They are separate issues, whilst a large population will increase global warming, the real danger will be of starvation, not a few ice caps melting.Spark wrote:
Pattern here as well.JohnG@lt wrote:
My area has been inundated by Asians. If I drive through Flushing most of the signs are written in Chinese or Korean.Cybargs wrote:
Not just a rising population, but a huge immigration of rich Chinese immigrants bringing in a lot of fucking cash too.
The only thing I bitch about in regards to Asians is that they can't fucking drive. Most of them seem to bust their ass and open up small businesses all over the place. They're actually taking advantage of what America has to offer so I commend themYou speak of them as if they're separate issues...PureBeef wrote:
It's true, there have been a number of articles and studies on this. We cannot sustain an ever growing population, this is the real danger, not global warming. So mass starvation, disease etc will cull a lot of us. It will sort itself out, it just wont be pretty.
Warmer climate = more food production. The rise in human population has a strong correlation with global temperatures... forgot where I read that =/PureBeef wrote:
They are separate issues, whilst a large population will increase global warming, the real danger will be of starvation, not a few ice caps melting.Spark wrote:
Pattern here as well.JohnG@lt wrote:
My area has been inundated by Asians. If I drive through Flushing most of the signs are written in Chinese or Korean.
The only thing I bitch about in regards to Asians is that they can't fucking drive. Most of them seem to bust their ass and open up small businesses all over the place. They're actually taking advantage of what America has to offer so I commend themYou speak of them as if they're separate issues...PureBeef wrote:
It's true, there have been a number of articles and studies on this. We cannot sustain an ever growing population, this is the real danger, not global warming. So mass starvation, disease etc will cull a lot of us. It will sort itself out, it just wont be pretty.
Unless the population reaches to 30 billion, we won't really have any food problems, especially with current food technologies.
What i fear is the elite stepping in with there plan for world population reduction.
Genetically engineered sickness anyone?
Genetically engineered sickness anyone?
15 more years! 15 more years!
Mitch shut the fuck up. If the Illuminati wanted to kill anyone they'd start with you, and since you're alive stfu.Mitch wrote:
What i fear is the elite stepping in with there plan for world population reduction.
Genetically engineered sickness anyone?
. . . . . . . .Mitch wrote:
What i fear is the elite stepping in with there plan for world population reduction.
Genetically engineered sickness anyone?
and it's their
cybargs
You shouldn't take The X-Files so seriously...Mitch wrote:
What i fear is the elite stepping in with there plan for world population reduction.
Genetically engineered sickness anyone?
This is quite true. At the moment we don't even need to use top notch technology or most modern ideas to sustain our growing population.Cybargs wrote:
Unless the population reaches to 30 billion, we won't really have any food problems, especially with current food technologies.
Well whether its 100 years of 500 years, the truth is that if the population keeps growing at the same rate, one day we are going to be screwed.Cybargs wrote:
Warmer climate = more food production. The rise in human population has a strong correlation with global temperatures... forgot where I read that =/PureBeef wrote:
They are separate issues, whilst a large population will increase global warming, the real danger will be of starvation, not a few ice caps melting.Spark wrote:
Pattern here as well.JohnG@lt wrote:
My area has been inundated by Asians. If I drive through Flushing most of the signs are written in Chinese or Korean.
The only thing I bitch about in regards to Asians is that they can't fucking drive. Most of them seem to bust their ass and open up small businesses all over the place. They're actually taking advantage of what America has to offer so I commend them
You speak of them as if they're separate issues...
Unless the population reaches to 30 billion, we won't really have any food problems, especially with current food technologies.
That's why we should move on, our planet is just a small speck in the space.PureBeef wrote:
Well whether its 100 years of 500 years, the truth is that if the population keeps growing at the same rate, one day we are going to be screwed.
Edit: Actually after reading JohnG@lt's post I saw my one sided view.
