The Global Food Crisis

[Singular Intellect]

Oil lets us do things for a fraction of the energy cost it would take from other sources. Yet again you're managing to agree with me while trying to continue an argument out of it...you're really special like that IP.

I've said several times that it's a matter of finite capacity to deal with simultaneous problems. We can solve most problems we can conceive of by simply throwing energy at them. But, energy we're using to solve one problem cannot be used for another...

Do you need me to remind you of the first and second laws of thermodynamics? (And yes, I am aware that the earth itself is not a closed system, however the universe in total is, and we are only getting so much into our little system at a time).

We need energy to build power plants to generate more energy, but if we're using our existing energy generation capacity to synthesis fertilizers, we cant be using it to build more infrastructure. Unlike money, we cant simply print more energy...we have to contend with physics rather than the Federal Reserve...and physics is nothing if not a stickler for the rules.

Invoking thermodynamic limitations of the Earth is pointless in this case, because the Sun pours far more energy into the Earth system than we can utilize every day. The problem is not the first law of thermodynamics; it is economics and distribution of resources. Specifically, we're incredibly wasteful. The problem is not scientific; it is social. We don't care to make sacrifices, and we don't bother to plan.

I've always said the whole energy crisis, while real, is a self imposed one because of human stupidity, wastefulness and seeming inability to plan properly.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Oil lets us do things for a fraction of the energy cost it would take from other sources. Yet again you're managing to agree with me while trying to continue an argument out of it...you're really special like that IP.

I've said several times that it's a matter of finite capacity to deal with simultaneous problems. We can solve most problems we can conceive of by simply throwing energy at them. But, energy we're using to solve one problem cannot be used for another...

Do you need me to remind you of the first and second laws of thermodynamics? (And yes, I am aware that the earth itself is not a closed system, however the universe in total is, and we are only getting so much into our little system at a time).

We need energy to build power plants to generate more energy, but if we're using our existing energy generation capacity to synthesis fertilizers, we cant be using it to build more infrastructure. Unlike money, we cant simply print more energy...we have to contend with physics rather than the Federal Reserve...and physics is nothing if not a stickler for the rules.

You cannot just -print- more money either, you fucking simpleton. Its called hyperinflation. God you have no idea any of what you're talking about. You're just flailing about, cargo cult debating your way by imitating the vague rituals you recognize from the more intelligent and better educated than you. Furthermore, as Mike pointed out, you're just bluffing your "HUR HUR PHYSICS IS TEH KING ON SDN, ECON IS SHITTAY" Internet Tough-Guy crap. Its a technological problem; the potential energy possibly locked up in all the uranium possibly available on the Earth's surface and definitely all the deuterium available on the Earth's surface could answer our indefinite needs. The problem on Earth is one of MANAGEMENT of resources and allocation - guess what that is? Oh, right, economics. Yes our politics and economics is screwed up, but physicists' work alone is not going to allocate resources and manage them efficiently - more scientifically-grounded economics which respect biophysical limits and resource consumption is required.

From the start I said I agreed with basic sustainability theses in the long term and so on and so forth. The problem is I suspect for a number of reasons you're just not intelligent enough to understand the fundamental issues. Feel free to correct me with another HUH PHYSICS IS KING speech hoping curry favor with the peanut gallery and AMERICA IS THE SOURCE OF ALL HORRIBLES for the icing on the cake. Furthermore, every time you cargo-culted yourself into an incorrect analogy or false claim (fertilizer, etc.) you just backpeddled your way out. Leave this discussion - you lack the patience of inclination to prove your fears or concerns WRT the subject of this thread are more than mere supposition and you are unwilling to concede when you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Master of Ossus]

Oh, by the way, crops are being wiped out along the Mississippi river as we speak by the worst flooding in years. The growing season is also shortened as farmers now have to wait until flood waters recede before they can plant crops, and that's going to push crop yeilds downward.

Link

[snip]

And this is a big deal why? As a country we lost 200,000 acres of crops? We have six hundred million acres of crops where that came from. 200,000 acres is nothing for the US, especially because our entire system is built with enough redundancy that the country can lose substantial portions of its crop land to various environmental disasters each year and still feed itself. It's not like natural factors that reduce farm yields are unprecedented.

