Sustainable Living

[LE Greys]

Intensive farming doesn't have to be destructive in the long term. Crop rotation and fallow periods can still be followed. Soil erosion can be avoided with natural vegetation windbreaks. With centrally managed food production, biodiversity can flourish away from the intense agricultural areas.

High yield GM crops, and dare I say it, slaughterless meat and other latent food technologies, promise to solve world hunger, but only that is desired. Without a major paradigm shift its all Pie in the Sky.

It goes without saying that an increasing global population is gonna cause issues. The size of the population isn't the problem to address (there are plenty of undesirable solutions to that one) the problem is feeding and clothing and housing that growing population.

Which makes me wonder what Henry Crabbe would have made of it.

Natural windbreaks (as in hedgerows) are useful, but they were a victim of a combination of policy and mechanisation. There's one particular place locally that really could benefit from a hedge (an exposed ridge) but it was taken out forty or fifty years ago and never went back in. The other problem is that there are finite limits. How far can you spread? Some places are simply impossible to grow crops (upland areas, tundra and so on) but can support animals (be they sheep or reindeer). Eventually, no matter how much you intensify, you run out of space. Ideally, we'll have Mars to spread out to by then, but how far can we go?

One place that has tried deintensification was Zimbabwe, and we can see how well that went.

 

[Nonsense]

The other side of the food coin is self sufficiency. Plenty of scrub land going unused. One of the depots I used to manage had vegetable patches growing along the security perimeter. Land that would otherwise have just be gravel being put to good use.

Flat roofs, sloping roofs too, could have terraced soil troughs growing spuds and radishes etc.

At the other end, waste food and erm, other wastes, can potentially be captured and processed to extract every last joule of energy, while producing a safe fertilizer pellet as a by-product. The supply network just need to be established.

Micro-generation has the potential to kick off too. Feed in Tariff has little returns when everyone starts producing their own power, I don't have much faith in solar PV in Blighty, but what size wind turbine do you need to power a fridge freezer, the odd kettle boil and a wireless hub all day?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Organic foods are superior, but they are labour and land intensive. GM foods and mechanisation is really the only way to ensure that everyone is fed.

Which is exactly my point. You cannot ensure everyone is fed without resorting to riskier (potentially unsustainable in themselves) methods of farming that threaten biodiversity, therefore the human population is too big.

P.S. Organic farms can still be mechanised to a certain extent, just because a farm is organic they don't have to harvest their hay for the winter by hand, horse and cart!

With centrally managed food production, biodiversity can flourish away from the intense agricultural areas.

But, with the size of our population being what it is (and growing), these intense agricultural areas will have to be enlarged, and hence reduce the space left for wildlife. Don't forget either that fish stocks have been massivly reduced due to overfishing, the cause of which, in my opinion, must be at least in part due to an unsustainablly large human population. If we fish the fish to exitinction, we've lost some biodiversity and diversity in our diet and require even more land for agriculture to grow food to replace the fish we used to eat.

the problem is feeding and clothing and housing that growing population.

And as you say there, more housing is needed too. With increasing use of land for housing and agriculture the land left for wildlife gets eaten into more and more.

Micro-generation has the potential to kick off too. Feed in Tariff has little returns when everyone starts producing their own power, I don't have much faith in solar PV in Blighty, but what size wind turbine do you need to power a fridge freezer, the odd kettle boil and a wireless hub all day?

Microgeneration will certainly help with the energy side.

We have solar (PV and water heating, although we think they broke that when they installed the PV, which is a big shame) on the roof, and an 11kW wind turbine. The turbine has produced impressive results, but then we have had a rather windy spell. Despite having a roof full, the solar PV isn't really enough to power much but if you have a field full of them (which do exist in the UK, I went to visit one once that uses a new design of pannel, see their website) you can still generate enough to power a fair few homes.

Alongside micro-generation though, I think the national energy policy should include more nuclear (well, continuation of generation (ie. new reators (ideally bigger in terms of generation) when the current ones are due for decomissioning) at all the existing sites) and tidal stream power (alongside wind of course) to reduce fossil fuel generation. Both would be more reliable than wind and solar although those definatly should form an important part of our electricity mix.

