A question about global food supplies.

[Bluewolf]

Ok, i was in a discussion on a forum i got to and one of the members mentioned that we may have food shortages if the global population keeps rising and that we are in trouble if a didease hits it.

I replied:

May i just remind you that:

A. We have more than enough food.
B. Western Birth rates are going down.

Why do you think food is so cheap?

(Note that i missed his other points)

He replied:

Yes but global populations continue to rise. And you overlooked the part of the message where I said "when we reach a size where food supplies can no longer keep up". That meaning if we continue to grow and grow, eventually we will have food shortages. And that wouldn't be a good thing to have if a disease stuck the food supplies. Because then we are in a great deal of trouble.

So are either of those two things he said possible?

[Darth Wong]

When the price of oil skyrockets (which it's bound to do sooner or later, as it runs out), agricultural efficiencies will plummet, at least until the entire industrialized world can replace all of its mechanized equipment with some alternative technology (a gigantic proposition no matter how you look at it, even if you assume the replacement technology is no more expensive than the original equipment was). Also, the fact that you can physically grow food does not necessarily mean you can afford it in the long term. Many countries are utterly devastating their environments in pursuit of increased agricultural output. This carries a long-term cost which is usually ignored by the people who assume that the increased agricultural output means that all is well.

[Surlethe]

Of course he's right. The idea is nothing new -- it's dated at least back to a paper by Thomas Malthus in 1798. Malthus' idea inspired Darwin, by the way -- Malthusian competition is the cause of natural selection. As far as global population rising, he's also correct. What he's overlooking is that food will be distributed asymmetrically, so first-world nations -- i.e., those with stable or declining birth rates -- will remain well-fed even as second- and third-world nations starve. Interestingly, poor countries have the highest birthrates, while rich ones have the lowest.

But in principle, he's correct: food supplies do only grow arithmetically while population grows geometrically.

[Ariphaos]

Most of America's food production goes to supporting itself - livestock and so on. It's not so much that there isn't enough food to feed everyone, but the infrastructure to get it there.

[Tahlan]

China has the largest population in the world, and India the second. And India is supposed to surpass China in the next ten years. China has something in excess of 2 billion people, and India well in excess of 1 billion people. Whereas the US has something like 250 million people. The populations of "Western" countries don't come close to that of China and India. So diminishing birth rates of Western countries is not even a blip on the radar.

So, yes, your debator is correct, as are Darth Wong and Surlethe. The world is screwed, especially third world nations, when oil prices skyrocket or when plague, disease or drought hits a major food source: primarily rice, wheat, or corn. IMHO, those with a patch of ground to plant a crop will be the lucky ones. It will be a post apocalyptic world without the apocalypse.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Actually, China's birth rate is quite low. Don't know about India's, but the birth rate fell sharply in the industrialized world a few generations after the death rate did. Once a similar amount of time has passed (which should be any year now), the birth rate in poorer countries will drop sharply as well. A couple billion more people might be added in the interim, making the global hunger situation worse, but that doesn't necessarily mean a massive die-off. It takes a very small amount of food to keep someone alive if they're not expected to be able to work.

As for oil, it recently occurred to me how foolish I was to think that I knew what was going to happen in the next 20 to 30 years. Nobody knows how dwindling oil is going to shake out. Not the peak oil people, not the oil companies, nobody. Remember the giant microwave that might be able to process shale oil for a net energy gain? If it's not that, it could be some other technology that comes out of nowhere. Or maybe nothing will. Peak oilers assign a low probability to such an occurnace, but they have no way of knowing whether the probability is low or high. Oil prices will certainly rise in the coming years, but they might only rise 50 or 100% and stay there, meaning no Great Depression repeat and no massive die-off. Or maybe the peak oilers will be borne out and the price will rise into the stratosphere unchecked. There's just not sufficient information to make a firm prediction one way or the other because it's impossible to account for unknown variables.

[Pollux]

But in principle, he's correct: food supplies do only grow geometrically, while population grows geometrically.

I think you mean, "arithmetically"?

[Ypoknons]

Actually, China's birth rate is quite low. Don't know about India's, but the birth rate fell sharply in the industrialized world a few generations after the death rate did.

