[jeskill]

I'm just putting this in a different thread so that we don't hijack the original. So, This is an offshoot of a discussion in the "Cultivate salt water crops", in which the statement was made that,

Quote

And we should also keep in mind that the only way that most western countries can sustain their current populations is by taking various resources, including food, from less developed parts of the world.

If western countries were forced to sustain their current populations on the resources remaining within their current borders then the populations of most if not all of them would crash.

Another poster commented that the U.S. is a net exporter, and thus does not really need food imports from other countries to sustain their populations. This was countered with

Quote

There is abundant evidence to support this.

I will give you two well documented cases.


1) The US, Australia and Britain are dependant upon middle east oil and they are in turn dependant on steady supply of oil energy and fertilisers to sustain its current agricultural out put.....apart from their other industrial outputs. If the middle east stops selling oil to them then their agricultural out puts would alone plummet and they would not be able to feed their large over consuming populations. Which is clearly why all three countries are prepared to go to extraordinary military lenghts to maintain their oil supply lines from the middle east.


2) Don't know about the US and Britain, but recent figures in Australia show that we are now net importers of fresh produce and other non-grain and non-animal foods: http://en.wikipedia....re_in_Australia for starters. Climate change and peak oil/peak fertiliser is expected to further diminish our agriculutral output and we may well become a net importer of grains as well at some point in the near future.

The question of whether or not we can sustain or grow agricultural production in a post-oil/post-fertilizer economy is a useful question. I personally think that a transition to ecological agriculture will allow us to maintain production, but it would require a larger amount of people working in agriculture than are currently. My reasoning is simple: polycultures produce more food per acre than monocultures while utilising less "capital inputs". A transition to polyculture probably wouldn't increase production in the west significantly, but it has been suggested that it would significantly increase production in developing counties. Of course, ecological ag does require more people to work the farm, which would require many people to transition from an urban/suburban lifestyle to a rural lifestyle. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.

[Santalum]

jeskill, on 27 January 2012 - 03:31 PM, said:

The question of whether or not we can sustain or grow agricultural production in a post-oil/post-fertilizer economy is a useful question. I personally think that a transition to ecological agriculture will allow us to maintain production, but it would require a larger amount of people working in agriculture than are currently. My reasoning is simple: polycultures produce more food per acre than monocultures while utilising less "capital inputs". A transition to polyculture probably wouldn't increase production in the west significantly, but it has been suggested that it would significantly increase production in developing counties. Of course, ecological ag does require more people to work the farm, which would require many people to transition from an urban/suburban lifestyle to a rural lifestyle. I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.

There are vastly more humans living in urbanised areas than could ever be employed prductively on farms.


And we have had such non-industrial labour intensive farming systems for thousands of years before the oil age. And for all that time agricultural output was wastly smaller than what has been possible with oil and the population level that it could sustain was vastly smaller.

[Essay]

Santalum, on 28 January 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:

And we have had such non-industrial labour intensive farming systems for thousands of years before the oil age. And for all that time agricultural output was wastly smaller than what has been possible with oil and the population level that it could sustain was vastly smaller.

What you say makes perfect sense, if you envision modern "organic" agriculture as being done the way farming was done 100-200 years ago. There should be an alternative way of doing modern, distributed (high employment) and coordinated (online), low-labor, clean-n-easy, high-tech "organic" agriculture. Such a system would use robots for much of the labor, and direct sensing/assay of soil/plant genetics and health; to be coordinated with remote sensing data and evaluated to guide management decisions, and executed over a video game-like system.

It could be done as a full-time career, or simply as a supplement to other work/income; or even as a "filler" between traditional jobs. It's not as if we have too many jobs and not enough people to fill them. Something such as this could act as a buffer for unemployment or the transitions encountered while seeking other high-tech or traditional employment.
===

But regardless of whether that fantasy comes anywhere close to some future reality...

