40 billion? That’s it? Are you sh!tting me? Feed the world!

Yes that was interesting. Thanks Set.
Also interesting how identified what appears to be Builder's blatant racism, and the fool essentially thanked you for it. Very nice work indeed. What do you suppose are odds he'll catch this?

True enough. That's one part of it, an important part.

Population IS a problem, though. IMHO. THE biggest problem we face as human beings.

In response to the original question, I don't know if those stats are accurate or not and I don't much care, to tell the truth.

Walking around even in my own community I see people who struggle and get the shitty end of the stick. Kids who don't get enough to eat.

I do my part and will continue to in the way I find best. I don't hand over cash, hell, I am living below poverty line in Canada myself, but I dig in.

The problems of poverty are complex to the point that I can't even speak about it without making an ass out of myself.

That doesn't mean we should stop trying. Better to do and act - even if it is off the mark and short sighted - than to spend all the time discussing and arguing about it.

'Cause only an asshole would argue that there isn't a problem. And lots do! They need to shut up and do something.

Just my 2 cents.

Yup!

Has the distribution of birth control and education reduced the per capita effect of eco-global destruction / consumption in the US?

Has the distribution of birth control and education reduced the country wide gross effect of eco-global destruction / consumption in the US?

I would be very dubious if such claims were made!

Specifically my argument is not if / how / when one should or should not feed the people of the world, I'll explain:

There is no greater purpose served by our massively burgeoning exponential population growth and its clear and present risks versus a modest and stable population with its dramatically reduced risks.

As such, OB's post about "feeding the people" would have dubious long term efficacy (in the context of the much greater problem) if it could be applied as he appears to envision it. As I discussed that is not to say OB's conclusions if true, are not without merit. Nevertheless the potential merit of OB's argument is wholly eclipsed by the population question.

I'll explain: I contribute regularly to causes supporting such concerns but I'm realistic enough to know that my actions, though they may assuage my guilt and support my moral views (and even in the extreme feed all the people in the world) would not change the underlying population problem consequentially despite Thomas' reasonable views that a well off population reproduces less.

Witness: the US population is relatively stable but and yet is it massively eco-globally destructive / consumptive. If the entire world was much more like the US, I am very dubious such change would consequentially slow the longer-term eco-global decimation within the present technological environ. You see it's not a simple matter of merely population amount.

So feed the people or not feed the people, I am very dubious such action or lack of action can change the massively self-destructive path we are on.

Hi OB, as to your latest post to me I note you dodged my five questions and choose minor argumentation to little effect, too bad.

As such:

1) Will you argue that our massively burgeoning exponential population growth and its clear and present risks versus a modest and stable population with its dramatically reduced risks is not a supremely important consideration? If so what is your argument as so far you have presented none.

2) Will you argue against the premise that a stable longer-term eco-global situation can only be achieved within the present technological environ by a dramatic and immediate reduction in population? If so what is your argument as so far you have presented none.

3) Will you argue that if human population reduction if not done willingly and forthwith (through reduction in babies born as one more-hopeful example) then as per your rhetoric of "next holocaust": war, disease, mass starvation, global warming, pollution, resource consumption, etc en mass will not result within the context of the present technological environ. If so what is your argument as so far you have presented none.

4) Will you argue that "feeding the people" would have long term efficacy if it could be applied as you appear to envision it within the context of 1)? If so what is your argument as so far you have presented none.

5) Will you argue that there is a greater purpose served by our massively burgeoning exponential population growth and its clear and present risks versus a modest and stable population with its dramatically reduced risks. If so what is your argument as so far you have presented none.

BBC News UK Saturday, 11 June, 2005

G8 finance ministers agreed at a meeting in London on 11 June to write off $40bn in debt owed by 18 of the world's poorest countries, most of them in sub-Saharan Africa.
The World Bank says the total debts of these 27 countries went from $80bn to $28bn as a result of HIPC and other debt relief initiatives.

Although a large proportion of the $80bn was due to compound interest because of their failure to meet repayments on time, it is clear that the figures quoted on page one would be woefully inadequate to meet the real need.

The following is also a major problem:

CNN - Water shortages may make Africa more aid dependent
Monday, November 3, 2003

(Reuters) -- Scientists warned on Sunday that growing water shortages across Africa could drive the continent into greater reliance on food aid over the next two decades.

Issuing their warning ahead of a water conference in Nairobi, experts said that by 2025 as many as 523 million people in Africa may be without access to clean water, while farmers would not have enough water for their crops.

The shortages in Africa are part of a global trend in increasing water consumption, but the increase in household water consumption on the continent will be proportionally the highest of any region in the world.

