Re: [asa] A Sustainable Future and Exponential growth

Friends: David O wrote:
>I respond: I think you're fundamentally wrong on this, Ken. We produce
more than enough food to feed the world right now. In the U.S. alone, we
throw away about 96 billion pounds of food each year (see:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/18/us-wastes-27-of-food.html) And
regulated market economies are not zero sum games -- more demand results
in more supply which produces more jobs, though things like negative
externalites and social safety nets have to be carefully regulated.

The basic problem is not the technological / physical capabilities re:
food production, nor is it that there are too many people to sustain
markets (the latter is basically impossible). For the most part, the
problems are political, sociological, and not to put too fine a point on
it, sinful. Totalitarian governments don't free people up to become
productive; corrupt officials steal aid; and some
cultural/social/religious structures are oppressive. Mitigate those
problems, and many of the other problems will start to resolve.

As to Dave S.'s point concerning fresh water -- I'd submit that the core
problem here also is not one of capacity. Through World Vision, for
about $1000, you can have a well dug in a third world villiage that will
solve fresh water problems for a hundred people. Where there are genuine
problems with access to wells, they usually could be solved
technologically if the social and political situation would permit it.

None of this is to say that pollution and global warming aren't real
problems that could indeed impact capacity seriously. But the solution
to such problems is not population control.<

REPLY: A few comments: First, please note that I said that our current food
and ECONOMIC systems were being pushed to the limit to produce adequate food
for 6.5 billion people. Even now people in more than a dozen countries are
suffering food deprivation due to high prices. The economic system in the
developed west severely distorts the food producing capacities of the world.
Much of the land in food-poor countries is devoted to growing food and other
materials for export to the developed world. The Brazilian rain forest is under
attack due to the demand for beef and soybean exports. And here in the US we
have undertaken an ill-conceived venture in producing ethanol form corn - again
distorting food producing capacities and helping to produce higher food prices
at home and abroad. Worldwide grain and rice reserves are down to record lows.
I agree that if we changed the way our economic system works with respect to
food and food production and if we changed our diets significantly to reduce
demand for meat, the world has sufficient capacity to produce food adequate for
all people on the globe today.
A second comment relates to energy resources. As far as I can see every future
possibility for providing for food the human population depends on the
availability of a cheap and non-polluting primary energy system. Today’s
fossil fuel based culture will have to transition to something more sustainable
- both for reasons of supply and for reasons of climate. This, I think, is the
most critical issue facing modern civilization. It is more critical even than
climate change because the impacts of peak oil are already being strongly felt
in the energy markets and energy policy lies at the root of many if not most of
the foreign policy initiatives being undertaken by the world’s major powers.
The full effects of climate change will not be felt until much later this
century, although addressing carbon emissions now seems urgent. Without
adequate energy, our capacity to produce food will be challenged and the
ability to ship it long distances to foreign markets will likely be curtailed.
Finally, with respect to water resources, although there are adequate fresh
water supplies globally to accommodate human needs, such water supplies are
extremely unevenly distributed and some of them (glaciers) are currently
melting away and streaming into the oceans. In northern China, the water table
is under severe attack and China is currently constructing an aqueduct to
transport water from the south to the north. In Africa, Lake Chad is down to
less than 10% of its former size. In the SW USA Lake Mead at current depletion
rates will be down to 10% of its maximum capacity by 2050. In the SE USA Lake
Lanier is under heavy threat due to drought. Still all these water problems are
potentially solvable given an adequate supply of primary energy. With energy
availability we could always resort to desalination to provide clean fresh
water. But without adequate energy resources this becomes much more
problematic.
To conclude. I am not an anti-technologist. I don’t believe that we can make
our way into the future without creative and productive technologies. The
question that needs to be addressed is what kind of technologies should we
pursue? The fossil-fuel-based technologies of the 20th century will almost
surely pass away in the 21st century. What will replace them? ken

Ken Piers

"We are by nature creatures of faith, as perhaps all creatures are; we live by
counting on things that cannot be proved. As creatures of faith, we must choose
either to be religious or superstitious, to believe in things that cannot be
proved or to believe in things that can be disproved."
Wendell Berry

>>> "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> 5/18/2008 11:59 PM >>>
There are parts of Africa where a well can be readily sunk. However, this
is not every place in Africa, and the Sahel is steadily expanding.
Additionally, local agriculture depends, for the most part, on local
rains, and there are periodic droughts. Right now there are strong
indications that global warming will disrupt current water supplies. And
I'd like you to explain to Israelies and Jordanians that all they have to
do is drill a well.

Yes, there are supplies of food in other parts of the world, but there is
a problem getting it to the places of need in a timely fashion, even
where there is good will. Now try Somalia and Myanmar.
Dave (ASA)

On Sun, 18 May 2008 20:52:44 -0400 "David Opderbeck"
<dopderbeck@gmail.com> writes:
Ken said: Our current food and economic systems are being pushed to
their limits to provide adequate food materials for 6.5 billion people.

I respond: I think you're fundamentally wrong on this, Ken. We produce
more than enough food to feed the world right now. In the U.S. alone, we
throw away about 96 billion pounds of food each year (see:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/18/us-wastes-27-of-food.html) And
regulated market economies are not zero sum games -- more demand results
in more supply which produces more jobs, though things like negative
externalites and social safety nets have to be carefully regulated.

The basic problem is not the technological / physical capabilities re:
food production, nor is it that there are too many people to sustain
markets (the latter is basically impossible). For the most part, the
problems are political, sociological, and not to put too fine a point on
it, sinful. Totalitarian governments don't free people up to become
productive; corrupt officials steal aid; and some
cultural/social/religious structures are oppressive. Mitigate those
problems, and many of the other problems will start to resolve.

As to Dave S.'s point concerning fresh water -- I'd submit that the core
problem here also is not one of capacity. Through World Vision, for
about $1000, you can have a well dug in a third world villiage that will
solve fresh water problems for a hundred people. Where there are genuine
problems with access to wells, they usually could be solved
technologically if the social and political situation would permit it.

None of this is to say that pollution and global warming aren't real
problems that could indeed impact capacity seriously. But the solution
to such problems is not population control.

(And as to Dave S.'s skepticism about colonies on Mercury -- well, sure,
but Dave W. was talking a billion years from now. My guess is that if
humans are around in our present creation then, we'll be well beyond this
solar system).

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law
Seton Hall University Law School
Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology 
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.