Comments for Peak Food http://peakfood.co.uk Famine in the West by 2025? Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:33:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 Comment on Facts and Information on Solar Energy by Steven Earl Salmony http://peakfood.co.uk/2010/04/facts-and-information-on-solar-energy/comment-page-1/#comment-232 Steven Earl Salmony Mon, 05 Jul 2010 12:33:58 +0000 http://peakfood.co.uk/?p=1165#comment-232 There are precious few scientists like Professor Emeritus Gary Peters who have chosen not to remain silent but instead to accept their responsibility to science by rigorously examining extant evidence of human population dynamics. Please consider now the perspective of Dr. Peters on the research of Russell Hopfenberg and David Pimentel, which is found in the journal, The California Geographer, 2009. The title of his article is, Population, Resources and Enviroment: “Beyond the Exponentials” Revisited. —begin “The world’s population in 2009 was close to 6.8 billion. According to the U. S. Census Bureau, we can expect about 55.7 million people to die this year, so in purely demographic terms 300,000 deaths amount to just over half of one percent of all deaths. Furthermore, there are about 15,465 births per hour worldwide, so again in a purely demographic sense those 300,000 deaths can be replaced in less than 20 hours. Paradoxically, the very fossil fuels that have allowed us to feed the vast increase in world population over the last century or two may 113 The California Geographer n Volume 49, 2009 also be starting to increase mortality rates, even if only slightly so far. Currently we add about 80 million people to the planet each year, and we know that population growth exacerbates most environmental problems, including global warming (Speth 2008, Diamond 2005, and Friedman 2008). Pimentel (2001), Hopfenberg (2003), and others have established in a series of articles that human population growth is a function of food supply, yet we continue to expand food supplies to accommodate future growth—even if that growth threatens the planet’s socioeconomic systems, ecosystems, biodiversity, oceans, and atmosphere. Continued expansion of food supplies has come at considerable cost both to people and to Earth. As Pollan (2008, 121) commented, “Clearly the achievements of industrial agriculture have come at a cost: It can produce a great many more calories per acre, but each of those calories may supply less nutrition than it formerly did…. A diet based on quantity rather than quality has ushered a new creature onto the world stage: the human being who manages to be both overfed and undernourished, two characteristics seldom found in the same body in the long natural history of our species.” According to Heller and Keoleian (2000), it takes seven to ten calories of input, mainly from fossil fuels, to produce one calorie of edible food in the United States. Looking at the American landscape, Babbitt (2005, 100) observed that “[I]ndustrial agriculture has been extended too far, and the price has been too high for the land and waters to bear.” In many places, agricultural landscapes are no longer what Tuan (1993, 143) had in mind when he wrote that “In common with the vast majority of humankind, Americans love the small intimate world that is their home, and, immediately beyond it, a rich agricultural land.” According to Pimentel (2001), humans already use more than half the planet’s entire biomass, leaving less and less for other species. From there, as Hopfenberg (2009, 2) noted, “It is not a far logical leap to determine that, if human population and resource use continues to grow and we continue to kill off our neighbors in the biological community, one of the many species facing extinction will be the human. Thus, the impact of civilized humanity on the rest of the biological community can be seen as lethal to the point of destroying our own ecological support”. It is a reminder that, as Bush (2000, 28) noted, “If there is one lesson that the geological record offers, it is that all species will ultimately go extinct, some just do it sooner than others.” With the expansion of human numbers has come a steady increase in the background rate of extinction. But even among environmentalists, population has been dropped from most discussions because it is controversial; it has been snared in the web of political correctness. As Speth (2008, 78) somewhat ironically pointed out, “By any objective standard, U.S. population growth is a legitimate and serious environmental issue. But the subject is hardly on the environmental agenda, and the country has not learned how to discuss the problem even in progressive circles.” Cobb (2007, 1) put it this way, “Even if some politicians, policymakers and reporters in wealthy countries can see beyond the daily mirage of plenty to the overpopulation problem, they do not want to touch it.” —end It is one thing for “politicians, policymakers and reporters” not to touch research of human population dynamics and the human overpopulation of Earth. It is something altogether different when the elective mutism of scientists with appropriate expertise hides science in silence. Such a willful refusal to scrutinize peer-reviewed and published evidence and report findings strikes me as a betrayal of science and also a denial of what could somehow be real. How are global challenges of the kind we can see looming before humanity in our time to be addressed and overcome if any root cause of what threatens us and life as we know it is not acknowledged? Of course, it could be that Professor Peters’ assessment of the research by Pimentel and Hopfenberg is incorrect; that their work is fatally flawed. If that is the case, we need to know it. On the other hand, if that is not the case and the research is somehow on the correct track, then discussion of the research needed to have begun years ago, at the onset of Century XXI, because this research appears, at least to me, to possess extraordinary explanatory power with potentially profound implications. Thanks to those within the community of scientists and to those in the population at large with a perspective to share who choose to examine the evidence to which your attention is drawn and report your findings. Steven Earl Salmony AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001 http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org There are precious few scientists like Professor Emeritus Gary Peters who have chosen not to remain silent but instead to accept their responsibility to science by rigorously examining extant evidence of human population dynamics. Please consider now the perspective of Dr. Peters on the research of Russell Hopfenberg and David Pimentel, which is found in the journal, The California Geographer, 2009. The title of his article is, Population, Resources and Enviroment: “Beyond the Exponentials” Revisited.

