Realcent.org

I think we are in a catch-22 situation. In the past century, the population has grown exponentially and shows no signs of letting up. Demand will out run supply. This will be true of everything from widgets to flux capacitors. But suppose for a minute that population growth was reduced. What effect would that have? Thats where the catch-22 comes in. What effect would a reduced population growth outcome have on the economy? At least in part, isn't a growing economy a function of a growing population? Catch-22. I fear for the future citizens of this country and the world.

Have you ever watched the Crash Course series of videos? Goes into great details about the ramifications of just what you are talking about. You can watch them at ChrisMartenson.com Well worth the investment of your time.

dan53 wrote:I think we are in a catch-22 situation. In the past century, the population has grown exponentially and shows no signs of letting up. Demand will out run supply. This will be true of everything from widgets to flux capacitors. But suppose for a minute that population growth was reduced. What effect would that have? Thats where the catch-22 comes in. What effect would a reduced population growth outcome have on the economy? At least in part, isn't a growing economy a function of a growing population? Catch-22. I fear for the future citizens of this country and the world.

The Malthusian idea of populations outgrowing resources has been around for 200 years. But what they fail to understand is that the people are themselves sources of wealth. This is especially true when people have the liberty to develop and sell their skills to the market; and to use entrepreneurship to create value and solve problems.

I feel that any situation can be retrieved provided we still have a certain measure of freedom.

honestly theres no reason in the world we cannot support much higher populations. though obviously with a bit of a shift in how we use certain things.

Anyone who doesnt agree feel free to list reasons why. (besides social reasons) Im talking from a purely logistical sense. there is a bit of an agenda out there to convince us otherwise, but every issue I personally know we could accomplish in better ways....

Sure. There aren't any physical reasons we could not have 10X the present population, or even more. The reasons we will not, for the forseeable future, are all social, and people like Chavez, Soros, Castro, etc.

theo wrote:

dan53 wrote:I think we are in a catch-22 situation. In the past century, the population has grown exponentially and shows no signs of letting up. Demand will out run supply. This will be true of everything from widgets to flux capacitors. But suppose for a minute that population growth was reduced. What effect would that have? Thats where the catch-22 comes in. What effect would a reduced population growth outcome have on the economy? At least in part, isn't a growing economy a function of a growing population? Catch-22. I fear for the future citizens of this country and the world.

The Malthusian idea of populations outgrowing resources has been around for 200 years. But what they fail to understand is that the people are themselves sources of wealth. This is especially true when people have the liberty to develop and sell their skills to the market; and to use entrepreneurship to create value and solve problems.

I feel that any situation can be retrieved provided we still have a certain measure of freedom.

I disagree. Food is food is food. The ONLY reason there are 7 billion people on Earth right now is because of cheap oil and everything that is dependant on it. Our soils are so depleted that without oil-rich nutrients nothing would ever grow.

I think everyone should not only watch Chris Martenson crash course but also watch Collapse with Michael C. Ruppert.

Prepare for the worst; be ready if it does not happen.

balz wrote:
I disagree. Food is food is food. The ONLY reason there are 7 billion people on Earth right now is because of cheap oil and everything that is dependant on it. Our soils are so depleted that without oil-rich nutrients nothing would ever grow.

I think everyone should not only watch Chris Martenson crash course but also watch Collapse with Michael C. Ruppert.

Prepare for the worst; be ready if it does not happen.

your right that our soils are in trouble from oil based ferts. However your wrong that oil EVER increased yields, or that we couldnt re build soils from scratch..... Salt build up alone having our soils on a crash course for destruction.

Id have to write a book to explain how the myth of oil based ferts increasing yields came about... To keep it simple, most folks never knew the methods to truly keep a soil in balance. So our soils were heavily depleted of key things.... We had other sources but instead synthetic ferts will used. this allowed a few things. Before this people really didnt do to much beyond building soil if they even did that. what I mean is, is in liquid form it is easy to offer ferts above the amount a soil can hold on its own. You could use natural means to do this in tons of ways actually..... The other aspect was plant breeding. MASSIVE breeding projects the scope of which the world simply never knew at the time were undertaken. By default these also selected for synthetic ferts..... Our government helped cement all this in by subsidizing these things and not subsidizing anything else..

the ONLY thing that is a benefit from syn ferts would be that in mono cultures (generally associated with syn ferts) less people can do the work to feed more people...

