[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: China and Food (was Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy)



On 24 Nov 1996 02:09:16 GMT, "Mike Asher" <masher@tusc.net> wrote:

>J McGinnis <sync@inforamp.net> wrote:
>> 
>> You bring up an important point though: if these fluctuations were to
>> stop being balanced from year to year, it would not likely be for the
>> better. Improvements in production yields are made slowly and are
>> quantifiable, natural and manmade disasters are not.
>
>Improvements in production yields are not neccesarily made slowly.  During
>a 15 year span from 1940 to 1955, the US increased potato yields from 8200
>lbs/acre to 18,300 lbs/acre, an increase of 123%, which far outstripped
>population increases.  Current production has risen even further, to 27,500
>lbs/acre.   

Any productivity gains are achieved slowly in comparison to natural
and manmade disasters.  How much more food China can produce is
dependent on many factors, not the least of which is the fact that
they don't grow potatoes. The job of making sense out of these factors
is left to organizations such as IFPRI, which is why I quoted their
study, and not increases in potato yields halfway around the earth on
land more suited to agriculture than most.

Huge increases in yields in the past and our belief that they are
neverending are what have created a complacent attitude towards other
issues just as important, such as: cropland depletion,
desertification, over-fishing, depletion of non-renewable irrigation
waters, loss of bio-diversity, and massive environmental problems such
as global warming and the results of yield increasing efforts such as
the 'green revolution'. Not to mention over-consumption.

All of these things affect our food supply, and as there's no profit
in facing these problems, they will not be solved by the free market.
In most cases there's profit in contributing to them.

We have depended on increasing yields to compensate for these problems
so far, but they can't increase forever. No surprise that yields are
already high, considering that the current amount of cropland per
person is one-sixth the size of a soccer field, (source: Worldwatch
Institute).

As far as China is concerned, their impact to our environment  - and
possibly world food supply - COULD be devestating. It depends on the
extent to which they accept responsibility for the things we in the
west generally have not.

What will we say when they knock a hole the size of North America in
the ozone layer? Thats OK, we've been doing it for years?

>> I guess 550 million in 1989 increasing to 840 million in 1996 doesn't
>> qualify as 'almost double', but hell, you can only expect so much
>> progress in 7 years (sic).

>I seem to recall WHO figures of 990 million in 1986.  Perhaps you can
>support your statement with a source?  

The numbers are from the FAO, (UN's Food and Agricultural
Organization, responsible for the recent conference in Rome). I doubt
that the WHO - also a UN Organization - would have such different
numbers. I got them from hardcopy, but you can probably find these
figures and more at http://www.fao.org

>Also, your use of 'sic' seems to be
>improper; who are you quoting here?

Anyone who would believe that to be progress.


Jason McGinnis



Follow-Ups: References: