If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Peak food   (nytimes.com) divider line 152
    More: Scary, Peak food, American food, crop insurance, Furnace Creek  
•       •       •

5175 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jul 2013 at 8:51 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



152 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-22 08:21:12 AM
increasing compost content, decreasing subsidies to biofuel production and rainwater harvesting?

Sounds like the work of the communist devil.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-22 08:37:29 AM
It's a good thing that climate change is just a trick so that scientists can get grant money or we would be in trouble.
 
2013-07-22 08:54:55 AM
We may have to harvest Michael Moore.
 
2013-07-22 08:55:21 AM
We'll have to survive by eating the pictures we take of our food.
 
2013-07-22 08:57:50 AM
"Using his burgeoning intelligence, this most successful of all mammals has exploited the environment to produce food for an ever increasing population. Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it is time we control the population to allow the survival of the environment."
- David Attenborough
 
2013-07-22 08:59:04 AM
Can scumbag conservative climate deniers acknowledge that we now have a problem?

Unless we start learning how to eat oil and money, we're in trouble.
 
2013-07-22 09:01:06 AM

bhcompy: "Using his burgeoning intelligence, this most successful of all mammals has exploited the environment to produce food for an ever increasing population. Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it is time we control the population to allow the survival of the environment."
- David Attenborough


Lead the way!
 
2013-07-22 09:02:08 AM
They can pry the soylent green from my cold, dead hands.
 
2013-07-22 09:02:47 AM

bhcompy: "Using his burgeoning intelligence, this most successful of all mammals has exploited the environment to produce food for an ever increasing population. Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it is time we control the population to allow the survival of the environment."
- David Attenborough


Population Control is one of those things that sounds fine on paper, then you have to ask yourself this question:
 Who gets to determine who gets to breed, and how much, and where, and why?

If you think we as a society have racial and class tension now, just try and propose that little nugget as official public policy.
 
2013-07-22 09:03:49 AM
Americans could use less food.
 
2013-07-22 09:04:40 AM

BlueDWarrior: Population Control is one of those things that sounds fine on paper, then you have to ask yourself this question:
Who gets to determine who gets to breed, and how much, and where, and why?


Stop tax incentives to people who have kids and let the glorious free market sort the problem out.
 
2013-07-22 09:04:44 AM
It is going to be a record year for corn, soy and wheat. I like a good story as well as the next guy, but this is not it, at least not today.
upload.wikimedia.org
Cute movie, if you haven't seen it.
 
2013-07-22 09:06:11 AM
It's getting to the point where I think we should start consider tighter regulations on patently unhealthy foods.  I'd wager our collective diet is more responsible for health care costs and premature death than all the cigarettes in the world.
 
2013-07-22 09:06:27 AM
img.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-22 09:07:12 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Stop tax incentives to people who have kids and let the glorious free market sort the problem out.


Thomas Malthus and I agree.
 
2013-07-22 09:07:52 AM
Then stop eating so much meat. The resources necessary in terms of arable land being used to grow animal feed, the pastures and fields for the animals themselves, and the clean water necessary for both are hideously inefficient when it comes to food production.
 
2013-07-22 09:09:08 AM

bhcompy: "Using his burgeoning intelligence, this most successful of all mammals has exploited the environment to produce food for an ever increasing population. Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it is time we control the population to allow the survival of the environment."
- David Attenborough


"Let's start by reducing the number of brown people"
-Dick Cheney

"And the poor people too"
-RNC
 
2013-07-22 09:13:28 AM
 
2013-07-22 09:13:45 AM

BlueDWarrior: bhcompy: "Using his burgeoning intelligence, this most successful of all mammals has exploited the environment to produce food for an ever increasing population. Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it is time we control the population to allow the survival of the environment."
- David Attenborough

Population Control is one of those things that sounds fine on paper, then you have to ask yourself this question:
 Who gets to determine who gets to breed, and how much, and where, and why?

If you think we as a society have racial and class tension now, just try and propose that little nugget as official public policy.


There's no need. Peak population is already here or almost here in 59 nations (including China and South India). It'll be a global reality between 2050 and 2100 (I've been doing a bit of policy writing on this for work).  Most people don't want huge families.  Smaller families mean more money available for better food and education, and fewer but healthier children. Whenever women get access to contraception, family size declines, schooling levels rise, family wealth rises, options increase.

About 50 long as religious asshats stop trying to outlaw contraception, we're good.  Apart from our pensions and tax base, but that's another story.
 
2013-07-22 09:15:26 AM
I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. And I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply... and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we... are the cure.
 
