[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: The Limits To Growth
-
Subject: Re: The Limits To Growth
-
From: Jim Wright <jwright@agt.net>
-
Date: 12 Nov 1996 05:45:13 GMT
-
Article: 15780 of alt.sustainable.agriculture
-
Newsgroups: alt.agriculture.misc, alt.org.earth-first, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics.greens, alt.save.the.earth, alt.sustainable.agriculture, sci.agriculture, sci.econ, sci.energy, sci.environment, talk.environment
-
Organization: TELUS Communications Inc.
-
References: <542t7d$iep@rainbow.rmii.com> <32665F05.112@ilhawaii.net> <JMC.96Nov10090026@Steam.stanford.edu> <565ehv$qm9@agate.berkeley.edu> <01bbcf5b$bd8e1700$89d0d6cc@masher>
-
Xref: newz.oit.unc.edu alt.agriculture.misc:6314 alt.org.earth-first:6346 alt.politics.economics:92159 alt.politics.greens:23163 alt.save.the.earth:25254 alt.sustainable.agriculture:15780 sci.agriculture:15654 sci.econ:59894 sci.energy:57604 sci.environment:111035 talk.environment:76277
"Mike Asher" <masher@tusc.net> wrote:
>Scott Susin <ssusin@emily11.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>>
>> How long has fish farming been around for? Shouldn't we be able
>> to look at historical prices and tell if it's making much difference?
>>
>
>Large-scale fish farming will become practical if and when demand pushes
>prices to appropriate levels. It may never happen if we keep producing
>cheaper rice, grain, chicken, and other staples at the rate of the past few
>decades.
>
>People who claim we'll empty the oceans of fish, then turn around and cry
>doom over exponential models of human growth, are amusing. Even heavily
>overfished areas can be restored in a very few years; such areas become
>incredibly fertile breeding grounds.
Mike, I know of several countries who would love your expertise in this
area.
Competition and predators decrease,
>while food supply increases. Larger, slower-breeding fish will decline in
>demand as lower-priced, more efficient species dominate the market.
That's an interesting application of economic ideology to biological
systems. There was a guy named Lysenko who tried the same thing in the
USSR with disappointing results.
While the biology is complex, I suspect the ones that survive and
prosper under overfishing will be the ones of little economic value
and/or whose reproductive cycle isn't disrupted as much by over-fishing.
These *efficient* fish will be, by definition, less valuable to us.
>
>If and when fish farming predominates, and we abandon the hunter-gatherer
>system of ocean use, expect to see the same sort of production increases
>land agriculture has shown.
You may be right, but I think that the analogy with the potato is
strained. Most increases in agricultural production have been as much
>from the availability of cheap fossil fuel energy as from technology.
And there's little relationship between the technology required to
increase potato productivity and implement a productive fish farming
culture. Leaving aside the use of non-renewable energy, the efficient
conversion of solar energy into food by either means depends on factors
unique to each, I think.
As an example, let me quote some statistics on
>a food staple for many years, the potato:
>
>Year Yield/Acre (in 1000 lbs)
>1500's 2 (estimated)
>1920 7.5
>1950 16.5
>1960 20.8
>1970 24.6
>1985 27.5
>
>Tremendous increases, although the curve is obviously approaching an
>asymptote. Rice, another staple, has recently seen the introduction of new
>high-yield species and is increasing along similar lines. Dozens of
>companies are creating new species of fruits and vegetables; expect another
>yield explosion here within the next decade.
Assuming it isn't counteracted by a decline in the availability of
cheap fossil fuels, an equally plausible scenario.
>
>Agricultural productivity is a major influence in living standards. When
>the average farmer could produce only enough food to feed one family, the
>entire world must farm (A situation very close to ancient history, where
>even politicians and warriors were required to farm, lest they starve.)
>The declining number of American farmers-- so bemoaned in certain
>segments-- is actually symptomatic of the heath of the nation's
>agricultural sector.
Actually "health" is subjective. More accurately it reflects the
role of economic efficiency in determining farm numbers, and they
are certainly that, although I would argue that they aren't particularly
efficient users of resources, due to flaws in the way our economic
system prices non-renewable energy.
Food production is increasing faster than population
>levels.
Are you sure? Global food stocks are said to be the lowest in recent
history. Of course we may be creating a system where we are keeping
very low inventories while food production rises fast, so I won't argue
the point.
>
>As an aside, I will note that the majority of agricultural land in the
>world is farmed with low-tech inefficient methods. Expantion of the use of
>modern agriculture, new species, and good infrastructure, can more than
>double world food production.
And yet is isn't happening fast enough to prevent widespread poverty
and starvation?? Always something to puzzle about!!
All without an additional acre being farmed,
>though, in the US at least, agricultural land usage has been on the decline
>for many years.
I guess if the malnourished in the poorer parts of the world could
bid of the price of food, that would change, would it not?
Perhaps you have some statistics here?
See anon quote below.
>
>Mike Asher
>masher@tusc.net
>
>"Economists quote their GNP predictions to the 1/10 point to show they have
>a sense of humor..."
> - Unknown.
>
>
Follow-Ups:
References: