WASHINGTON (AFP) – A growing, more affluent population competing for ever scarcer resources could make for an "unrecognizable" world by 2050, researchers warned at a major US science conference Sunday.
The United Nations has predicted the global population will reach seven billion this year, and climb to nine billion by 2050, "with almost all of the growth occurring in poor countries, particularly Africa and South Asia," said John Bongaarts of the non-profit Population Council.
To feed all those mouths, "we will need to produce as much food in the next 40 years as we have in the last 8,000," said Jason Clay of the World Wildlife Fund at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
"By 2050 we will not have a planet left that is recognizable" if current trends continue, Clay said.
The swelling population will exacerbate problems, such as resource depletion, said John Casterline, director of the Initiative in Population Research at Ohio State University.
But incomes are also expected to rise over the next 40 years -- tripling globally and quintupling in developing nations -- and add more strain to global food supplies.
People tend to move up the food chain as their incomes rise, consuming more meat than they might have when they made less money, the experts said.
It takes around seven pounds (3.4 kilograms) of grain to produce a pound of meat, and around three to four pounds of grain to produce a pound of cheese or eggs, experts told AFP.
"More people, more money, more consumption, but the same planet," Clay told AFP, urging scientists and governments to start making changes now to how food is produced.
Population experts, meanwhile, called for more funding for family planning programs to help control the growth in the number of humans, especially in developing nations.
"For 20 years, there's been very little investment in family planning, but there's a return of interest now, partly because of the environmental factors like global warming and food prices," said Bongaarts.
"We want to minimize population growth, and the only viable way to do that is through more effective family planning," said Casterline.
02-21-2011, 07:13 PM
Gene
Re: Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say
I believe population growth is at the root of most of the major problems facing this planet today. We must solve this problem. However all the current economic systems that I know of are based on growth. More people more consumers. I would think that smaller populations would mean more for everyone and less strain on the planet.
02-21-2011, 09:31 PM
Hotspring 44
Re: Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Gene:
I believe population growth is at the root of most of the major problems facing this planet today. We must solve this problem. However all the current economic systems that I know of are based on growth. More people more consumers. I would think that smaller populations would mean more for everyone and less strain on the planet.
Yes I agree with that.
But all (or mostly all) the regimes that exist today will have to vacate power or change in unconscionable, radical ways from what they are accustomed to.
I just don't see that happening in that direction.
02-22-2011, 08:52 AM
podfish
Re: Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say
oh, I bet we'll recognize it. It just won't look the same as it did in the family photos from our youth. We just want it to be more like grampa playing ball with the kids, instead of lying in the hospital full of tubes - or even worse, lying in the gutter behind the bar.
02-22-2011, 10:52 AM
someguy
Re: Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say
I'd like you all to take ten minutes and watch this video. Maybe we could have a discussion about it afterward.
02-22-2011, 07:26 PM
DynamicBalance
Re: Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44;130058[FONT=Arial:
To feed all those mouths, "we will need to produce as much food in the next 40 years as we have in the last 8,000," said Jason Clay of the World Wildlife Fund at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).[/FONT]
But incomes are also expected to rise over the next 40 years -- tripling globally and quintupling in developing nations -- and add more strain to global food supplies.
People tend to move up the food chain as their incomes rise, consuming more meat than they might have when they made less money, the experts said.
It takes around seven pounds (3.4 kilograms) of grain to produce a pound of meat, and around three to four pounds of grain to produce a pound of cheese or eggs, experts told AFP.
I have a few serious objections to what is being presented here as fact. First off, we have more than enough food to feed everyone on this planet. These experts, if they truly are experts, surely know this. Yet they imply that there is not enough food to go around by saying that rising incomes will "add more strain to global food supplies". In other words, they are saying that there is already a strain. That is blatantly dishonest. The main cause of world hunger is poverty, not a strained food supply. Food is not a resource that is nearing depletion, by any stretch of the imagination. In India the grain is rotting while the people starve. So the amount of food is not an issue.
It is not a fact that it takes seven pounds of grain to produce a pound of meat. Grain has only been used to produce meat for a short period of time. For thousands of years people have raised ruminant animals on grass, their natural diet. Same for cheese, no grain necessary at all. Eggs are a bit different, as chickens require some grain, but certainly not even close to as much as they are currently being fed. Why is there no metion of this in the article? Why no push for smaller, local mixed farms that are grass-based as a solution to this supposed problem? One of the "experts", Clay, urges scientists and governments to "start making changes now to how food is produced." This vague statement concerns me. What kind of change is he talking about? Undoubtedly more GMO monocultures in the name of feeding the world. Clearly he is not talking about a return to grass-based local farming.
Personally, I think it's a great thing that people in developing nations have rising incomes that allow them to add more nutrient-dense animal foods to their diets. A pound of cheese, eggs, or meat is more nutritious and complete than a pound of grain.
02-22-2011, 08:33 PM
Hotspring 44
Re: Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say
I'd like you all to take ten minutes and watch this video. Maybe we could have a discussion about it afterward.
02-23-2011, 12:53 AM
Hotspring 44
Re: Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
I have a few serious objections to what is being presented here as fact. First off, we have more than enough food to feed everyone on this planet.
What about in 40 years from now? Is all we do have is oatmeal, eggs, chicken meat, beef, and milk from grass fed animals? Who's going to supply and/or give up the land for that? What about fish? What about fresh clean water to drink? What about the disposal of human waste, of all kinds? What about who's going to put together and maintain the entire infrastructure for all those things worldwide? Who is going to be so inclined to pay for all of that? Sure as hell not the politicians we have in office here in America now that's for absolutely sure without a shadow of a doubt.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
These experts, if they truly are experts, surely know this. Yet they imply that there is not enough food to go around by saying that rising incomes will "add more strain to global food supplies". In other words, they are saying that there is already a strain. That is blatantly dishonest. The main cause of world hunger is poverty, not a strained food supply.
You forgot to mention the disparity of wealth, which is the number one main factor through shortages for people in particular regions of the world at this point in time.
It's not wealth by itself, but I think you may have missed the point about raising incomes.
What I think the author meant by that was that more strain will be put on the environment and ecosystem than already exists now, because more people will be able to afford to live and be inclined to purchase more luxuries. Some of those luxuries will be in the form of food being shipped from thousands of miles away, and cultivated crops from monoculture systems that are inherently dependent on the extraction of resources like in particular; crude oil and the limited phosphorous deposits than the organic life cycle models that are far more sustainable but also labor intensive.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
Food is not a resource that is nearing depletion, by any stretch of the imagination. In India the grain is rotting while the people starve. So the amount of food is not an issue.
and why is the food rotting? Is it because the disparity of wealth, the lack of planning, the inability to ship it to the people that need it, or?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
It is not a fact that it takes seven pounds of grain to produce a pound of meat. Grain has only been used to produce meat for a short period of time.
Well, you are more than likely correct about that. It may not be an absolute fact that it takes that much grain to produce 1 pound of meat but, however, the way meat is being produced now (averaged) I think is what they are referring to.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
For thousands of years people have raised ruminant animals on grass, their natural diet. Same for cheese, no grain necessary at all. Eggs are a bit different, as chickens require some grain, but certainly not even close to as much as they are currently being fed.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
Why is there no mention of this in the article?
