[jryan]

Essay, on 16 December 2011 - 08:24 AM, said:

Yep!

Which is why focusing on solutions that help indigenous peoples, and also promote and ensure the Millennium Development Goals and Food Security Steps, is critical.

~

There is a huge flaw in your and CaptainPanic's assessments here. The problem with the developing world and the people dying in poverty in the third world is their governments. Zimbabwe was once a jewel of the African continent until Mugabe and the kleptocrats took over and ruled their nation with an iron fist. Likewise, Somalia is a pirate state for all of the warlords vying for power in that region.

Millions die in refugee camps all over the world, driven from their homes by power hungry juntas ruling their countries.

It's not lack of funding, it's oppressive governments and terminal civil war that create the countries in which these people starve.

Now, how do you fix this? By dumping more money on these blood thirsty tyrants in a hope that eventually civilization will take root? Of course not. The tyrants need to go before anything can change. Now explain how you propose to accomplish that peacefully.

[Essay]

jryan, on 4 January 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

There is a huge flaw in your and CaptainPanic's assessments here. The problem with the developing world and the people dying in poverty in the third world is their governments.

Now, how do you fix this? By dumping more money on these blood thirsty tyrants in a hope that eventually civilization will take root? Of course not. The tyrants need to go before anything can change. Now explain how you propose to accomplish that peacefully.

Good point. Monied interest, whether industrial or military, tend to overwhelm any land-use economic interests. That is why global cooperation is needed; to keep land-use primary in economic interests. If we recognized good productive soil as a valuable commodity, then socioeconomic pressures would shift.

Focusing on land use makes people more self-sufficient, and less dependent on the whims and needs of an evil ruler (whether that be a dictator or a corporation). Land use also distributes labor and is a low-profit sector, so there is less pressure or facility for large-scale corruption. Although lately, the financial sector has figured out ways to grab land for investments on a global scale.

That sort of "land grab" economic strategy needs to be avoided--through global recognition of land use as a valuable, critical, and necessary ethos for our species.


"...fundamental changes in cultural values and human societies...."


The Millennium Development Goals and Food Security Steps are not about throwing money at problems; they are about creating sustainable systems.

~

[jryan]

Essay, on 4 January 2012 - 11:56 PM, said:

Good point. Monied interest, whether industrial or military, tend to overwhelm any land-use economic interests. That is why global cooperation is needed; to keep land-use primary in economic interests. If we recognized good productive soil as a valuable commodity, then socioeconomic pressures would shift.

Well, I think more Western civilization does value "productive soil". The History of Europe is filled with great wars fought, at their root, over productive soil. There is a tangent here for the differences in cultures the grow in areas of abundant resources versus those in limited resources.. but I will leave that for another thread. Anyway, places like Rhodesia were clawed out of inhospitable wilderness and turned, using Western technology, into lands of plenty. When Mugabe took over the country and named in Zimbabwe, on a largely anti-colonialism platform, he rejected the technology of the west, and the country has all but reverted to it's inhospitable wilderness yet again.

Trying to help the people of Zimbabwe with the current government is unproductive, but being a regime willing to use unbridled violence to gain and keep power means that Mugabe isn't leaving until he's dead. The only way to accelerate that eventuality is with bullets.

Quote

Focusing on land use makes people more self-sufficient, and less dependent on the whims and needs of an evil ruler (whether that be a dictator or a corporation). Land use also distributes labor and is a low-profit sector, so there is less pressure or facility for large-scale corruption. Although lately, the financial sector has figured out ways to grab land for investments on a global scale.

Self sufficiency is anathema to tyranny. The Mugabes of the world work diligently to make their people dependent, not independent.

Quote

That sort of "land grab" economic strategy needs to be avoided--through global recognition of land use as a valuable, critical, and necessary ethos for our species.

It's nice in thought, but there will always be people willing to use force rather than sweat to get what they need. There is no avoiding this because pointing a rifle is a lot easier than operating a shovel.

