sustainability...

[greenorelse]

This is a managed landscape. You can't just decide to stop managing it without there being some adverse consequences.

It managed well till we came along!

But that brings up the uncomfortable questions of "How?" and "Who goes first?"

Aah, we won't have a choice. Ever followed Albert Bartlett? Here's his fascinating 57-minute talk on the consequences of exponentiality. The bit about choices is particularly entertaining.

[grahamhobbs]

..... But prior to that, they were used by surprisingly large numbers of people (greater than the entire current population of Scotland) for subsistence agriculture .......

That is a very good point, there is still massive potential for increasing food production. I think there is a big move on the part of the GM industry to hype up the problems of feeding the growing population of the world. On the radio this morning someone (sorry didn't catch the name but he was from India) he made the following points

1. that the world currently produces enough food to feed the projected population level for 2050, it just that enourmous amounts are wasted (when only 1 in 7 carrots get to market you can begin to understand the wasteage)

2. The Indian government could easily solve the food problem for the poor in India but they have no interest (ie. it is not profitable)

The British 'expert' tried to make a big thing about population and suggested GM might help particularly in developing crops for areas suffering from salinity - oh yes like the areas they created in the Punjab where the last time the multinationals levered their way into India with the so-called Green Revolution, with their seeds that demanded chemical fertilisers and double the irrigation, bringing salts to the surface, destroying the land for generations.

[greenorelse]

Some good points being made here. I think one of the huge problems is the seeming desire to get everyone to aspire to a typical American lifestyle or approaching that level of consumption.

That's not to say we shouldn't help others worse off than us improve their lives where they desire improvement, more the notion of what is an improvement.

BTW, you haven't upset any sensibilities here, gregorach, as they don't come into it. I prefer to think in terms of ethics, with the observation that unethical behaviour will always have its vehement and righteous defenders. Don't take that personally! It's just my outlook.

[gregorach]

Aah, we won't have a choice. Ever followed Albert Bartlett? Here's his fascinating 57-minute talk on the consequences of exponentiality. The bit about choices is particularly entertaining.

'Fraid I dont' have 57 minutes spare right now, and I don't do Real Player, so if this is particularly relevant to your argument, you might want to explain what you're actually talking about rather than merely imply that there may be some kind of rebuttal in there somewhere if I look hard enough. However, his opinion that "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function" is very old news to me... (Assuming we're talking about the same Albert Bartlett.)

So, having said all that, I'm trying to respond without actually knowing what your point is...

But you are explicitly arguing for a particular choice here, so I'm guessing you must think that we do have some choice, or you wouldn't bother. And pointing out that we can't maintain exponential population or resource usage growth is a non-sequitur in this discussion. I'm saying that we probably could theoretically support something like our current population from local resources in a sustainable manner, but only with the use of livestock. If you want to rule out the use of livestock, I don't think we can do that, even theoretically. Therefore the vegan option is less sustainable, in this particular ecosystem and set of circumstances, and if you think we should close the gap by reducing or relocating the population so that we can support ourselves in a manner compatible with your ethics, that is also a choice which you have to take responsibility for. Saying that some unspecified level of population reduction is probably inevitable anyway is not an answer, it's an evasion.

[oldjerry]

It's pretty difficult to argue with any belief system as it is ,by definition irrational.Personally I rather envy anyone whose faith,whatever it may be,is so strong.
Whatev er the theoretical arguements may be,from personal experience of living on a holding surrounded by upland common,if you leave land unmanaged(albeit with a light hand) all you get is a disaster.It may revert to it's original state in 100yrs or so,but I doubt it,meantime any one trying to grow their veg,(or soya in heated tunnels?) would be overrun with rabbits which thrive in the resulting gorse and bracken.How would you control them?

[MKG]

Eat the buggers.

Mike

[KathyLauren]

the world currently produces enough food to feed the projected population level for 2050, it just that enourmous amounts are wasted (when only 1 in 7 carrots get to market you can begin to understand the wasteage)

I don't doubt that the world produces enough food, and that "the" problem (depending on who you ask) is wastage, or unequal distribution.

However, the original topic of this thread was sustainability. Bringing it back to that topic, the question that should therefore be asked is whether the world can produce this food sustainably. In other words, can we keep on doing this forever?

The answer, of course is no. Current food production is dependent on chemical fertilizers and petroleum fuels. When the oil runs out, the food runs out. Then what?

Whether or not we can feed the population in 2050 is a short-term question. The long term question is, to what level must we reduce the world's population so that we can feed them all sustainably (i.e. without fossil fuels)? What practices must we adopt to produce food without consuming non-renewable resources?

Whatever the sustainable population number is, we are certainly well beyond it. The world will eventually reach sustainability. By definition, unsustainable practices will come to an end. Our choice is whether we end them voluntarily with some degree of control, or whether they end themselves catastrophically.

[grahamhobbs]

Keith, yes perhaps we had started to wander a bit and you raise a good point. However I'm not sure that I agree with you. True, agriculture will not be able to rely on fossil fuels but I imagine alternative fuels will be developed. I may not wish it but nuclear energy could provide electric power.

More importantly I do not think that current agriculture is efficient in the sense that it does not produce the greatest outputs per area, merely the maximum profit (ie. maximum output for the minimum cost) to large land owners. I am sure that the overall food output of the planet could easily be increased, with greater intensification through increased labour. As I've said before, even the overcrowded island of Britain, every family could have 3 acres, more than enough to be self-sufficient in food.

That then raises a whole number of issues, if the land remains in the hands of large landowners, will they accept higher labour costs or will many of us be driven back as a vast army of cheap agricultural labourers simply to be able to eat.

[Susie]

meantime any one trying to grow their veg,(or soya in heated tunnels?) would be overrun with rabbits which thrive in the resulting gorse and bracken.How would you control them?