We need to DOUBLE food production over the next 50 years (to accommodate the projected "stabilizing and more affluent" population increase, which will be eating higher up on the food chain)...
while also greatly reducing environmental damage (which current "modern" agriculture is significantly exacerbating).
===

An article in the Jan. 2012, Scientific American develops this strategy:
http://www.scientifi...ood-less-energy
How to Make the Food System More Energy Efficient
Changes in agriculture, policy and personal behaviors can reduce the energy a nation uses to feed itself and the greenhouse gases it emits

...and the Nov. 2011 issue had this seminal article:
http://www.scientifi...-feed-the-world
Can We Feed the World and Sustain the Planet?
A five-step global plan could double food production by 2050 while greatly reducing environmental damage

Quote

"The world must solve three food problems simultaneously: end hunger, double food production by 2050, and do both while drastically reducing agriculture's damage to the environment.
Five solutions, pursued together, can achieve these goals: stop agriculture from consuming more tropical land, boost the productivity of farms that have the lowest yields, raise the efficiency of water and fertilizer use worldwide, reduce per capita meat consumption and reduce waste in food production and distribution."

...The Five Food Security Steps!


This involves a bit-o-reorienting of our economic system and what we value, but don't we need to do that anyway?

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

AS WELL AS... Goals 4/5 <child/maternal health> re: reduced smoke-related diseases [equivalent to eradicating Malaria]! -imho

"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

Over a third of GHG emissions come from the Agricultural Sector. We can fix that; and produce more food--if we shift our value on intensity--and employ more people too.

Quote

...Also from:
Can We Feed the World and Sustain the Planet?
A five-step global plan could double food production by 2050 while greatly reducing environmental damage

...The article closes with:
"The principles and practices of our different agricultural systems--from large-scale commercial to local and organic--provide the foundation for grappling with the world's food security and environmental needs. Feeding nine billion people in a truly sustainable way will be one of the greatest challenges our civilization has had to confront. It will require the imagination, determination and hard work of countless people from all over the world. There is no time to lose."

...my emphases re: nascent global civilization & new industries and careers.


...since the resources that jump-started civilization are now used up, and so we can't restart this civilization ever again....
I'm hoping we can learn from history, and not repeat the typical rise-n-fall pattern of local and regional civilizations, now that we are operating at a global level.

This focus on food and health (personal, socioeconomic, & ecosphere) seems to be a viable way forward, istm. "Why should we not take every opportunity to find synergies... that maximize co-benefits."

~

This post has been edited by Essay: 28 January 2012 - 10:06 AM

[jeskill]

Essay, on 28 January 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

What you say makes perfect sense, if you envision modern "organic" agriculture as being done the way farming was done 100-200 years ago. There should be an alternative way of doing modern, distributed (high employment) and coordinated (online), low-labor, clean-n-easy, high-tech "organic" agriculture. Such a system would use robots for much of the labor, and direct sensing/assay of soil/plant genetics and health; to be coordinated with remote sensing data and evaluated to guide management decisions, and executed over a video game-like system.

Wouldn't robots require fossil fuels to run efficiently? What's wrong with high-labor? As you stated, it's not like we have too many jobs.

Essay, on 28 January 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

We need to DOUBLE food production over the next 50 years (to accommodate the projected "stabilizing and more affluent" population increase, which will be eating higher up on the food chain)...
while also greatly reducing environmental damage (which current "modern" agriculture is significantly exacerbating).
===

So, this double the food production number is based on the idea that as developing countries become more affluent, they will start to eat more meat, correct? Just out of curiosity, how much meat does this number expect everybody will eat?

Nice articles, btw.

[Santalum]

Essay, on 28 January 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

What you say makes perfect sense, if you envision modern "organic" agriculture as being done the way farming was done 100-200 years ago. There should be an alternative way of doing modern, distributed (high employment) and coordinated (online), low-labor, clean-n-easy, high-tech "organic" agriculture. Such a system would use robots for much of the labor, and direct sensing/assay of soil/plant genetics and health; to be coordinated with remote sensing data and evaluated to guide management decisions, and executed over a video game-like system.

Medieval farming was essentially organic, they did not have a choice because oil derived chemical fertilisers were not available to them. And still agricultural output was vastly less than it has been during the oil age.


Oil consists of a huge amount of accumulated photosynthesis derived energy concentrated into a very small volume of liquid. As a fuel it is extremely efficient with a high usable energy output and easily portable.


Chemical fertilisers, derived from oil, are similarly extremely dense in minerals easily available to plants and therefore easily portable. To obtain the same amount of available minerals through organic sources would require orders of magnitude greater volumes or those organic sources to be transported without the benefit of oil derived energy. For our current farming, systems that are long distances from the areas where their out put is consumed and where large amounts of organic waste are available, organic farming is impractical.

No matter which way you look at it, agricultural output will fall dramatically in the post oil age and technological pipe dreams like the above will never happen nor solve the crisis humanity is facing.