They're serious about the one child policy. Especially in the cities.

[Surlethe]

But in principle, he's correct: food supplies do only grow geometrically, while population grows geometrically.

I think you mean, "arithmetically"?

Yes. Thank you for the correction.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yes but global populations continue to rise. And you overlooked the part of the message where I said "when we reach a size where food supplies can no longer keep up". That meaning if we continue to grow and grow, eventually we will have food shortages. And that wouldn't be a good thing to have if a disease stuck the food supplies. Because then we are in a great deal of trouble.

I will be blunt. The only reason we have not had food shortages so far is because the Green Revolution happened when it did. But as our oil stocks deplete, just as Mike has said, our long term ability to produce that food with modern agricultural techniques will drop/food will become more expensive. Now, there are technological ways to mitigate all of this... but derpessingly we lack the political and economic will...

[Illuminatus Primus]

A couple billion more people might be added in the interim, making the global hunger situation worse, but that doesn't necessarily mean a massive die-off. It takes a very small amount of food to keep someone alive if they're not expected to be able to work.

That last bit applies to any realistic scenario, how - exactly?

As for oil, it recently occurred to me how foolish I was to think that I knew what was going to happen in the next 20 to 30 years. Nobody knows how dwindling oil is going to shake out. Not the peak oil people, not the oil companies, nobody. Remember the giant microwave that might be able to process shale oil for a net energy gain? If it's not that, it could be some other technology that comes out of nowhere. Or maybe nothing will. Peak oilers assign a low probability to such an occurnace, but they have no way of knowing whether the probability is low or high. Oil prices will certainly rise in the coming years, but they might only rise 50 or 100% and stay there, meaning no Great Depression repeat and no massive die-off. Or maybe the peak oilers will be borne out and the price will rise into the stratosphere unchecked. There's just not sufficient information to make a firm prediction one way or the other because it's impossible to account for unknown variables.

We know NG in North America began a skyrocket to the tune of 200-300% and becoming very volatile. We know that crude was $1/barrel in 1969 and upwards of $12/barrel from the perception of shortage of liquid capacity a few years later. Peakists - or as I prefer, realists - do not think it is sound policy to be on the good variables, the cargo cult science miracle handed-down from the technogods, or anything else currently not on the shelf. It is absurd and irresponsible to put the human race and advanced civilization to a final exam it cannot afford to fail without the deaths of perhaps hundreds of millions of people and maybe decades of lost technological and human welfare progress. But please, keep consuming, just take refuge and comfort in your uncertainty and hope for that which has still not arrived.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

A couple billion more people might be added in the interim, making the global hunger situation worse, but that doesn't necessarily mean a massive die-off. It takes a very small amount of food to keep someone alive if they're not expected to be able to work.

That last bit applies to any realistic scenario, how - exactly?

It doesn't take much food just to stay alive. I'm not sure how to state it any more simply than that. Should I write it in crayon?

As for oil, it recently occurred to me how foolish I was to think that I knew what was going to happen in the next 20 to 30 years. Nobody knows how dwindling oil is going to shake out. Not the peak oil people, not the oil companies, nobody. Remember the giant microwave that might be able to process shale oil for a net energy gain? If it's not that, it could be some other technology that comes out of nowhere. Or maybe nothing will. Peak oilers assign a low probability to such an occurnace, but they have no way of knowing whether the probability is low or high. Oil prices will certainly rise in the coming years, but they might only rise 50 or 100% and stay there, meaning no Great Depression repeat and no massive die-off. Or maybe the peak oilers will be borne out and the price will rise into the stratosphere unchecked. There's just not sufficient information to make a firm prediction one way or the other because it's impossible to account for unknown variables.

We know NG in North America began a skyrocket to the tune of 200-300% and becoming very volatile. We know that crude was $1/barrel in 1969 and upwards of $12/barrel from the perception of shortage of liquid capacity a few years later. Peakists - or as I prefer, realists - do not think it is sound policy to be on the good variables, the cargo cult science miracle handed-down from the technogods, or anything else currently not on the shelf. It is absurd and irresponsible to put the human race and advanced civilization to a final exam it cannot afford to fail without the deaths of perhaps hundreds of millions of people and maybe decades of lost technological and human welfare progress. But please, keep consuming, just take refuge and comfort in your uncertainty and hope for that which has still not arrived.

I didn't say not to have a plan for the worst case scenario, I said nobody knows what's going to happen and any firm predictions one way or the other are just so much hot air. Peak oilers act as though there's an extremely high probability that there will be no significant new oil finds and no way to economically tap unfeasible oil before prices skyrocket so high the economy crashes and burns. Well, that's certainly possible, but there's simply no way to know what the probability is, and anyone who says they know what the next 20 or 30 years will be like is full of shit. Almost everyone who's tried to predict the future that far out has ended up looking like an idiot.

[Illuminatus Primus]

A couple billion more people might be added in the interim, making the global hunger situation worse, but that doesn't necessarily mean a massive die-off. It takes a very small amount of food to keep someone alive if they're not expected to be able to work.

That last bit applies to any realistic scenario, how - exactly?

It doesn't take much food just to stay alive. I'm not sure how to state it any more simply than that. Should I write it in crayon?

Let me hold your hand like a small child: any theoretical population must work, so your "point" that it takes little food to survive if you're not expected to work is puerile and idiotic.

As for oil, it recently occurred to me how foolish I was to think that I knew what was going to happen in the next 20 to 30 years. Nobody knows how dwindling oil is going to shake out. Not the peak oil people, not the oil companies, nobody. Remember the giant microwave that might be able to process shale oil for a net energy gain? If it's not that, it could be some other technology that comes out of nowhere. Or maybe nothing will. Peak oilers assign a low probability to such an occurnace, but they have no way of knowing whether the probability is low or high. Oil prices will certainly rise in the coming years, but they might only rise 50 or 100% and stay there, meaning no Great Depression repeat and no massive die-off. Or maybe the peak oilers will be borne out and the price will rise into the stratosphere unchecked. There's just not sufficient information to make a firm prediction one way or the other because it's impossible to account for unknown variables.

We know NG in North America began a skyrocket to the tune of 200-300% and becoming very volatile. We know that crude was $1/barrel in 1969 and upwards of $12/barrel from the perception of shortage of liquid capacity a few years later. Peakists - or as I prefer, realists - do not think it is sound policy to be on the good variables, the cargo cult science miracle handed-down from the technogods, or anything else currently not on the shelf. It is absurd and irresponsible to put the human race and advanced civilization to a final exam it cannot afford to fail without the deaths of perhaps hundreds of millions of people and maybe decades of lost technological and human welfare progress. But please, keep consuming, just take refuge and comfort in your uncertainty and hope for that which has still not arrived.

I didn't say not to have a plan for the worst case scenario, I said nobody knows what's going to happen and any firm predictions one way or the other are just so much hot air.

Show me anyone who makes firm predictions about oil price and hard economic outcomes without data to support. If they have data and argumentation to support, show me how it is flawed.

Your no-nothing logic could be extended to claiming no economic analysis or predictions or prudent policy is anything but hot air.

Peak oilers act as though there's an extremely high probability that there will be no significant new oil finds and no way to economically tap unfeasible oil before prices skyrocket so high the economy crashes and burns.

Matt Simmons certainly does not say that. Nor does Kenneth Deffeyes. Furthermore, oil discoveries have been declining since the late 1960s and are at an all-time low despite the highest oil prices since the 1970s and despite shortage anxiety and the finest discovery technology in the history of oil exploration. Yes, there is a very high probability that discovery trends will not reverse, and an extremely high probability that they will not reverse fast enough or dramatically enough to prevent shortages if we do not curb consumption or find alternatives. Furthermore, if peak oil occurs in the 2005-2015 timeframe, how will we have time to deliver production from it? You have a very naive and uninformed interpretation of oil discovery and development. Please describe your evidence to show that these projections are incorrect. The fact remains that almost all of Saudi Arabia's historical production and almost all of present day production comes from fields found in the 1930s or 1940s. The post-1960 finds have only yielded significant production from one field, and that did not come online until the 1990s.