I'm imagining angora rabbits running wildly amok, hair flowing in the wind as they leap over polytunnels, menacing people's soya.

OK I know we're talking about bog-standard rabbits and that added nothing to the discussion so I'm slinking away .

(Actually, rabbits have taken over Girton college here! Last time I was there having drinks the gardens were covered! It was like the Father Ted episode!).

[greenorelse]

Aah, we won't have a choice. Ever followed Albert Bartlett? Here's his fascinating 57-minute talk on the consequences of exponentiality. The bit about choices is particularly entertaining.

'Fraid I dont' have 57 minutes spare right now, and I don't do Real Player,

Don't blame you about Real Player.

However, his opinion that "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function" is very old news to me... (Assuming we're talking about the same Albert Bartlett.)

You must have heard his presentation at some point, by the look of it. It's this bit I liked:

The lesson is that zero population growth is going to happen. Now, we can debate whether we like zero population growth or don't like it, it’s going to happen. Whether we debate it or not, whether we like it or not, it’s absolutely certain. People could never live at that density on the dry land surface of the earth. Therefore, today’s high birth rates will drop; today’s low death rates will rise till they have exactly the same numerical value. That will certainly be in a time short compared to 780 years. So maybe you're wondering then, what options are available if we wanted to address the problem.

In the left hand column, I’ve listed some of those things that we should encourage if we want to raise the rate of growth of population and in so doing, make the problem worse. Just look at the list. Everything in the list is as sacred as motherhood. There's immigration, medicine, public health, sanitation. These are all devoted to the humane goals of lowering the death rate and that’s very important to me, if it’s my death they’re lowering. But then I’ve got to realise that anything that just lowers the death rate makes the population problem worse.

There’s peace, law and order; scientific agriculture has lowered the death rate due to famine—that just makes the population problem worse. It’s widely reported that the 55 mph speed limit saved thousands of lives—that just makes the population problem worse. Clean air makes it worse.

Now, in this column are some of the things we should encourage if we want to lower the rate of growth of population and in so doing, help solve the population problem. Well, there’s abstention, contraception, abortion, small families, stop immigration, disease, war, murder, famine, accidents. Now, smoking clearly raises the death rate; well, that helps solve the problem.

Remember our conclusion from the cartoon of one person per square meter; we concluded that zero population growth is going to happen. Let’s state that conclusion in other terms and say it’s obvious nature is going to choose from the right hand list and we don't have to do anything—except be prepared to live with whatever nature chooses from that right hand list. Or we can exercise the one option that’s open to us, and that option is to choose first from the right hand list. We gotta find something here we can go out and campaign for. Anyone here for promoting disease? (audience laughter)

We now have the capability of incredible war; would you like more murder, more famine, more accidents? Well, here we can see the human dilemma—everything we regard as good makes the population problem worse, everything we regard as bad helps solve the problem. There is a dilemma if ever there was one.

The one remaining question is education: does it go in the left hand column or the right hand column? I’d have to say thus far in this country it’s been in the left hand column—it's done very little to reduce ignorance of the problem.

But you are explicitly arguing for a particular choice here, so I'm guessing you must think that we do have some choice, or you wouldn't bother.

No, I was saying that at some point, we wouldn't have a choice, in response to your "How" and "Who goes first?" Bartlett neatly defined what our current choices are.

And pointing out that we can't maintain exponential population or resource usage growth is a non-sequitur in this discussion.

Why is it? Sorry to be so thick there, gregorach! I honestly have missed this one.

I'm saying that we probably could theoretically support something like our current population from local resources in a sustainable manner, but only with the use of livestock. If you want to rule out the use of livestock, I don't think we can do that, even theoretically. Therefore the vegan option is less sustainable, in this particular ecosystem and set of circumstances,

I presume you're referring to the highlands of Scotland specifically there? If so, I just see it from another angle, that's all. It goes a bit like this: why would someone who only eats plants go and live somewhere where you can't grow them?

In a global context, there is a direct connection between the unsustainability of trying to feed an expanding population of humans aiming for a western lifestyle and that of an ever-increasing animal farming industry, an industry which by its very nature is destructive, consumes much good arable land and is hungry for the land currently covered in rainforest.

and if you think we should close the gap by reducing or relocating the population so that we can support ourselves in a manner compatible with your ethics, that is also a choice which you have to take responsibility for.

I'm not proposing that because it's not my choice that people follow that lifestyle. I question those choices yes - while there's damn all I can do anyway - and I see a set of what I think are skewed ethics which would prevent it happening.

Saying that some unspecified level of population reduction is probably inevitable anyway is not an answer, it's an evasion.

Well, I agree it's not going to happen for some time. But I'm saying the opposite.

To sum up, you believe you should live on marginal land and 'manage' other animals for your diet and your current population would be 'sustainable'. I believe I should live on reasonable arable land with a local, plant-based diet and 'sustain' far more people. We're both right.

What actually happens - or will, if you like, should the numbers of veg*ns increase - is the latter are marginalised for the benefit of the former.

[greenorelse]

It's pretty difficult to argue with any belief system as it is ,by definition irrational.Personally I rather envy anyone whose faith,whatever it may be,is so strong.

I agree entirely.

[oldjerry]

9/11 ?

[greenorelse]

You mean those willing to sacrifice their lives for their beliefs? Yes, I envy their commitment. Though not their methods and usually not their reasons.

[oldjerry]

Well I don't really want to roll with this , but I think you are lining up behind some people who are willing to sacrifice other peoples lives, and frankly,I'm not.

[contadina]

Without fossil fuels to motor modern farming methods I suspect that the old way of growing things - mixed arable farming with animals in the mix to provide both food and manure will become the norm again.