2013-07-22 09:16:57 AM
No problem, these guys will save us!

i527.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-22 09:18:12 AM
Oh what nonsense.
In the first graph the use of the word, "mercury" puts the lie to the whole piece.
CRISIS, CRISIS, CRISIS!
Omg, guess what? We're all mortal and will die eventually.
Newsflash.

Fear sells papers and gets web site hits.
Yawn.
 
2013-07-22 09:18:46 AM

vpb: It's a good thing that climate change is just a trick so that scientists can get grant money or we would be in trouble.




islamfrominside.com
 
2013-07-22 09:18:59 AM

GoldSpider: It's getting to the point where I think we should start consider tighter regulations on patently unhealthy foods.  I'd wager our collective diet is more responsible for health care costs and premature death than all the cigarettes in the world.


Rush Limbaugh said exercising was the cause of high medical costs. Fat people like him are not the problem. If he thinks that, 90% of Republicans as well. Good luck getting that passed. Their leader has spoken, it is now FACT.
 
2013-07-22 09:19:11 AM
Paul Ehrlich was immediately wrong 40 years ago.
 
2013-07-22 09:19:46 AM

God Is My Co-Pirate: BlueDWarrior: bhcompy: "Using his burgeoning intelligence, this most successful of all mammals has exploited the environment to produce food for an ever increasing population. Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it is time we control the population to allow the survival of the environment."
- David Attenborough

Population Control is one of those things that sounds fine on paper, then you have to ask yourself this question:
 Who gets to determine who gets to breed, and how much, and where, and why?

If you think we as a society have racial and class tension now, just try and propose that little nugget as official public policy.

There's no need. Peak population is already here or almost here in 59 nations (including China and South India). It'll be a global reality between 2050 and 2100 (I've been doing a bit of policy writing on this for work).  Most people don't want huge families.  Smaller families mean more money available for better food and education, and fewer but healthier children. Whenever women get access to contraception, family size declines, schooling levels rise, family wealth rises, options increase.

About 50 long as religious asshats stop trying to outlaw contraception, we're good.  Apart from our pensions and tax base, but that's another story.


Well I would argue there it is more of a global societal choice than a mandate from on high. If every woman knows that society will be just fine if they have no more than 3 kids through their lifetime, and that we will support them in deciding what is best for their particular circumstances, then we can control the population without having to institute official quotas.

tl;dr: Educating Women goes a lot farther than some One-child bullshiat.
 
2013-07-22 09:20:42 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Oh what nonsense.
In the first graph the use of the word, "mercury" puts the lie to the whole piece.
CRISIS, CRISIS, CRISIS!
Omg, guess what? We're all mortal and will die eventually.
Newsflash.

Fear sells papers and gets web site hits.
Yawn.


I see you clicked.

you'renothelping.jpg

/did not click
//you're not helping
 
2013-07-22 09:22:22 AM

Jake Havechek: I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. And I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply... and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we... are the cure.


The problem with that quote is that EVERY SPECIES WOULD DO THIS IF THERE WEREN'T NATURAL CHECKS.
Elk would eat themselves out of house and home if there were no wolves.
Wolves would pile up on themselves if they didn't run out of elk to eat.
Even Kudzu would grow without check and choke itself to death eventually.

The problem humanity has is that we have become very adept at not dying when we are supposed to.
 
2013-07-22 09:25:13 AM

BlueDWarrior: God Is My Co-Pirate: BlueDWarrior: bhcompy: "Using his burgeoning intelligence, this most successful of all mammals has exploited the environment to produce food for an ever increasing population. Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it is time we control the population to allow the survival of the environment."
- David Attenborough

Population Control is one of those things that sounds fine on paper, then you have to ask yourself this question:
 Who gets to determine who gets to breed, and how much, and where, and why?

If you think we as a society have racial and class tension now, just try and propose that little nugget as official public policy.

There's no need. Peak population is already here or almost here in 59 nations (including China and South India). It'll be a global reality between 2050 and 2100 (I've been doing a bit of policy writing on this for work).  Most people don't want huge families.  Smaller families mean more money available for better food and education, and fewer but healthier children. Whenever women get access to contraception, family size declines, schooling levels rise, family wealth rises, options increase.

About 50 long as religious asshats stop trying to outlaw contraception, we're good.  Apart from our pensions and tax base, but that's another story.