Well, that's certainly possible, but there's simply no way to know what the probability is, and anyone who says they know what the next 20 or 30 years will be like is full of shit. Almost everyone who's tried to predict the future that far out has ended up looking like an idiot.

So we should ignore all the data and trends we do have? We're not talking about 20-30 years from now. We're talking about peaking in the next decade - if not imminently - and the data supports that conclusion. We should make prudent policy based on reality. Your logic could easily be used to denounce the IPCC climate projections and poison the well in an argument about global warming as well. Unfortunately for you, you fail to address the substance of the argument or the conclusion which it yields.

The fact is that all evidence supports the conclusion that in the next several decades, liquid fuels will become increasingly unavailable at economical prices. The current agricultural and economic regime is highly dependent on fuel imputs which likely cannot be sustained in the long term. The world population growth and current size is sustained at the moment with the use of economic and agricultural output growth which will cease to be possible or desirable. Therefore, reason dictates that economic and agricultural and population trends and systems should be reconfigured before likely complications to avoid events of human tragedy.

You have not refuted an inch of that, or even substantially comments on its content, even though it is the primary discussion point of this thread. Rather, your off-topic bitching centers on the tone and percieved certainty of your opponents' predictions. As usual for those fond of sophistry, the focus is on the manner of their opponents' presentation of their claims, rather than on their content. Another no-refutation, no-substance, no-counter-claim, no-logic sour-puss idiot who doesn't like hearing uncomfortable truths. Surprise.

[Surlethe]

I said nobody knows what's going to happen and any firm predictions one way or the other are just so much hot air.

This sounds rather like a golden mean fallacy mixed with a hint of bifurcation. Why do you place every single firm prediction, one way or the other, on the same footing simply because nobody has 100% knowledge of the future?

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

That last bit applies to any realistic scenario, how - exactly?

It doesn't take much food just to stay alive. I'm not sure how to state it any more simply than that. Should I write it in crayon?

Let me hold your hand like a small child: any theoretical population must work, so your "point" that it takes little food to survive if you're not expected to work is puerile and idiotic.

It means that it doesn't take a lot of aid to prevent mass die-off.

We know NG in North America began a skyrocket to the tune of 200-300% and becoming very volatile. We know that crude was $1/barrel in 1969 and upwards of $12/barrel from the perception of shortage of liquid capacity a few years later. Peakists - or as I prefer, realists - do not think it is sound policy to be on the good variables, the cargo cult science miracle handed-down from the technogods, or anything else currently not on the shelf. It is absurd and irresponsible to put the human race and advanced civilization to a final exam it cannot afford to fail without the deaths of perhaps hundreds of millions of people and maybe decades of lost technological and human welfare progress. But please, keep consuming, just take refuge and comfort in your uncertainty and hope for that which has still not arrived.

I didn't say not to have a plan for the worst case scenario, I said nobody knows what's going to happen and any firm predictions one way or the other are just so much hot air.

Show me anyone who makes firm predictions about oil price and hard economic outcomes without data to support. If they have data and argumentation to support, show me how it is flawed.

Your no-nothing logic could be extended to claiming no economic analysis or predictions or prudent policy is anything but hot air.

I wasn't attacking the academics of the field, I was attacking the people on this board.

Peak oilers act as though there's an extremely high probability that there will be no significant new oil finds and no way to economically tap unfeasible oil before prices skyrocket so high the economy crashes and burns.

Matt Simmons certainly does not say that. Nor does Kenneth Deffeyes. Furthermore, oil discoveries have been declining since the late 1960s and are at an all-time low despite the highest oil prices since the 1970s and despite shortage anxiety and the finest discovery technology in the history of oil exploration. Yes, there is a very high probability that discovery trends will not reverse, and an extremely high probability that they will not reverse fast enough or dramatically enough to prevent shortages if we do not curb consumption or find alternatives. Furthermore, if peak oil occurs in the 2005-2015 timeframe, how will we have time to deliver production from it? You have a very naive and uninformed interpretation of oil discovery and development. Please describe your evidence to show that these projections are incorrect. The fact remains that almost all of Saudi Arabia's historical production and almost all of present day production comes from fields found in the 1930s or 1940s. The post-1960 finds have only yielded significant production from one field, and that did not come online until the 1990s.