Africa will face a 23 percent shortfall in crop yields due to insufficient water supplies, while cereal imports will have to more than triple to 35 million tons in the next 23 years to keep pace with demand, increasing reliance on food aid, the experts said.


Proof: www.climatehotmap.org

Although Africa has the lowest per capita fossil energy use of any major world region, Africa may be the most vulnerable continent to climate change because widespread poverty limits countries? capabilities to adapt.

Signs of a changing climate in Africa have already emerged: spreading disease and melting glaciers in the mountains, warming temperatures in drought-prone areas, and sea-level rise and coral bleaching along the coastlines.

3. Cairo, Egypt -- Warmest August on record, 1998. Temperatures reached 105.8?F (41?C) on August 6, 1998.

5. Southern Africa -- Warmest and driest decade on record, 1985-1995. Average temperature increased almost 1?F (0.56?C) over the past century.

41. Senegal -- Sea-level rise; Sea-level rise is causing the loss of coastal land at Rufisque, on the South Coast of Senegal.

61. Kenya -- Mt. Kenya's largest glacier disappearing. 92 percent of the Lewis Glacier has melted in the past 100 years.

121. World Ocean - Warming water. The world ocean has experienced a net warming of 0.11?F (0.06?C) from the sea surface to a depth of 10,000 feet (3000 m) over the past 35-45 years. More than half of the increase in heat content has occurred in the upper 1000 feet (300 m), which has warmed by 0.56?F (0.31?C). Warming is occurring in all ocean basins and at much deeper depths than previously thought. These findings lend support to the hypothesis that the oceans are taking up excess heat as the atmosphere warms, and would account for the apparent discrepancy in the magnitude of the observed atmospheric warming as compared to climate model predictions.

133. Mount Kilmanjaro, Tanzania - Ice projected to disappear by 2020. 82% of Kilimanjaro?s ice has disappeared since 1912, with about one-third melting in just the last dozen years. At this rate, all of the ice will be gone in about 15 years. Scientists hypothesize that less snow on the mountain during the rainy season decreases the surface reflectiveness, leading to higher rates of absorption of heat and increased ice melt.
134. Rwenzori Mountains, Uganda - Disappearing glaciers. Since the 1990s, glacier area has decreased by about 75%. The continent of Africa warmed by 0.9? F (0.5?C) during the past century, and the five warmest years in Africa have all occurred since 1988.

In some cases deeper wells may delay the inevitable, solar powered desalination plants could sustain coastal dwellers, but could never meet the needs of agriculture.

Emigration to Canada may be the only long term solution.

Chumly; I didn't dodge your questions; I ignored them because they are off topic. Some of your points have merit, to some extent, and are certainly worthy of discussion, but this is not the appropriate thread to do so. Please start another thread if you want to discuss population problems, and link it to here and I'll be happy to respond. I would appreciate it if you didn't further derail this thread.

I wouldn't want to give odds, O'Bill, i'm insufficiently familiar with the member in question to judge whether or not that member recognizes simple expedients.

Oh LORD!

People need to get a grip. That isn't a long term solution.

It would make me laugh except it hurts my soul so badly.

Is nothing holy anymore? Anything non-human? Have people lost all sense?

What people need to do is start to learn a little respect for LAND and the essential need of being able to look over a long span of non-man-made beauty and life.
We are INTERdependent, not INDEPENDENT.

We are choking on our own self.

Doesn't anyone value living without wall to wall human faces anymore??

Now you've hit a pet passion of mine.

edit: Sorry, will stop with derailment now, O Bill.

I couldn't agree more in general; and in particular as one Canadian to another. Your point does go to priorities so it's not OT. I must go now, it's been a pleasure.

I'm pretty sure he was kidding (using Canada for an example). There is some merit to the idea of migration. I remember watching the late Sam Kinisin, decades ago making this very point. He'd say "Look it here" then reach down and pretend to pick something up "What's this? It's F*CKING SAND!... what's it going to be 100 years? F*CKING SAND! They don't need shipments of food... they need shipments the F*CK OUT!"

As for water? Please. Desalination may not be the simplest procedure, but there's nothing technologically difficult about it. People dieing from a lack of water on a planet that is covered in it is the product of apathy, not shortage.

I agree with your comments about water.

And you made me laugh. thanks.

Gee, I hope he was kidding, and it's cool if he is. I guess I've heard too many people seriously talk like that....the attitude of "we need solutions that require absolutely no looking or changing at what we are currently doing - just something easy".

Kinda like coming to the US instead of making Mexico better?

I know that's a whole nother subject matter, but I think that's what $10 per person would do. Feed, educate and medicate the people where they are and the whole world benefits rather than crowding into one country or another.

(You do realize OB that you are sounding like one of them Liberals here, right?)