Well I would argue there it is more of a global societal choice than a mandate from on high. If every woman knows that society will be just fine if they have no more than 3 kids through their lifetime, and that we will support them in deciding what is best for their particular circumstances, then we can control the population without having to institute official quotas.

tl;dr: Educating Women goes a lot farther than some One-child bullshiat.


www.iisg.nl
FTFY
 
2013-07-22 09:26:13 AM

BlueDWarrior: Jake Havechek: I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. And I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply... and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we... are the cure.

The problem with that quote is that EVERY SPECIES WOULD DO THIS IF THERE WEREN'T NATURAL CHECKS.
Elk would eat themselves out of house and home if there were no wolves.
Wolves would pile up on themselves if they didn't run out of elk to eat.
Even Kudzu would grow without check and choke itself to death eventually.

The problem humanity has is that we have become very adept at not dying when we are supposed to.


That's because some of us have been chosen by God.
 
2013-07-22 09:26:25 AM
Shiat happens and it never ends the way you think it will.
Example?
How about 10,000 wildebeests killed in a single migration accident?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071001-wildebeest.ht ml
Uh huh.
 
2013-07-22 09:26:51 AM
40% of the food comes from the 17 Western states? Next they'll tell us that 28.6% of deaths occur on Saturday and Sunday! Better panic now, before the price of panicking goes up!
 
2013-07-22 09:28:22 AM
Is this like Peak Oil? Because that totally devastated Western Civilization.
 
2013-07-22 09:28:33 AM
Eh, we'll just come to rely on Canada for food like we will for oil.
 
2013-07-22 09:30:49 AM

BlueDWarrior: Jake Havechek: I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. And I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply... and multiply until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we... are the cure.

The problem with that quote is that EVERY SPECIES WOULD DO THIS IF THERE WEREN'T NATURAL CHECKS.
Elk would eat themselves out of house and home if there were no wolves.
Wolves would pile up on themselves if they didn't run out of elk to eat.
Even Kudzu would grow without check and choke itself to death eventually.

The problem humanity has is that we have become very adept at not dying when we are supposed to.


Well, at least until drug-resistant super bacteria and mutated viruses wipe us out like plague has done for centuries, or we jack with the climate enough that changing weather patterns lead much of us to starvation while the rest cannot cope with shifting populations.

In the end, we are as fragile as our ancestors. We just have the hubris to think, "oh it won't happen to me."

/Educate women. Free contraceptives. Central planning of economies to maximize existing resource utility. Development of new technologies and agricultural techniques. Clean energy. Global socialism.
//Those are not "nice things." They are societal imperatives or we farking perish like the dinosaurs.
 
2013-07-22 09:30:53 AM

StoPPeRmobile: BlueDWarrior: God Is My Co-Pirate: BlueDWarrior: bhcompy: "Using his burgeoning intelligence, this most successful of all mammals has exploited the environment to produce food for an ever increasing population. Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it is time we control the population to allow the survival of the environment."
- David Attenborough

Population Control is one of those things that sounds fine on paper, then you have to ask yourself this question:
 Who gets to determine who gets to breed, and how much, and where, and why?

If you think we as a society have racial and class tension now, just try and propose that little nugget as official public policy.

There's no need. Peak population is already here or almost here in 59 nations (including China and South India). It'll be a global reality between 2050 and 2100 (I've been doing a bit of policy writing on this for work).  Most people don't want huge families.  Smaller families mean more money available for better food and education, and fewer but healthier children. Whenever women get access to contraception, family size declines, schooling levels rise, family wealth rises, options increase.

About 50 long as religious asshats stop trying to outlaw contraception, we're good.  Apart from our pensions and tax base, but that's another story.

Well I would argue there it is more of a global societal choice than a mandate from on high. If every woman knows that society will be just fine if they have no more than 3 kids through their lifetime, and that we will support them in deciding what is best for their particular circumstances, then we can control the population without having to institute official quotas.

tl;dr: Educating Women goes a lot farther than some One-child bullshiat.

[www.iisg.nl image 850x1071]
FTFY


Who is this? The typography/calligraphy at the bottom is extremely hard to read.
 
2013-07-22 09:34:43 AM
BlueDWarrior:
 Who gets to determine who gets to breed, and how much, and where, and why?

Math gets to decide.
 
2013-07-22 09:34:58 AM
Wait a minute, what happened to Peak Oil? You can't just go manufacturing a new crisis when the last one does not pan out as you forecast. Or can you?

The Population Bomb- by Paul Ralph Ehrlich. Predictions: That in the 1970s the US would have to stop food exports and impose food rationing on its own population During the the 1970s and 1980s the world w experience and population die back to about 2 billion people because of famine and related problems.