True enough. I was speaking more about technologies that can change the unfeasibility of oil sources we do know about, such as shale oil. The microwave invention might already be able to do that.

Well, that's certainly possible, but there's simply no way to know what the probability is, and anyone who says they know what the next 20 or 30 years will be like is full of shit. Almost everyone who's tried to predict the future that far out has ended up looking like an idiot.

So we should ignore all the data and trends we do have? We're not talking about 20-30 years from now. We're talking about peaking in the next decade - if not imminently - and the data supports that conclusion. We should make prudent policy based on reality. Your logic could easily be used to denounce the IPCC climate projections and poison the well in an argument about global warming as well. Unfortunately for you, you fail to address the substance of the argument or the conclusion which it yields.

The fact is that all evidence supports the conclusion that in the next several decades, liquid fuels will become increasingly unavailable at economical prices. The current agricultural and economic regime is highly dependent on fuel imputs which likely cannot be sustained in the long term. The world population growth and current size is sustained at the moment with the use of economic and agricultural output growth which will cease to be possible or desirable. Therefore, reason dictates that economic and agricultural and population trends and systems should be reconfigured before likely complications to avoid events of human tragedy.

You have not refuted an inch of that, or even substantially comments on its content, even though it is the primary discussion point of this thread. Rather, your off-topic bitching centers on the tone and percieved certainty of your opponents' predictions. As usual for those fond of sophistry, the focus is on the manner of their opponents' presentation of their claims, rather than on their content. Another no-refutation, no-substance, no-counter-claim, no-logic sour-puss idiot who doesn't like hearing uncomfortable truths. Surprise.

I did not set out of refute any of the peak oil evidence. The fact is that there is a huge X factor that puts any firm prediction about price trends over the next few decades on shaky ground. There's enough oil for the transition to be relatively gradual, it's just that most of it takes more to refine than you get back out of it. But because that may have already changed, and could change at any time, it's a huge variable that can't be accounted for. Without knowing whether the technology we have or will soon have can tap currently unprofitable reserves for a net gain, it's impossible to say with any degree of confidence whether energy prices will spiral out of control or not. The case for peak oil is strong and should certainly be planned for, but assigning a high probability to economic collapse is a claim made on insufficient evidence.

Global warming is completely different and does not include any such huge unknowns. I don't know why you brought it up.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I said nobody knows what's going to happen and any firm predictions one way or the other are just so much hot air.

This sounds rather like a golden mean fallacy mixed with a hint of bifurcation. Why do you place every single firm prediction, one way or the other, on the same footing simply because nobody has 100% knowledge of the future?

I don't. Read what I actually said.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It means that it doesn't take a lot of aid to prevent mass die-off.

Why don't you post some proof and methodology and prove that high-yield varieties' economics can function in a very volatile and high liquid fuel price climate, that soil erosion will not become significant, etc. You give me the numbers, we already named problems with the current regime and your idiotic reply was, well, people who don't work don't eat much.

I'm not here to justify or make sense of your garbled babbling. You justify your claims or retract them here.

I didn't say not to have a plan for the worst case scenario, I said nobody knows what's going to happen and any firm predictions one way or the other are just so much hot air.

Blah blah blah golden mean blah blah.

Prices will go higher. That's natural gas production peaking and becoming erratic and natural gas is something for which we currently do not have absolute need for and has current substitutes. Crude oil has neither.

Besides, the US DOE (Hirsh) report spells it out:

"Without timely mitigation, world supply/demand balance will be achieved through massive demand destruction (shortages), accompanied by huge oil price increases, both of which would create a long period of significant economic hardship worldwide. Waiting until world conventional oil production peaks before initiating crash program mitigation leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel deficit for two decades or longer...

...The problems associated with world oil production peaking will not be temporary, and past 'energy crisis' experience will provide relatively little guidance. The challenge of oil peaking deserves immediate, serious attention, if risks are to be fully understood and mitigation begun on a timely basis...the world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions were gradual and evolutionary. Oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary."

