Pronunciation:
\�?r�?-�?si-z�?m also -�?shi-\
Function:
noun
Date:
1933

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

I acknowledge that black people exist. That doesn’t make me racist. Saying “noble, civilized races instead of the savage hordes” makes you racist.

And that’s not welcome here. So either fuck off or choose your words more carefully.

Don’t you know you’re talking to a ‘trained economist’?

Bwahahahaaaa…Prospect,you’re such a moron.Give it up.[/quote]

I didn’t spend years in the academic trenches for nothing. Such claims are not made lightly. You are welcome to test me at any time.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
The dictionary definition is for laymen only. It is not accurate from a strict, linguistic or philosophic standpoint.

Argument by appeal to authority is not much of an argument at all. In this case, I reject the authority you cited.[/quote]

Reject whatever you want. I still think you’re the DICTIONARY definition of racist. And it is accurate from any normal standpoint. We’re not your “university” buddies, we’re just guys on a bodybuilding forum.

Might want to get off the pedestal.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

I didn’t spend years in the academic trenches for nothing. Such claims are not made lightly. You are welcome to test me at any time.[/quote]

High school?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
lixy wrote:
You are saying that overpopulation doesn’t exist simply because people die. You don’t even acknowledge that there is such a state where population outweighs resources.

The word “overpopulation” suggests that there is an optimal population that any habitat can support. Show me how overpopulation would be measured. You claim that it is determined by the carrying capacity of a given habitat. Carrying capacity is only theoretical and unmeasurable. By definition the carrying capacity can never be exceeded and, in fact, is only determined by productive capacities. The fact is there have never been deaths caused by “overpopulation”.

What is measurable is productivity and consumption verses a given population (per capita wealth). I’ll stick to those metrics when determining the quality of life of a given population before I believe propaganda put out by Green Peace, et al.

FTW.

The biggest indicator of whether or not a population will starve is whether or not they have bad government. Look at Zimbabwe, for example - once a food exporter and now people are starving because they went on an anti-white farmer campaign.
[/quote]

Yup. Mugabe then handed out confiscated farms to his cronies, who knew diddly about farming. I guess they thought food appeared in stores by magic.

Ironic how people vote for those who’ll promise to take from the rich, never realizing how most of the rich got (or stay) that way, and wealth is concentrated even higher than before, by minions who simply milk the carcass.

Soylent Green.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:

I didn’t spend years in the academic trenches for nothing. Such claims are not made lightly. You are welcome to test me at any time.

High school?[/quote]

What about it? If you’re equating my first statement with HS, then no, that’s not what I meant at all. With a few, limited exceptions, I do not consider my formal education to be part of my learning.