[J]

It isn't a big deal, yet. However, given that the world is now facing grain inventory lows which haven't been seen for decades, seemingly small losses here & there start taking on a bit more importance. Will Americans starve to death? Likely not, but it's enough to nudge prices higher, which means someone in a dirt poor country somewhere just got priced out of the market, and will indeed starve. When inventories are low, seemingly insignificant supply losses can and do cause disproportionate price increases.

[Big Phil]

Will Americans starve to death? Likely not,

The chances of Americans starving to death because of a food shortage is about the same as Macross' chances of getting laid without a hooker.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Correct. The chances of Americans starving because of inability to afford to live is far more likely.

[Keevan_Colton]

Oil lets us do things for a fraction of the energy cost it would take from other sources. Yet again you're managing to agree with me while trying to continue an argument out of it...you're really special like that IP.

I've said several times that it's a matter of finite capacity to deal with simultaneous problems. We can solve most problems we can conceive of by simply throwing energy at them. But, energy we're using to solve one problem cannot be used for another...

Do you need me to remind you of the first and second laws of thermodynamics? (And yes, I am aware that the earth itself is not a closed system, however the universe in total is, and we are only getting so much into our little system at a time).

We need energy to build power plants to generate more energy, but if we're using our existing energy generation capacity to synthesis fertilizers, we cant be using it to build more infrastructure. Unlike money, we cant simply print more energy...we have to contend with physics rather than the Federal Reserve...and physics is nothing if not a stickler for the rules.

Invoking thermodynamic limitations of the Earth is pointless in this case, because the Sun pours far more energy into the Earth system than we can utilize every day. The problem is not the first law of thermodynamics; it is economics and distribution of resources. Specifically, we're incredibly wasteful. The problem is not scientific; it is social. We don't care to make sacrifices, and we don't bother to plan.

As I said, it's not a closed system, we have energy input from outside the system itself. The problem is we've not got the capability to utilize most of that energy. Return On Energy Invested is a real issue particularly trying to utilize solar radiation, we need to build infrastructure that can capture that energy. It's the same as fusion, we just dont have the capability to really harness it at the moment...and energy you cant use might as well not be there (same as oil you cant afford being as good as oil that isnt there...)

It's the simple problem that with dwindling capacity from our current energy sources, we need to work harder towards using that energy to prepare to access other sources.

Oh, and for IP, you can actually print money to get out of a hole, the problem is if people realize you're doing it and you dont have the actual work/energy/production to back up that money. Terry Pratchett illustrated it rather artfully in his latest book, but I doubt you've got the wit to understand the analogies that he's drawing. Money is just tokens after all, the value is in what the tokens can get you not in the tokens themselves.

I also like your wonderful caricature of me. I've actually mostly used examples from Canada in here rather than the US, not out of any malice or because I believe it to be particularly good or bad examples of the point. The simple fact is that I've studied the numbers and statistics for the situation in the GTA quite extensively and so actually know what I'm talking about. Unlike a little whiny bitch google scholar like you who wouldnt know clear reasoning if it fucked him in the ass.

[Master of Ossus]

It isn't a big deal, yet. However, given that the world is now facing grain inventory lows which haven't been seen for decades, seemingly small losses here & there start taking on a bit more importance. Will Americans starve to death? Likely not, but it's enough to nudge prices higher, which means someone in a dirt poor country somewhere just got priced out of the market, and will indeed starve. When inventories are low, seemingly insignificant supply losses can and do cause disproportionate price increases.

A .0003% drop off in the agricultural area of one country is going to price people out of the market and means someone will starve? Evidence, or is this just tautological? Moreover, it is highly unrealistic to expect the entire world to go without small-scale environmental factors that negatively influence agricultural yields. I don't even see why this story is newsworthy.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Will Americans starve to death? Likely not,

The chances of Americans starving to death because of a food shortage is about the same as Macross' chances of getting laid without a hooker.

he already gives off a creepy stalker vibe, he might decide that a knife, or Stun gun is cheaper then the hooker...

ok, that was just wrong colin...