The burden of proof is on you to disprove the authority. Prices will rise dramatically and our economy cannot substitute the role liquid fuels derived from crude oil play in its growth and healthy function. You have yet to meaningfully refute any of the basic fundamentals that Mike, Surlethe, or I have mentioned. Put them up, or shut the fuck up.

I'm sick and tired of closet "wah wah I don't like thinking the future's not bright and full of consumerism but I lack the rigor to refute the claims I don't like so I'll snipe from the sidelines" bitches like you.

You're simply appealing to vague uncertainty and mystery variables you cannot be bothered to explain or substantiate. If Simmons, Hirsh, et al's basic conclusions and projections are wrong - in which case HYV agriculture economies will continue to function - then prove it. Otherwise our points stand.

I wasn't attacking the academics of the field, I was attacking the people on this board.

Like I said, bitching and sniping from the sidelines, personal attacks, style over substance, and pushing the thread off-topic. Got anything useful to add here, whiner?

True enough. I was speaking more about technologies that can change the unfeasibility of oil sources we do know about, such as shale oil. The microwave invention might already be able to do that.

Should we keep consuming indefinitely in the face of global warming? Will it be implementable before the peak? Shale oil and sands, etc. will never approach the energy profit of conventional crude for fundamentally physical reasons. Why don't you prove its workable instead of just vaguely alluding.

I did not set out of refute any of the peak oil evidence. The fact is that there is a huge X factor that puts any firm prediction about price trends over the next few decades on shaky ground. There's enough oil for the transition to be relatively gradual, it's just that most of it takes more to refine than you get back out of it. But because that may have already changed, and could change at any time, it's a huge variable that can't be accounted for. Without knowing whether the technology we have or will soon have can tap currently unprofitable reserves for a net gain, it's impossible to say with any degree of confidence whether energy prices will spiral out of control or not. The case for peak oil is strong and should certainly be planned for, but assigning a high probability to economic collapse is a claim made on insufficient evidence.

Yeah, because all this happened during the 1970s while production was actually growing. Oh wait... Regardless of slowing supply declines, demand will overtake supply without mitigation. Where is there enough oil for transition? Where is your evidence that we will have enough for price climbs to be gradual, rather than abrupt and revolutionary - according to the DOE - and high and volatile, as the NG example demonstrates.

Besides, no one said that economic collapse was certain or unavoidable. But without immediate and immense mitigation efforts across the entire fabric of society, it is increasingly likely with every single day. To say nothing of the fact you've chosen to derail this thread despite the fact your boogeymen not only have not been named, but have not posted anything to that effect in this thread, making your bullshit irrelevent.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Natural Gas Price vs. Production

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

For the last time, never have I disagreed with or attempted to refute the case for peak oil. I only pointed out the very obvious idea that all that needs to happen for the worst of scenarios to pass is for someone to invent a way to refine currently unfeasible oil more efficiently, and that this may have happened already. Therefore, people on this board and presumably elsewhere shouldn't be so damn sure about what's going to happen in the coming decades. And I laugh at your disbelief that nobody thinks some form of worst case scenario is all but guaranteed since you personally participated in multiple threads where the consensus was exactly that. But by all means, continue building a strawman so you can keep tearing it down in a grandiose manner.

The point about food supplies is that the First World can prevent a mass die-off without an astronomical increase in goodwill because the minimum to stay alive is less than a quarter of what the average American eats, and it doesn't have to be food that tastes good or something that first worlders would buy.

[K. A. Pital]

The point about food supplies is that the First World can prevent a mass die-off without an astronomical increase in goodwill because the minimum to stay alive is less than a quarter of what the average American eats, and it doesn't have to be food that tastes good or something that first worlders would buy.

That is only possible under some global kommieh state.

America and the First World - first of all, the capital-holders of these countries - will never decrease their own overconsumption of resources and share food just because Third World people are dying from hunger.

The fact that even now 0,8 billion people are below the hunger line shows clearly that the First World wil not care.

Industrialized agriculture exists only as long as the industrial world marches on consuming enormous amounts of fossil fuelds.