That's a good question. I think the author of the article is the one to ask. I don't have the answer to that question.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
Why no push for smaller, local mixed farms that are grass-based as a solution to this supposed problem?
Once again, that's a question to ask the author. But, the big huge monoculture factory farm system in this country and its financial interests are most definitely getting in the way of being able to do something like that in America in any meaningful, quantitative, amounts at this point in time. Besides that I'm not sure there are enough people knowledgeable, willing, and able to deal with the farming life in America at this point in time. It’s going to take quite a bit of education for people who are interested in doing that. That being said, it's a better time to start sooner than later on that.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
One of the "experts", Clay, urges scientists and governments to "start making changes now to how food is produced." This vague statement concerns me. What kind of change is he talking about? Undoubtedly more GMO monocultures in the name of feeding the world. Clearly he is not talking about a return to grass-based local farming.
yes, that concerns me too. It definitely merits further investigation.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
Personally, I think it's a great thing that people in developing nations have rising incomes that allow them to add more nutrient-dense animal foods to their diets. A pound of cheese, eggs, or meat is more nutritious and complete than a pound of grain.
We should not be too hasty in assuming that the trade-offs that some of those people have who live in those “developing” places in the way of monetary wealth is anywhere near the resource loss that many of them in the “developing” world have and are experiencing which has in fact actually had the effect of reducing their ability to feed themselves.
And has made them more dependent on the mass marketed grain fed commodity marketed meat and what have you, that is dependent on extract sources and exploiting people for profit.
What I'm saying here is that what is good for some of those people is absolutely horrible for many more. Many more people have lost the ability to feed themselves because of commercialism, such as mining and other mineral extraction from the land on which they use to be able to survive just fine before the development and/or invitations.
Look at what has happened in the Amazon, for example. Will certain parts of the Amazon be recognizable in 50 or 150 years if there are some valuable mineral, oil or gas deposits in profitable quantities discovered there?
There most certainly are likely to be flaws in the article.
But even here in America; how many multi-thousand acre monoculture, corporate farm owners would give up their property to small farms like what you are advocating?
Or how many people willing and able to create, maintain, and expand the small farms have the money to buy those property interests?... ... And furthermore how many of them would even want to be on that land after all of the destructive GMO’s and pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides etc. have been dumped onto those places for so many years. Not to mention the water table being depleted.
Unfortunately there are a lot of real world concerns about a lot of places. I have driven through the Central Valley in California and I realize that it is basically mostly artificially irrigated and is actually (in its natural state) more of a desert than an oasis of farms.
I think that it is possible to change the way food is produced and shipped to people. But convincing the powers that be to make those changes is excruciatingly difficult to imagine nonetheless pull off.
So as long as there is business as usual, I think the unrecognizable planet in 50 years is not completely out of the question.
I think the article is mostly meant to be food for thought.
I think also that if you question all of the large-scale meat producers in America about small diversified farms that would be able to produce as much meat as they do now using methods that you are referring to, they wouldn't have a clue on actually how to pull it off.
Big agribusiness just won't go for that. They would have to be dragged down or fall down on their own before they would even so much as consider that.
So the bottom line is and will probably, unfortunately, continue to be for those who have enough money to pay for it, they will be able to get it from anywhere in the world delivered to their doorstep, and those that do not have enough money to pay for food can't even afford to get the food that grows across the street. So in that sense, there is for those people that are so devastatingly poor; there is a food shortage.
I essentially agree with your poverty hypothesis. But I'm adding to it: (That) It is the disparity that causes the poverty to be so extreme.
I think the defining line is the difference between; can feed, won't feed; can share and won't share resources; can and can't pay for food; can ship food, won't ship food; each country being food independent or food dependent upon other countries as suppliers.
Last but not least, does anybody actually have any scientific numbers based on actual ability to produce, store, and ship food on what the world human population limit really is? I suspect not. But if so I am interested in seeing the data. Otherwise it's all conjecture and based on limited available facts. One thing is for sure there are most definitely limits to everything.
02-23-2011, 11:03 PM
DynamicBalance
Re: Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say
Quote:
What about in 40 years from now? Is all we do have is oatmeal, eggs, chicken meat, beef, and milk from grass fed animals? Who's going to supply and/or give up the land for that? What about fish? What about fresh clean water to drink? What about the disposal of human waste, of all kinds? What about who's going to put together and maintain the entire infrastructure for all those things worldwide? Who is going to be so inclined to pay for all of that? Sure as hell not the politicians we have in office here in America now that's for absolutely sure without a shadow of a doubt.
You're definitely correct that the politicians are not going to do a goddamn thing to bring about any meaningful positive change in regards to any of these problems. That's why individual action is the key to real change. If we want to change our entire food system (which I definitely do), the first step is to change the way we as individuals approach our food. There are many, many people who want to see our food system changed. They want a system that is more personal, where they feel that they have a real relationship with their food and the people who grow it. They want a system that is humane, where all animals are treated with dignity and respect and are allowed to live a happy life and engage in their natural activities. And they want a system that produces food that is truly healthy and life-sustaining, where food is treated as an incredible magical gift and not as a commodity. But they see how vast our current food system is and they feel small and powerless to do anything to change it. They don't even know where to begin. The real problem is that we don't realize our own power. At the moment we are using our power to keep the food staus quo in place. But we could just as easily change the way we think and act in regards to our food - if we did this the system could change very quickly to something more like what we want to see.
I think you may be looking at this issue from a different perspective than I am. The way I see it, if we the people made every effort to purchase our food from the people who are doing things right, the system will change, and it will change quickly. If there is a huge demand for local organic vegetables and pastured meat, eggs, and dairy, the supply will follow. Right now people are prepared to pay top dollar for fancy wines from Sonoma County, so that is what is produced here - huge monocultures of grapes, complete with all the pesticide runoff that goes hand in hand with monocultures. Meanwhile people do not value their food at all. And why should they? The food they eat is, for the most part, valueless. It is processed and denatured, completely devoid of any real nutrition, fortified with synthetic substitues that don't even have the same biological value, riddled with toxic additives. No one knows their farmer or where their food came from. People think nothing of spending $300 for a phone that will probably give them brain cancer, or $20 for a bottle of wine, but they aren't willing to pay $5/lb for pastured chicken. Our priorities as a nation are pretty crooked.
But if we decide we don't want this bleak picture anymore, things can change. If people start valuing their food and are willing to pay more to get food that will nourish them, and are willing to use the money that they would have spent on things like wine and i-phones to pay for that food, suddenly the people who make wine (for example) will not have nearly as many customers. And some (probably many) of them will decide to go into something more profitable and sell their land. Right now, you pretty much have to be rich to be a small farmer in California. The land is overpriced, the regulations are ridiculous and insane, and on top of that we have a populace who insists on paying next to nothing for their food. It's not an easy business to go into for these reasons. But if even 10% of us (not that outrageous of a number - I know far more than that care about changing the food system) were to make it our priority to buy our food from the people who are doing things right, suddenly there would be a market for quality food. Suddenly you could make a living as a farmer, and more and more aspiring farmers would begin to buy land, because they would see that there was actually a potential for them to succeed at what they want to do. Pretty soon we would have a landscape dominated not by endless grapevines, but by small mixed farms. Nobody has to "give up" their land - we simply have to create a demand for real food, and the supply would definitely follow. You asked how many corporate farm owners would be willing to give up their land to small farmers. Well, I'm asking how many corporate farms would be able to stay in business and retain their land if a significant portion of people stopped buying their food-like products.