[Illuminatus Primus]

Invoking thermodynamic limitations of the Earth is pointless in this case, because the Sun pours far more energy into the Earth system than we can utilize every day. The problem is not the first law of thermodynamics; it is economics and distribution of resources. Specifically, we're incredibly wasteful. The problem is not scientific; it is social. We don't care to make sacrifices, and we don't bother to plan.

As I said, it's not a closed system, we have energy input from outside the system itself. The problem is we've not got the capability to utilize most of that energy. Return On Energy Invested is a real issue particularly trying to utilize solar radiation, we need to build infrastructure that can capture that energy. It's the same as fusion, we just dont have the capability to really harness it at the moment...and energy you cant use might as well not be there (same as oil you cant afford being as good as oil that isnt there...)

It's the simple problem that with dwindling capacity from our current energy sources, we need to work harder towards using that energy to prepare to access other sources.

Yeah, and what is this besides obvious, no-shit, no-one-can-possibly-disagree, drivel? This has NOTHING to do with our rice and grain story IN THIS THREAD and does not offer evidential value to your fertilizer tangent.

Oh, and for IP, you can actually print money to get out of a hole, the problem is if people realize you're doing it and you dont have the actual work/energy/production to back up that money.

Then you're not just printing it, asshole, because productive value commiserate with the raw circulated currency is not the same as arbitrary expansion of the money supply. This tard remark boils down to the following:

Keevan: "Bro, econ sucks. You can just print money if you want."
IP: "Not really, because it'll manifest as hyperinflation."
Keevan: "Well what if you print money when it actually is commiserate with an increase in value???"

To which I answer: then its not a bad thing, is it, cretin? Money has to exist and must be printed, and if its not arbitrary expansion of the money policy, then who cares?

Terry Pratchett illustrated it rather artfully in his latest book, but I doubt you've got the wit to understand the analogies that he's drawing. Money is just tokens after all, the value is in what the tokens can get you not in the tokens themselves.

I'm sure you know all about it, Cunton.

I also like your wonderful caricature of me. I've actually mostly used examples from Canada in here rather than the US, not out of any malice or because I believe it to be particularly good or bad examples of the point. The simple fact is that I've studied the numbers and statistics for the situation in the GTA quite extensively and so actually know what I'm talking about. Unlike a little whiny bitch google scholar like you who wouldnt know clear reasoning if it fucked him in the ass.

Whatever, clown. Trust me, I'll be sure to give a rat's ass about your Internet Tough-Guy poseur bullshit. You're obviously a bluffer, who had no idea what you were talking about.

Cunton: Fertilizer!
IP: Doesn't require oil, only energy!
Cunton: We need energy?
IP: How is that a response? What does this pointless supposition have to do with this thread? We have energy, its just not easy.
Cunton: Econ teh suk! Equilibriums! Physics! Tipping point! Thermodynamics!
Mike: None of those things matter here, its a social issue.
Cunton: Uh, I'm real smart guyz, trust me.

Go eat a dick. Like I have any confidence in the self-ego-stroking of some clown who doesn't know shit about his own arguments HERE (what do I give a shit about other statistics you looked at) and thinks "tipping points" and equilibriums (in this context) are important physics issues and that simply term-dropping will scare away anyone who dares to make reason-based critiques of alarmist bullshit. You forgot to harrass Surlethe over calculating the "price elasticity" of gasoline - you better run him down and scream random physics terms and shit to correct this anti-science most uncool heretic.

Retard.

[Mayabird]

Might this be a good time to start bringing up genetically engineering crops for disease and drought resistance and such? We're going to need it. The thought of actually being inconvenienced energy-wise has made a lot of people stop listening to the anti-nuclear wankers, so the thought of having to spend a lot of money for food might work to make people stop listening to the anti-GM wankers.

[Anguirus]

Might this be a good time to start bringing up genetically engineering crops for disease and drought resistance and such?

It's my understanding that this practice is already widespread in the USA. However, you can't predict and develop resistance for every crop blight, and you sure as hell can't grow a damn thing without water.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Most current GM crops basically aren't good at anything other than surviving being saturated with the selfsame seed provider's toxic pesticides/herbicides/etc.