You don't know yet what kind of technology we have in the future, so saying that we'll be screwed by then is quite odd. 500 years ago people couldn't believe that we could sustain our ever increasing population growth...
Last edited by BLdw (2010-06-24 10:00:27)
Prove it.PureBeef wrote:
Well whether its 100 years of 500 years, the truth is that if the population keeps growing at the same rate, one day we are going to be screwed.Cybargs wrote:
Warmer climate = more food production. The rise in human population has a strong correlation with global temperatures... forgot where I read that =/PureBeef wrote:
They are separate issues, whilst a large population will increase global warming, the real danger will be of starvation, not a few ice caps melting.
Unless the population reaches to 30 billion, we won't really have any food problems, especially with current food technologies.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It's not really that simple...Cybargs wrote:
Warmer climate = more food production. The rise in human population has a strong correlation with global temperatures... forgot where I read that =/PureBeef wrote:
They are separate issues, whilst a large population will increase global warming, the real danger will be of starvation, not a few ice caps melting.Spark wrote:
Pattern here as well.JohnG@lt wrote:
My area has been inundated by Asians. If I drive through Flushing most of the signs are written in Chinese or Korean.
The only thing I bitch about in regards to Asians is that they can't fucking drive. Most of them seem to bust their ass and open up small businesses all over the place. They're actually taking advantage of what America has to offer so I commend them
You speak of them as if they're separate issues...
Unless the population reaches to 30 billion, we won't really have any food problems, especially with current food technologies.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
During the warm period in medieval Europe, population increased as land that previously did not yield much now provided opportunity to sustain greater populations. Once that ended, it resulted in horrible famines.Spark wrote:
It's not really that simple...Cybargs wrote:
Warmer climate = more food production. The rise in human population has a strong correlation with global temperatures... forgot where I read that =/PureBeef wrote:
They are separate issues, whilst a large population will increase global warming, the real danger will be of starvation, not a few ice caps melting.
Unless the population reaches to 30 billion, we won't really have any food problems, especially with current food technologies.
There is some truth to it.
Farming is so old fashioned and low tech I don't know why it hasn't been industrialized on a larger scale. You could fit multiple terraced plantings in greenhouses where you wouldn't have to worry about water loss, insects, temperature or any of the other things that cause crop failures. Add in the fact that a greenhouse can be built anywhere and you reduce the cost of transporting the crop to market as well. Hell, special built skyscrapers could even be built within cities entirely devoted to 'farming'.
The startup costs would of course be massive, but you'd make back that money over time.
The startup costs would of course be massive, but you'd make back that money over time.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You're right, and that would really be interesting to see. If we just look at arable land, yes eventually we will reach a population cap but technology and innovation in the free market can help solve our supposed population bubble. Should famines occur, the human race will not go extinct.
Last edited by Phrozenbot (2010-06-24 10:27:38)
They actually just started making those. They're really amazing, and I'd only imagine that you could make them for pretty cheap.
But like most things, they probably won't use them cause of the loss of jobs it'd create.
But like most things, they probably won't use them cause of the loss of jobs it'd create.
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2010-06-24 10:30:39)
Long term profit from "hanging gardens" and "miracle beds" would be good but that would also mean massive investments. It's all about relative short term profit. Those who make the big buck in the food industry have no interest to deploy new ideas or technology because there's no need for it, yet.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't know why it hasn't been industrialized on a larger scale.
But your whole post is quite true.
Edit:
You mean sky scrapers, "hanging gardens"? I read somewhere that there are several of them being under construction here and there but just for general testing purposes, not really big investments yet. I may be wrong though.Phrozenbot wrote:
They actually just started making those.
Last edited by BLdw (2010-06-24 10:34:02)
I'll take guaranteed long term profits (no crop loss) over short term profits any day of the week. Proper investment is always about eliminating as much risk as possible. Anything else is just wild speculation.BLdw wrote:
Long term profit from "hanging gardens" and "miracle beds" would be good but that would also mean massive investments. It's all about relative short term profit. Those who make the big buck in the food industry have no interest to deploy new ideas or technology because there's no need for it, yet.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't know why it hasn't been industrialized on a larger scale.