We need to bravely face this crisis, no matter how distressing it seems to us, no matter how desperately we do not want to acknowledge it and no matter how desperately we want to believe that technology will provide for us. There is simply no avoiding the fact that there will be vastly less of us living on Earth in the post oil age. The only choice we have is how this massive reduction in humans will occur: in an orderly and as humane as possible manor by our own hands or at the hands of an indifferent mother nature.

[Essay]

Santalum, on 29 January 2012 - 12:45 AM, said:

Medieval farming was essentially organic, they did not have a choice because oil derived chemical fertilisers were not available to them. And still agricultural output was vastly less than it has been during the oil age.

Oil consists of a huge amount of accumulated photosynthesis derived energy concentrated into a very small volume of liquid. As a fuel it is extremely efficient with a high usable energy output and easily portable.

Chemical fertilisers, derived from oil, are similarly extremely dense in minerals easily available to plants and therefore easily portable. To obtain the same amount of available minerals through organic sources would require orders of magnitude greater volumes or those organic sources to be transported without the benefit of oil derived energy. For our current farming, systems that are long distances from the areas where their out put is consumed and where large amounts of organic waste are available, organic farming is impractical.

No matter which way you look at it, agricultural output will fall dramatically in the post oil age and technological pipe dreams like the above will never happen nor solve the crisis humanity is facing.

We need to bravely face this crisis, no matter how distressing it seems to us, no matter how desperately we do not want to acknowledge it and no matter how desperately we want to believe that technology will provide for us. There is simply no avoiding the fact that there will be vastly less of us living on Earth in the post oil age. The only choice we have is how this massive reduction in humans will occur: in an orderly and as humane as possible manor by our own hands or at the hands of an indifferent mother nature.

...Yes, we can't continue on this path, nor go back....


Right, all you speak to is true; and the odds are that we will follow the pattern of local and regional civilizations, now that we operate as a global civilization.

However...
There is a small chance of moving into the future, without following that boom-n-bust pattern.

There is another way. We struggled through fits and starts for a long time, trying to make agriculture work well enough to support our civilizations. Markets evolved out of this, and eventually we hit upon Nature's credit card, petroleum, so that we could ramp up agriculture with stored energy. And incurring increasing debt should not become a routine way of life.

Similar to what you noted: For millennia we struggled to transcend Nature with our Agriculture, and we were limited.
Recently we transcended natural limits (but not Nature) by tricking the natural flows of nutrients and energy, and for a generation we were not limited.
We've about reached out "credit" limit with that strategy, and now the debt is coming due.
===

All true, but there is another way. As E. O. Wilson suggests, rather than strive to transcend Nature, we should aspire to be as good as Nature.

Recent discoveries (as in new paradigms emerging over the past decade), regarding carbon-cycle dynamics, suggest new avenues to pursue Agriculture--which would double productivity while simultaneously reducing and/or reversing environment damage. There are options to move forward sustainably, without relying upon fossilized energy or back-breaking labor.
===

This is based on a new understanding of ecosystem balance; realizing that, as an ecosystem component, soil is as fundamental as air, water, or sunlight. Through evolution, biology became an increasingly important player in the feedbacks of earth's systems, and soils came to predominate as a biological factor; especially when the "largest creature on Earth" (called Temperate Soil) evolved over just the past 50 million years.

This new understanding provides us with the ability to more effectively manage ecosystem balance by restoring the healthy natural functions of temperate soils (being "as good as Nature," so to speak), which also increases productivity; so it's a win/win/win situation.
If you count in the new industries and careers involved, it is a win/win/win/win situation.

This new knowledge is not one of those "technological pipe dreams;" though current technology does make the application of this new option possible, as well as much less labor and resource intensive than the agricultural models from 100 years ago. It is more of a behavioural "fix," which equally may be a "pipe dream," but there is also that option for our future.
===

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." --p.148 The Rhizosphere, 2007

If we can apply this new "ecological knowledge," then:
"...fundamental changes in cultural values and human societies...." offer us an option forward into a sustainable symbiosis with Nature.

...Or we will repeat the patterns of previous civilizations, not learning from history, and go down one of those "orderly" or "indifferent" pathways you describe.

The odds aren't good, but there is a small chance to win; however, as Foley suggests... "There is no time to lose."

~

[Santalum]

Essay, on 29 January 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

===

All true, but there is another way. As E. O. Wilson suggests, rather than strive to transcend Nature, we should aspire to be as good as Nature.