[Keevan_Colton]

Yeah, and what is this besides obvious, no-shit, no-one-can-possibly-disagree, drivel?

How very odd, since a few posts back the exact same thing was baseless assertions. Can you at least keep your criticism straight?

This has NOTHING to do with our rice and grain story IN THIS THREAD and does not offer evidential value to your fertilizer tangent.

So, apparently it's no-shit, no-one-can-possibly-disagree to point out the whole ROEI thing, but to then point out we'll be getting less REOI when using something that takes more energy is baseless assertion. Did your mother drop you on your head a lot as a child or just leave you sucking on the exhaust pipe of the car for long periods?

Then you're not just printing it, asshole, because productive value commiserate with the raw circulated currency is not the same as arbitrary expansion of the money supply. This tard remark boils down to the following:

Keevan: "Bro, econ sucks. You can just print money if you want."
IP: "Not really, because it'll manifest as hyperinflation."
Keevan: "Well what if you print money when it actually is commiserate with an increase in value???"

To which I answer: then its not a bad thing, is it, cretin? Money has to exist and must be printed, and if its not arbitrary expansion of the money policy, then who cares?

Money is different from value. You cant seem to see that printing money can work in the short term until people realize you're doing it. Consider for a moment how the crime of forgery works...you cannot create fake energy. Yes there will be bad consequences to just making money out of nothing, but it can be done. Take a look at the world financial markets lately, where 50 billion can vanish overnight because it was created essentialy out of nothing and when folk finally realized it had nothing backing it up, the Bad Things happen....that doesnt change the fact that for a long while that money was there being used to promise things.

I'm sure you know all about it, Cunton.

Oh gee, what a rapier wit you have. How long have you been working on that one anyway? Care to address the fact that money and value are entirely separate entities and that value is consumerate with energy more than it is with currency? Or do you want to just skip on past since it is really a no-shit thing...

Whatever, clown. Trust me, I'll be sure to give a rat's ass about your Internet Tough-Guy poseur bullshit. You're obviously a bluffer, who had no idea what you were talking about.

Cunton: Fertilizer!
IP: Doesn't require oil, only energy!
Cunton: We need energy?
IP: How is that a response? What does this pointless supposition have to do with this thread? We have energy, its just not easy.
Cunton: Econ teh suk! Equilibriums! Physics! Tipping point! Thermodynamics!
Mike: None of those things matter here, its a social issue.
Cunton: Uh, I'm real smart guyz, trust me.

Go eat a dick. Like I have any confidence in the self-ego-stroking of some clown who doesn't know shit about his own arguments HERE (what do I give a shit about other statistics you looked at) and thinks "tipping points" and equilibriums (in this context) are important physics issues and that simply term-dropping will scare away anyone who dares to make reason-based critiques of alarmist bullshit. You forgot to harrass Surlethe over calculating the "price elasticity" of gasoline - you better run him down and scream random physics terms and shit to correct this anti-science most uncool heretic.

Retard.

So, yet again you utterly fail to grasp what I'm going on about and continue bleating like a little lamb. Remind me again where I've been saying it spells the end of civilization or anything like that? I havent. I've been pointing out that use of our available resources must be considered more carefully with an eye to the basics of sustenance and shelter with a myriad of looming problems all of which do come down to energy. It is indeed a social issue, I'm glad you're catching up...but social issues are still subject to the laws of physics which is why you cant just feed the poor by wishing really hard. You have to get people to want to do it, and also have the means to do it...

To put it simply, if wishes were watts we'd be able to reshape the universe...but they arent...so we have to actually plan and prepare.

[Keevan_Colton]

Most current GM crops basically aren't good at anything other than surviving being saturated with the selfsame seed provider's toxic pesticides/herbicides/etc.

What a crock of shit. Do you just pull this shit from your ass and expect people to swallow it? What do you think you are, the fucking tossed salad man?

The fact is much of the work in GM crops has been towards strains with resistance to enviromental conditions, such as resistance to frost and insects rather than to particular toxic chemicals.

