Feeding 9 bln people by 2050

[begood]

Here's "cottons" link again. The speaker is old but smart, very meek, well spoken, well seasoned and watch the series. If you have a brain and can use it you will be impressed. If not then please tell uspresents compelling arguments. He invites listeners to show where he might be in error. Please tell everyonewhere he is wrong. First you'd have to watch it;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY



and cYou'll be impresses and

[begood]

Perhaps charliep could critically review the youtube videos referred to above; and report back to agri-ville.


This isn't a matter of being to controversial to have an opinion on. Put you reputations on the line; because its the central point that all other production and economics questions are focused around.

[charliep]

The rule of 70 ( I have use 72) works. It will tell you how long it takes to
double your money on an investment. Invest at 6 % and it takes 12 years
to double your money. 24 % and it takes 3 years. A world population that
is growing at 2 % will double every 36 years.

For your point, I don't think world population is necessary growing
exponentially but more linearly. Things like more use of birth control and
aging populations are reducing birth rates in the developed world.

Regardless of how you calculate, world population is growing - just a
discussion about how fast. Improving diets/more meat, urbanization,
non food uses are also increasing crop consumption. I have an
interesting graph that relates world population growth, crop production
and adoption of new technology (increased use fertilizer, hybrid crops,
reduced tillage/better seeding technology, introduction biotech, etc. Will
be interesting the next technology that jumps crop production over the
next 40 years. I think will be around water use/ability to adapt to
variable weather/climate but that is only a guess.

[burnt]

begood proves best that the limits to arrogance have yet to be established . . .

[FarmRanger]

Some people are good at math, but not so good
with biology.
"Birth rate
Death rate
Sex ratio of offspring
Age of first reproduction
Life span"
If none of these things change, then we would be
over-run. For those that think our birth rate is too
high, in Canada we need immigration just to
maintain our population. Something to think
about.

[begood]

My bet still is that not even a handful of people have watched the video. If you did; what do you think about the points raised?

[begood]

"A world population that
is growing at 2 % will double every 36 years.

For your point, I don't think world population is necessary growing
exponentially but more linearly".

Your reply adds to the discussion charles. But with linear growth there should be 2% more for each of 36 years and end up with a 72% increase. You agree that we are looking at doubling numbers in 36 years and that is a logarithmic rate; not a linear one. (the difference between 72% and 100% growth) That what gets us into trouble in the long run.
Here's proof in a simple example. You agree to work for a farmer for one month. The first day he will pay you 1 cent. Each following day for the month he will pay you twice as much as the previous day ie. two cents for the second days work and 4 cents for the third day etc. Sounds like its going to be a bargain for the employer. You will be suprised to find the astronomical sum that is owed for that month's work. That's the power of doubling and any growth rate above zero percent. It isn't sustainable in the long run.
And growth is insane once you have reached the point where growth is already causing problems that aren't currently able to be adequately handled.

[begood]

Charlie The only time the growth looks "linear" is when you plot the data on logarithmic paper and get a near straight line fit to the data. That "Straight line" doesn't have anything to do with linear growth.
I certainly stand to be corrected; but if correct then it would be helpful to not have to keep arguing this important basis of fact.

[charliep]

When I look at a population graph, the growth line looks fairly stable. Haven't done the math but I suspect that world population is growing at a decreasing rate - not exponential or compounded. An example for 20 % of the world population is China's one child policy. The professor talks about this in his presentation. As others have highlighted, you also have to do the analysis of declining birth rates and reduced mortality/an aging population.

Regardless, more food is needed. Add in the non food uses of crops (biofuels, etc.) and the trend is the need to produce more.

[charliep]

"But there are so few humans that can comprehend those facts".
No actually evryone gets it.Warren Buffet explained this to me along time ago.I watched the first two videos and I'm not objecting to the idea of exponential growth,rather you inserting your humanist world view on your fist post.Is there something in video 3-8 that I must see?

[cottonpicken]

One way of looking at things is the question what is
the stocking rate of the globe(sort of like how many
cows can you fit into a section of land)

If i remember correctly we are at 125 people per
square mile.Thats all the land above water.

Take off the
deserts,tundra,jungles,mountains,etc,etc and your
left with not much.

My logic tells me we are going to have very,very big
problems and planning now is probably a good
idea.

[cottonpicken]

Sorry guys my last post was directed more a Begood.

[charliep]

A quick web tool that calculates population in the future based on current growth rates.

Current world population about 7.1 bln people. From the calculator, world population will be about 8.2 bln people on June 10, 2011. Don't know if accurate but a way of looking at it.

[URL="http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop"]world population[/URL]

[charliep]

Oops. Population on June 10, 2021 - 8.2 bln.

[begood]

NFU You probably wouldn't get any more out of the other 6 videos rthan you did from the first two. How much of the first two did you comprehend anyway.
One thing you could get over is your hangup over aethism. Funny how an aethist might tolerate your religious beliefs; but a religious zealot like yourself is not capable of the same experience. If there is a heaven for you; then I hope that attitude doesn't gain you any points.