The 'organic' dilemma.

[OldWiseGuy]

So who do you propose for elimination?

I would round up anyone who doesn't agree with me and place them on a diet of organic food.

 

[Lethe]

I heard that non-organic pesticides and fertilizers aren't nearly as toxic as they used to be and that organic is actually worse because it uses up and requires more land. Not sure how true or untrue it is.

Most of the toxicity of pesticides is poorly quantified. First, pesticides are a very broad term. For the most part they are known to be harmless to humans. But the effects on our greater environment are largely unknown.

In strict economic terms, organic farming is only "worse," if the traits associated with conventional agriculture (pesticides, chemically synthesized fertilizers, antibiotic overuse) are less costly than organic farming.

 

[Upisoft]

Conventional chemical/hybrid agriculture can feed the world's population but at the cost of pollution of groundwater, increased co2 into the atmosphere, pesticide and herbicide poisoning, destruction of soil fertility, etc. whereas 'organic' agriculture is less productive but better for the planet. Given the looming ecological crisis isn't it time to preserve the earth rather than to try to preserve a growing global population at the expense of possible irreversible damage to the earth?

The land we use to farm is limited, Earth isn't growing. Human population however is still growing. So, there are at least two choices.
1. Increase productivity of available land (that means pesticides, GMO, etc.)
2. Destroy some more forests/other ecosystems and replace them with farms.

Second is obviously damaging Earth. First is possibly damaging Earth and possibly damaging us.

If we proceed doing 2 sooner or later everything will be farming lands, so we will have to fallback to option 1.

So, it is better we go with option 1, as we will have to use it in the future anyway. More time and investments means less possible damage in the future as we will learn from mistakes we now make.

There is 3rd option here. Keep organic production and reduce population of Earth. You see that option is not going to be very popular.

 

[Lethe]

I believe you missed a big one:

(3) Eat less meat = > more consumable calories can be grown per acre.

Right now we could lose most of the midwest and have it not impact our food supply significantly, provided people switched diets. Do I believe this is realistic? Not really. But it is always an option in an emergency.

Also, the productivity differences for certain practices are already pretty narrow. Fertilizer runoff can be reduced by more carefully placing it in the first place. Antibiotics allow higher density in stockyards. In a society where we ate less meat, we could fairly easily use more land for the livestock and stop administering antibiotics.

Again, it's very hard to economically quantify the costs of breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria (a few years ahead of schedule). But even lower bounding it, the per capita costs are at least in the same ball park as the current market value of the meat we consume.

Back to the fertilizers, targeted fertilizer use, while not strictly speaking organic, is a relatively low-cost way to eliminate pollution. The benefits are likely much greater than the costs.

 

[Upisoft]

(3) Eat less meat = > more consumable calories can be grown per acre.

Well, that qualifies as "1. Increase productivity of available land", if you look at productivity as "consumable calories per acre".
It is viable option, though people would not like it. I.e. it will be damaging us in sense (though in other sense it will make us healthier).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The land we use to farm is limited, Earth isn't growing. Human population however is still growing. So, there are at least two choices.
1. Increase productivity of available land (that means pesticides, GMO, etc.)
2. Destroy some more forests/other ecosystems and replace them with farms.

Second is obviously damaging Earth. First is possibly damaging Earth and possibly damaging us.

If we proceed doing 2 sooner or later everything will be farming lands, so we will have to fallback to option 1.

So, it is better we go with option 1, as we will have to use it in the future anyway. More time and investments means less possible damage in the future as we will learn from mistakes we now make.

There is 3rd option here. Keep organic production and reduce population of Earth. You see that option is not going to be very popular.

I know where we can get 12 million more acres for food production right now.

Corn Ethanol: Another Bad Option For Energy

 

[Upisoft]

I know where we can get 12 million more acres for food production right now.

Corn Ethanol: Another Bad Option For Energy

That will give us 0.0017 acres per person.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That will give us 0.0017 acres per person.

That would give 48 million people a quarter acre garden (that's a huge garden).

 

[Upisoft]

That would give 48 million people a quarter acre garden (that's a huge garden).

Less than 1 year worth of growth of the population of Earth. Which is about 74 million currently.
Next year what?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Less than 1 year worth of growth of the population of Earth. Which is about 74 million currently.
Next year what?

One-eighth acre for 94 million people is still a large garden.

Looking ahead we aren't going to be able to feed everyone, organic or not. Wars will be fought over food, which of course will kill lots of people and relieve the problem somewhat. Millions are going to starve or die from malnutrition related causes. Considering that fact we don't have to completely destroy the land (and sea) trying to save every last hungry person.