These kinds of changes set off a domino effect of other beneficial changes. When people know their farmers, they start to really care about legislation that affects farmers, and they begin to put pressure on their politicians to get rid of all the lousy regulations that are designed to crush small farmers and benefit big business. Corporate interests may have a stronghold right now, and they certainly have more lobbying power than those who support small farmers. But that too could change. Let's all stop using our money to support these assholes, and we can easily cut their profits down to fractions of what they are currently making.
A sustainable food system is inherently a local food system (for the most part anyway - I'm no local food fundamentalist. I support moderation in everything. It's great that we are able to get nutritious foods like coconut and palm oil that we cannot produce ourselves.). We cannot expect the agribusiness giants to change the way they do things - it will never happen. Those people are focused on profit at the expense of all else. What we can do is stop supporting them and start supporting the small farmers who raise animals and vegetables in a symbiotic relationship and in ways that improve the soil and benefit the environment. These kinds of farms are inherently small farms - there is a limit to how big you can grow before you have to sacrifice quality. We have to learn to want quality over quantity and cheap prices.
You brought up some other topics. The situation with fish is similar. We need to buy our fish from local people so we can ensure that they are doing things right - fishing in unpolluted waters, avoiding overfishing at-risk kinds of fish. Don't buy farmed fish. Their feed is made from soy. Clean water? Not polluting the water in the first place would be a great start, which of course means buying local organic foods. We could also stop putting our poop in the water - that would solve a lot of the problem. Humanure is the way to go for that kind of human waste. A lot of people are wigged out by it but it's really an amazing thing and incredibly easy, and it produces quality compost. It's ridiculous to keep polluting our clean water with feces, then having to find ways to remove the feces from the water, in a never-ending cycle. I'm not naive enough to think that many people are going to buy this idea, especially in our germophobic society, but it's really the only viable solution, so we have to start thinking about it sooner or later.
Other kinds of waste? First, let's stop buying so much stuff that we don't need and throwing it away. Let's make it socially unacceptable to have a bunch of crap that you don't need! Next, with the stuff we do need, let's buy things that don't come in a lot of packaging, or that come in packages that are compostable or reusable. I buy my meat from a local farmer who has the meat butchered at Willowside Meats, and the meat comes wrapped in paper that is uncoated. It can be thrown in the yard waste bin. When I buy something that comes in a glass container, I save the container to reuse. How much money do people waste on plastic containers that leach endocrine disruptors into their food, when they could be saving glass containers for free? My point is that there are lots of ways to reduce the amount of waste that humans produce, and none of them are very difficult.
As far as your question about who is going to put together and maintain the infrastructure worldwide - what infrastructure? If we start buying food from local people, those people will build the infrastructure they need to produce food, and maintain it. Maybe I'm forgetting something? Also, if you couldn't tell from what I've said so far, I'm definitely in favor of action on the local level first - as in, before we try to deal with worldwide problems we should deal with the ones that are right next to us first. How can we expect to be able to fix the world's problems if we can't even fix our own? If we can really fix our own food system effectively, then we can move on to showing others how they can fix theirs. Of course, the main things that are keeping people in other parts of the world from being able to produce their own food are subsidies and free trade. These policies make it literally impossible for people to maintain the local food economies that sustained them for thousands of years. We can't just come in and undercut the abilities of farmers to make a living with our cheap soy and corn. If we got rid of our subsidies, it would cost far more to ship food halfway around the world than it would to locally produce it. It would be completely unaffordable, and suddenly the local food economies would be viable again. Obviously there are other factors in some areas such as resource depletion. That's another topic, but its worth mentioning that clearly people in developed countries are buying things that use those resources, like cellphones. Maybe we should stop. I cancelled my cellphone today, and I'm not looking back.
It's certainly true that much of our land here in the United States is badly depleted and polluted. But you'd be surprised at the many ways that nature can regenerate itself. Microbes in compost have the ability to degrade many toxic chemicals. Topsoil can be replaced faster than most people think. With intensive grazing, soil fertility can be improved very quickly. Throw in some seaweed for trace minerals and some bone and blood meal, and you're good to go (this is obviously a generalization - it depends on the specific nutrient profile of the soil).
Who pays for our new food system? We do, with our dollars that we decide to spend on quality food from real farmers who respect the land. In fact, I'm going to extend a challange to all Waccos reading this: If you care about your health, the health of the land, the health and wellbeing of animals, the health of our society, or the health of our local economy...... I challenge you to buy more of your food directly from local farmers. Start small if you have to. It's not that hard, I promise. I'm including a list of local food sources at the bottom of my post to make it easy for you. Go to the farmer's market for your fresh vegetables, eggs, and meat. Sign up for a CSA. Contact farmers directly to purchase meat - invest in a chest freezer and split a pig or a cow with your neighbor. You can even buy local beef and chicken now at Oliver's Market. It's not as direct, but the fact that we can even buy these things at a store shows that things are changing. There is demand for real food. Some people are willing to pay more for Gleason Ranch chicken and Hicks Valley beef, because they know it's more nutritious, good for the earth, and the animals have a good life. And we can create even more demand, if we are willing to change ourselves. The way I see it, it's not the big monoculture farms that are standing in the way of a changed food system - it's us, we are standing in our own way by continuing to treat our food as a commodity and not as sacred life-giving nourishment. We don't need to convince the powers that be to change things; we just have to convince ourselves.
Change starts with us. We can only have so much influence over others, be we can always influence ourselves. As we change, we influence our families to change, then our friends change, then their families change, and on it goes. Don't doubt your own power. We truly must be the change we wish to see in the world. It might seem idealistic, but really it's not. It's the only way that real change happens.
Local Food Sources
Pastured Meat & Eggs
Felton Acres - https://www.feltonacres.com/ (I buy most of my meat from this farm. His eggs can be found at Andy's and the Community Market)
Salmon Creek Ranch - www.salmoncreekranch.com (sometimes at the Santa Rosa Veteran's Memorial Farmer's Market)
And of course, the awesome Santa Rosa Veteran's Memorial Building Farmer's Market has lots of great vegetable, meat, and egg vendors. Santa Rosa Seafood even has a large booth.
02-24-2011, 01:12 AM
Hotspring 44
Re: Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
You're definitely correct that the politicians are not going to do a goddamn thing to bring about any meaningful positive change in regards to any of these problems. That's why individual action is the key to real change. If we want to change our entire food system (which I definitely do), the first step is to change the way we as individuals approach our food. There are many, many people who want to see our food system changed. They want a system that is more personal, where they feel that they have a real relationship with their food and the people who grow it....
You said a lot, and it's just after midnight as I a have started writing this. Plus I have a lot to do in the next few days. I will not be able to address everything you said specifically for a while.
Your basic premise of changing our ways of getting our food and perspective about our food as individuals is if it all possible, for whatever individual on this planet earth is a very good one overall, and of course, absolutely necessary to make the changes that we want to have.
