Page 13 of 70 FirstFirst ... 311121314152363 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 696

Thread: The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

  1. Top | #121
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,501
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,790
    Rep Power
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Quote me saying that our shut the fuck up!
    Wow, a full blown dummy spit, nice.

    I was referring to your apparent attitude of 'oh, look, the world grows more than enough food to feed the population of the world'' as I've already mentioned.
    That's not an attitude, that is a fact. At the moment. An argument can be made that this might not always be so, but if you (or your sources) want to make that argument, is it asking too much to do so without pretending we live in an alternate reality where that fact doesn't hold?


    In other words the impression I get from your objection to what I am saying being, to paraphrase: ''she'll be right, plenty of food, no crisis, no need to worry''
    Oh, there is reason to worry. That doesn't make insincere attempts to drive home the potential problems of the future by pretending we have a problem now already anything but - insincere.

  2. Top | #122
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,501
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,790
    Rep Power
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post

    Seems humans, probably other species as well, have some little genetic surprises in store for us that might indicate we've played this tune before and have found a way out. One can only hope. Dropping birthrates may save us from over consumption but will it save us from losing technology as well. What's happening in Europe and Japan don't bode well for the latter
    You gotta help me there, I've been living in Europe for over a third of a century and I don't know what it is that "don't bode well" for a future in which we maintain and expand our technology in the face of dropping birthrates. As far as I can tell, Japan and most of Europe have better trains and faster internet connections than you guys. More solidly built houses and cars too, though often smaller ones...
    Last edited by Jokodo; 09-15-2019 at 01:22 PM.

  3. Top | #123
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    8,322
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    25,151
    Rep Power
    82
    (AOC)
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    ^^^^^^^^ And does this genius provide any answers on how to protect Miami from complete destruction by GW/CC/CD?
    Sure. Cut down on CO2 emissions and remove CO2 from the air.

  4. Top | #124
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,667
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    27,573
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post

    That's not an attitude, that is a fact. At the moment. An argument can be made that this might not always be so, but if you (or your sources) want to make that argument, is it asking too much to do so without pretending we live in an alternate reality where that fact doesn't hold?
    I have described the problems the world faces in the coming decades, just as outlined in the material I quoted. It's clear that you either don't understand the problem or are unwilling to consider it, apparently preferring to believe that there is no problem now or perhaps some little adjustment to make in the future and it's all rosy. There is nothing that anyone can say to change your belief.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Oh, there is reason to worry. That doesn't make insincere attempts to drive home the potential problems of the future by pretending we have a problem now already anything but - insincere.
    What are you talking about? The problem right now is that we are not doing anywhere near enough to avert a major environment and economic crisis in the decades to come, the next fifty years probably being the tipping point.

  5. Top | #125
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,667
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    27,573
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post

    Maybe just stop quoting sources that contradict your alleged position by pretending that food shortages are a problem now? It would make your professed position so much more credible.

    I didn't say that there is a shortfall of food production now. There are distribution problems. I have always maintained the position that climate and environmental/economic problems will begin to bite from mid century onward.

    Your strawman appears to be be related to the article saying that food production is not increasing like it did during the green revolution, now in smaller increments, which you twist to mean 'food shortages now' in terms of insufficient overall world production of food - something that neither I or the articles said or meant.

    At least try not to misrepresent what is being said, it would do your own credibility a lot of good.

    This is not my personal timescale, nor am I saying that it will necessarily progress as described in this article;

    ''The world is less than 40 years away from a food shortage that will have serious implications for people and governments, according to a top scientist at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

    "For the first time in human history, food production will be limited on a global scale by the availability of land, water and energy," said Dr. Fred Davies, senior science advisor for the agency's bureau of food security. "Food issues could become as politically destabilizing by 2050 as energy issues are today."

