1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

No more plants.

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by penski, 27 Jul 2006.

  1. penski

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 9 May 2005

    Posts: 20,834

    Location: NE8

    Discuss - Do you think that Peak Grain is an issue that we should be aware of? Is it something to worry about? Do you feel that we have enough food, energy, water and fuel on the planet at the moment to sustain the lifestyles that most of us are used to?

    *n
     
  2. crashuk

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 7 Dec 2005

    Posts: 2,691

    well invest in it, by futures.
     
  3. JimmyEatWorms

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 May 2003

    Posts: 4,686

    Location: Londinium

    No. Food is not a finite resource. In order to combat any issues it's simply a matter of allocating more land and resources to combatting it. The only worrying aspect is that with the increase in oil prices, the centralised mass-production of food becomes more and more expensive. This is very easily negated by a move to more smaller local producers. Even in a densely polulated part of the world like the UK, there really is no shortage of land fit for agriculture.

    I just don't see food production as an issue that will need addressed for quite some time.
     
  4. Borris

    Caporegime

    Joined: 25 Oct 2002

    Posts: 30,410

    There is no comparison between this and (the specious) concept of peak oil.

    Foremost, if there was ever a situation that resulted in the need to rely on 57 days of grain, food would be one of our lesser concerns, as that situation would only arise if we were unable to grow grain (and probably most other food crops) at all.

    It doesn't seem to be any more that doomsayer nonsense.

    Current food production can (anecdotaly) support up to three times the world's population.

    We may have to revisit how we obtain water, however, particularly in the densest cities - but even then, that's not going to affect the majority of the world.

    And I'm fairly confident that we can manage without fossil fuels - at the very least, we can eek out a fair few more years from them.

    Futures are not an investment vehicle, but a liquidity generator. If you want to invest in grain, buy grain.
     
    Last edited: 27 Jul 2006
  5. nero120

    Soldato

    Joined: 12 Jan 2004

    Posts: 6,824

    Location: Londinium

    Could it be that all this "peak" stuff is simply a sign that the number of humans the planet is capable of supporting has either been reached, is being approached or has gone past?
     
  6. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    I think we went past it a few billion people ago :)
     
  7. Vonhelmet

    Caporegime

    Joined: 28 Jun 2005

    Posts: 48,107

    Location: On the hoods

    I've read that the planet will likely top at about 10billion, though we will obviously have to make some concessions to make that viable.
     
  8. Rancidelephant

    Mobster

    Joined: 20 Oct 2002

    Posts: 3,264

    I don't quite agree, i think we can support the amount of people that are already here and probably a few more, it does require a drastic change in living conditions and methods but it can be done. Quite easily i believe.
     
  9. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    It may do indeed, but I believe we passed the sustainable figure long ago :) There will be a short term spike due to the last of the cheap oil and mankind's stupidity in continuing to grow. After that, the population will fall sharply and people will die.
     
  10. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    Perhaps it could in theory, if everyone on the planet had a basic, subsistence standard of living. If would mean very dramatic living standards drops in the West. Do you want that? I don't :)
     
  11. nero120

    Soldato

    Joined: 12 Jan 2004

    Posts: 6,824

    Location: Londinium

    Me too. I would rather live in the comfort I have now than see more babies being born in africa. I just dont see the point of our population increasing dramatically. What advantages will it bring the number of people already in existance to stretch our natural resources even more?
     
  12. Saberu

    Mobster

    Joined: 25 Feb 2003

    Posts: 3,263

    Location: Stafford (uni)

    No because genetic engineering has already helped boost crop yields by as much as over 30%. And at the rate R&D in this area is going I foresee that figure rising. I believe Japan is very interested in this because of their low landspace.
     
  13. iraiguana

    Mobster

    Joined: 24 Aug 2005

    Posts: 2,599

    much research has been done into gm crops like u said and lots of money has been invested into developing ones that require less water and so are more suitable for africa and other nations with poor irrigation and lack of funds, but these grain cost much more than just standard ones and so it is hard for the poorer nations who would benefit the most to get hold of them. Also massive investment into well planned agricultural systems needs to be done more so now than before, we are rapidly destroying agricultural land in the uk due to 50 years of farming methods with no long term ideas of how it damages the soil, yes we use fertilisers and other chemicals to re-vitilise the soil but it is not enough.

    we will need dramatic overhaul of the argiculture industry to increase levels of food production in the future.
     
  14. aardvark

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 2 Jan 2005

    Posts: 8,092

    Location: leeds

    its not really a problem - the population will adjust (by which i mean lots of people will simply die) but thats the order of things - the human race seems incapable of controling its own population so nature will do it for us.
     
  15. iraiguana

    Mobster

    Joined: 24 Aug 2005

    Posts: 2,599

    but the human race is the only intelligent race that is capable of realising that it is in trouble and capable of changing its fate, which is far more likely to happen ( by which most probable would be a massive revolt and lots of fighting until so many people have died, there can be loads of food for everyone left).
     
  16. Mickey_D

    Soldato

    Joined: 9 Dec 2003

    Posts: 6,204

    Location: Gone......

    * looks out the window at the 10 acres on my property, the well (source of potable water), the wind blowing by and the sunlight (source of electricity and heat), the deer and bear wandering through the fields (source of meat), the vast areas of farming land around me (source of vegetables and grains), etc and is VERY thankful he moved here after all...... *
     
  17. crashuk

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 7 Dec 2005

    Posts: 2,691

    Lets say if you buy a ton of grain at £1000 pounds of future for a fixed future date, then later on in that year grain costs £2000 a ton, because you purchased it for £1000 you then sell it for £1990 you make a profit of £990, its still an investment but at a risk.
    If you buy the grain , physically have it then you would need to pay for transport costs, pay for storage etc.. with futures you dont even need to have it.
     
    Last edited: 30 Jul 2006
  18. robmiller

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2003

    Posts: 16,522

    Location: London

    Thank god for GM crops! Norman Borlaug I salute thee!

    Oh wait, they're opposed by selfish ******** who stand in the way of scientific advancement and the feeding of the needy and poor because they have some ridiculous hippie veggiestance. Ugh.

    Edit: for those who don't know who Norman Borlaug is or oppose GM crops, Borlaug is credited with saving one billion human lives through the development of GM foods. Put that in your organic hippiepipe and smoke it.
     
    Last edited: 30 Jul 2006
  19. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    Hmm slightly controversial plus you seem to have forgotten that you are in SC :)

    I think there are valid reasons for opposing GM crops which don't automatically make one a hippy or an idiot.
     
  20. robmiller

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2003

    Posts: 16,522

    Location: London

    I did actually think I was in GD :o

    What are the valid reasons for opposing GM crops? I can't think of a single one that is more important than the fact that they will save hundreds of millions of lives through their ability to nearly eradicate starvation.