Wuhan China Coronavirus.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

awesome999 wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

With regards to global warming, does anyone understand the sheer impossibility of maintaining an eternally-shifting climate in some sort of "Goldilocks" homeostasis? The climate will change, in one direction and then in the other, as it always has, and nothing we can or would do will change that (or even should).

For my part, I would prefer to live on a warmer Earth, rather than a colder Earth. I like having enough food to eat. We ought to hope that's the direction we're headed in, this current cycle, because we (and more precisely, our descendants) simply are not ready to deal with an oncoming ice age. =9[.]9=

I am glad you like the heat. That statement is a contradiction. If we already postponed the ice age, it would mean humans are capable of causing major climate changes maybe not in the way we would like.

What contradiction? I said I prefer a warmer climate to cold, and that I hoped that was the current trend. Where's the contradiction? =0[.]o=

Just a small note, having plants grow bigger and the earth being greener doesn't mean by default "more food".

What people are actually interested in is the nutrient break down of the crops we grow.

If you have a crop that is two times the size but half the nutrient value you just have a new equilibrium but we end up having to eat more of it to reach similar value's as we do currently.

Just thought i mention that since there is this common trope of "earth will be greener and more plants means more food".

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

Just a small note, having plants grow bigger and the earth being greener doesn't mean by default "more food".

What people are actually interested in is the nutrient break down of the crops we grow.

If you have a crop that is two times the size but half the nutrient value you just have a new equilibrium but we end up having to eat more of it to reach similar value's as we do currently.

Just thought i mention that since there is this common trope of "earth will be greener and more plants means more food".

Peace,

-Boem-

More arable land and longer growing seasons... Do. =9[.]9=

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

Just a small note, having plants grow bigger and the earth being greener doesn't mean by default "more food".

What people are actually interested in is the nutrient break down of the crops we grow.

If you have a crop that is two times the size but half the nutrient value you just have a new equilibrium but we end up having to eat more of it to reach similar value's as we do currently.

Just thought i mention that since there is this common trope of "earth will be greener and more plants means more food".

Peace,

-Boem-

More arable land and longer growing seasons... Do. =9[.]9=

Higher temperature also result in browning, lost of productivity, lower crop yield in certain regions. Supposedly a net negative for agricultural crops.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

Just a small note, having plants grow bigger and the earth being greener doesn't mean by default "more food".

What people are actually interested in is the nutrient break down of the crops we grow.

If you have a crop that is two times the size but half the nutrient value you just have a new equilibrium but we end up having to eat more of it to reach similar value's as we do currently.

Just thought i mention that since there is this common trope of "earth will be greener and more plants means more food".

Peace,

-Boem-

More arable land and longer growing seasons... Do. =9[.]9=

I thought i adressed that by mentioning the trope.

Qauntity doesn't imply quality and what we are concerned with is quality, it's one of the reasons why we manipulate certain crops to also have additional nutrients.

We could have three times the available land but if they don't produce nutrient rich crops it doesn't mean anything, just more labor both in harvesting and consumption.

Think of a panda that needs to consume food for 12 hours a day just to stay alive on the nutrients he can extract from its food.

I'm all but an alarmist and i have faith in humanity, but i also don't think that simple minded tropes will get us anywhere, the best way would be to have honest discussions about these topics and take as many relevant factors into account as we can to have solid projections of our future.

Peace,

-Boem-

Probably more relevant to address the cause of food problems (population) rather than focusing on the quality of the food itself.

Also, California is getting the brunt of the virus here in the US.

Not sure what to say about it other than every chinese restaurant here is a lot emptier than before.

And Costco was ridiculously full last weekend with people mass buying supplies.

"

RPGlitch wrote:

Probably more relevant to address the cause of food problems (population) rather than focusing on the quality of the food itself.

Only cranks and idiots are concerned with the population numbers.

If anything, the current trend is problematic because we will have a global population shrink in the comming century and not the opposite.

There hasn't been a famine in the past forty years that couldn't be atributed to politics rather then actual shortage of food.
People decided to let people starve, thats not a food issue but an ego issue.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

Only cranks and idiots are concerned with the population numbers.

Yeah no. Population numbers matter, especially when it comes to food availability.

"

If anything, the current trend is problematic because we will have a global population shrink in the comming century and not the opposite.

The current trend is problematic because space and food are both limited and a global population shrink is most likely not going to happen without a great deal of violence for access to both those things.

"

There hasn't been a famine in the past forty years that couldn't be atributed to politics rather then actual shortage of food.
People decided to let people starve, thats not a food issue but an ego issue.

Peace,

-Boem-

Its not just an ego issue. Are we really going to ignore all the social or economic pressures among the many other things that lead to these food shortages?

If prices such as oil suddenly go down, that a country that relies on oil, may experience shortages due to the lack of money going into the country?

Its easy to call people stupid or that it was their ego, but honestly its more useful to think of the actual reasons it got that way rather than to dismiss it offhandedly.

Anyway, back to the topic of food. I suggested population be more relevant because its something all countries have some degree of control over.

Not all countries have the technology or access to high quality food.

And its extremely problematic when countries are dependent on others for their own well-being.

Because nature didn't select utilitarian as being the one and only trait humans should have.

"

RPGlitch wrote:

Anyway, back to the topic of food. I suggested population be more relevant because its something all countries have some degree of control over.

Not all countries have the technology or access to high quality food.

And its extremely problematic when countries are dependent on others for their own well-being.

Because nature didn't select utilitarian as being the one and only trait humans should have.

Trying not dive too deeply into politics or socioeconomics, but EVERY country has issues to some degree with food. The US has people below the poverty number that require govt assistance to feed them. Our geographic population centers are beyond sustainability on their own.

I suppose what im trying to say is that in general, food and population really are not a problem when things are in good order. When they are not, everyone is in the same boat. New York, Chicago, London, Moscow, etc.. cannot feed their populations themselves and require food deliveries from all over their respective countries and internationally.

In the end if the World "wanted" to solve the issue they could, but it still wouldnt be sufficient in the midst of catastrophe, or conflict, anywhere.

"

RPGlitch wrote:

The current trend is problematic because space and food are both limited and a global population shrink is most likely not going to happen without a great deal of violence for access to both those things.

This makes me dismiss your viewpoint instantly, because there are only two country's in the entire world currently that have a birthrate over 2.1.(which means sustainable levels)

So no, there isn't going to be violence because we are already in the shrinking phase because people aren't producing at levels of sustainability worldwide.

Why do you think most country's are moving towards an inverted population pyramid where the new generations have to provide for double or triple their own population size of elderly.

The problem isn't food or space, because we have plenty of both and more to come when older generations die out.

The real issue will be how you sustain a society structure that required triple the manpower to function and how will people behave when they need to live on standards lower then previous generations because we simply have less people in total.

Peace,

-Boem-