I am concerned that because of other factors (contributing to the disparity of wealth in general) that other people in the world; tens if not hundreds of millions of them, don't have it as easy as we do in this area of the world.
The planet does have limitations, and people do have differing ideals; not all of which co-exist peacefully with ours in close quarters. There is room for the differences but it has limits and distance is necessary to keep the peace. Too many people in a particular space always have dire consequences for some and sometimes many.
Here is a link to an article of which one of my concerns are about regarding coral reefs in the world relating specifically to human food supply, and ultimately ending up adding to the food dilemma because a lot of those people do not have enough resources like we do here in the very rich land of food that we call California, particularly this area of California, which is referred to as “Wine Country” which has very fertile ground and excellent weather for cultivating a plethora of very fine food.
That being said, that is all that much more reason that I myself should follow some of your excellent suggestions about getting more food from local sources.
Also BTW, some farmed fish are not so bad, but just like farming vegetables, chicken, or beef. Certain things with farmed fish have to be done right too, so that it does not mess up the environment. Ink here>How to Choose Eco Friendly Farm Raised Fish
I'm sure I could find other links and resources for information about ecologically friendly and nutritious farm raised fish, but right now it's getting late and I'm going to have to shut the computer off soon.
Also, another Concern of mine that I did want to mention is that if people get too involved locally, and the rest of the world is in major distress, disputes will follow. People in the locally well off areas which are not part of a larger area, who were not able to defend their turf so to speak, unfortunately, end up getting invaded.
So, I think, because of that we also keep ourselves educated about what is happening in the greater world around us. I think we also need to keep in mind that it is a lot different for many hundreds of millions of people than it is for us here where we are; we are quite well off comparatively so it’s all too easy to not fully recognize how massive the adverse disparity of humans and creatures on the planet is.
Many other people are in a state of instability. That leads to more problems. So we (like you so eloquently said, need to act locally first with food, I would add to that; politically, and then also gain influence in larger areas as much as we can, and by doing so we can learn and continue to strive on to make changes in the world because, locally only, doing it by ourselves would not be possible. We still have to pitch in, somehow, because like it or not we are not so isolated enough to have the luxury to ignore that.
Anyway, I hope I'm not babbling on too much I'm getting tired. I'm shutting the computer off in a couple of more minutes.
BTW, Thanks for the links!
02-25-2011, 01:53 PM
DynamicBalance
Re: Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:
I am concerned that because of other factors (contributing to the disparity of wealth in general) that other people in the world; tens if not hundreds of millions of them, don't have it as easy as we do in this area of the world.
Which other factors are you referring to? I'm well aware of how easy we have it here, and of the incredible difficulties that people in other parts of the world are faced with. From what I can see, the biggest factors contributing to disparity of wealth worldwide are subsidized and industrialized agriculture and free trade. There's a film that I highly recommend, called Life and Debt, that illustrates this issue. It focuses on Jamaica and how globalization has utterly destroyed their chance to have a viable food economy of their own. They used to have a thriving dairy industry, but free trade has brought in imported powdered milk at prices the local farmers simply cannot compete with. It's not that the farmers cannot produce enough milk to feed the people; quite the opposite. They are forced to dump out their fresh, wholesome milk because no one can buy it. Powdered skim milk is a dead, lifeless product, utterly lacking in nutrition. That's what Jamaicans have to eat now, because the IMF and World Bank have forced them into such unbelievable poverty in the name of globalization. Meanwhile the farmers have no market for their fresh food because it can all be imported from the US for far cheaper, and the people cannot afford to spend extra money they don't have. You can read a summary of the film here: https://www.cinescene.com/dash/life&debt.htm
That's what industrialized agriculture does: it creates extreme poverty (and ill health) worldwide, while making a few people extremely rich. That's why I'm saying that those of us who have it easy, if we care about these kinds of issues, need to make every effort to stop perpetuating this problem. We can do this by supporting local farmers and avoiding industrially processed food in general (including "organic" processed food, which is nearly invariably produced by the same multinational corporations who bring us the conventional stuff). We can also stop supporting the politicians who either support or turn a blind eye to these policies that create such economic disparity.
By advocating acting locally first I'm not trying to say that we should ignore global problems or be isolationists. Our local action can have a profound effect on the rest of the world. If we could successfully fix our food system (and that includes getting rid of subsidies and likely the Department of Agriculture altogether), think how that would impact places like Jamaica that have had their economies undercut by our cheap food. I also think the IMF and World Bank should be abolished. They exist only to take advantage of developing countries that are so desperate that they accept the "help" that is offered, only to see their countries destroyed by the restrictions placed on them by the IMF.
Quote:
Also BTW, some farmed fish are not so bad, but just like farming vegetables, chicken, or beef. Certain things with farmed fish have to be done right too, so that it does not mess up the environment
I disagree. A fish farm is not much different than a hog confinement. Some may be managed better than others, but they are inherently inhumane (correction: I can see how theoretically it could be possible to farm some kinds of fish humanely, although I am not sure which kinds.). Animals need to be able to engage in natural behaviors. For example, pigs need sunlight because just like humans, they produce vitamin D when sunlight hits their skin. Lard has developed a bad reputation, but the fact of the matter is that pastured lard is a health food and an incredible source of vitamin D. Unfortunately a pork chop from a CAFO is utterly lacking in this essential nutrient. Pigs need to be able to root around in the dirt - it's what pigs love to do! Likewise, I would argue that confining fish to a tank is inhumane, especially for fish like the salmon, who in nature go on an incredible journey that they are deprived of doing in a fish farm.
But this isn't my only objection to farmed fish, especially salmon. Salmon are carnivorous, and the little creatures they eat are what give them their pink color. Farmed salmon are deprived of their natural diet and their flesh is not pink. Because no one would buy salmon that isn't pink, the producers use dyes derived from petrochemicals to make them look pink. Not exactly healthy.
Although other farmed fish may not be dyed, they are still eating a diet that is unnatural and ultimately results in a product that is not health-promoting. It is cheaper to feed fish soy protein than it is to give them fish meal, and that is what is increasingly being done. The idea that it could be healthy for a fish to eat soy is completely ludicrous. It is not even healthy for a human to eat most soy foods! People are eating more fish (especially salmon) in part because they believe fish to be a good source of omega-3 fatty acids, so lacking in the modern diet. However, when you feed a fish grains and legumes, their fatty acid profile will be unnaturally high in omega-6 and low in omega-3. Another issue is the GMOs in soy. Obviously you would be avoiding those by buying organic farmed fish, but it's still an unhealthy diet for the fish.
Our best bet is to buy wild salmon from Alaska. Be aware that salmon labeled Atlantic salmon may still be farmed, as may fish labeled "caught in icy cold waters". Most fish farms are in the ocean, so they are technically "caught" in the ocean.
02-25-2011, 02:45 PM
podfish
Re: Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
... From what I can see, the biggest factors contributing to disparity of wealth worldwide are subsidized and industrialized agriculture and free trade. ... free trade has brought in imported powdered milk at prices the local farmers simply cannot compete with. ... They are forced to dump out their fresh, wholesome milk because no one can buy it. ...