But your whole post is quite true.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You could say modern farming techniques have resulted in a loss of jobs. There are less farmers today than there were 50 years ago. Sad, I've always thought growing up on a farm or ranch would have been a good upbringing, growing up in Montana...cpt.fass1 wrote:
They actually just started making those. They're really amazing, and I'd only imagine that you could make them for pretty cheap.
But like most things, they probably won't use them cause of the loss of jobs it'd create.
I think it has more to do with the fact that we don't actually need more food at the moment and the risks are quite mild compared to gains. Nobody (those with money) wants to invest to something that's not even close to necessary yet and that there's nobody paying for it at the moment. I've read several articles saying that we will be seeing "miracle beds" and "hanging gardens" more when people in third world countries afford buying food from us.JohnG@lt wrote:
I'll take guaranteed long term profits (no crop loss) over short term profits any day of the week. Proper investment is always about eliminating as much risk as possible. Anything else is just wild speculation.BLdw wrote:
Long term profit from "hanging gardens" and "miracle beds" would be good but that would also mean massive investments. It's all about relative short term profit. Those who make the big buck in the food industry have no interest to deploy new ideas or technology because there's no need for it, yet.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't know why it hasn't been industrialized on a larger scale.
But your whole post is quite true.
Most of farming today is industrialized... and the quality of food is not on par with most organic products. A lot of organic farms can outmatch industrial farming (especially meats).JohnG@lt wrote:
Farming is so old fashioned and low tech I don't know why it hasn't been industrialized on a larger scale. You could fit multiple terraced plantings in greenhouses where you wouldn't have to worry about water loss, insects, temperature or any of the other things that cause crop failures. Add in the fact that a greenhouse can be built anywhere and you reduce the cost of transporting the crop to market as well. Hell, special built skyscrapers could even be built within cities entirely devoted to 'farming'.
The startup costs would of course be massive, but you'd make back that money over time.
Take a quick search to google, plenty of info there to back it. Infact, just think about it - it makes senseJohnG@lt wrote:
Prove it.PureBeef wrote:
Well whether its 100 years of 500 years, the truth is that if the population keeps growing at the same rate, one day we are going to be screwed.Cybargs wrote:
Warmer climate = more food production. The rise in human population has a strong correlation with global temperatures... forgot where I read that =/
Unless the population reaches to 30 billion, we won't really have any food problems, especially with current food technologies.
Populations usually come to a halt due to logistical growth. As Galt has said, despite having huge growth rates in Africa, most of them die before they are 5.PureBeef wrote:
Take a quick search to google, plenty of info there to back it. Infact, just think about it - it makes senseJohnG@lt wrote:
Prove it.PureBeef wrote:
Well whether its 100 years of 500 years, the truth is that if the population keeps growing at the same rate, one day we are going to be screwed.
So you're saying there will be an optimum level of population?! The reason they die in Africa is because they do not have the resorces, it would take a lot more in the western world. But this still conforms to what I originally said, once the population gets to big and there is not enough food to feed it, people start to starve and die.Cybargs wrote:
Populations usually come to a halt due to logistical growth. As Galt has said, despite having huge growth rates in Africa, most of them die before they are 5.PureBeef wrote:
Take a quick search to google, plenty of info there to back it. Infact, just think about it - it makes senseJohnG@lt wrote:
Prove it.
The Bible states that the world is going to end, that all souls will be judged and sent to either Heaven or Hell. Do you believe this too? There is no proof.PureBeef wrote:
Take a quick search to google, plenty of info there to back it. Infact, just think about it - it makes senseJohnG@lt wrote:
Prove it.PureBeef wrote:
Well whether its 100 years of 500 years, the truth is that if the population keeps growing at the same rate, one day we are going to be screwed.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat