[lorenzo]

Zambia
http://english.people.com.cn/200604/24/ ... 60613.html

Malawi
http://english.people.com.cn/200604/25/ ... 60925.html

Namibia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4999314.stm

The problem: they can't export their maize and millet because of a lack of pan-african infrastructure. So when people in Kenya go hungry, they have to import food from Europe, instead of bringing it in from Zambia.

Hunger in Africa has nothing to do with bad agriculture, lack of land or lack of rain. It has to do with infrastructure and bad management.

[Novus]

This whole idea of moving food from one part of the world to another is another way that cheap oil has allowed human populations to go into overshoot. The term is actually called scope enlargement. Transport surplusses to areas where their are short falls so the population always has access to bumper crops.

[BrownDog]

How cheerful

from the bbc slideshow you linked to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4999314.stm

[slide 7]Over the weekend, a woman in Namibia picks pearl millet, locally known as mahangu, which is being harvested early this year due to good rains in the country...

[slide 8]... nearby is a roadside graveyard where many Namibians bury their dead as they are too poor to afford the municipal graveyard. Nearly 25% of Namibians are HIV positive.

[Ludi]

This whole idea of moving food from one part of the world to another is another way that cheap oil has allowed human populations to go into overshoot. The term is actually called scope enlargement. Transport surplusses to areas where their are short falls so the population always has access to bumper crops.

Yep. A sustainable way of living is for people to keep their populations within the limits of their own ecosystems, with only local food trade. Foreign aid should be for family planning help, not food aid. The US will give food aid, but not family planning aid (due to global gag rule), thus perpetuating recurring famine because of keeping the populations above the sustainable limit.

[pedalling_faster]

This whole idea of moving food from one part of the world to another is another way that cheap oil has allowed human populations to go into overshoot. The term is actually called scope enlargement. Transport surplusses to areas where their are short falls so the population always has access to bumper crops.

hearing about all that rain in New England recently, i can't help but think how useful that water would be in Las Vegas & probably a lot of other places close to New England.

[green_achers]

Trade is not the bad thing y'all make it sound like. Every place is going to have crop failures at some point in time. Would you have populations limited to the lowest possible carrying capacity of every area?

I think there is an optimal worldwide carrying capacity that allows for some intra-regional and even world trade, but is not based on cheap oil. In the 19th century, a robust trade in commodities between the US and Europe existed, using wind-powered craft. It's what the Civil War was about.

Stopping widespread starvation is not a bad thing. There's got to be some middle ground between allowing populations to reach unrealistic sizes and letting people starve because of a drought, pest outbreak, disease, etc. I'm not really addressing Lorenzo's point here, more some people's responses.

[PolestaR]

Trade is not the bad thing y'all make it sound like. Every place is going to have crop failures at some point in time. Would you have populations limited to the lowest possible carrying capacity of every area?

Crop losses should be dealt with by the locals. If they don't have the resources to build extra storage capacity (or are unable to) then tough titties. Die, who gives a fuck? I don't. Do I see Lorenzo caring about the ant nest out in my backyard? Did he know an evil army from next door came and commited genocide on these ants? Oh noz.

If Lorenzo wasn't a hypocrite and cared for other living things other than humans, he wouldn't be so concerned about people living in a desert who can't feed themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I care about humans as much as I care about other life. You just have to put that into perspective. There are billions/trillions of unique life on Earth and humans are one. So that 0.000000000001% is how much I care. It's amazing what kind of empathy/charity comes from people when they think they are better than others.

[Ludi]

Trade is not the bad thing y'all make it sound like. Every place is going to have crop failures at some point in time. Would you have populations limited to the lowest possible carrying capacity of every area?

Ultimately, yes, as that is the only truly sustainable option, unless starvation is considered "ok." Personally, I prefer birth control to starvation.

Folks have always traded between regions, but they traded luxuries, not commodities.

[ThunderChunky]

Trade is not the bad thing y'all make it sound like. Every place is going to have crop failures at some point in time. Would you have populations limited to the lowest possible carrying capacity of every area?

Crop losses should be dealt with by the locals. If they don't have the resources to build extra storage capacity (or are unable to) then tough titties. Die, who gives a fuck? I don't. Do I see Lorenzo caring about the ant nest out in my backyard? Did he know an evil army from next door came and commited genocide on these ants? Oh noz.

If Lorenzo wasn't a hypocrite and cared for other living things other than humans, he wouldn't be so concerned about people living in a desert who can't feed themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I care about humans as much as I care about other life. You just have to put that into perspective. There are billions/trillions of unique life on Earth and humans are one. So that 0.000000000001% is how much I care. It's amazing what kind of empathy/charity comes from people when they think they are better than others.

LOLOLOL!! You do realize your are killing thousands of microbes right now? You life is dependent on the destruction of other life, thus YOU are the hypocrit.

[PolestaR]

LOLOLOL!! You do realize your are killing thousands of microbes right now? You life is dependent on the destruction of other life, thus YOU are the hypocrit.

Yes I do realize that, and I know I am a hypocrite. But what is your point?

*edit* I'm not quite sure you understand what I said, or my position on things.

[ThunderChunky]

My point is that valuing human life above the life of other species does not make one a hypocrite. Somone who claims to value all life as equal yet still participates and benefits from the destruction of other life is the hypocrite.

[Jack]

Stopping widespread starvation is not a bad thing. There's got to be some middle ground between allowing populations to reach unrealistic sizes and letting people starve because of a drought, pest outbreak, disease, etc.