 

[ainsworth74]

Which is exactly my point. You cannot ensure everyone is fed without resorting to riskier (potentially unsustainable in themselves) methods of farming that threaten biodiversity, therefore the human population is too big.

So what do you suggest we do about that?

 

[90019]

So what do you suggest we do about that?

Can we not have a chav cull?

 

[Rhydgaled]

So what do you suggest we do about that?

I think I've already answered that:

When the population of a species that does not have a natural predator starts to get too high and endangers other species that feeds on we would conduct a cull to try and keep both species going. Our own species is having an impact on many others, but there's no way a cull of humans would be morally acceptable so limiting our breeding is the only way.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think I've already answered that:

So a world wide one child policy? Interesting, how do you plan persuading people to go along with that? It only worked (sort of) in China thanks to the fact that it's a brutal dictatorship. How will it work in a democratic society? Or how about countries that decide that they don't want to force their populations to have only one child? And are we therefore going to be forcing abortions on mothers that already have one child? How is that any more morally acceptable than a cull?

 

[LE Greys]

So a world wide one child policy? Interesting, how do you plan persuading people to go along with that? It only worked (sort of) in China thanks to the fact that it's a brutal dictatorship. How will it work in a democratic society? Or how about countries that decide that they don't want to force their populations to have only one child? And are we therefore going to be forcing abortions on mothers that already have one child? How is that any more morally acceptable than a cull?

And there is the question. One answer is development. In developed countries, the population is mostly stable (Britain 1.98 children per family, Germany about 1.4 with the US 2.06). The reason it is not shrinking is that people are living longer, plus a certain ammount of immigration. From what I remember from population dynamics lectures, it's a logistical curve, but caused by factors other than limited food. Perhaps there is not much social pressure to have a big family, people don't have as much time to devote to their children and any other idea you can think of. Still, will other countries "catch up" with this?

 

[Rhydgaled]

So a world wide one child policy? Interesting, how do you plan persuading people to go along with that?

I'm not the polititions who will have to implement it, but that's exactly what has to happen. How, I don't know for sure.

It only worked (sort of) in China thanks to the fact that it's a brutal dictatorship. How will it work in a democratic society? Or how about countries that decide that they don't want to force their populations to have only one child? And are we therefore going to be forcing abortions on mothers that already have one child? How is that any more morally acceptable than a cull?

The rules would have to be very carefully designed. For example, it would have to be a 'one successful pregnacy' rather policy rather than a 'one child policy' to avoid problems with twins/tripplets etc (for males it would have to be 'casuing' one successful pregnancy). Any fertility treatments which cannot be guaranteed to keep the number of children produced to no more than 3 would have to be banned and anyone pregnant at the time the policy is introduced would have to be exempt until they give birth, after which they would be disallowed from having further pregnancies. Rather than forcing abortions, I would suggest mothers and fathers who break the rule be rended infertile*, it is after all they who are guilty not the child they illegally create.

Could the alternative of some form of disaster, be that a mass extinction due to climate change or mass starvation, be described as morally acceptable though? My answer is NO. I don't think I've ever said solving this problem will be easy, only that it has to be solved.

*I don't actually like that part of my own idea. If some sort of raygun could be developed to render people infertile without having to cut them open or even remove their clothing that would be the solution.

 

[Greenback]

In my view, the key word is persuasion. Under the present economic system, it would have to be financially beneficial NOT to have children, or just to have one, rather than to continue to pay additional benefits for extra kids.

There would have to be an allowance for multiple births, but perhaps we should also take a look at the fertility treatment that is so widely available now. Given that the population of humankind is nearing (or has already paased) the unsustainable level, should we really be interfering with nature to give thousands of more couples and singles the opportunity to create more people?

Naturally, such an idea would not sit well with the majority, but at some point some sort of more drastic action is going to have to be taken if we are to survive at all.