If in their incredible ignorance some peoples continue to breed like rabbits their blood will be on their own heads. This is the 900 pound gorilla in the room.

 

[Upisoft]

If in their incredible ignorance some peoples continue to breed like rabbits their blood will be on their own heads. This is the 900 pound gorilla in the room.

Well, in my country in last ~20 years the population is down from 9 to 7 million. Though I have feeling my country will be one of those with blood all over it. There is no justice in war. Only weak countries.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Well, in my country in last ~20 years the population is down from 9 to 7 million. Though I have feeling my country will be one of those with blood all over it. There is no justice in war. Only weak countries.

Yes, I am afraid you are correct. If war over food comes it is likely the ones that have bred like rabbits that will end up in the superior position.

 

[Lethe]

If war over food comes it is likely the ones that have bred like rabbits that will end up in the superior position.

Take inventory on nuclear weapon stockpiles and then maybe reassess.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Take inventory on nuclear weapon stockpiles and then maybe reassess.

Nuclear weaponry is very much overrated as a weapon for winning a war. The awe and surprise factor that cowed the Japanese in WWII was a one time only thing. Unless one is willing to risk mutual annihilation it is nothing more than a deterrent from having nuclear weapons used against one. In many respects, Nuclear weapons are irrelevant to the kind of war I am talking about. You aren't fighting countries but mobs. Let us say 12 million hungry and desperate Mexican civilians cross the border because that is where they know the food is and they will do whatever they need to to get it, how do you nuke them? Do you nuke the country of Mexico for having desperate and starving civilians that they are unable to control? Does China nuke Bangladesh or Laos? How would nuking those countries change the situation?

 

[Lethe]

Nine countries possess nuclear weapons. There is nothing from deterring them from being utilized as a threat against the other countries.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Nine countries possess nuclear weapons. There is nothing from deterring them from being utilized as a threat against the other countries.

There are eight nuclear countries that would not take kindly to one of the nine threatening their friends among the non nuclear countries. Soon too be many more than nine (I'm assuming your figure of nine is correct I am not vouching for it myself though.). Further, these food wars that oldwiseguy has predicted may be sometime off in the future and who knows how many countries will have gone nuclear by then.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There are eight nuclear countries that would not take kindly to one of the nine threatening their friends among the non nuclear countries. Soon too be many more than nine (I'm assuming your figure of nine is correct I am not vouching for it myself though.). Further, these food wars that oldwiseguy has predicted may be sometime off in the future and who knows how many countries will have gone nuclear by then.

We could actually have a food war at anytime. Let's say OPEC or some anti-west oil producing combine decides to deny us oil. We immediately go from e15 to e85 turning all of our usual corn exports into ethanol fuel to make up for the shortage of gasoline.

 

[Lethe]

Let's say OPEC or some anti-west oil producing combine decides to deny us oil. We immediately go from e15 to e85 turning all of our usual corn exports into ethanol fuel to make up for the shortage of gasoline.

First off, there's no practical way that OPEC can deny us oil. They're incomes depend too much on it, and oil is perfectly fungible (if they sold to another party, it could be resold fairly easily). Second, there's too long a lead time on ramping up corn crops to possibly be effective, even with the SPR.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, in my country in last ~20 years the population is down from 9 to 7 million. Though I have feeling my country will be one of those with blood all over it. There is no justice in war. Only weak countries.

I don't think food wars will be military conflicts or large mob-insurrections, but more economic. At some point the deteriorating global economies will be unable to provide food aid.

Some nations continue to grow as long as they can get food. The global pyramid scheme economy demands an ever expanding have-not population base. Fewer people could theoretically enjoy more wealth each, but the those at the top of the pyramid won't have it.

Interestingly North Korea has a relatively stable population with reproduction just above replacement numbers, yet have chronic food shortages that affect millions. They would actually have to reduce their population substantially in order be more self reliant food-wise. Of course the leadership won't allow this as they need to maintain a large standing army. Too, huge amounts of food aid flow to North Korea annually from around the world. We should drop leaflets that read, "The people that you hate will no longer feed you."

 

[kittycat7]

Conventional chemical/hybrid agriculture can feed the world's population but at the cost of pollution of groundwater, increased co2 into the atmosphere, pesticide and herbicide poisoning, destruction of soil fertility, etc. whereas 'organic' agriculture is less productive but better for the planet. Given the looming ecological crisis isn't it time to preserve the earth rather than to try to preserve a growing global population at the expense of possible irreversible damage to the earth?

Organic is sustainable and population growth is starting to taper off.