The Global Food Crisis

[Illuminatus Primus]

Correction, its not a non-factor in the food price rise, but it is not as important as the simple economic factors of bad management in the form of biofuels and speculation. Furthermore, even as it is a factor, that does not mean you were not engaging in bare speculation earlier - which I was right to call you on, and furthermore, its still not because petrochemical or energy feedstock is unavailable (your original claim).

[Keevan_Colton]

Correction, its not a non-factor in the food price rise, but it is not as important as the simple economic factors of bad management in the form of biofuels and speculation. Furthermore, even as it is a factor, that does not mean you were not engaging in bare speculation earlier - which I was right to call you on, and furthermore, its still not because petrochemical or energy feedstock is unavailable (your original claim).

It is unavailable to those that cant get it, isnt it?



I've repeatedly said that the problem lies with economics and politics taking little note of the limitations of physics. It isnt physics that's the problem, it's the bad management which doesnt understand, and is not informed by, physical reality. Not so hard to grasp is it? Physics as the final arbiter?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Correction, its not a non-factor in the food price rise, but it is not as important as the simple economic factors of bad management in the form of biofuels and speculation. Furthermore, even as it is a factor, that does not mean you were not engaging in bare speculation earlier - which I was right to call you on, and furthermore, its still not because petrochemical or energy feedstock is unavailable (your original claim).

It is unavailable to those that cant get it, isnt it?

So what? You claimed that this would be due to feedstock bottlenecks (it isn't), that there'd not be price hikes before physical shortages (there are), ad nauseum. You're just a fucking backpedaler whose dropped every claim except laughably trying to argue now that you said the same thing in the first place.

Clearly Mike thought you were claiming thermodynamics was a crucial misunderstanding. Everyone else acknowledged that its a social/economic problem, not a fundamentally physical one. Even if you were arguing that, babbling - that's what it was - with incorrect spelling to boot about "tipping points" and "equilibriums" without respect for their meaning did not convey it certainly did not communicate it. So you can choose between being a fucking retard who cannot write and managed to convince everyone including me you thought that physics was the problem, or you can be a backpedaling poseur. Either way is fine by me, because either way validates my opinion that you're an incoherent wannabe retard.

Sure thing, EQUILIBRIUMS PHYSICS EVIL ECON PRINT MONEY SHIT I READ AND DIDN'T UNDERSTAND FROM J AND AV!

Like I'm deserving of the eye roll after you got the cause of the price hike in foodstuffs wrong, the cause of shortage in fertilizer wrong, the fertilizer feedstock issue wrong, the majority of GM foods type wrong, and you don't know how to spell or what "tipping point" is not a term in physics. You're a poseur clown whose been reduced to backpedaling into a corner and claiming you always were agreeing with Mike/me/everyone else and we're presumably just too dumb to understand you. No, you're incoherent.

I've repeatedly said that the problem lies with economics and politics taking little note of the limitations of physics. It isnt physics that's the problem, it's the bad management which doesnt understand, and is not informed by, physical reality. Not so hard to grasp is it? Physics as the final arbiter?

No, you're a backpedaling poseur. You've dropped every issue I've embarrassed your wannabe ass on. I wonder how that happened. Go play in traffic, Cunton.

[Keevan_Colton]

Go back and find where I said there wouldnt be price hikes before physical shortages you fuckhead. You're going to have a hard time though because I have never said that.

It'd be nice if you were actually talking about the same thing I am. Shame you're too much of a retard.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm not saying that price of fertilizer will increase, I'm saying that it's derived from oil. And with dwindling supplies of that guess what you get? Dwindling supplies of fertilizer...

Fertilizer increases crop yields, this is what it does, it's what the name is all about. I'm not talking prices, I'm talking physics...less supply of fertilizer (due to less oil to make it from, either due to economics or the simple fact that there isnt enough to go around) means that you have less stuff to boost crop yields with. That is a definite problem, and one which needs serious consideration. It's not an "if" sort of problem, it's a "when" sort of problem like the end of oil. We need to start seriously thinking about how we're going to keep food production up to the current level without the fertilizer we use to fuel our crops...