This post has been edited by jryan: 5 January 2012 - 06:24 PM

[Essay]

jryan, on 5 January 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

Well, I think more Western civilization does value "productive soil". The History of Europe is filled with great wars fought, at their root, over productive soil. There is a tangent here for the differences in cultures the grow in areas of abundant resources versus those in limited resources.. but I will leave that for another thread. Anyway, places like Rhodesia were clawed out of inhospitable wilderness and turned, using Western technology, into lands of plenty. When Mugabe took over the country and named in Zimbabwe, on a largely anti-colonialism platform, he rejected the technology of the west, and the country has all but reverted to it's inhospitable wilderness yet again.

Trying to help the people of Zimbabwe with the current government is unproductive, but being a regime willing to use unbridled violence to gain and keep power means that Mugabe isn't leaving until he's dead. The only way to accelerate that eventuality is with bullets.

Self sufficiency is anathema to tyranny. The Mugabes of the world work diligently to make their people dependent, not independent.

It's nice in thought, but there will always be people willing to use force rather than sweat to get what they need. There is no avoiding this because pointing a rifle is a lot easier than operating a shovel.

Thanks,

Somehow we need to make those problems irrelevant; to move beyond them, rather than overcome them... (or words to that effect).

The points about "wars over soil" come when we see losses to erosion, declines in productivity, or land exhaustion. Tropical soils are a unique problem also.

The Green Revolution greatly boosted productivity (by circumventing and tricking natural systems), but it also has long-term negative consequences and is unsustainable....

That may have had something to do with the situation you describe; but whatever occurred in the past, a new way forward needs to be established. Land use seems to be at the root of many socio-political and socio-economic, as well as energy and environmental, problems.

We just don't have the luxury of solving all our problems individually anymore, so we must find solutions that tackle multiple problems with the fairest/simplest single solutions.

Land use provides many opportunities along those lines.

~ISTM

[jryan]

Essay, on 6 January 2012 - 07:25 AM, said:

Thanks,

Somehow we need to make those problems irrelevant; to move beyond them, rather than overcome them... (or words to that effect).

The points about "wars over soil" come when we see losses to erosion, declines in productivity, or land exhaustion. Tropical soils are a unique problem also.

The Green Revolution greatly boosted productivity (by circumventing and tricking natural systems), but it also has long-term negative consequences and is unsustainable....

That may have had something to do with the situation you describe; but whatever occurred in the past, a new way forward needs to be established. Land use seems to be at the root of many socio-political and socio-economic, as well as energy and environmental, problems.

We just don't have the luxury of solving all our problems individually anymore, so we must find solutions that tackle multiple problems with the fairest/simplest single solutions.

Land use provides many opportunities along those lines.

~ISTM

Well, the Green revolution as a solution to strife hasn't panned out. As I said, the green revolution was in full swing in Rhodesia before the anti-colonial movement ended it and brought famine back to the region. Likewise, the green movement was/is in full swing in Côte d'Ivoire in it's booming cocoa industry... harvested by an equally booming child slave trade in the country that is fed new slaves by an equally booming civil war.

Africa is a different place, and it's foolish to apply western sensibilities to African problems. Any time I start drifting to believing that I remind myself of a situation in Congo that I read about in the 1990s. The state run TV and Radio and print media was forced in that time to run a "The More You Know" style ad campaign for the people of Congo... but it was not "Don't do drugs" or "stay in School"... nothing like that. The ad campaign was to tell people that Pygmies are people too, and therefor shouldn't be hunted like wild animals for meat.

Like a said.. a whole different set of problems on that continent.

[Essay]

jryan, on 6 January 2012 - 04:25 PM, said:

Well, the Green revolution as a solution to strife hasn't panned out.

Like a said.. a whole different set of problems on that continent.

Whoops, I can see how you missed my point that the "Green" Revolution is at the root of many of the problems you mentioned--as well as many other socioeconomic inequities and environmental problems.

The slides on this post:
http://www.sciencefo...post__p__648760

...talk about solutions based on new information, which science has discovered just within the past decade, that fulfill many goals with simple land-use techniques. This is an option to evolve beyond the "Green" revolution, which is unsustainable and related to those problems you mentioned.