There have indeed been some developments to make strains resistant to herbicides and pesticides, but that is hardly the entirety of the work going on and isnt even the main focus. We've been doing indirect GM for a long time on crops too, it's not a new thing. I suggest you go look up the work of Norman Borlaug. We're mostly looking at creating strains that are better at providing high yields and enviromental resistance. Even in some cases increasing nutritional content by upping the vitamin content of a staple...or even making particular fruits resistant to rotting by removing certain chemicals from their makeup.

Please, get the fuck out of my forum until you can do something more than talk out of your arse.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Yeah, and what is this besides obvious, no-shit, no-one-can-possibly-disagree, drivel?

How very odd, since a few posts back the exact same thing was baseless assertions. Can you at least keep your criticism straight?

Quote me calling what I just replied to baseless assertions. Otherwise play in traffic.

So, apparently it's no-shit, no-one-can-possibly-disagree to point out the whole ROEI thing, but to then point out we'll be getting less REOI when using something that takes more energy is baseless assertion. Did your mother drop you on your head a lot as a child or just leave you sucking on the exhaust pipe of the car for long periods?

Its EROEI you idiot. And another thing, EROEI is not the end all to be all of the equation. Society certainly has not failed as we've gone from EROEI of over a hundred in the case of early, extremely-easy access oil fields that gushed from primitive well-drilling, to now where ratios are much less favorable. Nor is nuclear power and a bunch of less EROEI sources than crude oil completely and definitively unsupportable. Yet another gross simplification, not that I am surprised. You're just a poseur.

Money is different from value. You cant seem to see that printing money can work in the short term until people realize you're doing it. Consider for a moment how the crime of forgery works...you cannot create fake energy. Yes there will be bad consequences to just making money out of nothing, but it can be done. Take a look at the world financial markets lately, where 50 billion can vanish overnight because it was created essentialy out of nothing and when folk finally realized it had nothing backing it up, the Bad Things happen....that doesnt change the fact that for a long while that money was there being used to promise things.

So what? Fake money is noticed and cleans itself out of the system. What is your earthshattering novel point? Are we going to build a society without money? No shit you cannot create fake energy, but what is the point of this bitching about physics > econ? We need better organization for society, and I don't see where all these retard tangents go except to try and look right to the peanut gallery by saying something no one can disagree with. Your progression in arguments is essentially incoherent.

Oh gee, what a rapier wit you have. How long have you been working on that one anyway? Care to address the fact that money and value are entirely separate entities and that value is consumerate with energy more than it is with currency? Or do you want to just skip on past since it is really a no-shit thing...

Because it IS, you moron. Everyone knows printing currency without value is bad juju, and undesirable. Choosing not to is about sound economics - physics does not directly inform monetary policy.

So, yet again you utterly fail to grasp what I'm going on about and continue bleating like a little lamb. Remind me again where I've been saying it spells the end of civilization or anything like that? I havent. I've been pointing out that use of our available resources must be considered more carefully with an eye to the basics of sustenance and shelter with a myriad of looming problems all of which do come down to energy. It is indeed a social issue, I'm glad you're catching up...but social issues are still subject to the laws of physics which is why you cant just feed the poor by wishing really hard. You have to get people to want to do it, and also have the means to do it...

To put it simply, if wishes were watts we'd be able to reshape the universe...but they arent...so we have to actually plan and prepare.

EVERYONE KNOWS OUR RESOURCE LIMITS ARE STRAINED FROM THE LAST BILLION PO THREADS. WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS AND THIS FOOD THREAD? Nothing. You cannot and have no demonstrated causation. And until then, I don't need a fucking replay of shit I've read a million times so you can feel like you have something to contribute.

TIPPING POINT! THERMODYNAMICS! PHYSICS!

You're a little poseur.

[Keevan_Colton]

You're quite the comedian. Cant print money and shouldnt print money are two totally different thyings. We CAN print money to get out of a hole temporarily, but we SHOULDNT.

Out of curisoity, if there is no problem with food supply etc, why are so many people in the world starving as is? Or is that just a baseless assertion in IP world?

Oh and as for ROEI it's the shortened form, Return On Energy Invested of course implies the energy return.