"The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer" -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)

Global Cooling- Predictions: "The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. "-- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000". -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age". -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

"It is interesting to note that during the past 50 years, otherwise known as the green revolution, global food supply has grown faster than global population. Thomas Malthus must be quite happy that his 1798 prediction that the food supply was limited to linear growth has proven incorrect"


Data from UN sources. FAO statistics database http://faostat.fao.org/site/609/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=609#ancor and population database http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm

www.tasteofsustainability.com
 
2013-07-22 09:35:44 AM

Free Radical: BlueDWarrior:
 Who gets to determine who gets to breed, and how much, and where, and why?

Math gets to decide.


Who gets to write the formula?
 
2013-07-22 09:37:35 AM

BlueDWarrior: Free Radical: BlueDWarrior:
 Who gets to determine who gets to breed, and how much, and where, and why?

Math gets to decide.

Who gets to write the formula?


Wait a minute, what happen to all that Women's reproductive rights stuff, her body her choice?
 
2013-07-22 09:40:00 AM

WorldCitizen: Eh, we'll just come to rely on Canada for food like we will for oil.


Oh sure, until the environmentalist wackos block construction of the vital poutine pipeline.
 
2013-07-22 09:40:24 AM

hasty ambush: BlueDWarrior: Free Radical: BlueDWarrior:
 Who gets to determine who gets to breed, and how much, and where, and why?

Math gets to decide.

Who gets to write the formula?

Wait a minute, what happen to all that Women's reproductive rights stuff, her body her choice?


I am very much in favor of a woman's right to choose, that is exactly why I am arguing that population control cannot be mandated from the government. Society eventually has to work itself into that position through family planning resources that are easily available and understood, as well as improved economic pathways and general smoothing of the the inconsistencies we see in this capitalist/somewhat-post capitalist society.
 
2013-07-22 09:40:36 AM

WorldCitizen: Eh, we'll just come to rely on Canada for food like we will for oil.


fack, I think Canada imports most of our food...

Don't worry, were only talking about mass starvation here.  It will probably only affect those poor third world nations...  that grow a lot of the food we import... oh...
 
2013-07-22 09:43:18 AM
More liberals being alarmists...everyone knows you can never run out of food.
 
2013-07-22 09:43:48 AM
*yawn*

Malthus is not coming back, even as a zombie.
 
2013-07-22 09:46:09 AM

BlueDWarrior: bhcompy: "Using his burgeoning intelligence, this most successful of all mammals has exploited the environment to produce food for an ever increasing population. Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, perhaps it is time we control the population to allow the survival of the environment."
- David Attenborough

Population Control is one of those things that sounds fine on paper, then you have to ask yourself this question:
 Who gets to determine who gets to breed, and how much, and where, and why?

If you think we as a society have racial and class tension now, just try and propose that little nugget as official public policy.


There are clearly a lot more Chinese and Indians than everyone else.  I say we start there.
 
2013-07-22 09:49:09 AM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Central planning of economies to maximize existing resource utility. Development of new technologies and agricultural techniques. Clean energy. Global socialism.
//Those are not "nice things." They are societal imperatives or we farking perish like the dinosaurs


If that is the choice I elect perishing like the dinosaurs, because we have already had plenty of examples what centralized control  of  the allocation of resources is like and quite frankly it is not a world worth living in and deserves to die out.
 
2013-07-22 09:56:10 AM

GoldSpider: Lead the way!


My wife and I have one child. You're welcome.

In general, economic prosperity and education reduce birth rates so improvements in US quality of living and K-12 education move us in the right direction as well. Now if we can just get the Dugger's of the world to stop having massive broods
 
2013-07-22 09:56:34 AM

hasty ambush: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Central planning of economies to maximize existing resource utility. Development of new technologies and agricultural techniques. Clean energy. Global socialism.
//Those are not "nice things." They are societal imperatives or we farking perish like the dinosaurs

If that is the choice I elect perishing like the dinosaurs, because we have already had plenty of examples what centralized control  of  the allocation of resources is like and quite frankly it is not a world worth living in and deserves to die out.


The problem with central planning is who gets to be the planners? Like I said we can sit here and write all the theory about how society should be run, but in the end, you have to implement it.

And the implementation is always where these plans fall apart.
 
2013-07-22 09:57:52 AM

Aarontology: Then stop eating so much meat. The resources necessary in terms of arable land being used to grow animal feed, the pastures and fields for the animals themselves, and the clean water necessary for both are hideously inefficient when it comes to food production.


I think the problem is that there's too much meat walking around. Jonathan Swift and I are in agreement that perhaps we should be eating more meat, not less.
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report