Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Very interesting chart I found on the amount of arable land projected in each country in 2025.
Top 5 places to be for land are:
1) Australia
2) Canada
3) Argentina
4) USSR (former)
5) USA
They project that without fossil fuels (fertilizers and pesticides), a country needs 0.07 hectacres per person to maintain a sustainable vegitarian diet.
Looking at certain countries with the orange bar, you can see which will fall below the minimum in the year 2025. _________________ Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Whoa! Acording to that site, only twelve countries in the world will have aerable land densities greater than 0.7 hectares per person by 2025:Australia, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Canada, Estonia, Russian Federation, Latvia, Lithuania, New Zealand, Bulgaria, and Guyana.
They put the US at 0.52 hectares per person by 2025! In fact they say we were at 0.63 hectares per person in 2000.
Whoa! Acording to that site, only twelve countries in the world will have aerable land densities greater than 0.7 hectares per person by 2025:
The minimum requirement is 0.07. Not 0.7. I made the same mistake the first time I looked at the chart. Look for mark at on the left/bottom corner of the chart which marks the 0.07 level. _________________ Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Another good source is the FAO's Terrastat database.
It shows you how much land there's available, how much there's degraded, poor soil, or suitable for agriculture, and how much of it is steeplands, desert areas or dryland.
E.g. Australia has a potential 7.1 hectares of land per capita, but 38% of it is hyper-arid, 9% arid, 22% semi-arid and 17% subhumid dryland - add a that 77% of the remaining non-arid land is desertifying. Which means about 86% of those original 7.1 hectares are unsuitable for agriculture, and the remainder will basically be desert within a few decades.
The world's biggest potential of arable land suitable for agriculture is in Africa. Countries such as the Central African Republic, the two Congos, Angola and Mozambique - they all have between 4 and 17 ha of non-degraded suitable land per capita.
The Population Action database is completely flawed, since it uses statistics of land that's actually in use, not the actual potential of the land, and then extrapolates it into the future.
Take the DR Congo. 55 million people live there, on a land mass the size of Western Europe (300 million inhabitants): only 2% of this gigantic land is currently in use. The potential is huge, but the Population Action database just uses this 2% in its statistic and then says that in 2025, the Congolese will still only use the same 2% while its population will have grown, reducing those 2% on a per capita basis. Totally flawed logic!
With terrastat you can calculate precisely what land is in use, and what potential there's left. _________________ The Beginning is Near!
Up to a year ago, I read on a peak oil website that food would be even more scarce. According to that site, USA would only be able to produce enough food to support about 200 to 250 million people. According to the site listed above, USA could support about two billion people.
I suspect the "arable land" information is misleading. Some land is fine for growing corn or hay, but miserable for planting vegetables. Hay is used to feed animals, and makes the land about one tenth as productive, based on the nutritional value from the meat.
Also, if you get rid of the fertilizer, then most farms would have to go back to crop rotation. I'm not a farmer, and could be way off here, but as I understand the system, a field will produce vegetables one year, grains one year, cattle graising one year, and sit fallow for one year. This brings the amount of food produced down a fair bit. But, with four fields each at a different point in the cycle, it still allows for a balanced diet of vegetables, bread and cereal, and meat, plus a field for kids to run around and play. So overall, it would likely take an average of about half an acre per person, or 0.2 hectares (estimate, I could be way off). And some of the "arable land" will only be able to be used for hay production, and maybe grains. Here in Canada, Alberta land is pretty much only useful for raising cattle, and Saskatchewan is good for wheat.
The minimum requirement is 0.07. Not 0.7. I made the same mistake the first time I looked at the chart. Look for mark at on the left/bottom corner of the chart which marks the 0.07 level.
Hmm...I guess that makes me feel a little better, although it makes me doubt their calculation a bit. Growing all the food you need for the year on a sixth of an acre? Maybe in Chiapas, but seems pretty skewed for placed like Canada or the American west where short growing season and dry climate will limit yields significantly.
As for the Terrastat database, I really wish you would RTFM lorenzo. Especially the part that says how those numbers are an ideal calculation and most of that land isn't actually available because its being used for things like forests and buildings and such.
As you can see, it's a sparsely populated area. In many parts of Subsaharan Africa, you can drive around for weeks on end without encountering a single building. Don't confuse Central Africa with the Northeastern American coast. It's different.
Buildings are concentrated in towns and cities. Their impact on available arable land is quasi nihil. Population as a whole and the geographical distribution of this population - that's crucial. Not buildings. _________________ The Beginning is Near!
Buildings are concentrated in towns and cities. Their impact on available arable land is quasi nihil. Population as a whole and the geographical distribution of this population - that's crucial. Not buildings.
The towns and cities are usually placed right on top of the best farm land. The people who originally founded the towns and cities wanted their homes to be somewhere near the food. The don't make a hell of a lot of difference until the city gets to a large size. The land under Chicago used to be great for farming. That's a lot of land under the urbanized Chicago area. Almost all of it was once prime farming land. Same with almost all other cities.
The site listed earlier would likely consider the forests and grasslands of NorthWest Territories to be arable. Good luck growing potatoes, or anything else you might plan on growing.
Also, a problem with Africa, if you start building things in the wrong areas, you tend to get lions, rhinos, or hippos wandering around in your yard. I don't know about your desire to be around such animals, but I prefer those to stay on TV. Would you want to run a farm in the middle of rhino country? I imagine they would stick around if you have a continual food supply for them.
The towns and cities are usually placed right on top of the best farm land. The people who originally founded the towns and cities wanted their homes to be somewhere near the food. The don't make a hell of a lot of difference until the city gets to a large size. The land under Chicago used to be great for farming. That's a lot of land under the urbanized Chicago area. Almost all of it was once prime farming land. Same with almost all other cities.
The total amount of developed land in the USA, which is more than just buildings, is approximately 6%. Buildings represent a fraction of 1%.
The total amount of developed land in the USA, which is more than just buildings, is approximately 6%. Buildings represent a fraction of 1%.
Sounds about right. How much of all of the US land can be used for growing vegetables? I doubt too much of Nevada or Arizona would be good. Alaska likely won't get much celery out of the ground. How about the mountains of Washington?
That fraction of 1% grows a bit when only compared to comparable land. I suspect it would be as high as 3% of the good agricultural land being covered by buildings and roads.
I doubt Nevada or Anchorage are using up too much of the prime agricultural land. But, places like Chicago, New York, and Atlanta likely are.
If my estimate at 3% is correct, how many people do you think could be fed from 3% of the total American food production? I would guess enough for one or two of those cities.
If my estimate at 3% is correct, how many people do you think could be fed from 3% of the total American food production? I would guess enough for one or two of those cities.
No problem that a few unemployed people with sledgehammers cannot fix. Tearing down a building is fairly easy. Putting them up is the tough part.
No problem that a few unemployed people with sledgehammers cannot fix. Tearing down a building is fairly easy. Putting them up is the tough part.
Will you take the vegetables grown on the land that used to be an auto mechanic? How about the house with a basement, where the topsoil was removed? Actually, for almost all buildings, the topsoil is removed.
The land under the buildings is no longer useful. If the building is removed, the land may be able to be used for agriculture after about a hundred years.
Also, if you tear down all the homes, where will the people live?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Whoa! Acording to that site, only twelve countries in the world will have aerable land densities greater than 0.7 hectares per person by 2025:Australia, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Canada, Estonia, Russian Federation, Latvia, Lithuania, New Zealand, Bulgaria, and Guyana.