Yes nuclear has a decent ROEI over time, but the initial investment is much higher and without doing that before we reach critical levels of energy available (given ever increasing demands being placed on it, or havent you noticed the global population going up at all? The last hundered years has seen the population increase 400% or so more than the entire time preceeding that.) Of course asserting that this requires greater energy to simply maintain the basics is probably a baseless assertion in your mind.

Here's an idea as to part of the link between this stuff and the financial problems going on and the food crisis and so on, since you've said there's no link I think those of us with a bit more wit should enlighten you. The big issue with the subprime problem is that people have been playing with numbers to make bigger numbers without any real energy to back it up.

The problem is a lack of any value underlying a lot of the imagined money in the financial markets. Take the subprime problem for example, the issue there is a lot of the debts being traded about are not worth the paper they're printed on...there is no real value anywhere to cash them in on. It's not just hyperinflation that's an issue, it's the fact that with an entirely social construct, you can cheat the system...you can try and break the game mechanics to get an edge...and people will do that in a social system...that's why underpinning something with physics is nice because we cannot cheat the laws of physics...if we can, they simply become the laws of physics. This is very different from the economy which is as much a matter of belief as it is science most of the time thanks to the social constructs involved.

As any decent economist will tell you, the model works perfectly and will always do so. Just don't expect it to bear any relation to reality once you throw people into the mix.

This is why these things are all related, they're all manifestations of a common issue. Stupid people running the show...kind of like you being able to post...it gets rather irritating for the people that understand the big holes in it and have to deal with the shit.

I've said it already, but I'm going to say it again. People need to appreciate more the difference between CANNOT and SHOULD NOT. I for example, cannot fly by flapping my arms, however, I can go through a door marked employees only and poke about beyond. I simply should not.

Can you grasp the importance of that disctinction when seperating money and value? Care to address the issue of counterfeit money if you cant simply print more?

We have indeed gone off along a tangent, but it is one related to the financial problems which are in turn related to problems with people being able to afford food.

You've said that my assertion that these problems link increased cost of fertilizer to lower crop yields and higher food prices is just "baseless assertions". It's more simple physics when you look at it from an energy transaction basis. Strangely enough, the UN World Food Program agrees with me...funny that since apparently I'm just making baseless assertions and all that...then again it's probably just that I'm in league with them in some vast peak oil conspiracy right? We've got the Stonecutters and the Illuminati on board already...

[NecronLord]

It's only really hit me just now how dire this is. It's not even major news here (and I've been fairly distracted of late) but seriously now... This is rather terrifying.

Can this situation actually be handled - theoretically, I'd assume so, but practically - without mass death?

[Admiral Valdemar]

If we give up the growth-at-all-costs ideology, then yes. But we won't, because that makes far too many powerful people a lot of money and everyone loves having kids and buying more shit.

[NecronLord]

Like I said, practical - though perhaps 'realistic' would have better conveyed the intention - is there any way masses of people aren't fucked over by this?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Most current GM crops basically aren't good at anything other than surviving being saturated with the selfsame seed provider's toxic pesticides/herbicides/etc.

What a crock of shit. Do you just pull this shit from your ass and expect people to swallow it? What do you think you are, the fucking tossed salad man?

The fact is much of the work in GM crops has been towards strains with resistance to enviromental conditions, such as resistance to frost and insects rather than to particular toxic chemicals.

There have indeed been some developments to make strains resistant to herbicides and pesticides, but that is hardly the entirety of the work going on and isnt even the main focus. We've been doing indirect GM for a long time on crops too, it's not a new thing. I suggest you go look up the work of Norman Borlaug. We're mostly looking at creating strains that are better at providing high yields and enviromental resistance. Even in some cases increasing nutritional content by upping the vitamin content of a staple...or even making particular fruits resistant to rotting by removing certain chemicals from their makeup.

Please, get the fuck out of my forum until you can do something more than talk out of your arse.

Are these varieties really the predominant among the market share? Why don't you show that, clown? Because most of the Monsanto seed varieties are good for resisting being doused in herbicides and killing insects. Others in the pipeline do not change the fact I said "most" are only good for that. Nor did I generally opposed GM food. What does the USDA have to say? "Soybeans and cotton genetically engineered with herbicide-tolerant traits have been the most widely and rapidly adopted GE crops in the U.S., followed by insect-resistant cotton and corn."

