Re: [asa] A Sustainable Future and Exponential growth

Ken said: 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.

I respond: Yes, Ken, I agree with you 110%. I tried to nuance my mention
of markets when I said "regulated" markets. There is no doubt, I think,
that some fundamental changes are required in the international trade and
health care systems in order to produce greater equity for developing and
least developed economies. I've published on this with respect to access to
essential medicines: *Patents, Essential Medicines, and the Innovation Game
* <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=458620>, 58 Vanderbilt
Law Review 501 (2005). I hope you can see that I'm not a market
fundamentalist, nor by any stretch to I mean to suggest that the U.S. and
Europe and their multinational corporations have always played fair.

And David S., I think I was clear in agreeing that clean water is in fact a
problem in many places and that pollution and global warming contribute to
these problems.

What I can't agree with, however, is the notion that human over-population
is the fundamental driver of these problems, or that any sort of population
control measures are an acceptable or necessary public policy alternative.
IMHO, population control as public policy is always totalitarian, and the
rhetoric of population control always tends to devalue human life. That
said, I think there is a place for education about sexuality and birth
control (but not, to be clear, abortion), particularly among at risk girls
and women in traditionally male-dominated cultures. But I think this must
be voluntary and framed in terms of women's health and not in terms of
population control.

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:51 AM, Kenneth Piers <Pier@calvin.edu> wrote:

> 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.
Received on Mon May 19 09:49:51 2008