Steve,
You worry too much. You said:
STEVE: "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?"
If there isn't enough land, how do they survive now?
The five hectares went to a family. However, everyone won't need five
hectares, because everyone doesn't have to produce food. The Taiwanese
peasant's five acres per family had an economic groundwork that worked.
The paid their Economic Rent to the government, but there were no taxes.
Everything you produced was yours. If you produced twice as much, you kept
it all. In fact, the farmers produced as many as five crops from the same 5
hectares. Mushrooms in the cellar, fish (imported from Indonesia) in the
paddy fields while waiting for the rice to come to harvest. Given the
opportunity, human ingenuity will do things nobody previously thought of.
For a while, Taiwan had a net export of food - on an island with a
population not far short of 1,400 to the square mile.
Then, many of the farmers worked the land part-time as well-paying jobs
opened up in the city factories. Once food is ensured, other things can be
done.
However, while the idiots keep counting acres and counting people and
worrying themselves sick, things are not standing still. As the Report
below says:
> 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?
Why?
Well, here we go again. It said: "Unfortunately the conservation practices
. . . . . are not practiced to protect our vital cropland?"
What on earth is 'our vital cropland'? I wouldn't spend a moment trying to
save "our vital cropland". I would work like hell to save MY cropland. Once
I knew the problem, I would no doubt seek help, but I would not lose my
cropland if it were possible to save it. My home is there and my family.
I've buried a lot of fertilizer there. I've drained it, dug ditches,
erected fences. To hell with letting it go.
And to hell with the landlord, for whom I wouldn't lift a finger to save
his land.
Again, when I have 3 acres for my family's sustenance, I have nothing to
spare. I am not in a sustaining position.
Why did I choose 3 acres? Because that's the kind of distribution seen so
often in fake land reforms. It's followed of course by trained economists
and untrained politicians sagely commenting on the inability of the peasant
to sustain himself and his land.
So, we need a land reform that is free market oriented. If someone is
misusing his land, economic pressure must work to push him off. Free market
pressure should put the best producers on to the most productive sites.
This is easily done.
Political pressure must not be used (regulations and laws). They are
invariably venal and self serving. They cost the farmers and interfere when
he should be left alone.
Oh, and one other thing. You will probably not often find a place with
adequate fertile soil, sufficient moderate rainfall, sufficient sustainable
energy for
warmth & cooking, and climate conditions conducive to production of a
healthy diet.
So, most of the new farm-owners will have to make do without perfection -
and they will just so long as the state leaves them alone.
Harry
_________________________________________________________________
Steve wrote:
>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.
> >
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
> >