    "But resource limitations will constrain global food systems," Davies added. "The increases currently projected for crop production from biotechnology, genetics, agronomics and horticulture will not be sufficient to meet food demand." Davies said the ability to discover ways to keep pace with food demand have been curtailed by cutbacks in spending on research.

    "The U.S. agricultural productivity has averaged less than 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 2007," he said. "More efficient technologies and crops will need to be developed -- and equally important, better ways for applying these technologies locally for farmers -- to address this challenge." Davies said when new technologies are developed, they often do not reach the small-scale farmer worldwide''

  6. Top | #126
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,370
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,346
    Rep Power
    65
    The article wasn't a true analysis but the pushing of a belief (or maybe as frightening hyperbole to scare the shit out of people). Yes, crop production is not growing as fast but there was no attempt to understand and explain why. The reason farming did not continue with much greater production is that there is no market for it. A farmer that produces twenty percent more than can be sold is wasting time and money. Farmers are not stupid. The farmers' response to a saturated market is to allow some acreage to lay fallow the next season to save costs or, as many farmers in my area have done, take the extra acreage out of crop production permanently and plant pine trees.

  7. Top | #127
    Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    9,667
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    27,573
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    The article wasn't a true analysis but the pushing of a belief (or maybe as frightening hyperbole to scare the shit out of people). Yes, crop production is not growing as fast but there was no attempt to understand and explain why. The reason farming did not continue with much greater production is that there is no market for it. A farmer that produces twenty percent more than can be sold is wasting time and money. Farmers are not stupid. The farmers' response to a saturated market is to allow some acreage to lay fallow the next season to save costs or, as many farmers in my area have done, take the extra acreage out of crop production permanently and plant pine trees.
    Sure, there is a bit of hyperbole in the article and it may scare some people, but that doesn't make the concerns the article raises wrong. Nor is it wrong to be raising the issue and hopefully inspire a greater effort to address a problem that is coming to a head.

    Nor, as mentioned, is it just an issue of food production... as I'm sure most people realize. Well, maybe not climate change deniers or neoclassical economists (perpetual growth) or true Cornucopians.
    Last edited by DBT; 09-16-2019 at 02:32 AM.

  8. Top | #128
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,501
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,790
    Rep Power
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post

    Maybe just stop quoting sources that contradict your alleged position by pretending that food shortages are a problem now? It would make your professed position so much more credible.

    I didn't say that there is a shortfall of food production now. There are distribution problems. I have always maintained the position that climate and environmental/economic problems will begin to bite from mid century onward.

    Your strawman appears to be be related to the article saying that food production is not increasing like it did during the green revolution, now in smaller increments, which you twist to mean 'food shortages now' in terms of insufficient overall world production of food - something that neither I or the articles said or meant.

    At least try not to misrepresent what is being said, it would do your own credibility a lot of good.
    For fuck's sake, you posted an article that literally claimed, in it's very first paragraph which you quoted in full, that "now [apparently written in the late 1990s] the gains [are] too small to keep pace with population growth". Remember post#101? How is that a prediction about the future?


    This is not my personal timescale, nor am I saying that it will necessarily progress as described in this article;

    ''The world is less than 40 years away from a food shortage that will have serious implications for people and governments, according to a top scientist at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

    "For the first time in human history, food production will be limited on a global scale by the availability of land, water and energy," said Dr. Fred Davies, senior science advisor for the agency's bureau of food security. "Food issues could become as politically destabilizing by 2050 as energy issues are today."

    "But resource limitations will constrain global food systems," Davies added. "The increases currently projected for crop production from biotechnology, genetics, agronomics and horticulture will not be sufficient to meet food demand." Davies said the ability to discover ways to keep pace with food demand have been curtailed by cutbacks in spending on research.
    And there you have a recipe to avert disaster: vamp up (public) spending on biotech research! I wonder why we never see any recipes to avoid or mitigate the doom you predict in any of your posts...