—begin

“The world’s population in 2009 was close to 6.8 billion. According to the U. S. Census Bureau, we can expect about 55.7 million people to die this year, so in purely demographic terms 300,000 deaths amount to just over half of one percent of all deaths. Furthermore, there are about 15,465 births per hour worldwide, so again in a purely demographic sense those 300,000 deaths can be replaced in less than 20 hours.

Paradoxically, the very fossil fuels that have allowed us to feed the vast increase in world population over the last century or two may 113 The California Geographer n Volume 49, 2009 also be starting to increase mortality rates, even if only slightly so far. Currently we add about 80 million people to the planet each year, and we know that population growth exacerbates most environmental problems, including global warming (Speth 2008, Diamond 2005, and Friedman 2008).

Pimentel (2001), Hopfenberg (2003), and others have established in a series of articles that human population growth is a function of food supply, yet we continue to expand food supplies to accommodate future growth—even if that growth threatens the planet’s socioeconomic systems, ecosystems, biodiversity, oceans,
and atmosphere. Continued expansion of food supplies has come at considerable cost both to people and to Earth. As Pollan (2008, 121) commented, “Clearly the achievements of industrial agriculture have come at a cost: It can produce a great many more calories per acre, but each of those calories may supply less nutrition than
it formerly did…. A diet based on quantity rather than quality has ushered a new creature onto the world stage: the human being who manages to be both overfed and undernourished, two characteristics seldom found in the same body in the long natural history of our species.” According to Heller and Keoleian (2000), it takes seven to ten calories of input, mainly from fossil fuels, to produce one calorie of edible food in the United States. Looking at the American landscape, Babbitt (2005, 100) observed that “[I]ndustrial agriculture has been extended too far, and the price has been too high for the land and waters to bear.” In many places, agricultural landscapes are no longer what Tuan (1993, 143) had in mind when he wrote that “In common with the vast majority of humankind, Americans
love the small intimate world that is their home, and, immediately beyond it, a rich agricultural land.”

According to Pimentel (2001), humans already use more than half the planet’s entire biomass, leaving less and less for other species. From there, as Hopfenberg (2009, 2) noted, “It is not a far logical leap to determine that, if human population and resource use continues to grow and we continue to kill off our neighbors in the biological community, one of the many species facing extinction will be the human. Thus, the impact of civilized humanity on the rest of the
biological community can be seen as lethal to the point of destroying our own ecological support”. It is a reminder that, as Bush (2000, 28) noted, “If there is one lesson that the geological record offers, it is that all species will ultimately go extinct, some just do it sooner than others.” With the expansion of human numbers has come a steady increase in the background rate of extinction.