However with many well establsiehed poly cultures you can grow multiples the amount of food on the same amount of land.. ESPECIALLY for animal usage. there is coppicing trees for instance that can end up with 10-20 times the biomass for cattle on the same piece of land.....

then you have arid regions which at this point produce half the worlds beef. ALL of these places with superior soil building methods can produce many multiples more biomass for cattle then current. there are also things like growing algae for fuel multiples more efficient then corn ethanol and the by product produces multiples more high end nutrition (to replace grain in cattles diet) per area then anything currently grown. the numbers are crazy dont know them all off the top of my head..... then you have such methods as growing tree crops for animal feeds, where you can get 10-12 times the amount of fee per acre....

then you have things like fish. We can put in artificial reefs in the oceans, and breed HORDES of the plant eaters at the bottom of the food chain...... A type humans like to eat. its extremely easy to initiate the growing of many water plants. We focus on harvesting those as the numbers of the other types of fish harder to breed and feed increase. heck Ive come up with methods that could do this in the deep ocean were fish dont even really grow well now. most types anyway.... because plants dont grow there to much either. And theres a reason for that, easy to fix if there was a need.

MUCH much more then this.

synthetic ferts never raised yields in any way shape or form. It is 100 percent a myth.

Haven't watched Chris Martenson or Collapse. But when I hear people talking about population control, I shutter.

From my perspective population control is about just that - CONTROL. See how the Chinese control their population? Now they have a generation of boys. And a generation of girls (forgive me here) floating in the rice fields.

As it is, this is manipulation. TPTB want to control the way you think, act, where you live, what you desire. Personally, I want to control all of those things myself. Global warming hysteria falls into the same vein. If they can convince you that you are destroying the environment - or can pass legislation to control what you drive, how you live, they have won. You have lost a piece of your freedom and you get to "feel" good about it.

I live in some of the most productive acres in the world. Our farmers are producing more now with less inputs than ever before. And yes, we use oil to produce food.

Frankly, if we could go after it, we have the oil to last us centuries still. But this again is more manipulation. There is enough oil right here in the states to sustain us, but we can't go get it because the global warming wacko's have control of the congress, EPA, Energy dept. etc etc.

I don't have stats or anything at my fingertips, but I do have common sense and a keyboard.

Even if oil was endless and cheap it will crash as a basis for food production. the salt build up in the soils is often over looked but already lowering yields in some areas.

also
Poly cultures produce more per acre then mono cultures ever could. They always will because anything you can do with a single crop you could work into methods involving more then one.... your not actually producing more FOOD per acre then ever before, your producing more of a single crop per acre then ever before. big difference. Also they are NOT using less inputs, not sure where you got that. the industry claims that, but the numbers do not support that at all....

Malthus foresaw many things but what Malthus never foresaw was Norman Borlaug.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

Norman Borlaug was a joke in all honesty.... He was key in cemented the myth that synthetic ferts increased yields... It wasnt greeen in anyway...

In fact its killing our soils, and lowering nutrition over time. As micro nutrients not necessarily needed for growing become locked into the soil over time.

We COULD have a green revolution though, that makes the last one look like a sad joke. Heck the science was all clear at that time as well for anyone thiking outside of the box. but there was an agenda to build that makes a LOT of money. the type of things im talking about are de centralized.... Governments and industry dont always like such things. Let alone its harder to pull the rug out from under it.

that said some more recent work of borlougs on wheat rust and even more increase in yields was very cool..... the green revolution though is not in any way sustainable as built. Its simple math, and that holds true even if oil magically stayed cheap. Sadly our current organic farmers are NOT giving us the true alternative either though.... Not that Im advocating 100 percent organic. Pesticides and herbicides can be helpful.