True. And not only is it technologically easy, it is also economically feasible. If you search Google scholar for "cost of seawater desalination", you will typically find figures between $0.50 and $1 per cubic meter. That's four to eight cents per barrel. It's greater than nothing, and some poor countries can't really afford it yet. Still, even at the current state of technology, desalinating seawater is much cheaper than fighting a war.

I am not, repeat not, Joe King!

Satellite observations between 1980 and 1990 showed a fluctuation between expansion and contraction of the Sahara Desert. The overall 10-year trend, however, is an expansion of the desert. Multispectral data from Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometers (AVHRR) on NOAA satellites, show the changes in the extent and area of the Sahara Desert from 1984 to 1990.

Between 1980 and 1984 the desert grew steadily larger. Data gathered during this four-year period showed the southern boundary of the Sahara creeping southward as much as 240 kilometers.

Read that again…240 kilometers in just four years! Money can't stop that. Scrunch up will ya, I want to sit down.

That's not unusual on subjects of this nature. I was even called a hippie earlier in the thread (Make love, not War! Peace, my brothas and sistas!)

The newest desalination plants set to go operational here in the States are expected to cost $2.50 per thousand gallons… and that's just to maintain our ability to greedily consume 600 gallons a week each. 3rd-worlders would do well to get 15 gallons a week each, which would cost a couple bucks a year.

The supply is virtually endless, and the technology's been around since the Greeks. This is how the Saudis get the vast majority of their potable water, and at least one of the British Virgin Islands gets 100% of their supply. Fort Zachary Taylor in Key West Florida was turning seawater into drinking water as early as 1861. The water argument is just another excuse for apathy. Suggestions that third-worlders should be abandoned because of this kind of issue, IMO, boils down to racism. If we want to stop technology from sustaining life for the good of us all (a deplorable suggestion, IMO); we should simply do away with medicine… not starve the dark man. Proponents of that idiocy should willingly accept a leveling of the playing field, IMO. Take the Health Care money, feed the poor and spend the significant majority that would be left over to develop green energy. I've read that smoking alone causes 100B in health care annually in this country. Do the apathetic really care about saving the planet? I'd wager not too many are skipping their checkups to send the money to green energy R&D.

I know. It's embarrassing. I hope you'll be discreet about it and not mention this to nimh, parados, blatham, cycloptichorn, and bipolar bear.

getting in a little late here and don't want to spoil the thread .
just want to ad a few comments .

1) population explosion : many countries have brought it under control . even china , i believe , has stopped - or greatly decreased - its exploding population .
of course , some now decry this and say that chinese families were coerced into having fewer children .
in many european countries population is DECREASING ; a/t to some population scientists(?) the decreases will accelarate and make the population of those countries shrink greatly .
look how the japanese population stopped growing after WW II .
even in canada the birthrate is going down and without immigration the populatation would be shrinking .
the province of quebec has introduced a "special baby bonus" paying mothers more for each additional child being born !!!

2) i understand that rather than a water-shortage , what the world is suffering from is wasting of water resources .
listened to a scientist recently who said that the greatest waste of water is the "flush toilet" and every country looks upon it as a gift from heaven .
he said that countries without flush-toilets should not adopt them and he suggested that modern countries start recycling human waste (methane gas) .
i understand that factories are often using great amounts of treated (drinking) water only to dump it into sewers and lakes rather than recycling it - because its cheaper to dump than recycle .
this waste can probably be controlled only by charging the full cost of water used .

3) birth control is still considered unacceptable by some governments/nations who really know better .

4) allocating money to reduce/eliminate poverty is probably not impossible . getting governments/people to give up money for pet projects and channeling it into reducing poverty is imo the real problem .
(it reminds me of current action by canadian autoworkers' union and ontario government to endorse a "green policy" , while at the same time decrying the reduction in the number of large automobiles being built in ontario . )

i'll check back in later .
hbg

And preferably they will grow up speaking french.

All your points were great. Especially about wasting water. Wasting, polluting, misusing.

Though one could argue whether a shrinking population at the moment is a bad thing or a good thing.

And though, most (including our current gov't) obviously see it as a bad thing, and bias is towards that direction.

But don't worry! Teenage pregnacy is rampant in Manitoba!
Just a lot of those babies die....and are the wrong colour. Oops, did I say that?

I'm not a hippie. I was never a hippie. I'm a long haired musician in it for drugs, music, pussy, parties and ....oh wait.... nevermind.

OB again it's not population I specially refer to, it's the pragmatic impact of population as a function of eco-global-decimation as compared to your moral idealization as per feeding the world. I note many of other posters are applying similar tenets in their posts, however I will honor your request.