That's what industrialized agriculture does: it creates extreme poverty (and ill health) worldwide, while making a few people extremely rich.... .
Your observations are correct, but I think the long-term solution is more complex and difficult to achieve than just opposing globalization and industrialization of the food industry.
It's a great thing that we have technology and farming practices that can allow us to produce more food more cheaply. Certainly there are people who need it. The biggest problem, as others have pointed out, is that the distribution system is terrible and the motivations of those who control the processes are warped. The ideal world would have plentiful naturally-raised food for those who can afford it, as well as plenty of healthful food (and water, and shelter) for everyone. There's little in our current system that encourages that outcome. The systems as evolved are based on enriching the individuals in control of parts of the chain, and the rewards primarily go to selfish behavior. In the near term, the 'realistic' tactics are to do as you're suggesting: keep the local providers alive by supporting them, resist the corporate takeover of food. But the real long-term solution is to support evolution towards systems not driven by profit, for food, health-care, and education. There are thousands of years of history behind organizing societies, but the technology for communication and controlling complex systems is only now becoming available.
The problem in your example is simple - the people can't afford milk. It's not that the powdered stuff is too cheap - it's that they have no economic clout.
02-25-2011, 05:53 PM
DynamicBalance
Re: Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by podfish:
Your observations are correct, but I think the long-term solution is more complex and difficult to achieve than just opposing globalization and industrialization of the food industry.
It's a great thing that we have technology and farming practices that can allow us to produce more food more cheaply. Certainly there are people who need it. The biggest problem, as others have pointed out, is that the distribution system is terrible and the motivations of those who control the processes are warped. The ideal world would have plentiful naturally-raised food for those who can afford it, as well as plenty of healthful food (and water, and shelter) for everyone. There's little in our current system that encourages that outcome. The systems as evolved are based on enriching the individuals in control of parts of the chain, and the rewards primarily go to selfish behavior. In the near term, the 'realistic' tactics are to do as you're suggesting: keep the local providers alive by supporting them, resist the corporate takeover of food. But the real long-term solution is to support evolution towards systems not driven by profit, for food, health-care, and education. There are thousands of years of history behind organizing societies, but the technology for communication and controlling complex systems is only now becoming available.
The problem in your example is simple - the people can't afford milk. It's not that the powdered stuff is too cheap - it's that they have no economic clout.
Clearly the problems we are talking about are complex and involve more than just the factors I have mentioned. I am specifically talking about things that we as individuals can do to improve the situation.
The problem with our industrialized food system is that we are not actually producing more food more cheaply! The food is artificially cheap because of subsidies. If the subsidies were out of the picture, it would be so expensive to produce grain and meat the way we do that the entire system would have to change practically overnight. The amount of fossil fuels used to produce our food and distribute it is unbelievable. It is simply not cost-effective without subsidization. And the environmental cost also has to be considered. Growing our food in giant monocultures cannot be considered a sustainable or natural way of farming, organic or not. It invites pest problems that have to be targeted with pesticides, organic or not. Even the organic pesticides can have health effects for the people who apply them, and can kill beneficial insects along with the pests. Do these corporate organic farms care enough to grow cover crops to build the soil and prevent erosion? Definitely not. Where do they get the manure to fertilize their fields? At the very least it has to be shipped in, using more fossil fuels.
Contrast this with the small mixed farm, where the cows eat grass and produce manure which can be used to fertilize the vegetables and grain, while the chickens eat grain, grass, and fly larvae from the cow patties (minimizing fly problems). Throw in some pigs, who can eat vegetable scraps and the skim milk from the cows which is leftover from making butter and cream for humans, and you have a perfect ecosystem in which all parts are dependent on the other parts, and everything benefits, including the soil. This is naturally-raised healthful food.
Even better, it's actually a myth that small farms are less productive per acre than industrial farms. https://www.mindfully.org/Farm/Small...its-Rosset.htm In this article Peter Rosset explains how smaller farms are actually more productive.
https://www.westonaprice.org/farm-a-...s-of-food.html In this detailed essay, Joel Salatin (my favorite farmer and an inspiration to many) breaks down the 12 most common arguments against a sustainable farming system. The first is "Your system can't feed the world."
I don't agree that the long-term solution is to take profit out of the picture (for food, health-care, or education). I take it you mean putting the government in charge of these things.... correct me if I'm mistaken. But just look how the government has messed up our public school system. I'm a young person. I was in school fairly recently. Let me tell you, things have really changed since my parents were in school, and not in a good way. The kids graduating from high school these days are barely able to read and write, and those are the ones graduating! If schools try to present anything other than the mainstream view of certain subjects, their federal funding is cut - so much for innovation and freedom of thought, the very things we should be teaching in schools. And our health has declined dramatically since the government began telling us which kinds of foods to eat and which to avoid. I take this issue very personally because my own health was very nearly ruined by following the government's extremely flawed (backwards is more like it, flawed is an understatement) advice about diet. The FDA's selective enforcement of their own regulations and harassment of small farmers make it clear what would happen if the government had total control over our food. And healthcare.....I don't even want to think about that.
I just don't believe profit is inherently evil. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, but I definitely don't think more government control is the answer.
As for the Jamaica thing, those people were able to afford milk until they got involved with the IMF. Like I said, they had a thriving dairy industry. They were able to afford their own vegetables. Now they eat potatoes from Idaho. So it is the combination of artificially cheap food and the IMF's unconscionable policies that is the real problem. When you have two similar food products, most people are going to buy the cheaper one, regardless of whether they can afford the one that is better and more expensive. We have been sold the idea that cheap food can buy us a better quality of life, because we'll have more money to spend on other things. It's a false idea, but unfortunately most people have bought it. Here in the United States, where most people have plenty of money to spend on food, most of them still choose to buy the cheaper stuff. As in my example from a few posts ago, most people would rather spend their money on gadgets than quality food. They'll buy the factory-farmed Rosie organic chicken for $3/lb instead of the Felton Acres pastured chicken for $5/lb (raised by our own Marc Felton of Sebastopol), even though they could afford the Felton Acres chicken. Part of the problem is, of course, lack of education about the superior nutritional properties of pasture-raised meats, eggs, and dairy (another thing we should be learning in school and aren't). Many people sincerely believe powdered milk is as good as fresh milk. These issues all have multiple facets, like everything in life.
02-25-2011, 06:13 PM
podfish
Re: Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
Clearly the problems we are talking about are complex and involve more than just the factors I have mentioned. I am specifically talking about things that we as individuals can do to improve the situation....
I don't agree that the long-term solution is to take profit out of the picture (for food, health-care, or education). I take it you mean putting the government in charge of these things.... correct me if I'm mistaken. But just look how the government has messed up our public school system.....
I'm just trying to add a very long-term view to this - it's admittedly not helpful as guidance for individual action. But it's worthwhile to keep looking out past our current problems - for a mathematical analogy, we want to avoid local minima. It's hard to get over the hump but in the long term we have to.