 

[ainsworth74]

The rules would have to be very carefully designed. For example, it would have to be a 'one successful pregnacy' rather policy rather than a 'one child policy' to avoid problems with twins/tripplets etc (for males it would have to be 'casuing' one successful pregnancy). Any fertility treatments which cannot be guaranteed to keep the number of children produced would have to be banned and anyone pregnant at the time the policy is introduced would have to be exempt until they give birth, after which they would be disallowed from having further pregnancies. Rather than forcing abortions, I would suggest mothers and fathers who break the rule be rended infertile*, it is after all they who are guilty not the child they illegally create.

Well apart from me finding this whole post repulsive I'm going to again ask how on earth you plan on implementing this? Which politicians in a democracy would enact such legislation when it would cause the end of their political career? Or do you propose that for the greater good we do away with democracy and instead institute a policy of ecologically minded dictatorship (for the greater good of course)? Seriously you will never persuade me to implement policies such as those you've outlined so far and I strongly suspect that I will not be in the minority. Actually continuing on what about those nations that don't agree with such a policy? Do we declare war on them and invade and then force our decision upon them? Or do we perhaps impose economic sanctions/blockade and risk killing millions if we cut them off from food and aid?

Do not think about ducking these questions like you did last time because they need answering if you're even to have a hope in hell of persuading anyone to your point of view. Either that or come up with a plan that doesn't require the state to physically violate it's people (and your 'ray gun' plan still counts as a physical violation).

Could the alternative of some form of disaster, be that a mass extinction due to climate change or mass starvation, be described as morally acceptable though?

Cute, choose famine or government sanctioned birth control as if one is actually more moral than the other.

 

[jon0844]

Long after we're gone, I think it's fair to say that someone will have to begin to make (and action) these tough decisions.

I also think we'll continue to live longer through medical breakthroughs, which will further cause problems (or at the very least mean we must all work until we're over 100). I am sure that the problem then will be people actually not wanting to live (and work) for such a long time, so you may find people actively seeking suicide!

 

[90019]

The rules would have to be very carefully designed. For example, it would have to be a 'one successful pregnacy' rather policy rather than a 'one child policy' to avoid problems with twins/tripplets etc (for males it would have to be 'casuing' one successful pregnancy).

I take it you're aware of the upcoming economic nightmare the one child policy in China has caused, due to creating an ageing population - meaning the much reduced capacity of economically active people have to support a huge proportion of old dependants?

If you want to reduce the total population of the world, that is most definitely not the way to do it. What actually needs done is to find a way for the population to level off first and reach a stable level, before instigating a gradual decrease, be it through economic development, some form of incentive or whatever.
Suddenly having an effective cutting of the economically active population in half will cause a lot more problems in the short to medium term than it will solve in the long term.

 

[ainsworth74]

Thank you 90019 for mentioning that as it's an equally good point and one that had slipped my mind.

 

[Rhydgaled]

In my view, the key word is persuasion. Under the present economic system, it would have to be financially beneficial NOT to have children, or just to have one, rather than to continue to pay additional benefits for extra kids.

I think tackleing child benifit (limiting it to first child with similar caveats to the birth control idea, eg. exempting existing children) would be a good first step. In fact, if all countries had a child benifit mechanisum it might be possible just to use that, and avoid the difficult issues of actually trying to forbid further children.

Naturally, such an idea would not sit well with the majority, but at some point some sort of more drastic action is going to have to be taken if we are to survive at all.

Exactly, very well said.

I take it you're aware of the upcoming economic nightmare the one child policy in China has caused, due to creating an ageing population - meaning the much reduced capacity of economically active people have to support a huge proportion of old dependants?

If you want to reduce the total population of the world, that is most definitely not the way to do it. What actually needs done is to find a way for the population to level off first and reach a stable level, before instigating a gradual decrease, be it through economic development, some form of incentive or whatever.
Suddenly having an effective cutting of the economically active population in half will cause a lot more problems in the short to medium term than it will solve in the long term.

I haven't mentioned it so far, but if you could get international agreement for a birth-limit based population reduction strategy, I think you could reduce the population more gradually in more-developed countries by encouraging immigration from the other areas (hence releasing some areas, like perhaps much of Africa, back to nature).

The eldely dependants is probably still going to be a problem, so maybe I'm wrong that birth control is the way to reduce our population. However, reduce it (somehow) we must.