Page Eight. You say quite openly you believe shortages will happen because of "physics" and prices will not enter it. Which is just a stupid claim by every scrap of historical evidence. Buying power IS important, and price IS important.

[Broomstick]

Meanwhile, back in reality...

... the situation has gotten so bad Broomstick is eating her lawn...

Which is actually not as bad as it sounds. What happened was that I was working on the garden again, opening up another 9 square feet (by hand - very good exercise), when I said to myself: "Self, I hope my vegetables grow as good as these dandelions out here"

Then it hits me - dandelions are edible. Very edible. And the landlord has never sprayed weedkiller or anything of the sort out back. I filled up a 5 gallon bucket with fresh, edible greens this afternoon, the first harvest of 2008 (made the Pagan in me think I needed to set an altar up out back and stuff and dance around in the moonlight - heck, tomorrow is Beltane anyway...)

So while ya'll are arguing about physics and economics and the availability of food I'm actually doing something about it

neener neener

Which goes to show that some of the solutions to our problems are (literally) under our noses. They sell dandelion greens in the local groceries, too, having somehow convinced the public that 1) this is a gourmet treat and 2) only commercially produced will do. Well, yeah, if you spray weedkiller and "lawn care" chemicals all over you wouldn't want to be eating what grows in your yard, but if you don't you've got free food. Part of the solution is not a universal remedy but rather utilizing local resources efficiently and sustainably.

I'll have to get some cheesecloth and freeze some of these before work tomorrow - no way just the two of us will be able to eat this much before it goes off. Thank goodness for modern food preservation.

What have YOU done to solve your food issues today?

[Keevan_Colton]

I'm not saying that price of fertilizer will increase, I'm saying that it's derived from oil. And with dwindling supplies of that guess what you get? Dwindling supplies of fertilizer...

Fertilizer increases crop yields, this is what it does, it's what the name is all about. I'm not talking prices, I'm talking physics...less supply of fertilizer (due to less oil to make it from, either due to economics or the simple fact that there isnt enough to go around) means that you have less stuff to boost crop yields with. That is a definite problem, and one which needs serious consideration. It's not an "if" sort of problem, it's a "when" sort of problem like the end of oil. We need to start seriously thinking about how we're going to keep food production up to the current level without the fertilizer we use to fuel our crops...

Page Eight. You say quite openly you believe shortages will happen because of "physics" and prices will not enter it. Which is just a stupid claim by every scrap of historical evidence. Buying power IS important, and price IS important.

And anywhere in that does it say that there will be no price increases before that?

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm not saying that price of fertilizer will increase, I'm saying that it's derived from oil. And with dwindling supplies of that guess what you get? Dwindling supplies of fertilizer...

Fertilizer increases crop yields, this is what it does, it's what the name is all about. I'm not talking prices, I'm talking physics...less supply of fertilizer (due to less oil to make it from, either due to economics or the simple fact that there isnt enough to go around) means that you have less stuff to boost crop yields with. That is a definite problem, and one which needs serious consideration. It's not an "if" sort of problem, it's a "when" sort of problem like the end of oil. We need to start seriously thinking about how we're going to keep food production up to the current level without the fertilizer we use to fuel our crops...

Page Eight. You say quite openly you believe shortages will happen because of "physics" and prices will not enter it. Which is just a stupid claim by every scrap of historical evidence. Buying power IS important, and price IS important.

And anywhere in that does it say that there will be no price increases before that?

When you say something to the effect that its not price increases which are going to lead to the problems but general shortages, and refute even the mention of prices, yeah it does imply you don't think they'll occur or at least be important. Still, you're now quibbling about one amongst a half dozen things I made fun of you for. I'm sure you think you're still winning.

Good luck with that, chump.

[Keevan_Colton]

When you say something to the effect that its not price increases which are going to lead to the problems but general shortages, and refute even the mention of prices, yeah it does imply you don't think they'll occur or at least be important. Still, you're now quibbling about one amongst a half dozen things I made fun of you for. I'm sure you think you're still winning.

Good luck with that, chump.

The concept of something being an independent variable eludes you.