When you say "put the government in charge" the meaning is a lot different now than it was in Caesar's time, or in Stalin's, or in Pericles '. Only in the last of those was government readily accessible to the citizens (and even then, not to all of them). Decentralization of control and democratization of information were extremely difficult to achieve in the past; we are now in the throes of adapting to it, and the existing power centers have a lot of tools to try to maintain some semblance of the status quo. But it won't look like this in a few generations. It may be better, it may be worse. I vote to keep an eye on what would be better and take any opportunity to push it that way. It's way too simplistic to claim Facebook has changed the middle East, or that WikiLeaks is a major disruptive force. But both show us examples of the kind of thing that really couldn't happen before. The stuff Anonymous seems to be starting to do hints at some real changes too. So when you need to be practical and pragmatic, sure, deal with the way it is now. But don't take for granted that the environment will be the same years from now.
03-04-2011, 04:37 PM
Hotspring 44
Re: Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
Which other factors are you referring to?... ... I'm well aware of how easy we have it here, and of the incredible difficulties that people in other parts of the world are faced with. From what I can see, the biggest factors contributing to disparity of wealth worldwide are subsidized and industrialized agriculture and free trade.
Oil exploration and extraction, mining for Earth minerals and metals, strategic military installations, take your pick. There are other factors besides what you are talking about regarding so-called free trade and what I would otherwise call forced consumerism of specific food products that poor people, supposedly; according to you, are somehow required to buy which they do not have enough money to buy and yet somehow, those same poor people are able to raise dairy cattle, and then somehow be required to dump the milk? I honestly don't know if that is true or not, in some ways I would not be surprised if it is true. But true or not, one way or the other, that is preposterous!
Some aspects of that kind of mistreatment of people is, unfortunately in play, but to say that it is solely because of subsidized agriculture (under the guise of “free trade”) is oversimplifying it and is overlooking the combination of all the other issues (more of which I haven't mentioned than did) as well.
Setting aside our differences of viewpoints for a moment what do you think would happen if overnight on the subsidized agriculture aspect of what you're talking about were to stop being shared, whatever term you want to use for it at this point in time;... ... do you think any people would starve as a result?... ... How many? I do think it would be a good idea to make major changes towards people in their own countries being able to feed themselves sustainably, but to cut the food supply lines that are in effect now overnight; there would probably be famine for somebody; possibly millions as a direct result. I don't think that you are advocating that.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
There's a film that I highly recommend, called Life and Debt, that illustrates this issue. It focuses on Jamaica and how globalization has utterly destroyed their chance to have a viable food economy of their own...
...You can read a summary of the film here: https://www.cinescene.com/dash/life&debt.htm ...
I haven't watched it yet because I have had bandwidth issues, but I will try to in the near future if it doesn't cost me out of pocket money. But for now I cannot address that film specifically at this point in time.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
I disagree. A fish farm is not much different than a hog confinement...
As a generalization that is true, however there are some (very few) exceptions. I'll get more specific, deeper into this posting.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
...Some may be managed better than others, but they are inherently inhumane. Animals need to be able to engage in natural behaviors.
I think there is a big difference between the intelligence of swine, goats, sheep, cattle, etc. and the vast majority of fish. I'll also get more specific, about this deeper into this posting.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
For example, pigs need sunlight because just like humans, they produce vitamin D when sunlight hits their skin. Lard has developed a bad reputation, but the fact of the matter is that pastured lard is a health food and an incredible source of vitamin D. Unfortunately a pork chop from a CAFO is utterly lacking in this essential nutrient. Pigs need to be able to root around in the dirt - it's what pigs love to do! Likewise, I would argue that confining fish to a tank is inhumane, especially for fish like the salmon, who in nature go on an incredible journey that they are deprived of doing in a fish farm.
Many ocean fish swim in densely populated schools. That being said, I personally would not eat farm raised salmon either! YUCKO!
Don't get me started on hogs (pigs/swine).
There has been at least as much problems on the land with hogs as there has been with introduced foreign species of fish that got loose and are wreaking havoc in the rivers and streams south of the Great Lakes.
Hogs, pigs, swine, whatever you want to call them are not native to North America, or at least they weren't until Europeans introduced them.
Now feral pigs are spreading diseases and causing all kinds of environmental and property damage in all, the lower 48 states, and I am not even counting the issues from the factory farms that you have mentioned.
:hmmm:“Confining fish to a tank is Inhumane”?... Is confining a cow inside of any fence, even if it's a large acreage Inhumane?... I suppose one could draw the line at; what, (?); 5 acres, 500 acres, 5000 acres, for the cow?... ... After all cows (in their "natural" state) are migrating and herd animals. Don't they need a lot of land?
I think considering the consumption of mammals for their meat, comparatively; could become very subjective in this discussion, but I won't argue what is inhumane or not per se at this point in time.
I'm just pointing out there are differing opinions all of which have their own potential of pointing-out differing levels of malady.
Of course as far as the individual animals, awareness of going to the slaughterhouse for the mammals that some of us eat is concerned; I think it is an issue of potentially endless debate about what constitutes the label of “inhumane” in the first place.
I think mammals like rabbits, goats, pigs; sheep, cattle etc. are different than the vast majority of fish particularly in regards to what we humans refer to as “consciousness”. Yes there are differences between mass-produced meat from slaughter houses, and your own animals that you raise, but the end result as far as the slaughtered animal is concerned is the same.
I agree that; the average (probably all of) mass produced meat from slaughter houses in America are quite “inhumane” and also that raising your own animals and slaughtering them for your own food needs is undoubtedly going to be far less inhumane. It may in fact, be not inhumane at all depending on what would be considered “natural” (?).
I think chickens are a closer comparison to fish as far as "self awareness" and “inhumane” is concerned.
I'm not particularly interested in getting into a discussion about what is inhumane or not, as far as eating the flesh of mammals is concerned, but some of my vegetarian friends would give you and I both an earful if we were to ask them.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
But this isn't my only objection to farmed fish, especially salmon. Salmon are carnivorous, and the little creatures they eat are what give them their pink color. Farmed salmon are deprived of their natural diet and their flesh is not pink. Because no one would buy salmon that isn't pink, the producers use dyes derived from petrochemicals to make them look pink. Not exactly healthy.
I'm sure you already read What I said about me not eating farm raised salmon. There are a lot of different varieties of fish.
I agree with you about salmon fish farms and how they are bad for the fish and the environment and also the wild salmon because of the diseases they could have and spread; also all of the antibiotics and the potential for antibiotic resistant strains of diseases that could potentially completely kill-off the species. And of course the dye that makes the fish a certain color is absolutely idiotic in my opinion.... ... :2cents:What a deception it is to dye the flesh of a fish a particular color just to conceal its lacking of high quality!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
Although other farmed fish may not be dyed, they are still eating a diet that is unnatural and ultimately results in a product that is not health-promoting.
There are a lot of things because of humans and what we do that could be considered “unnatural”. That includes the fencing that keeps those so-called "naturally raised" (some of which {BTW} are migrating herd animals in their ‘natural’ state) animals that you eat out of certain areas and off of other peoples real estate.
That’s the thing; something man-made that keeps naturally herding animals in certain if somewhat comparably confined areas is not 100% natural either. not to mention the fact that some of those animals are not even native to the continent! Does that make what you eat unwise or "unhealthy"?... ...As long as it is not from an overly crammed, Knee deep in feces, situation of a “feed lot” or a similarly crammed poultry farm and (not) fed GMO containing food or given routine doses of antibiotics etc.; I don't think so.