Recent discoveries (as in new paradigms emerging over the past decade), regarding carbon-cycle dynamics, suggest new avenues to pursue Agriculture--which would double productivity while simultaneously reducing and/or reversing environment damage. There are options to move forward sustainably, without relying upon fossilized energy or back-breaking labor.
===

This is based on a new understanding of ecosystem balance; realizing that, as an ecosystem component, soil is as fundamental as air, water, or sunlight. Through evolution, biology became an increasingly important player in the feedbacks of earth's systems, and soils came to predominate as a biological factor; especially when the "largest creature on Earth" (called Temperate Soil) evolved over just the past 50 million years.

This new understanding provides us with the ability to more effectively manage ecosystem balance by restoring the healthy natural functions of temperate soils (being "as good as Nature," so to speak), which also increases productivity; so it's a win/win/win situation.
If you count in the new industries and careers involved, it is a win/win/win/win situation.

Even if all this was true and inevitable, please explain why it is in our long term interests to continue delaying paying back our ecological debt as you put it. That fact STILL remains that there must be vastly less of us sooner or later. Why continue puting off our obligations and the coming crash even worse for future generations?

Why not face up to the fact that we must and should reduce our numbers rather than avoiding this because it is too hard?

Why wont the scientific community in particular face up to this rather than continuing to provide transient quick fixes thus perpetuating the delusion of the masses that they don't really have to do anything drastic.

[Essay]

Santalum, on 29 January 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

Even if all this was true and inevitable, please explain why it is in our long term interests to continue delaying paying back our ecological debt as you put it. That fact STILL remains that there must be vastly less of us sooner or later. Why continue puting off our obligations and the coming crash even worse for future generations?

Why not face up to the fact that we must and should reduce our numbers rather than avoiding this because it is too hard?

Why wont the scientific community in particular face up to this rather than continuing to provide transient quick fixes thus perpetuating the delusion of the masses that they don't really have to do anything drastic.

Again, this isn't a "transient quick fix," but rather a way to begin paying back the debt and restoring original and natural, productive, functioning of the soil systems. It is more a case of "new, more complete, knowledge" about ecosystem dynamics and functioning, which should allow us to avoid common mistakes from the past, rather than some new invention such as genetic modification.

As the link above mentioned in: How to Make the Food System More Energy Efficient
"Changes in agriculture, policy and personal behaviors can..." have effects on our future; and these are not new quick techno fixes. They are about behaviours and policies, and fundamental changes to the way we live and what we value. I think that would be preferable to either the orderly or indifferent, drastic population reduction that is our other option.

~

p.s. I'd also note that even if we could magically reduce population to half or a quarter of current levels, our current systems would still run us off an ecological cliff fairly soon. It is our ways, not our numbers, which need to change if we are to avoid the cliff. In fact, if we change our ways, then a greater number of people helping will make the restoration (paying back the debt) occur faster. Later we can let population equilibrate, when we are no longer dependent upon "growth" to sustain our civilization.

This post has been edited by Essay: 29 January 2012 - 11:56 AM

[Santalum]

Essay, on 29 January 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

Again, this isn't a "transient quick fix," but rather a way to begin paying back the debt and restoring original and natural, productive, functioning of the soil systems. It is more a case of "new, more complete, knowledge" about ecosystem dynamics and functioning, which should allow us to avoid common mistakes from the past, rather than some new invention such as genetic modification.

As the link above mentioned in: How to Make the Food System More Energy Efficient
"Changes in agriculture, policy and personal behaviors can..." have effects on our future; and these are not new quick techno fixes. They are about behaviours and policies, and fundamental changes to the way we live and what we value. I think that would be preferable to either the orderly or indifferent, drastic population reduction that is our other option.

~

As long as population reduction is a central plank of the above.

It makes little sense to improve the efficiency of you house hold spending if your wage is falling and you are adding more members toi the household.

[Essay]

Santalum, on 29 January 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

As long as population reduction is a central plank of the above.

It makes little sense to improve the efficiency of you house hold spending if your wage is falling and you are adding more members toi the household.

Agreed, but it makes a little more sense than not improving efficiency of spending....

But in general I'd say that reducing population follows naturally when people enjoy food security and socioeconomic security, especially when that security is appreciated from an educated and healthy background. Population growth rates can even fall below replacement value when those "security" conditions are achieved; though if the system is not predicated upon "growth" to sustain itself, then that won't be a problem as it currently is.