But even among environmentalists, population has been dropped from most discussions because it is controversial; it has been snared in the web of political correctness. As Speth (2008, 78) somewhat ironically pointed out, “By any objective standard, U.S. population growth is a legitimate and serious environmental issue. But the subject is hardly on the environmental agenda, and the country has not learned how to discuss the problem even in progressive circles.” Cobb (2007, 1) put it this way, “Even if some politicians, policymakers and reporters in wealthy countries can see beyond the daily mirage of plenty to the overpopulation problem, they do
not want to touch it.”

—end

It is one thing for “politicians, policymakers and reporters” not to touch research of human population dynamics and the human overpopulation of Earth. It is something altogether different when the elective mutism of scientists with appropriate expertise hides science in silence. Such a willful refusal to scrutinize peer-reviewed and published evidence and report findings strikes me as a betrayal of science and also a denial of what could somehow be real.

How are global challenges of the kind we can see looming before humanity in our time to be addressed and overcome if any root cause of what threatens us and life as we know it is not acknowledged?

Of course, it could be that Professor Peters’ assessment of the research by Pimentel and Hopfenberg is incorrect; that their work is fatally flawed. If that is the case, we need to know it. On the other hand, if that is not the case and the research is somehow on the correct track, then discussion of the research needed to have begun years ago, at the onset of Century XXI, because this research appears, at least to me, to possess extraordinary explanatory power with potentially profound implications.

Thanks to those within the community of scientists and to those in the population at large with a perspective to share who choose to examine the evidence to which your attention is drawn and report your findings.

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org

]]>
Comment on John Gossop speaks on Vegetarianism by Vegitarian question!!!!!!!!? · food made of meat http://peakfood.co.uk/2009/12/john-gossop-speaks-on-vegitarianism/comment-page-1/#comment-226 Vegitarian question!!!!!!!!? · food made of meat Tue, 27 Apr 2010 07:01:37 +0000 http://peakfood.co.uk/?p=856#comment-226 [...] John Gossop speaks on Vegitarianism [...] [...] John Gossop speaks on Vegitarianism [...]

]]>
Comment on Wild Food Peak by Paul http://peakfood.co.uk/2010/02/wild-food-peak/comment-page-1/#comment-223 Paul Sun, 28 Feb 2010 09:59:34 +0000 http://peakfood.co.uk/?p=1102#comment-223 Fish stocks are in huge decline, and continue to be pillaged.. I fish the estuary's (with rod and line) in the UK and every year the bags get smaller and certain species are ever more difficult to find. Herring populations are extremely localised, the river that I fish has a unique species of Herring that is specific to the Essex coast. The stocks can not be replaced. We need to manage our waters correctly, police them from less conservational aware fishing countries and set up havens where fish stocks can recover and fish can be able to grow to maturity. In the meantime education should make the consumer aware of alternatives to the cod / bass / tuna etc and supermarkets should stop to stock fish that are indangered. It should take 5 to 10 years of this and past that date careful managment to ensure bio diversity in our waters. Fish stocks are in huge decline, and continue to be pillaged.. I fish the estuary’s (with rod and line) in the UK and every year the bags get smaller and certain species are ever more difficult to find. Herring populations are extremely localised, the river that I fish has a unique species of Herring that is specific to the Essex coast. The stocks can not be replaced. We need to manage our waters correctly, police them from less conservational aware fishing countries and set up havens where fish stocks can recover and fish can be able to grow to maturity. In the meantime education should make the consumer aware of alternatives to the cod / bass / tuna etc and supermarkets should stop to stock fish that are indangered. It should take 5 to 10 years of this and past that date careful managment to ensure bio diversity in our waters.

]]>
Comment on Quitting our Addiction to Economic Growth by Ana http://peakfood.co.uk/2010/02/quitting-our-addiction-to-economic-growth/comment-page-1/#comment-222 Ana Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:27:10 +0000 http://peakfood.co.uk/?p=703#comment-222 We should also completely change the way we eat! We should also completely change the way we eat!