It all depends on where you draw the line between what is "natural" and "unnatural". That is in my view is; somewhat subjective and variable, then it becomes quite potentially difficult and onerous to decide what degree of "natural" we could actually, legitimately claim to be "natural" for the individual that lives within the virtually unavoidable realm of the “masses” at this point in human evolution.
Humans used to be “hunter gatherers”, some humans still are. Does that make the rest of us unnatural because we cultivate our food?... ...I don't think so.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
It is cheaper to feed fish soy protein than it is to give them fish meal, and that is what is increasingly being done.
Yes that's absolutely true. And there could be GMO soy in that fish meal too. That's a good point, but if it's going to be certified organic farmed fish, it cannot at this point in time be allowed to have GMO anything in the fish food.
That being said, I agree at this point in time it's extremely difficult (as in virtually impossible) to find quality farm raised "fin" fish, and is highly unlikely, particularly from local sources.
Since there are very few local fish farms (I think the commercial clam/oyster operation in Tomales Bay is probably the closest one) I don't think either of us will be buying any organically raised, local "fin" fish anytime in the very near future. Oysters and clams eat algae so feeding them soy is something that I think is not going to happen.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
The idea that it could be healthy for a fish to eat soy is completely ludicrous.
I pretty much agree with that statement, generally speaking.
Catfish do not have to eat other fish or meat. I'm sure there are others that are similar but probably not vary many.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
it is not even healthy for a human to eat most soy foods! People are eating more fish (especially salmon) in part because they believe fish to be a good source of omega-3 fatty acids, so lacking in the modern diet. However, when you feed a fish grains and legumes, their fatty acid profile will be unnaturally high in omega-6 and low in omega-3. Another issue is the GMOs in soy. Obviously you would be avoiding those by buying organic farmed fish, but it's still an unhealthy diet for the fish.
I suppose that would depend upon the particular fish and the total of what had actually been fed to them. Maybe the catfish in a so-called organic catfish fish farm could be fed entrails from organically, raised, and grass fed, grazing chickens as a supplement along with their other food some of which can be algae. But I suppose that could also, under those conditions most definitely be called by somebody; "unnatural".
I wonder how many available omega-3 fatty acids there is in the world and how many people actually are lacking it and whether there really is a viable, sustainable supply of it to the whole planet’s human population, right now today (?). I bet there would be if there was enough cannabis growing. (But it would have to be a “seed crop”.):Yinyangv: https://www.ratical.com/renewables/hempseed1.html
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by DynamicBalance:
Our best bet is to buy wild salmon from Alaska. Be aware that salmon labeled Atlantic salmon may still be farmed, as may fish labeled "caught in icy cold waters". Most fish farms are in the ocean, so they are technically "caught" in the ocean.
I think there may be legal issues with calling a farmed fish as a "caught" fish; by a commercial seller. I think the legal term would probably be "Ocean farmed" fish. Just a technicality, but so is the terminology of; “California certified organic" for that matter too.
It's just in the beginning stages, but there is a closed loop system of fish farming that could be done anywhere, but I do have some concern regarding the plastic that they are using for containment.
I suppose stainless steel containment pools can be used for the freshwater fish to avoid the plastic issue.
The idea seems like it might work very well for much localized fish farming, without having the discharge and containment problems associated with most current day fish farms.
It seems to be quite energy intensive, but if it was done in the desert; photovoltaic solar panels , and/or wind generation for other areas that may not have as much sun, but have lots of wind (or a combination of both) can be used with battery backup for the most part. In some occasions, I suppose it could also be tied into the grid.... ...It’s called "GFA" that's the acronym for "Grow Fish Anywhere". https://growfishanywhere.com/
Anyway, After searching the Internet I can do agree that it is virtually impossible to find farmed fish In any stores that were raised locally, other than the oysters and clams from the Tomales Bay; the Hog Island Oyster Company, for example. I am not sure if their operation is technically; “organic certified”. and I don't even know exactly what they feed them.
Monterey Bay aquarium has a list called "The Super Green List". Much to my surprise they do list albacore tuna but they get specific about from where and how it is caught: "(troll- or pole-caught, from the U.S. or British Columbia)". They also list: "Salmon (wild-caught, from Alaska)" like you had mentioned.
In the box below is their short list:
* The Best of the Best: September 2010
Albacore Tuna (troll- or pole-caught, from the U.S. or British Columbia)
Freshwater Coho Salmon (farmed in tank systems, from the U.S.)
Oysters (farmed)
Pacific Sardines (wild-caught)
Rainbow Trout (farmed)
Salmon (wild-caught, from Alaska)
** Other Healthy "Best Choices"
Arctic Char (farmed)
Barramundi (farmed, from the U.S.)
Dungeness Crab (wild-caught, from California, Oregon or Washington)
Longfin Squid (wild-caught, from the U.S. Atlantic)
Mussels (farmed)
Of course for some of those farmed fish that are on the list above, you might want to ask the farmers if they feed their stock any soy products. Or you might want to visit the fish farm and see if you think that their operation meets your personal approval for what is humane and also acceptable to you for your dietary consumption.
03-07-2011, 10:24 AM
DynamicBalance
Re: Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:
Oil exploration and extraction, mining for Earth minerals and metals, strategic military installations, take your pick.
Seeing as 20% of the oil used in this country is wasted on food production and transport, the type of agriculture I am advocating would drastically reduce our oil needs. Of course, it would also be a good idea to use alternative energy (and not those kinds derived from corn and soy!). If we were to tap into the available geothermal energy, we would have more than enough energy to power the entire country (possibly the world) for many years. But regardless, farming the right way would reduce our dependency on foreign oil, which could also have an impact on foreign military installations. As far as mining for Earth minerals, I already hit on that subject with my discussion of cell phones (just an example). We totally don't need most of the high-tech gadgets that we are currently buying, and seeing as the mining of minerals for them is forcing people in other countries into poverty, I personally steer clear.
Quote:
There are other factors besides what you are talking about regarding so-called free trade and what I would otherwise call forced consumerism of specific food products that poor people, supposedly; according to you, are somehow required to buy which they do not have enough money to buy and yet somehow, those same poor people are able to raise dairy cattle, and then somehow be required to dump the milk? I honestly don't know if that is true or not, in some ways I would not be surprised if it is true. But true or not, one way or the other, that is preposterous!
Here you are misunderstanding what I was saying. Jamaica used to have a thriving dairy industry made up of small farmers. Those farmers have cows which they would still like to raise for milk, which they could then sell. However, the policies put in place through the IMF have forced the population into incredible poverty. The people (in general) cannot afford to buy the milk produced by these small farmers, so the farmers have little income. The people instead buy imported powdered milk because it is much cheaper. Poverty does not mean that people have no money at all, just that they don't have enough money to maintain a good standard of living. Some people can afford more food than others. Some people are starving while other eat powdered milk, imported vegetables, etc. No one is "requiring" them to buy this food; they simply cannot afford higher quality food produced in Jamaica, so they buy these products out of necessity.
