G'day,

What a load of rubbish. I live in a country were obesity is a major
health issue, and I'm supposed to be worried by this? I bet food
will if anything get cheaper, not more expensive. And more varied too.
Thats what been happening for the last 100 years or so. My money is
on seafood. Aquaculture is allready taking off. Prawn fishermen over
here are complaining about competition from cheap Chinese aquaculture
farms. There a dollar or a million to be made there I think.

ta

Ralph

It's not happening, Ralph.

More trees and all sorts of vegetation would be helpful, but the absolute
opposite is happening.

No one has to worry about anything, but let's keep in mind that there's room
for improvement in case anyone wants to take up the challenge.

Whatever, nature does her thingie and sometimes she's not such a nice girl.

George
http://www.cygo.com/

On 1/27/06, ralph buttigieg wrote:

--- In spacesettlers, "ralph buttigieg" wrote:

> G'day,
>
> What a load of rubbish. I live in a country were obesity is a major
> health issue, and I'm supposed to be worried by this? I bet food

I, too, live in such a country. Just over a billion people live in
such countries. And we have so much food because we use the most
energy-intensive agriculture the world has ever seen. If six times as
many people start living our lifestyle, even just the food part, then
there is a problem. One often hears, "There's enough source here> to last another 300 years!" Yes, but only if the number
of people using it does not increase, and only if the amount used per
person does not increase. IOW, there is enough to last PEOPLE LIKE US
300 years, IF the rest of the world remains in abject poverty.

> will if anything get cheaper, not more expensive. And more varied
> too.
> Thats what been happening for the last 100 years or so.

Because we have been using more and more energy in our farming.

> My money is on seafood. Aquaculture is allready taking off. Prawn
> fishermen over here are complaining about competition from cheap
> Chinese aquaculture farms. There a dollar or a million to be made
> there I think.

I don't think that Europe, Australia, America, Japan, etc. are in any
danger of starving to death anytime soon, as such rich countries have
enough economic momentum to last through the switch from oil and coal
to nuclear, powersat, and whatever else. There could be inflation and
shortages, but not wide-spread starvation IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD. In
the undeveloped world there could be a lot of misery.

> ta
>
> Ralph

The basic truth is still there.

On 1/27/06, Xenophile wrote:
(...)
> I don't think that Europe, Australia, America, Japan, etc. are in any
> danger of starving to death anytime soon, as such rich countries have
> enough economic momentum to last through the switch from oil and coal
> to nuclear, powersat, and whatever else. There could be inflation and
> shortages, but not wide-spread starvation IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD. In
> the undeveloped world there could be a lot of misery.
(...)

In fact, agriculture in Europe is ABSURDLY INEFFICIENT and only
survives due to massive subsides. Agriculture in developing countries
is far more competitive in the sense that it produces more consuming
less. Check the list of the world's largest producers and exporters of
this or that agricultural commodity and you will see that a great deal
of them are developing countries. In part agricultural production of
many products is economically more viable in third world countries
because often there are natural conditions (abundance of land, climate
favoring more than one crop per year, etc) that eliminate or minimize
the need of the (artificial) energy inputs that you mentioned.

Therefore, I would think some developed countries like the European
ones to be *more* vulnerable to agricultural breakdown due to problems
in energy supply. Anyhow, they can always give up on agriculture
entirely and buy all their food with the money gained with high-tech
products and services. Japan for instance already imports most of the
food it consumes.

> In fact, agriculture in Europe is ABSURDLY INEFFICIENT and only
survives due to massive subsides. Agriculture in developing countries
is far more competitive in the sense that it produces more consuming
less.

Not quite...Europe is inefficient in its current *structure* that is
subsidised (ie loads of small farmers), and the 3rd world is competitive
largely because wages are so low, despite inefficient agriculture. The
reason so many of them are large primary producers is that they grow cash
crops, its their major revenue source..as they industrialise they will
diversify too.

> Therefore, I would think some developed countries like the European
ones to be *more* vulnerable to agricultural breakdown due to problems
in energy supply.

Not really...a lot of Europe is very fertile, always has been, and due to
settlement structure farms are still close to markets in many cases - plus
economies are more mixed. In 3rd world a move away from industrial
agribusiness will mean no money...devastating their weak economies in short
term.

The UK was a much larger importer of food pre WW2, but that experience made
it decide strategically to never again be in a position that it cannot feed
itself - a lesson Japan may do well to learn in the coming century.....