Also for the record, the types of things im talking about although well proven and much more to add to thinking in this way are VERY unlikely to ever take hold. Even among farmers and gardeners, most simply dont understand it or believe it even when shown fully functioning systems using such mindsets....

Just talking about possibles here.

theo wrote:
The Malthusian idea of populations outgrowing resources has been around for 200 years. But what they fail to understand is that the people are themselves sources of wealth. This is especially true when people have the liberty to develop and sell their skills to the market; and to use entrepreneurship to create value and solve problems.

I feel that any situation can be retrieved provided we still have a certain measure of freedom.

The Earth is not the only place to live, or extract resources from, Doh!

See: http://www.metrocircus.com/metrocircus.html

The solar system's resources can easily support 100 billion people, or more.

I think that whatever happens, one has to be ready. Better be a fool than be dead.

dan53 wrote:I think we are in a catch-22 situation. In the past century, the population has grown exponentially and shows no signs of letting up. Demand will out run supply. This will be true of everything from widgets to flux capacitors. But suppose for a minute that population growth was reduced. What effect would that have? Thats where the catch-22 comes in. What effect would a reduced population growth outcome have on the economy? At least in part, isn't a growing economy a function of a growing population? Catch-22. I fear for the future citizens of this country and the world.

what if they outlawed duel family incomes,
If your married only the husband or the wife can work.
That would cut the work force in half, no shortage of jobs then.

ardorlan wrote:what if they outlawed duel family incomes,
If your married only the husband or the wife can work.
That would cut the work force in half, no shortage of jobs then.

I wouldnt really be for forcing such things. but it was a wise choice for me wife and I. We live in an economically depressed area. Not to many jobs. So she is capable of making more then myself with her teaching degree, and I stay with the kids and grow the bulk of our food. which makes up for many costs we would otherwise have. Plus it is healthier anyway.

We also have 10-20 million people here doing jobs americans otherwise would be doing if not on the public dole....

Treetop wrote:Norman Borlaug was a joke in all honesty.... He was key in cemented the myth that synthetic ferts increased yields... It wasnt greeen in anyway...

In fact its killing our soils, and lowering nutrition over time. As micro nutrients not necessarily needed for growing become locked into the soil over time.

We COULD have a green revolution though, that makes the last one look like a sad joke. Heck the science was all clear at that time as well for anyone thiking outside of the box. but there was an agenda to build that makes a LOT of money. the type of things im talking about are de centralized.... Governments and industry dont always like such things. Let alone its harder to pull the rug out from under it.

that said some more recent work of borlougs on wheat rust and even more increase in yields was very cool..... the green revolution though is not in any way sustainable as built. Its simple math, and that holds true even if oil magically stayed cheap. Sadly our current organic farmers are NOT giving us the true alternative either though.... Not that Im advocating 100 percent organic. Pesticides and herbicides can be helpful.

I'll put the validity of his Nobel Prize against that of Al Gore's or Obama's anytime.

I think using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides were largely a means to an end to him rather than anything he specifically espoused as key. Use what is cheap, and readily available at the time.. though admittedly he kind of had a soft spot in his heart for Dow and Monsanto as much of the backing required to pull off these "miracles" came from large chemical companies (who still fund most of reasearch areas of agronomy today.. so if your expecting any change there don't hold your breath). A necessary evil perhaps. The majority of his esteem is usually due to his introduction scientific principles, new varieties and techniques and education to an area that at the time was largely haphazard and superstition/tradition based. That said, he sure did love the DDT and bemoaned its being banned so universially (with the return of malaria and more recently bedbugs.. maybe he was right!)