The idea is about living in a way that replenishes our carbon footprint through development, rather than enlarging our footprint through growth.


This post: http://www.sciencefo...512#entry654512
...by jimmydasaint, contains a link to an article about an economist E. F. Schumacher, who wrote "Small is Beautiful" back in the 1970's

http://www.guardian....small-beautiful

Quote

Second, to address the challenge of how to change man's relationship with the planet, society needs to mobilise a combination of "freedom and order", two apparently irreconcilable concepts. For Schumacher this meant "lots of small, autonomous units", committed to "the indivisibility of peace and also of ecology." Typically, Schumacher expressed his ideas in memorable phrases: "good husbandry will help people to help themselves".

...now, with the internet, that is so much more possible....

That is the type of system (with "lots of small, autonomous units"), which I was trying to indicate when I mentioned "distributed" and "coordinated" in my first post above.


~

[Athena]

I really appreciate all the reality talk here! I am amusing the explanation of Temperate Soil, is about the value of biochar.

I really like the idea that using oil is like using a credit card and there is a price to pay for this. My only concern is the statements were not strong enough. Add to debt the increasing populations of oil countries and what will happen when they run out of oil. Right now they are experiencing political unrest because they can not employ enough of their populations, and this will only get worse. Then they will all face the day of not enough oil to maintain their population's needs. This is insane.

While increased security may lead to naturally reduced populations, I don't believe that is possible around the world. What is happening around the world today is like two trains using the same rails and headed towards each other. Look at China. It took drastic measures to reduce its population growth, and their educated young understand the necessity of this. That is the kind of education the world needs.

The appetite of the US population is taking food off other people's tables. Gloating with pride in our ability to do this, is not exactly sane, because this creates problems around the world, as our dependency on imports increases.

Wow, can you imagine an education system designed to help the young understand reality, instead of turning them into products for industry and the New World Order that is run by the Military Industrial Complex. Bottom line, we live on a finite planet and need to learn how to live within limits. Failure to do so is insane.

This post has been edited by Athena: 29 January 2012 - 08:32 PM

[Santalum]

Essay, on 29 January 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

Agreed, but it makes a little more sense than not improving efficiency of spending....

But in general I'd say that reducing population follows naturally when people enjoy food security and socioeconomic security, especially when that security is appreciated from an educated and healthy background. Population growth rates can even fall below replacement value when those "security" conditions are achieved; though if the system is not predicated upon "growth" to sustain itself, then that won't be a problem as it currently is.

You can't assume that increased stadard of living will universally reduce fertility. That is a cop out.
1) Western countries have undergone periods of population expansion regardless of high standard of living, most noteably the post WW2 baby boom and in the last decade or so in Australia with another baby boom albeit much smaller so far.

2) Orthodox Jews in Israel currently have high fertility levels.

Fertility levels a driven by culture and politics as much as they are by standard of living.

Apart from the fact that global resources are already severely stretched and pressure on the global ecosystem already close to breaking point with our current collective consumption. It is unlikely to be possible to further raise consumption levels and standard of living in the developing world in the hope that it will reduce their fertility significantly.

Sooner or later we will need to deploy far more certain and decisive ways of reducing population.

Essay, on 29 January 2012 - 01:09 PM, said:

The idea is about living in a way that replenishes our carbon footprint through development, rather than enlarging our footprint through growth.


This post: http://www.sciencefo...512#entry654512
...by jimmydasaint, contains a link to an article about an economist E. F. Schumacher, who wrote "Small is Beautiful" back in the 1970's

http://www.guardian....small-beautiful

...now, with the internet, that is so much more possible....[/size][/font][/color]

That is the type of system (with "lots of small, autonomous units"), which I was trying to indicate when I mentioned "distributed" and "coordinated" in my first post above.


~

All the evidence thus far is that 'development' increases our carbon foot print.

I do not buy the notion that we can miraculously pursue 'development' in a way that reduces our collective carbon foot print. Sounds to much like the prverbial 'magic puding' to me.

The best that can be hoped for is that it is possible to pursue forms of development that do not increase our carbon foot print to the same extent as has been the case.

Everything humans do, no matter what they do, takes something from the global ecosystem that is then not available to other species. The more of us there are the more we take regardless of the fact that one individual may be taking a little less than what they have been in the past.

This post has been edited by Santalum: 30 January 2012 - 12:06 AM