According to data found here http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/international-markets-trade/us-agricultural-trade/export-share-of-production.aspx the US imports roughly 17% of food volume consumed and exports 20%. That would indicate that on a net basis we hardly feed anyone else in the world.
These are the ānumbersā I was speaking of, and I was pulling them from my head knowing the world population of around 7 billion.
I also remember reading a while back a comparison of agricultural production of China vs. USA and the Chinese were catching up quickly with the hurdle being primarily the implementation of machinery (tractors). If you removed China and India from the equation that would mean (for the original statement to be true) that the US would have to feed not only itself, but also the rest of the world. Obviously thatās absolutely untrue.
Thanks for posting the data fruitnut. There are things that American exceptionalists (not saying Richard is one) like to tout, but then you study a bit and find itās all baseless.
As the US and world population continues to explode, the exported component of American agricultural production will continue to decrease and prices will continue to increase as well.
Here is a factoid that some may find interesting if not disturbing.
The global population is expected to increase by 38%, from 6.9 billion in 2010 to 9.6 billion in 2050. The population of children younger than 15 is projected to increase by only 10%, a consequence of falling birth rates.Feb 3, 2014
You know you just pointed out bad numbers. Our projections are so off on just about anything. I do not buy these numbers. It could happen, but so many things could happen to slow or increase the rate. Birthrates may continue to fall too. World War, a huge flu epidemic. An ice age, etc.
I pointed out bad numbers? So what are the āgoodā numbers then? I think the numbers are probably based on current population increases Drew, if you know of a better method please tell us.
They were presented for what they areā¦projections.
But they are not fallingā¦they are rising, and at a rapid pace.
What??
Yes 2/3 of the world fed was the bad number.
Right projections. Like the projection by 2015 we would have no snow in the lower 48. let alone any winter. That was a good one!
What I meant is you pointed to the bad numbers Richard posted and followed it up by posting equally bad numbers yourself. I understand they are projections, and most likely incorrect. Probably not even close. Much like our weather projections. I find them completely useless.
As far as projections fool me once shame on you, fool me twice my bad. IMHO they are not helpful.
If you see them as helpful fine, I do not.
A good example of projections. It is projected to occur in about 1500 years.
I had the same reaction as you, but I was looking at your numbers.
90% of mankind didnāt make it through the last one. We almost became extinct.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-ice-age-emissions-idUSTRE80814T20120109
We really do not know when the next ice age will be. But I think we do know that it will happen.
It could be happening right now. I doubt it, Although I have no opinion for or against a full ice age or a mini ice age. Only time will tell. Same with the earthās population.
Drewā¦I see what you are doing. this is so transparent.
There is a difference between projections and statements of fact. Your trying to defend your buddies ridiculous statement of supposed fact while at the same time trying desperately to ignite another climate change thread, which by the way, I didnāt participate in.
Tell me Drew, how are the projections (that are not mine btw) incorrect? You can speculate they are incorrect, but it must be based on something more than a gut feelingā¦right?
Sorry if you donāt find them helpful or interesting, but you cannot say they are wrong or bad. The US feeding 2/3 of the world is just ridiculous.
Facts are facts, and they can be unpleasant when they donāt tell the story folks seem comfortable with. Thatās just the way it is.
not bitingā¦sorry
Wrong, i agree with you. Richard is incorrect.
Yes it is, agreed.
You know to think i would be that shallow, jeez thanks a lot dude! Obviously you do not know me.
Wow, You must really have a very low opinion of me? I know mine has drastically changed, Iāll tell you that. Iām so sorry i responded to this thread. I know better now.
For the record, i was not looking for a fight. My bad for not making that clear. I was just stating my opinion, and apparently failed at making my point, I didnāt even come close!
Yes, our track record. If we use how well we have projected future events, one must conclude it is incorrect.
I have no idea how accurate it is, or isnāt. Nobody can say this projection is fact. If they do, run away from them. No doubt population will be a problem but here again, I agree it is a problem, but when it is a problem nobody can really say? Or how many people will be a problem? I heard the earth can support about 10 billion, but that is based on current knowledge which is VERY subject to change. Even now overpopulation is a problem, and will be in the future, Iām sure.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228809750_HOW_WELL_DID_PAST_UN_POPULATION_PROJECTIONS_ANTICIPATE_DEMOGRAPHIC_TRENDS_IN_SIX_SOUTH-EAST_ASIAN_COUNTRIES
http://www.jstor.org/stable/29788895?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Sorry, I thought we were having a discussion, my bad. I realize you have no interest in any input from others, got it. Iām done. I will not be responding to your posts anymore.