As for sustainabilty, the technology continues to evolve. We don't use all the nasty chemicals we once did and tend to be more responsible than ever before. However, the current model DOES still work and no producer is really that terribly interested in messing with what works. Overall yeilds have increased year after year and production has always met and often exceeded demand. Most (if not all) of teh major historical famines that occured had their roots in politics rather than because of a supply problem. Everyone *knows the Irish famine was caused by monoculture and potato blight right? But does everyone *know that due to the Corn Laws Ireland was exporting grain at the same time its people were starving? I won't even get into Africa where starvation is used as a political weapon. It's a shame our political thinking doesn't evolve at the rate of our technology.

warthog wrote:I'll put the validity of his Nobel Prize against that of Al Gore's or Obama's anytime.

I think using synthetic fertilizers and pesticides were largely a means to an end to him rather than anything he specifically espoused as key. Use what is cheap, and readily available at the time.. though admittedly he kind of had a soft spot in his heart for Dow and Monsanto as much of the backing required to pull off these "miracles" came from large chemical companies (who still fund most of reasearch areas of agronomy today.. so if your expecting any change there don't hold your breath). A necessary evil perhaps. The majority of his esteem is usually due to his introduction scientific principles, new varieties and techniques and education to an area that at the time was largely haphazard and superstition/tradition based. That said, he sure did love the DDT and bemoaned its being banned so universially (with the return of malaria and more recently bedbugs.. maybe he was right!)

As for sustainabilty, the technology continues to evolve. We don't use all the nasty chemicals we once did and tend to be more responsible than ever before. However, the current model DOES still work and no producer is really that terribly interested in messing with what works. Overall yeilds have increased year after year and production has always met and often exceeded demand. Most (if not all) of teh major historical famines that occured had their roots in politics rather than because of a supply problem. Everyone *knows the Irish famine was caused by monoculture and potato blight right? But does everyone *know that due to the Corn Laws Ireland was exporting grain at the same time its people were starving? I won't even get into Africa where starvation is used as a political weapon. It's a shame our political thinking doesn't evolve at the rate of our technology.

You are NOT talking to a gore or obama fan.

You answered your own question why I dont like him. He was a corporate shill. He helped cement in what will be viewed as one of the idocies of all of human history should we stay on this path. Especially if oil becomes cheaper somehow, and we truly destroy soils slowly over decades.

As for not holding my breath for funding alternative research. while your right, in the premise.... I am working with many folks who are building our own alternatives. Truthfully we could use 10x more people, and we WOULD get the job done and make norman look like the fool he is..... If we had the funding he did it would of been done before I was born.

a necessary evil? Sorry, we need no evil in this world, not that we are likely to ever get rid of it.

As for the farmers of the era not knowing the best methods your right, but the path we took was HARDLY the best. We had already proven methods far superior on all fronts at the time. People just needed the knowledge. Ive got many dozens of books highlighting the availability of this knowledge well...

Your 100 percent wrong that theres anything remotely mirroring sustainability in our current system, and making un backed claims that it is any safer. We now have dozens of chemicals where there used to be one or five. The way these may or may not relate to eachother is completely unknown and 100 percent un needed because we have better ways. Yields increasing has only sped up the rate these systems will fail, and they indeed will. From salt build up alone.

As I said above we have systems that yield MORE. that is true without even having done the breeding we could do, because there are so few of us to do it. By the way Im an amateur plant breeder. Im working with many folks that if I gave you their names you could look them up and read about their work to some degree. I also know of others whos work has been buried in politics. Such as corns that use half the nitrogen, produce 2-3 times more, AND have drought tolerance un heard of with their 15 foot deep roots. Including plants for producing cooking oils that produce 50 percent more then anything humans currently use, and produce on the WORST possible soils in arid regions such as new mexico, texas, ohklahoma and the like non irrigated, and perennial producing more and more each year for 15 or so years as you work in new plants...

I know very very well about political issues that both lead to famines and to our current paradigm. It isnt even remotely comparable to what is possible. Not even close.

another key issue to point out, is it wasnt EXACTLY a mono culture that caused the problem with potattoes in the potato famine. It was the lack of genetic diversity. Potatos are especially disease prone. Look up certified potato seed once and see the trouble we go to to ensure we dont build up potato disease. You could also grow them out from the TPS (true potatoe seeds, which are actual seeds rather then using the tubers)... my point being is we will be in even more trouble once the GM guys get it right. (although their systems still wouldnt be able to compare to the yields of well designed polycultures its simple math) because we will be relying on fewer and fewer genetics. a smaller base... nature will catch up to us. It always does.