A single cow produces an incredible amount of milk per day, which the farmers could not possibly use themselves. Again, no one "requires" them to dump out their milk. They do it because they cannot sell it, and milk must be refrigerated (and even then will go bad eventually), which requires electricity. Raising dairy cattle, on the other hand, does not require much monetary input if you already have the cows and the land. You don't have to believe this if you don't want to, but in the film I mentioned you can watch it for yourself and hear what these farmers have to say.
Quote:
Setting aside our differences of viewpoints for a moment what do you think would happen if overnight on the subsidized agriculture aspect of what you're talking about were to stop being shared, whatever term you want to use for it at this point in time;... ... do you think any people would starve as a result?... ... How many? I do think it would be a good idea to make major changes towards people in their own countries being able to feed themselves sustainably, but to cut the food supply lines that are in effect now overnight; there would probably be famine for somebody; possibly millions as a direct result. I don't think that you are advocating that.
If subsidies for agriculture were to be cut off overnight, we would still have a tremendous stockpile of cheap grain from when agriculture was subsidized. It is partially the unbelievably huge supply that makes the prices so cheap. It's not as though the next day there would be no grain. So no, I don't see what I'm advocating as "cutting the supply lines". Not to mention that there are many other countries doing similar types of grain-based agriculture. Argentina seems to be phasing out their awesome system of grass-fed beef in favor of GM corn and soy for export. The rain forest in Brazil is being cut down to grow soybeans to meet world demand. Clearly there are many factors involved in this complex situation. But we can start doing things the right way in our country and set an example of not participating in policies that lead to environmental devastation and poverty.
At any rate, I think it would be more likely for this to be a gradual change. I only used the "overnight" example to demonstrate a point about the true cost of grain-based agriculture. As people become more aware of the health, environmental, animal welfare, and ethical benefits of grass-based farming and supporting local agriculture, they will naturally gravitate towards that. We are already seeing this happen, as more and more grocery stores offer grass-fed meats and local products. Farmer's markets are becoming incredibly popular, and more and more people, especially young people, are starting small farms because they recognize that this is the way to get healthy food. And as more people realize how absurd grain-based agriculture is (and how it makes those products artificially cheap in comparison), they will naturally push to eliminate subsidies. It won't happen overnight.
Quote:
Many ocean fish swim in densely populated schools. That being said, I personally would not eat farm raised salmon either! YUCKO!
This is true. I personally have not done any research on which kinds of fish swim in densely populated schools, and I don't think most other people have either. For this reason, I don't buy farmed fish, period.
Quote:
Don't get me started on hogs (pigs/swine).
There has been at least as much problems on the land with hogs as there has been with introduced foreign species of fish that got loose and are wreaking havoc in the rivers and streams south of the Great Lakes.
Hogs, pigs, swine, whatever you want to call them are not native to North America, or at least they weren't until Europeans introduced them.
Now feral pigs are spreading diseases and causing all kinds of environmental and property damage in all, the lower 48 states, and I am not even counting the issues from the factory farms that you have mentioned.
The things you have mentioned are certainly problems. I'm not sure what this has to do with raising hogs on farms with access to the outdoors and sunlight, a healthy diet, and mud to play in. At any rate, the wild hogs are here, and we have to find a way to cope with them. I think hunting would be a good option to reduce the wild pig population.
Quote:
:hmmm:“Confining fish to a tank is Inhumane”?... Is confining a cow inside of any fence, even if it's a large acreage Inhumane?... I suppose one could draw the line at; what, (?); 5 acres, 500 acres, 5000 acres, for the cow?... ... After all cows (in their "natural" state) are migrating and herd animals. Don't they need a lot of land?
The reason that cows migrate is because they have depleted the food supply in their area. Properly managed intensive grazing mimics these natural patterns by moving the cows between fields, allowing the pasture to recuperate and grow back. In this way, the cows always have a supply of rapidly-growing grass, which is what they want. A cow does not care if there is a fence so long as it is not blocking them from their food supply. Raising cows on farms where they live in mud and feces (such as those that can be seen in the central valley), even if they are outdoors, is definitely inhumane regardless of the amount of acres they have available.
Quote:
Of course as far as the individual animals, awareness of going to the slaughterhouse for the mammals that some of us eat is concerned; I think it is an issue of potentially endless debate about what constitutes the label of “inhumane” in the first place.
Clearly this is an issue for which many people have differences of opinion. That said, if you purchase a mammal while it is still alive, that animal belongs to you, and you can legally have it slaughtered on the farm on which it lives. This minimizes the stress on the animal and the awareness of what is happening. Chickens are different and the harvest can be done on the farm regardless of whether you own them first or not. My personal opinion is that as long as animals are treated with love and respect both in life and death, which includes not wasting most of the animal as is usually done, and so long as they are given a good life, there is no moral dilemma in eating them for food. I don't see how it could possibly be inherently unethical or inhumane to eat the foods we have evolved to eat.
Quote:
I think mammals like rabbits, goats, pigs; sheep, cattle etc. are different than the vast majority of fish particularly in regards to what we humans refer to as “consciousness”.
What makes you think that? I'm curious to know.
Quote:
Yes there are differences between mass-produced meat from slaughter houses, and your own animals that you raise, but the end result as far as the slaughtered animal is concerned is the same.
I don't think I agree with this statement. First of all, from a nutritional perspective, there is a huge difference. I also think that from a spiritual perspective, there is a huge difference.
Quote:
There are a lot of things because of humans and what we do that could be considered “unnatural”. That includes the fencing that keeps those so-called "naturally raised" (some of which {BTW} are migrating herd animals in their ‘natural’ state) animals that you eat out of certain areas and off of other peoples real estate.
The fact that something is man-made does not make it unnatural. I already addressed the use of fencing, and I think there is nothing unnatural about it so long as the animals have everything they need to be healthy and happy. On the other hand, feeding fish soy is definitely unnatural because there is no way I could think of in nature that a fish could eat a soybean. It is not mimicing a natural process.
Quote:
Humans used to be “hunter gatherers”, some humans still are. Does that make the rest of us unnatural because we cultivate our food?... ...I don't think so.
I am inclined to agree with you. While the hunter-gatherer diet is perhaps better for human health as we are more adapted to it, it is definitely possible to include post-agriculture foods including grains and dairy in our diets and still be healthy. Dr. Weston A. Price saw examples of both primitive hunter-gatherer and agricultural peoples enjoying fine bone structure and freedom from degenerative diseases and tooth decay. Of course, it depends somewhat on your genetic heritage.
Quote:
I wonder how many available omega-3 fatty acids there is in the world and how many people actually are lacking it and whether there really is a viable, sustainable supply of it to the whole planet’s human population, right now today (?). I bet there would be if there was enough cannabis growing. (But it would have to be a “seed crop”.):Yinyangv:
There are a lot of things about essential fatty acids that are poorly understood in this country. In particular, the idea that if some are good then more is better is not correct. There are plenty of omega-3 fatty acids to go around. The problem is not so much that people are lacking in omega-3 (although some definitely are) as that they are eating far too much omega-6, usually in the form of polyunsaturated vegetable oils that are rancid anyway and therefore are full of free radicals. The ratio is the problem. As far as how much omega-3's people need, generally 2 percent of total calories or less. Incidentally, grass-fed beef has a nearly perfect ratio of omega-3:omega-6.
