Reply to: Biofuels

[GreenLabel]

Current farmland isn't sustainable, let alone awkward farmland. First of all you've got to find an energy source, because modern farming practise makes a net energy loss, even with the sun's input, and fossil fuels aren't sustainable. A mind boggling huge energy source.

Dig up more coal. Build more nuclear power plants and pull some uranium out of the ground. There are greenhouses where vegetables are grown that are heated using the exaust heat from nearby data centres. Pig farmers harvest methane from the pig carp and sell it to electricity companies in some countries. Some communities are using small, portable generators on the top of old rubbish dumps to generate electricity from the methane in the rotting garbage below. Geothermal power is starting to take off.

Okay, so some of it is a bit pie-in-the-sky, but it's early days and it shows that there are new, creative ideas emerging and advances being made. Some will fail, others we haven't even contemplated yet will succeed.

It's a mistake to underestimate mankind's ability to innovate and adapt.

[TimberWolf]

Plenty of stuff is grown in Africa and Australia already. Build dams, irrigate, expand. It's not always drought proof, but then nothing ever has been. Yet somehow we're still here.

That aside, there's still the option of more efficiently using the farming we've got. Compare the stuff they're doing in Europe these days in terms of yields from the land with what's going on in Africa. Bring all of our existing farms up to the standards of, for example, the Dutch, and you'd have more food than you knew what to do with.

Current farmland isn't sustainable, let alone awkward farmland. First of all you've got to find an energy source, because modern farming practise makes a net energy loss, even with the sun's input, and fossil fuels aren't sustainable. A mind boggling huge energy source.

[GreenLabel]

Now you come to mention it...

It was the first place to spring to mind when I read your first sentence above.

[SupremeSpod]

You mean like Scotland?

Now you come to mention it...

[GreenLabel]

We are artificially sustaining life in areas where natural selection should be left alone to take its course.

You mean like Scotland?

[SupremeSpod]

We are artificially sustaining life in areas where natural selection should be left alone to take its course.

Harsh but hey, I can say things like that because by good fortune I was born in England and by hard work I have a decent job and skills.

Socialism doesn't work!

Oh Spod but what about the starving Africans? Yeah, I know, it's a crap situation but I've got bills to pay.

[GreenLabel]

And when the crops fail due to drought as they so often do? We'll have billions starving in the developed world as well as the undeveloped nations.

South America is the only land mass in your list with reliable rain and they keep suffering catastrophic landslides due to deforestation.

Plenty of stuff is grown in Africa and Australia already. Build dams, irrigate, expand. It's not always drought proof, but then nothing ever has been. Yet somehow we're still here.

That aside, there's still the option of more efficiently using the farming we've got. Compare the stuff they're doing in Europe these days in terms of yields from the land with what's going on in Africa. Bring all of our existing farms up to the standards of, for example, the Dutch, and you'd have more food than you knew what to do with.

[gingerjedi]

Africa, Australia, South America, take your pick. Particularly in the first two, there's plenty of unused land that isn't desert. A few large-scale irrigation projects and you'd be on your way.

And when the crops fail due to drought as they so often do? We'll have billions starving in the developed world as well as the undeveloped nations.

South America is the only land mass in your list with reliable rain and they keep suffering catastrophic landslides due to deforestation.

[GreenLabel]

BTW, where is this untapped farmland?

Are you serious? Do you really think that the farming we've undertaken so far has used it all?

Africa, Australia, South America, take your pick. Particularly in the first two, there's plenty of unused land that isn't desert. 29% of the Earth's surface is land, while only 0.4% is covered by cities. There's 28.6% leftover. A few large-scale irrigation projects and you'd be on your way.

[gingerjedi]

So you feel that the existing six billion is more than we can handle? Why? Food supply is one answer, but as previously established we could resolve this by opening up additional farmland.

Why would you prefer a population of two billion, for example, versus what we have now?

Genuine questions.

Common sense tells me we've already been using finite resources at an unsustainable rate without sufficiently developing replacement technologies, massive population growth will only exasperate the problem.

BTW, where is this untapped farmland?

[TimberWolf]

So you feel that the existing six billion is more than we can handle? Why? Food supply is one answer, but as previously established we could resolve this by opening up additional farmland.

Why would you prefer a population of two billion, for example, versus what we have now?

Genuine questions.

Farming uses oil. Land isn't the only limited resource.

[GreenLabel]

I'm not an expert but I've heard arguments for 500 million - 2 billion being touted as the ideal population for human wellbeing.

I used my perception, intuition and google to arrive at my conclusion.

So you feel that the existing six billion is more than we can handle? Why? Food supply is one answer, but as previously established we could resolve this by opening up additional farmland.

Why would you prefer a population of two billion, for example, versus what we have now?

Genuine questions.

[gingerjedi]

I'm not suggesting that there aren't other factors that may make such an increase undesirable. My argument was that it's possible to grow enough food to support it, and I stand by it.

Incidentally, aircraft manufacturers publish load limitations for aeroplanes. These are precise. What is your defined maximum population for the Earth, and what formula did you use to arrive at this conclusion?

I'm not an expert but I've heard arguments for 500 million - 2 billion being touted as the ideal population for human wellbeing.

I used my perception, intuition and google to arrive at my conclusion.

[GreenLabel]

You could cram 2,000 people on a jumbo jet, it would probably crash and burn before it could leave the runway but I don't really care. The point I'm making is that it's possible.

I'm not suggesting that there aren't other factors that may make such an increase undesirable. My argument was that it's possible to grow enough food to support it, and I stand by it.

Incidentally, aircraft manufacturers publish load limitations for aeroplanes. These are precise. What is your defined maximum population for the Earth, and what formula did you use to arrive at this conclusion?

[gingerjedi]

I don't really care. The point I'm making is that it's possible.

You could cram 2,000 people on a jumbo jet, it would probably crash and burn before it could leave the runway but I don't really care. The point I'm making is that it's possible.