We need systems that evolve with the eco systems. I dont expect anyone here to believe me. Heck I go onto hippy gardening boards and i cant get 99 percent of them to see the FULL scope of what is wrong with even THEIR systems let alone industrial ag.... Your talking to an eccentric dude with a 155 IQ who is a stay at home dad slash homesteader slash plant breeder.... I know these issues inside and out and inside again. Agendas run deep on all sides. indoctrination runs deep on all sides.... Compartmentalization of knowledge is abound. and honestly though all im talking about is proven over and over.... Its in its baby steps here... that I can assure you. the things some of us are working on are so profound compared to the current paradigm you could almost say humanity hasnt even learned farming yet. Because the differences are greater between doing nothing but sticking seeds into the ground vs. modern organics or modern industrial ag. compared to the whole system approaches im talking about....

Cornucopians argue that technology will always advance fast enough to bail us out of our difficulties. The problem I see is one of living space. We have a growing population spreading out over zero growth geography. The world's land area is 57,510,000 sq miles. This is supporting 6,940,000,000 souls. That works out to approximately 120 people for every sq mile. If you contrast the population with arable land the ratio of people to each sq mile grows in a big way. Arable land is shrinking while the population is growing. We are running out of real estate.

dan53 wrote:Cornucopians argue that technology will always advance fast enough to bail us out of our difficulties. The problem I see is one of living space. We have a growing population spreading out over zero growth geography. The world's land area is 57,510,000 sq miles. This is supporting 6,940,000,000 souls. That works out to approximately 120 people for every sq mile. If you contrast the population with arable land the ratio of people to each sq mile grows in a big way. Arable land is shrinking while the population is growing. We are running out of real estate.

Well theres many answers to that as well. One pointed out already is space. We can indeed inhabit mars.... Terra form it...

Lets ignore that though. Politically it will not likely happen but if we grew our foods as i am suggesting we could grow multiples more food on the SAME land. Let alone being able to produce where we never could before. and well actually. Believe me or not i dont care. im not ready to TRULY make this case yet. Just throwing the thought out there.

But lets look at populations for a second... Do they grow indefinitely? nope not at all. Its a myth..... Looking at the numbers and trends most in the field think our population will top off at 12 trillion MANY decades from now. We can easily feed 12 million. With LESS land if we had superior systems. If we get into geothermal, wave generators and things like this we could have unlimited clean energies. though those do cost a bit more....

When you get into using alternative building methods like going under ground and advanced passive solar suddenly we dont need up to 25-40 percent of our total energy needs per person. You then go into food storage another big drain and we have ways to lower those needs as well, let alone you dont need as much as you might think if your eating in season as humans always had to do in the past.

If we had the type of local agriculture Im talking about we save how much in transportation? what if we build products to last and rebuild rather then replace?

what about entire underground communities? Wed be down to moving water around and lighting at that point, and maybe elevators.

seriously, politically and socially much of this will simply not be likely to happen. bu we could indeed if we wanted support dramatically larger population then most currently think.

Water can be recycled indefinitely, heck it is now... I can do it with plants but there are other higher tech ways.

Not even using the methods im talking about others have designs for skyscrapers that grow food. so even large cities could feed themselves if they really wanted to. growing many multiples more food then a single layer could grow. (flat ground)

theres not a single issue we couldnt over come with flair besides meteors or something wild like that. even those we may one day be able to overcome.. Wed be down to waiting for the sun to burn out, and by then we could probably just fly the earth to a new sun....

I want to add the socially and politically these things likely will never happen. and I only scratched the surface here.... We do indeed have multile answers to each issue....

socially and politically though these things are nearly impossible.... many of them....

We WILL have superior farming methods rise up, because myself and many others are building them. All I currently know doing this are pretty poor so it is slow going. But in time more farmers will realize the potentials and it will spread as fast as farming did the first time....