If one is to control population, one can do so through birth rate, life span, or death rate.

If one does so through birth rate, people complain about the restrictions on their procreation.

If one restricts lifespan, people complain about euthanasia.

And if one manages the death rate, they object to "letting people starve" - or whatever methods occur.

How, then, are we to control population? People tend to increase their numbers to the limits of their environment. If we use trade as a mechanism to increase carrying capacity, what is the consequence of reduced trade - perhaps due to peak oil?

Humans fancy themselves wiser than bacteria, but both species increase their numbers exponentially to the limits of their environment. Show me the evidence that humans are master of their own biological drives to increase their population exponentially, and I will consider the possibility that humans transcend bacteria. Otherwise….

[PenultimateManStanding]

Show me the evidence that humans are master of their own biological drives to increase their population exponentially, and I will consider the possibility that humans transcend bacteria.

It's a gloomy thought, isn't it? So much for the genius of human creativity. So much for the uniqueness of self-consciousness and language and discoveries of the mysteries of the universe. In the end, our own bio-programming dooms us because of long dead algae blooms. It makes me think that it's the Revenge Of The Carboniferous: we are dead, but we leave you denizens of the future a poison pill. I know: fanciful nonsense, but somehow fanciful nonsense seems to appeal to me these days.

[PolestaR]

My point is that valuing human life above the life of other species does not make one a hypocrite.

You're wrong, but I'll leave you to figure out why.

[RG73]

My point is that valuing human life above the life of other species does not make one a hypocrite.

You're wrong, but I'll leave you to figure out why.

You're wrong and if you'd bothered to take a little basic biology you might understand why.

But I'll break it down for you in really simple terms--I share a lot more genes in common with every other human on Earth than I do with any other living thing on Earth. Thus, being altruistic towards other humans has a higher fitness payoff than being altruistic towards other organisms (at least if they have no direct benefit to humans).

Now I happen to like all that other life, and, in fact, I like a lot of it more than I like humans. But if it comes down to a go extinct to let a frog live or eat the frog to keep humanity going, humanity wins every time.

Beyond this, you lack a basic understanding of the inherent destructive nature of many species. Elephants, unchecked, will pretty much ruin their local ecosystems. Army ants pretty much fuck up everything in their immediate vicinity. Species that are numerous, big and smart (elephants and humans) or insanely numerous, little, and very well organized (ants) are going to impact their local environment in ways that aren't so good for everything else around them. That's life. Other organisms just adapt around it. You callously think humans should be left to starve if they lose a crop and yet argue for the equality of life. If that is the case, all those other organisms ought to just deal with it when humans are killing them off. Sucks to be them, right?

Jack: Bacteria do not increase exponentially under most circumstances. In a chemostat or a warm flask with a lot of sugar, sure. 99% of the time bacteria in the real world are dividing fairly slowly (in fact bacteria in deep sea sediments divide something like once every couple of hundred years). Their growth is controlled by a number of genetic regulatory networks that insure they are constantly assessing the nutrient concentration(s) around them.

[Specop_007]

I think your both wrong.
I'll let Lorenzo tell you why.

[Jack]

Their growth is controlled by a number of genetic regulatory networks that insure they are constantly assessing the nutrient concentration(s) around them.

So, given abundant nutrients they increase exponentially over time, do they not? Oh, the period may be decades long, or centuries; that doesn't change the fundamental nature of the equation.

Or are you saying that humans are inferior to these bacteria, since the bacteria assess nutrient content in their surroundings whereas humans keep procreating?

[green_achers]

Trade is not the bad thing y'all make it sound like. Every place is going to have crop failures at some point in time. Would you have populations limited to the lowest possible carrying capacity of every area?

Ultimately, yes, as that is the only truly sustainable option, unless starvation is considered "ok." Personally, I prefer birth control to starvation.

Folks have always traded between regions, but they traded luxuries, not commodities.

I disagree it is the only "sustainable" (whatever that means) option. Not to pick on you, but just because you stated it in a more adult manner than the rest, what is unsustainable about using some trade to buffer temporary crop failure and to optimize agricultural efficiencies? Remember this could be done with sail power, as it was up to the late 19th century. I'm not talking about trying to sustain current world populations, which are clearly in overshoot, but I think it's ridiculous to think that only the bare minimum could be supported worldwide.

And people have long traded commodities overseas. Amphora in ancient Greek shipwrecks have been found that were transporting olive oil, wine, etc. The Romans ate grain from all over the known world in their time. Native Americans had widespread trade routes for the trade in minerals and other staples used for tools, paints, etc. And the English textile mills of the 19th century ran on US cotton.

[rwwff]

Remember this could be done with sail power, as it was up to the late 19th century. I'm not talking about trying to sustain current world populations, which are clearly in overshoot, but I think it's ridiculous to think that only the bare minimum could be supported worldwide.

I often think along these lines. At some point in the cost curve, sail becomes useful first as a "use when practicable", then later designing routes and schedules to go with the seasonal changes in global winds.

Now we have a vast advantage over our late 19th century predacessors. We have near perfect charts, satellites monitoring weather, currents, and temperatures. We have multiple satellite assisted navigation systems, engineless electricty available via solar, wind, or towed generator. If we get the gentle and continuous runup in fuel price there could be enough time to adapt in these technologies. I wonder... exactly how big a rig could be made for sail-shipping using modern sail plans and materials. Invision a 200ft ultra deep keel sailing freighter.

[kam30en]

The green revolution at work once again, sealing the world's fate....mass starvation.