]]>
Comment on New Holland Hydrogen Powered Tractor by Shaun Snapp http://peakfood.co.uk/2010/02/new-holland-hydrogen-powered-tractor/comment-page-1/#comment-221 Shaun Snapp Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:20:29 +0000 http://peakfood.co.uk/?p=1110#comment-221 The more time spent on hydrogen, the less money that to spend on real solutions. Hydrogen will never happen, and can not happen because there is no fuel source. Its time to recognize that and invest in real solutions. The more time spent on hydrogen, the less money that to spend on real solutions. Hydrogen will never happen, and can not happen because there is no fuel source. Its time to recognize that and invest in real solutions.

]]>
Comment on Climate Change Debate – Scientific Evidence part 2 by Mixed Up and Maxi-ed Out at Peter Som | Kern County CA Real Estate http://peakfood.co.uk/2010/02/climate-change-debate-%e2%80%93-scientific-evidence-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-220 Mixed Up and Maxi-ed Out at Peter Som | Kern County CA Real Estate Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:50:45 +0000 http://peakfood.co.uk/?p=1121#comment-220 [...] Climate Change Debate – Scientific Evidence part 2 | Peak Food [...] [...] Climate Change Debate – Scientific Evidence part 2 | Peak Food [...]

]]>
Comment on Climate Change Debate – Scientific Evidence part 2 by tony lovell http://peakfood.co.uk/2010/02/climate-change-debate-%e2%80%93-scientific-evidence-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-219 tony lovell Sat, 20 Feb 2010 03:00:25 +0000 http://peakfood.co.uk/?p=1121#comment-219 Imagine if we had a process to remove billions of tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere safely, quickly and cost-effectively - while at the same time building soil, reversing desertification, boosting biodiversity, enhancing global food security and improving the lives of hundreds of millions of people in rural and regional areas around our planet? We do - it's called changed grazing management and soil carbon. Please take a look at the presentations on http://www.soilcarbon.com.au/ to learn more. Imagine if we had a process to remove billions of tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere safely, quickly and cost-effectively – while at the same time building soil, reversing desertification, boosting biodiversity, enhancing global food security and improving the lives of hundreds of millions of people in rural and regional areas around our planet?

We do – it’s called changed grazing management and soil carbon.

Please take a look at the presentations on http://www.soilcarbon.com.au/ to learn more.

]]>
Comment on Climate Change Debate – the Scientific Evidence by Climate Change Debate – Scientific Evidence part 2 | Peak Food http://peakfood.co.uk/2010/02/climate-change-debate-the-scientific-evidence/comment-page-1/#comment-218 Climate Change Debate – Scientific Evidence part 2 | Peak Food Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:36:19 +0000 http://peakfood.co.uk/?p=1106#comment-218 [...] at www.peakfood.co.uk we have abbreviated three of The Royal Society’s responses to arguments people use to challenge man-made climate [...] [...] at http://www.peakfood.co.uk we have abbreviated three of The Royal Society’s responses to arguments people use to challenge man-made climate [...]

]]>
Comment on What’s Peak Food? by New Holland Hydrogen Powered Tractor | Peak Food http://peakfood.co.uk/what%e2%80%99s-peak-food/comment-page-1/#comment-217 New Holland Hydrogen Powered Tractor | Peak Food Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:22:38 +0000 http://peakfood.co.uk/?page_id=473#comment-217 [...] What’s Peak Food? [...] [...] What’s Peak Food? [...]

]]>
Comment on New Apple Varieties to improve Food Security by Nibbles: Amman again, DNA hype, Blight-resistant spuds, Seeds, Sorghum, Brassicas, UK Food Security http://peakfood.co.uk/2010/01/new-apple-varieties-to-improve-food-security/comment-page-1/#comment-214 Nibbles: Amman again, DNA hype, Blight-resistant spuds, Seeds, Sorghum, Brassicas, UK Food Security Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:03:12 +0000 http://peakfood.co.uk/?p=921#comment-214 [...] UK approach to food security: apples. AKPC_IDS += "10107,";SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Nibbles: Amman again, DNA hype, [...] [...] UK approach to food security: apples. AKPC_IDS += "10107,";SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Nibbles: Amman again, DNA hype, [...]

]]>