Im just tired of hearing we cant do this, we cant do that.... The defeatist attitude gets to me. Its simply not true first of all, but theres a buried agenda pushing that defeatism.

Treetop wrote:You are NOT talking to a gore or obama fan.

You answered your own question why I dont like him. He was a corporate shill. He helped cement in what will be viewed as one of the idocies of all of human history should we stay on this path. Especially if oil becomes cheaper somehow, and we truly destroy soils slowly over decades.

....

Heh I wasn't accusing you of being a Gore or Obama fan (we're supposed to remain civil here after all )so much as pointing out that he does have a Nobel prize for his work and unlike those two, he actually earned it through merit rather than a popularity contest. Whether you agree with all the results of what he did, you can't really argue with what he accomplished (200 million souls in India sure wouldn't!). Calling him a joke or a fool and whatever is being somewhat intellectally dishonest about it.. genius, hard work and accomplishment deserve their due.

I was going to use the term 'shill' myself actually but didn't because while being a bit too cozy with the chemical companies, by most accounts he remained his own man. Consider the character it takes to start from an Iowa cornfield and end up where he did. That he never felt the need to apoligize for employing the proven and cost effective means readily available at the time to solve the problem at hand seems to gall the more radical environmentalists (who all seem to live in big cities and who's only real experience with agriculture is growing dope in their parent's basement) and especially the disciples of Ehrlich who seem to be disappointed that their Malthusian catastrophy never really materialized.

In some aspects you have it quite wrong I think, his whole deal was about advancing new and better techniques in place of merely expanding the status quo. His advocacy of chemical fertilizers and pesticides was really just a small part of a much bigger agenda. Again, just a means to and end.

As for my unbacked claims.. in case you didn't notice you have quite a few there yourself Mr. Kettle . Neither of us are true experts in this matter (and you can likely find plenty of Ivory Tower intellectuals that will argue both of us are completely wrong anyway), but since you bring it up - I'll give you an example. Rather than going out and hosing down a field with fertilizer like in days past, technology has enabled us to cost effectively use fertilizer injection in conjunction with GPS systems. This means the ability to vary coverage and amounts specifically targeted to the needs of an area and crop and leads to a reduction in wasted inputs and less agricultural runoff. Another would be develpment of hybrids that are naturally disease and pest resistant reducing the use of pesticides. Yet another would be development of (supposedly) safer herbicides with less carryover and greater selectivity... though I think 2-4D is still pretty much the industry leader and there is still quite a bit of controversy as to how much safer they really are.

You see the techniques and systems *do evolve in their own ways and that is why I say the current model isn't as static as you seem to think and will find ways sustain itself for as long as it takes for something better to come along. That may not be as fast or in ways you would seem to like, but agribusiness is first and foremost a business and its a tough sell to get people to leave what is proven to work (and for all its faults - the current model does work) unless they are presented with a proven better and more economical choice.

Heh. i gotta admit I do kind of enjoy this thread though I fear we are drifting off topic pretty far. I especially enjoy revisting Mr and Ms Ehrlich's prophecies. Anyone else notice a certain parallel to Al "The Debate Is Over" Gore? I think I read somewhere that they are mutal admirers of each other. Figures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich

dan53 wrote:Cornucopians argue that technology will always advance fast enough to bail us out of our difficulties. The problem I see is one of living space. We have a growing population spreading out over zero growth geography. The world's land area is 57,510,000 sq miles. This is supporting 6,940,000,000 souls. That works out to approximately 120 people for every sq mile. If you contrast the population with arable land the ratio of people to each sq mile grows in a big way. Arable land is shrinking while the population is growing. We are running out of real estate.

Heh, the "Technology will save us from the problems of technology" arguement. It really isn't as absurd as it seems on the face of it... but yeah.