These new paradigms relating to "land use" are not about throwing money at problems, but about teaching new ways to restore and maintain socioeconomic sustainability--achieving the MDGs and "Food Security."

Quote

"Land use-based climate solutions can create co-benefits that meet several of the important United Nations' Millennium Development Goals in developing countries. These goals include eradicating extreme poverty and hunger (Goal 1), promoting gender equality and empowering women (Goal 3), and ensuring environmental sustainability, including access to safe drinking water and conservation of biodiversity (Goal 7)." --p. 33

"Why should we not take every opportunity to find synergies between action to reduce climate change and action to advance other social goals? So long as the carbon benefits are real, we should seek to prioritize those efforts that maximize co-benefits." --p.36

Mitigating Climate Change Through Food and Land Use Authors: Sara J. Scherr and Sajal Sthapit June 2009

And from a 2007 book: "The Rhizosphere" [meaning the extended root zone in land use].

Quote

"Thus small changes in the equilibrium between inputs and decomposition could have significant impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations...." --p.31

"It is against this backdrop of a highly modified soil environment and the cascading effects on soil biota that we examine the rhizosphere in agriculture and consider how to redirect management to restore rhizosphere processes and agroecosystem function." --p.133

"We recognize that ultimately the transition to ecologically sound, sustainable food production systems that meet human needs will be complex and will require fundamental changes in cultural values and human societies as well as the application of ecological knowledge to agricultural management." --p.148

...in case you missed these quotes above.

"We recognize that ultimately the transition to ecologically sound, sustainable food production systems that meet human needs will be complex and will require fundamental changes in cultural values and human societies as well as the application of ecological knowledge to agricultural management." --p.148
...isn't this what you suggest is needed; fundamental changes...?

~

[JohnB]

Essay, I can quote from books written by respected scientists too.

Quote

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.

Predictions by "experts" in books don't have a terrific track record, do they?

Quote

Why do you go on about "Global Government?" Couldn't we talk about global cooperation, as with the 1987 Montreal Protocol on remediating stratospheric ozone problems; or simply talk about global coordination and monitoring--of strategies to manage our resources more judiciously and pragmatically--i.e., in pursuit of achieving the Eight Millennium Development Goals and Five Food Security Steps?

Some political basics. If you are going to have "Global Co-ordination and monitoring" then you must have a supranational body to do so. A body with the power to co-ordinate and monitor. And if it's going to be more than a paper tiger then it has to have teeth and enforce the instructions it gives while "co-ordinating". This is, to all intents and purposes a government. Just because you don't want to call it that doesn't make it less of a government. The simple fact of ruling bodies is that if there is no mechanism to keep it under control it will become a despotism. You might be happy to grant some desk pusher power over your nations economy and not want to have any say at all in the choosing of that person or the policies involved, but many others don't.

Quote

"We recognize that ultimately the transition to ecologically sound, sustainable food production systems that meet human needs will be complex and will require fundamental changes in cultural values and human societies as well as the application of ecological knowledge to agricultural management."

Isn't it funny that in finding the answers to all our problems, the words "Democracy" and "Responsibility" don't get used much. Oh there is plenty of talk about how the proles need to take "responsibility" for their pollution/carbon fottprint, whatever but very little about how the all knowing, well meaning ecological intelligensia will be responsible or who to. Maybe the reason that so many people are suspicious that there is a political push to use climate panic to destroy democracy is because all the "solutions" seem to require democratic nations giving up their sovreignity to undemocratic, unelected and responsible to no-one "authorities".

Call me a cynic if you want, but I do have to wonder whether Drs Drinkwater and Snapp (who wrote the p 148 quote) thought that there should be "fundamental changes in cultural values and human societies" before they started their research as well.

Essay as a general note it's getting very difficult to keep track of your answers, you're cross answering across too many threads.

BTW, how would you define "sustainable"? The word gets used a lot, but I have a sneaking feeling that the meaning varies.

This post has been edited by JohnB: 22 January 2012 - 03:50 PM