Harry,
Major assumption here:
> The not very secret solution to the problem is to change this potty
> thinking that we must find ways to feed the multitude. The way to attack
> the problem of inadequate "proper services and health care" is to make it
> possible for people to provide them themselves.
is that there is adequate fertile soil, sufficient moderate rainfall
(irrigation ultimately ruins soil), sufficient sustainable energy for
warmth & cooking, and climate conditions conducive to production of a
healthy diet. A small % of the planet fits these requirements. Do you
propose that there are 5 such hectares for each of the billions in
need?.
Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Pimentel, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
>Marcia Pimentel, Division of Nutritional Sciences
>Cornell University
>Ithaca, NY 14853
>DENYING THE FACTS ABOUT THE EFFECT WORLD POPULATION GROWTH HAS ON HUMAN
>FOOD SUPPLY AND HEALTH IS DANGEROUS
>
> Dennis Avery believes the escalating world population is not a
>problem and that there is no world food problem. He selects his own
>unsupported data and ignores the data of the world's specialists. For
>example, he denies the recently reported data of the World Health
>Organization that indicates that already more than 3 billion people are NOW
>malnourished. This is the largest number and proportion ever in history!
>
> Avery ignores the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United
>Nations which report that per capita cereal grain production has been
>declining since 1983. Consider that grains make up 80% to 90% of the
>world's food. This documented decline is occurring because grain harvests
>must be divided among more and more people. Why is not all the technology
>recommended by Avery not preventing this two-decade decline?
>
> Adequate cropland, fertilizers, energy, and freshwater are vital
>resources for food crop production. Yet, in response to the rapid
>population growth in the world and human use of resources, per capita
>cropland has declined 20% in the past decade. Per capita fertilizer use
>has declined 23%, while per capita irrigation declined about 10% during the
>past decade.
>
> During the past 40 years nearly 30% of the world's cropland was
>abandoned because it was so seriously degraded by wind and water erosion
>that it was no longer productive. Cropland degradation continues to take
>place throughout the world and is intensifying, especially in developing
>countries. Unfortunately the conservation practices that Avery proposes
>are not practiced to protect our vital cropland?
>
> Avery ignores the relationship between malnutrition and other
>diseases. Malnourished humans are more susceptible to other diseases such
>as diarrhea and malaria. The World Health Organization reports that many
>other diseases are increasing rapidly in most regions of the world.
>
> Avery misstated the information reported in our publication. We
>reported that the world population, based on the current growth rate of
>1.4% as reported by the United Nations, will double to 12 billion around
>2050. Without any data, he states that the number of people will be 8
>billion by 2030. To reduce the numbers of humans to 8 billion, is Avery
>suggesting an increase in number of deaths due to malnourishment and other
>diseases in the world?
>
> Avery chooses to misrepresent our data that suggested an optimum
>world population based on the earth's resources would be about 2 billion.
>By an optimum population we mean all people would be able to enjoy a
>relatively high standard of living. Further, we indicated that this level
>could be achieved over a period of 100 YEARS, not tomorrow as Avery
>incorrectly alleges. We acknowledged that achieving this population level
>over a 100 -YEAR PERIOD will cause economic and social problems. However,
>these economic and social problems will be minor compared to a world
>population of 8 to 12 billion miserable people attempting to share the
>limited earth's resources.
>
> We are agricultural and nutritional scientists with a deep concern
>for humanity now and in the future. There is no question that reducing
>population numbers over 100 years will infringe on our freedom to
>reproduce. However, freedom to reproduce infringes on our freedoms from
>malnourishment, hunger, diseases, pollution, and poverty. In addition, we
>lose our freedom to enjoy a quality environment and a bountiful nature.
>
> The data of the World Health Organization and other world
>specialists concerning the number of people who are malnourished and
>diseased confirms that nature already is putting pressure on the quality of
>human life. Either humans limit their numbers or NATURE WILL.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