Not to pick a fight, but you'll have a hard time convincing those of us who've traversed North Dakota and Montana that there is any shortage of real estate. For that matter I hear rumors of this place north of here they call 'Canada'... which is largely uninhabited but kinda chilly. Perhaps Al Gore is right (he did create these internets after all so we know he's plenty smart) and things will warm up soon though! (technology to the rescue again?) Or perhaps whats really needed is to reverse the current trend of clustering all the population around the nation's tallest buildings and decentralize.

warthog wrote:
Heh I wasn't accusing you of being a Gore or Obama fan (we're supposed to remain civil here after all )so much as pointing out that he does have a Nobel prize for his work and unlike those two, he actually earned it through merit rather than a popularity contest. Whether you agree with all the results of what he did, you can't really argue with what he accomplished (200 million souls in India sure wouldn't!). Calling him a joke or a fool and whatever is being somewhat intellectally dishonest about it.. genius, hard work and accomplishment deserve their due.

genius? all he did was some breeding work. I know many projects much more profound then that, that were instead buried or ignored. Including a man in india by the way who bred a series of crops that out performed anything out of the green revolution, grew on more arid soils, and poorer quality soils, with no need for inputs, and higher nutritional quality. Know what happened? the government of india destroyed his work and career. Luckily he knew it was coming and sent a few of the varieties out to other sources before the hammer fell on the entirety of his work. He died discredited and poor.

Anyone with normans backing could of done what he did. Its not intellectually dishonest at all. Actually the fact that he is put on such a pedastool kinda highlights how much of a shill he is in relation to the work he did. they wanted a happy energetic face to carry the torch.

I was going to use the term 'shill' myself actually but didn't because while being a bit too cozy with the chemical companies, by most accounts he remained his own man. Consider the character it takes to start from an Iowa cornfield and end up where he did. That he never felt the need to apoligize for employing the proven and cost effective means readily available at the time to solve the problem at hand seems to gall the more radical environmentalists (who all seem to live in big cities and who's only real experience with agriculture is growing dope in their parent's basement) and especially the disciples of Ehrlich who seem to be disappointed that their Malthusian catastrophy never really materialized.

How do yo think he got where he did? As I said I know of projects much more profound and benefitial that were buried. their work supported a system not based on mandatory inputs though. Well that isnt exactly tru, normans work grows organically like anything else, but wasnt exactly bred or selected for it. his current work that just came out was actually much more beneficial then the stuff from the past. he did do much of that on his own basically from what I understand, hes bred some rust resistant varieties. those methods are cost effective only if you dont account for all the costs. first it was subsidized into existence. It works but is destined to fail from salt build up alone although there are other factors. It has cost the world and country scores of family farms centralizing to a major extend a large portion of the food industry. his work was used to sell this system as superior when it simply isnt. As I said in a past post we could of just as easily used other means of adding additional ferts then a soil can hold on its own. Farmers simply never really did this before. in fact some you can make yourself do this better. all those family farms would still be around instead of the wiser or lucky ones who could work with the new paradigm. without subsidies the industrial model in play now simply never would of happened. its a myth that this has higher yields then other proven systems let alone some of the more radical possibilities.

In some aspects you have it quite wrong I think, his whole deal was about advancing new and better techniques in place of merely expanding the status quo. His advocacy of chemical fertilizers and pesticides was really just a small part of a much bigger agenda. Again, just a means to and end.

Yes thats the idea sold over decades. Im not wrong though. It build a multi billion dollar industry. yes theres an agenda and a means to an end, however your wrong on what the agenda was. As I keep saying methods proven at the time already had higher yields. couple superior breeding into those and the potentials of ferts through out a season that instead of being part of the soil are directly used by plants and this is even more true. I will give you the pesticides, although there are many plant sources of those you can make yourself.... But arent really as easy to work with. Pesticides also caused many issues, there are other methods, but I will give you that...