In other words, I was right. Go get a sandpaper glove handjob, fuckmook.

[Broomstick]

Might this be a good time to start bringing up genetically engineering crops for disease and drought resistance and such?

It's my understanding that this practice is already widespread in the USA. However, you can't predict and develop resistance for every crop blight, and you sure as hell can't grow a damn thing without water.

Not to mention cultural resistances to new crops, particularly genetically engineered crops. It's not rational, but people have been known to choose death by starvation over eating food they find taboo for whatever reason. Of course, not all people are that fanatical, but a significant percentage have that potential.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You're quite the comedian. Cant print money and shouldnt print money are two totally different thyings. We CAN print money to get out of a hole temporarily, but we SHOULDNT.

What does this have to do with the fact your physics impostures were unfounded, and this is an economic/social management issue?

Out of curisoity, if there is no problem with food supply etc, why are so many people in the world starving as is? Or is that just a baseless assertion in IP world?

I never fucking said there was NO PROBLEM, you liar. I said the burden of proof is on you to connect the dots, not just bleat like a sheep that there must be some connection because of some mental supposition you said. I don't have a problem AV et al, they can cite sources and spell correctly. They don't say "THERMODYNAMICS! TIPPING POINT! PHYSICS!" and expect their opponents to vanish. You're obviously a cargo-culting wannabe.

Oh and as for ROEI it's the shortened form, Return On Energy Invested of course implies the energy return.

It could be financial or economic return, idiot. As you yourself said, energy is the quintessential component of economy.

Yes nuclear has a decent ROEI over time, but the initial investment is much higher and without doing that before we reach critical levels of energy available (given ever increasing demands being placed on it, or havent you noticed the global population going up at all? The last hundered years has seen the population increase 400% or so more than the entire time preceeding that.) Of course asserting that this requires greater energy to simply maintain the basics is probably a baseless assertion in your mind.

No shit, but this still does not make it a problem of physics over economics. The reason that EROEI as it approaches unity (see, this is called qualify your claims, and making them intelligible, as opposed to simply name-dropping) is a problem is issues of economics. Everything you just said is a public policy issue, which is exactly what I said (and Mike too).

Here's an idea as to part of the link between this stuff and the financial problems going on and the food crisis and so on, since you've said there's no link I think those of us with a bit more wit should enlighten you. The big issue with the subprime problem is that people have been playing with numbers to make bigger numbers without any real energy to back it up.

I NEVER SAID THERE WAS NO PROBLEM, LIAR. I SAID YOU WERE DECLARING IT ON YOUR OWN AUTHORITY RATHER THAN CITING SOURCES AND DEVELOPING A MECHANISM.

The problem is a lack of any value underlying a lot of the imagined money in the financial markets. Take the subprime problem for example, the issue there is a lot of the debts being traded about are not worth the paper they're printed on...there is no real value anywhere to cash them in on. It's not just hyperinflation that's an issue, it's the fact that with an entirely social construct, you can cheat the system...you can try and break the game mechanics to get an edge...and people will do that in a social system...that's why underpinning something with physics is nice because we cannot cheat the laws of physics...if we can, they simply become the laws of physics. This is very different from the economy which is as much a matter of belief as it is science most of the time thanks to the social constructs involved.

Well perception and people's behavior IS important aspects to this problem set. And simply bleating physics is not going to fix it. Still, you have not explained exactly how energy deficits caused the subprime crisis, you just have given cliches about the corruption of the modern financial system. Honestly, its more just a mundane result of deregulation in the industry by government.

As any decent economist will tell you, the model works perfectly and will always do so. Just don't expect it to bear any relation to reality once you throw people into the mix.

I'm sure you've spent a lot of time around economists to develop your cliches.

This is why these things are all related, they're all manifestations of a common issue. Stupid people running the show...kind of like you being able to post...it gets rather irritating for the people that understand the big holes in it and have to deal with the shit.

I do understand it, but my confidence in anyone who makes such simplistic arguments and generalizations and must be corrected repeatedly and backpeddle and re-qualify is dramatic.

