That statement makes absolutely no sense at all. There is 10 times the number of people throwing food in the garbage than there is digging it out. :smile:
A Global One Child Policy?
- Thread starter petros
- Start date
That statement makes absolutely no sense at all. There is 10 times the number of people throwing food in the garbage than there is digging it out. :smile:
I disagree, shortage has to be relative to ability to pay. If there is only one hamburger left in the world and only one person can afford to buy it, that would look like a shortage to me. If 75% of the population can afford to buy food but the other 25% are going to have to eat garbage to live from day to day that looks like shortage to me.
You are so smart, Karrie. I remember well, the days of big families and very little money. We just made much better use of what we had. Two main problems today...................greed and waste!
Beaker...I do have a compassionate side.
Do you want to see these people doing something else to survive like I do?
Do you want to see these people doing something else to survive like I do?
My husband and I have been setting up our campsite at our acreage largely by surfing kijiji for free stuff. It's amazing how many people are willing to give stuff away because they're too lazy to do anything with it.
That's not a shortage, that's inflated pricing.
In my college days I used to scan the Freebies and Swap section of the Buy & Sell. One day in the Freebies was a washer dryer set, in the Swap was a cars to swap for a washer dryer. I monopolized and drove the car for 3 years then sold it for $500.
There's more than one way but irrigation would be a start.
Also because it's cheaper to give it away than to pay someone to haul it away or even hauling it away yourself and paying at the landfill. Also some stuff is just too big and unwieldly.
Yes, we've done that too... dug out an old flower bed, and rather than throw the dirt in the landfill, put it up on kijiji. A nice former city police officer crippled in a car accident took it to help fill in around her lovely new wheel chair ramp. We were more than happy to dump and shovel it there instead of for $50 at the landfill.
Irrigation has been one of the factors that has been used extensively to increase food production. In many parts of the world the depletion of aquifers, and the global warming reduction in glacier fed streams is reducing our ability to do as much as we have been doing.
Petros said, " Why would it be allowed to expand? Haven't Brazil, Argetina, Colombia, Venzeula, Peru, Equador, Panama, Costa Rica or any other good damn places that tries to feed it's people by cutting down some trees been chastized over land use over the past 30 years and still hasslled today? "
Except that restrictions on agricultural lands are different from restrictions on forestry, or valuable ecosystem land. Countries that are restricting deforestation for a whole variety of reasons are being rewarded now as well. Some are getting breaks on loan repayments, some are getting aid packages that include agriculture, forestry, tourism, etc.
And that won't be solved in the foreseeable future in spite of the availability of the technology to distribute it adequately.
Quite. On the other hand, with people's tendency to want to pave pver the best agricultural land, it's no wonder that forests have been decimated. And yet as the population grows exponentially, it needs more and more land to live on.
Not to me. That's a problem in distribution logistics.
Anyway, I don't think food is nearly as big a problem as the decreasing amount of fresh water.
Reminds me of an example of the blase attitude towards water: we have a tree nursery near here that specializes in reforestation. It has a multitude of water licenses for domestic, commercial, and agricultural use. The amount of fresh water the nursery sucks from the two streams it has licenses for is pretty impressive and costly. A local rancher went to them one time and showed how they could recycle their used water and reduce the amount of fresh water by a huge fraction for an initial cost of $200. They ignored him. "There's so much water we don't worry about it".
Ya think?
Shortages due to distribution logistics, yes. In any case, there is enough food available to feed the planet's population regardless of your extremely localised and temporary "shortages".
For example: we have no lemons at the moment in our house, therefore there must be a global shortage of lemons, right?
localized and temporary? I don't think so. Over a billion people without enough food on the planet. distribution is one of the problems, water is another, land loss due to urban expansion and wind and water erosion, the high cost of inputs and the low returns to farmers, soil fertility loss, there is a whole variety of reasons but there are food shortages. And those reasons aren't going away. Nor are they going to unless some sort of scientific miracle is produced.
We should be focussing n education for farmers or would be gardeners.
lmao Like I said, there's a shortage of lemons in this house at the moment. So that must mean that there's a shortage on the planet, right?
Yep, there are 6 billion others without said shortage. It's localised and temporary. That means the whole planet has enough food and the 1 billion that don't are simply in the wrong localities at this point in time.
Temporarily and in certain areas, yes. But not globally.
Like utilization of the current technology to move the adequate food around, you mean?
Definition of "localised" - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/localised
definition of "temporary" - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/temporary
That's happening. Where have you been?
Lots of tiny farmers around the world could get their produce to market if they had roads. Why grow more if you can't get your excess to market?