As for my unbacked claims.. in case you didn't notice you have quite a few there yourself Mr. Kettle . Neither of us are true experts in this matter (and you can likely find plenty of Ivory Tower intellectuals that will argue both of us are completely wrong anyway), but since you bring it up - I'll give you an example. Rather than going out and hosing down a field with fertilizer like in days past, technology has enabled us to cost effectively use fertilizer injection in conjunction with GPS systems. This means the ability to vary coverage and amounts specifically targeted to the needs of an area and crop and leads to a reduction in wasted inputs and less agricultural runoff. Another would be develpment of hybrids that are naturally disease and pest resistant reducing the use of pesticides. Yet another would be development of (supposedly) safer herbicides with less carryover and greater selectivity... though I think 2-4D is still pretty much the industry leader and there is still quite a bit of controversy as to how much safer they really are.

I meant unbacked as unable to be backed. the studies of that simply has never been done. Im not going to but I could lay out several books worth of info to back everything I said. Well Im not sure I earn the title expert just yet, but I am indeed on some cutting edge work. Believe me or not I dont care. I just wanted everyone to atleast of heard it was possible to beat the current paradigm. in a few years I will show people. Many others who know much more then yourself dont believe me either even when I showed them. Indoctrination is a powerful force... Im hardly the only one working on these things though... luckily. the crops you speak of are not hybrids exactly they are genetically engineered. Many of those proven unsafe to eat. though these arent conclusive tests being independently done. the population is literally lab rats... hopefully the little testing they have had was wrong. As for disease resistance, you dont need synthetic inputs for that. the industry is also missing many key areas on that, but its another topic.

You see the techniques and systems *do evolve in their own ways and that is why I say the current model isn't as static as you seem to think and will find ways sustain itself for as long as it takes for something better to come along. That may not be as fast or in ways you would seem to like, but agribusiness is first and foremost a business and its a tough sell to get people to leave what is proven to work (and for all its faults - the current model does work) unless they are presented with a proven better and more economical choice.

???? when did i say the current model is static? this part is to complex for me to explain it seems, i thought I did well earlier. We had better methods BEFORE this came along. More economical as well, although you do need more workers for certain models. Not all of them. Unless higher yields, no need for subsidies, not destroying soil slowly, healthier foods, and higher profit margins are inferior to you then we could beat it before and with things learned since then multiply that as well. Believe me or not I dont care. Im just telling you its true, not here to actually prove it. It would take me weeks. I mean that. Write me off if you like, this is my lifes work. the bottom line numbers prove me right if you look under the agendas.... I will add however there is some type of disconnect.. After industrial ag wiped away what came before, then organics was reborn they for some reason forgot many things known in the past and basically modeled their organic systems on industrial ag. Rather bizarre really. Most modern organic set ups arent really much better then the industrial paradigm, though the foods a bit healthier. (micro nutrients0 studies always focus on dominate nutrients that stay about the same either way)

Heh. i gotta admit I do kind of enjoy this thread though I fear we are drifting off topic pretty far. I especially enjoy revisting Mr and Ms Ehrlich's prophecies. Anyone else notice a certain parallel to Al "The Debate Is Over" Gore? I think I read somewhere that they are mutal admirers of each other. Figures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Ehrlich

off topic? oh well.... sorry forum if I bored you. Gore is a joke. I actually believed AGW until I watched his movie, saw some things that werent true and then studied it further. you realize the earths distant past has no proof co2 altered climate? or that it was never actually proven in a lab? How this myth still stands i will never understand. It does however have in amind a global multi trillion dollar tax as an answer....

I enjoyed this conversation as well.... although im guessing I just sound nutty to people. I dont really care im not ready to actually make my case yet.... i dont have the backing of our buddy norman. will take me some time. i also live in a poor region considered non arable, so its a bit slower still... Lots of breeding for me to do as well for parts of it....

I have no beef with the green movement. However I do think that when they brandish their signs of "save the planet" that somehow the emphasis should be more to a "save ourselves" focus. Save the planet? If we think of the earth's age in terms of one day, then relatively modern humans have only been here for approximately 3.8 seconds. The earth has gotten along without us well over 99% of the time. If we don't become good stewards of this globe the earth will just up and shake us off like a bad case of fleas. (Apologies to George Carlin)