I've said it already, but I'm going to say it again. People need to appreciate more the difference between CANNOT and SHOULD NOT. I for example, cannot fly by flapping my arms, however, I can go through a door marked employees only and poke about beyond. I simply should not.

Can you grasp the importance of that disctinction when seperating money and value? Care to address the issue of counterfeit money if you cant simply print more?

We have indeed gone off along a tangent, but it is one related to the financial problems which are in turn related to problems with people being able to afford food.

Even if there the modern financial system was based on biophysical economics, there would still be poorly defined and understood aspects surrounding theory of price. We'd only be able to better plan on the macro level for resource depletion. Do you think there'd never be speculation or market failures if only we based the equations on biophysical outputs and inputs?

Furthermore, this is not what you originally claimed. You originally came in screaming appeals to emotion, providing bare supposition, and shouting physics terms without respect to their meaning and making poor arguments with an incorrect grasp of the essential problems. The point of fact is you are backpedaling, you tried to claim EROEI was the only issue (it only is as you approach unity), you tried to claim it was a problem of physics not economics, you tried to claim that you have to have oil to make fertilizer, you tried to claim fertilizer shortages explain this food crisis - thus making your rants not off-topic. And those were all wrong.

You've said that my assertion that these problems link increased cost of fertilizer to lower crop yields and higher food prices is just "baseless assertions". It's more simple physics when you look at it from an energy transaction basis. Strangely enough, the UN World Food Program agrees with me...funny that since apparently I'm just making baseless assertions and all that...then again it's probably just that I'm in league with them in some vast peak oil conspiracy right? We've got the Stonecutters and the Illuminati on board already...

I never said you were part of a PO conspiracy, retard. I said I respect AV and Co. because they are literate and intelligent, not a wannabe poseur idiot like you whose arguments are hamfisted simplifications at best, and bleating name-dropping without respect for context at worst.

And you claims WERE BASELESS AT THE TIME, YOU MORON, BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE A BASE FOR THEM UNTIL NOW. You make a claim, you substantiate it. Its not my fucking job to suppose someone who cannot even spell and thinks "tipping point" name-dropping is the devastating use of physics against a soft science opponent.

Oh look, you're still full of shit, because the cause of the shortages according to them is not feedstock shortages and cost (petrochemicals and energy): "The squeeze on the supply of fertilizer has been building for roughly five years. Rising demand for food and biofuels prompted farmers everywhere to plant more crops. As demand grew, the fertilizer mines and factories of the world proved unable to keep up."

Again, the problem here is bad public policy and economics, not the essential problems of geology and physics. Go fuck yourself, moron.

[Keevan_Colton]

Jesus titty fucking christ. of course it's been building for years...what are you a fucking retard?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Jesus titty fucking christ. of course it's been building for years...what are you a fucking retard?

The reason you claimed there was fertilizer shortages was energy/feedstock limitations - this was wrong. What you said (in poor English) was:

Taking for example these food problems, have you considered how much fertilizer is actually derived from petrochemicals? It's a fuckload...so...say that the amount of fertilizer available goes down, that reduces yields...rising fuel prices cause increased overheads for farmers, causing price rises...and then you add in a problem with supply of other staples...and yippee...you have a problem which is of far greater magnitude that it would be in isolation.

And you're wrong, its five-year leading thing (which means its not caused by reduced energy resources, because they have not peaked yet and the major price spike and pricing out of the third world occurred only recently) and its because of stupid investment in biofuels and increased food demand - which people did not build sufficient factory capacity to meet. That's hardly the same as there's not enough energy or petrochemicals to make fertilizer, so its going short. And that article is dated April 30th, it said there is concern for shortages, but it does not lay this situation at the fault of fertilizer shortages. If you had any understanding of economics, you'd have followed that there's plenty of food, just biofuels and speculation have priced out hungry people.

As I have repeatedly said, it is because bad economics in biofuels and increased food demand led to unforeseen demand growth which has outpaced production capacity. Furthermore, it changes nothing about my response to you at the time, which was that you claims were baseless supposition, because they were. Although at least you're catching on to citing something. Just don't expect to "win" or get a prize from your treehouse because you just picked up something which is expected around here.

Just keep backpedaling.