Yeahā¦I hear what your saying and I see your point, but the projections you are referring to are ones that include really high degrees of variability. Population growth isnāt like that at all, it is fairly easy to reckon what the future might hold with a pretty good degree of certainty. No doubt there could be factors that could alter those figures and in fact, it is likely some will in one way or another. Iām reasonably certain that the authors were very much aware of this, though I very much doubt Ice Ages were on their radar screens, nor should it be imo. Thing is, that doesnāt make them āuselessā as you say.
Also overpopulation is absolutely a problem now just like you say, so if the trend is population increase (which it very clearly is), then doesnāt that merit some concern based on those trends?
All these ānewā people will have to eat. consume products and energy and have associated wastes to deal with.
This is what the point of the projection posting was all about. A 3% trade surplus can get āeatenā up very quickly by scores of new people.
The definition of āprojectionā is āAn estimate or forecast of a future situation or trend based on a study of present onesā. - Oxford Dictionary.
It is a guess at the future based on a MOMENT FROZEN IN TIME. It presupposes that the universe is static or that the one making the projection had all the relevant facts at hand. It also presupposes that NO new force or stimulus, one maybe even not yet created, will act on the system and it further presupposes that sentient beings will not react tomorrow as a result of what happened today. Never mind the willing suspension of disbelief of the possible bias, whether intentional or not, of the one making the projection.
The only projection that we can trust is the projection of an image on a TV screen, movie screen or other surface.
In view of the above, I think that it is an inefficient use of mental energy to get so worked up about āprojectionsā and their interpretations.
Just my opinion. Take it for what it is worth.
Mike
More importantly the total output from this activity is grossly insufficient to maintain production rates in commercial agricultureā¦ At the same time sources of Nitrogen are shrinking. This is why the research I quoted above is important.
Richard, I think your post is interesting, but the topic you raise (tangentially here) is an important one. It goes back to some of the underlying beliefs of industrial ag, namely that we HAVE to put the N and other macro nutrients into the soil (in excess most of the time) in order to get yields. In the short run, that may be true but it creates a system which depleats the soil and has other macro problems (runoff pollution, etc).
The virgin prairie soils of the US midwest were capable of fixing much larger amounts of N and moving other nutrient to the plants than is possible today (way beyond just N fixing legumes), but those fungi-bacterial networks/communities were largely destroyed by modern ag methods. Iām not blaming the farmers of a century ago or even the modern ones here. But if we continue with the industrial ag methodology, we will be not succeed. Knowledge of soil microbiology communities is in its infancy still. I would hope/expect that while understanding the biochemical pathways of N fixation your article mentions is interesting, the best of of utilizing it will be to promote ag methods which utilize soil microbiology communities. Not a new industrial process for producing N fertilizers.
The US birthrate has been going down for years. Just a sociological note: as the education of women increases, they have fewer babies. Save the world from overpopulation? Educate girls and women, and give them opportunities to work.
Amen!!
I second
We have two children, a boy and a girl, that should be enough for anybody. By the time u get them raised you donāt want any more, lol
Lizzy, it may very well be the case that the birth rate has been going down, but with already many more people the population is going up.
I think the rate falls are mostly related to economic considerations (just guessing on that). The need for big families to help tend the farm are fairly obsolete anymore. Except for the Duggar family on that stupid 18 kids and counting show.
Increased populations also reduce the employment oppurtunities for both men and women, particularly in modern manufacturing. The need for goods and services goes up, but the opportunity to gain employment in providing them is reduced. I really donāt know what the answer is, but whatever it may be, itās likely not pleasant.
i am a man. Had i posted the exact same words you posted, and not qualified further, it could be blatant chauvinism.
so on my part, and to balance things out, will have to add that boys and men should be educated and ushered in the right directions too. And more intensively, in fact, considering that >90% of those in jail are men, and that the most brazen crimes against humanity were almost exclusively carried out by men: hitler, stalin, genghis khan, bin laden-- you name it.
and as for relatively less heinous crimes but quite relevant to overpopulation and parenthood: it is often the men who ditch their kids, and not the mothers whoāve carried them through 9 months of pregnancy. Parenthood is generally innate among women.
1 Like