    "The U.S. agricultural productivity has averaged less than 1.2 percent per year between 1990 and 2007," he said. "More efficient technologies and crops will need to be developed -- and equally important, better ways for applying these technologies locally for farmers -- to address this challenge." Davies said when new technologies are developed, they often do not reach the small-scale farmer worldwide''
    Another ingredient to a recipe to mitigate the doom you predict: Maybe even go beyond subsidising private biotech research and move public funding of application-ready technologies and making them available free of charge to small-scale farmers worldwide. As in, one of the reasons gains are not what they could be is the prohibitive costs of using them as long as the research is controlled by private, for-profit entities.

    Yet another ingredient of course would be to keep the anti-GMO crowd at arm's length.
    Last edited by Jokodo; 09-16-2019 at 08:20 AM.

  9. Top | #129
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Riverside City
    Posts
    3,501
    Archived
    6,289
    Total Posts
    9,790
    Rep Power
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    The article wasn't a true analysis but the pushing of a belief (or maybe as frightening hyperbole to scare the shit out of people). Yes, crop production is not growing as fast but there was no attempt to understand and explain why. The reason farming did not continue with much greater production is that there is no market for it. A farmer that produces twenty percent more than can be sold is wasting time and money. Farmers are not stupid. The farmers' response to a saturated market is to allow some acreage to lay fallow the next season to save costs or, as many farmers in my area have done, take the extra acreage out of crop production permanently and plant pine trees.
    Callout to DBT: I spot yet another recipe to avoid coming food shortages. Especially if climate change makes harvests less predictable, one thing governments can do to incentivise farmers not to let the land lay fallow is to buy up surpluses in abundant years so as to avoid shortages during crop failures. This we're afraid this will drive up prices, making food less accessible to the poor, this could be combined with subsidised consumer side staple food prices in poor countries.

    Maybe if you actually talked about solutions rather than just quoting random sources freely mixing real and alleged problems, correct but irrelevant and outdated claims, I might buy your story about how you're just worried about the future. If instead all we get is lamentations about how bad things will be, more often than not with factually incorrect or severely misleading insinuations that it's already pretty bad strewn in, we're left to wonder whether instead you derive some kind of masochistic joy from your doomsday fantasies and aren't actually all that interested in solutions.

  10. Top | #130
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    12,106
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    30,319
    Rep Power
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Jokodo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post

    Seems humans, probably other species as well, have some little genetic surprises in store for us that might indicate we've played this tune before and have found a way out. One can only hope. Dropping birthrates may save us from over consumption but will it save us from losing technology as well. What's happening in Europe and Japan don't bode well for the latter
    You gotta help me there, I've been living in Europe for over a third of a century and I don't know what it is that "don't bode well" for a future in which we maintain and expand our technology in the face of dropping birthrates. As far as I can tell, Japan and most of Europe have better trains and faster internet connections than you guys. More solidly built houses and cars too, though often smaller ones...
    If there are critical population sizes required to sustain given levels of tribal knowledge then once those levels have been violated less knowledge will become apparent shortly. I'm not talking about political systems per se. So american political system tends to provide more money for some to achieve more like has happened with Tesla, Amazon, Apple and Google among others. European systems have overcome extreme language differences resulting in great increases in social system thinking around the relation between individual and group. With social cohesion regulations about information commerce and transportation have moved steadily in countries where social support is enhanced.

    I put what you cite up to the nature of the peoples in different places. America has a tinker tradition arising from self reliance during our continental expansion era. Europe has consistently stayed with professionalism and trades established over longtime period of little migration.

    The current era changes things. Below zpg populations have lead europeans to experiment with letting immigrants supplement their dwindling numbers of individuals. American are reacting to what they see extending social mode towards xenophobia.

    Expect more problems in europe arising from competing value systems between old and new unless language and culture integration are addressed for those arriving. america seems to be trending the other way out of fear of what they see as threat of such increasing in the US.

    My model depends on the results in Tasmania being scalable to larger group settings.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •