| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output 14:17 - Jan 21 with 3123 views | StokieBlue |
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2230525-our-current-food-system-can-feed-on
So essentially, the current global food system can feed 3.4bn people sustainably. If we rework to 100% optimals which is clearly impossible then it could feed 10.2bn people sustainably. That includes a large shift away from eating meat.
In 2050 the projected world population is 10bn people. It's hard to argue that population growth isn't the single biggest issue the world faces but it also an incredibly hard one to discuss given the implications. One has to remember that it's not just food, energy requirements scale pretty linearly as well I would think.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |  |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 22:51 - Jan 21 with 658 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
Change the economic model get less people...currently the percentages game means it makes sense to have lots of kids...if one of them makes it financially then your old age is sorted. Less people....less stuff....less energy....win...win....win. Perpetual growth based Catitalism will be the death of us all and our planet! |  |
| |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 22:58 - Jan 21 with 652 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 18:55 - Jan 21 by jeera |
I am sick of the wannabe trolls on here again at the moment.
There has always been an element of trolling, but traditionally it used to be accompanied by some humour and often an underlying truth. Some intelligence involved.
Recently the board has been repeatedly hijacked by idiots just saying stupid things in the hope of some attention.
Not referencing that particular poster, just in general. [Post edited 21 Jan 2020 19:12]
|
Yeah bring back butt updates! | |
| |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 13:11 - Jan 23 with 585 views | J2BLUE |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 15:23 - Jan 21 by monytowbray |
It's amazing IMO how ignorant we've become to our own existence as a species. Drinkable running water is something we could even run out of within the next 200 years if we don't chill out on usage which is literally terrifying, seeing as most people would be dead within 3-5 days in said event. |
People watering their lawns should be a hanging offence. I am still livid with Luke for saying "we pay for it, why not use it?" like he's talking about data on a mobile contract. |  |
| |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 13:21 - Jan 23 with 574 views | StokieBlue |
Interesting article - thanks.
I think that in reality you can create a metric to confirm almost any opinion. There isn't a lot to argue with in there except this:
"The SDI does have some issues. It doesn’t incorporate measures of human rights, and the data isn’t very recent."
That's quite a big thing they have decided to leave out.
I don't think anyone can realistically argue that Western countries don't live outside sustainable levels, it's just people are unlikely to give up a lot of things to bring it in line with what that index says is required. If I am being honest I wouldn't.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 13:29 - Jan 23 with 570 views | itfcjoe |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 13:11 - Jan 23 by J2BLUE |
People watering their lawns should be a hanging offence. I am still livid with Luke for saying "we pay for it, why not use it?" like he's talking about data on a mobile contract. |
Lawns need watering, or they'll die |  |
| |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 13:37 - Jan 23 with 559 views | chicoazul |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 16:46 - Jan 21 by HARRY10 |
Ah yes, just like climate change it is merely a figment of the metropolitan elite's imagination.
So need to do anything, but plenty of reason to pretend nothing is happening. |
No, the fact that our country *can do* anything about climate change is the figment of the metropolitan elites imagination, especially when those elites take 3 flights a year drive cars and encourage the use of enormous server farms.
As James Lovelock says, all we can now do is a managed retreat. |  |
| |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 13:37 - Jan 23 with 556 views | BackToRussia |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 13:21 - Jan 23 by StokieBlue |
Interesting article - thanks.
I think that in reality you can create a metric to confirm almost any opinion. There isn't a lot to argue with in there except this:
"The SDI does have some issues. It doesn’t incorporate measures of human rights, and the data isn’t very recent."
That's quite a big thing they have decided to leave out.
I don't think anyone can realistically argue that Western countries don't live outside sustainable levels, it's just people are unlikely to give up a lot of things to bring it in line with what that index says is required. If I am being honest I wouldn't.
SB |
I find it very odd you'd say that. The article points out many countries with lower gdps have happier and healthier citizens. You wouldn't give up living unsustainably if it possibly meant a nicer life for you and all and also the country not blowing up?
We may as well just give up now with that attitude. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 13:43 - Jan 23 with 555 views | StokieBlue |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 13:37 - Jan 23 by BackToRussia |
I find it very odd you'd say that. The article points out many countries with lower gdps have happier and healthier citizens. You wouldn't give up living unsustainably if it possibly meant a nicer life for you and all and also the country not blowing up?
We may as well just give up now with that attitude. |
That's a very black and white way of looking at things though.
How many members do we have on here who wax lyrical about sustainability and environmental issues then hop on a long haul flight or ask for recommendations for weekends in Spain or something?
I'm also not sure the article says that. It would be a nicer life for the average citizen but that would mean improvement for some and reduction for others - essentially a reversion to the mean.
It points out a few countries. Would you prefer to live in the UK or Chad? Chad is better according to their methodology. Be honest.
None of that means that we shouldn't try and be more sustainable - I certainly would do that, I just think if we are realistic not many are going to go far enough to reach their 14k USD target across the board.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 14:04 - Jan 23 with 540 views | BackToRussia |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 13:43 - Jan 23 by StokieBlue |
That's a very black and white way of looking at things though.
How many members do we have on here who wax lyrical about sustainability and environmental issues then hop on a long haul flight or ask for recommendations for weekends in Spain or something?
I'm also not sure the article says that. It would be a nicer life for the average citizen but that would mean improvement for some and reduction for others - essentially a reversion to the mean.
It points out a few countries. Would you prefer to live in the UK or Chad? Chad is better according to their methodology. Be honest.
None of that means that we shouldn't try and be more sustainable - I certainly would do that, I just think if we are realistic not many are going to go far enough to reach their 14k USD target across the board.
SB |
It's a very simple equation though. The planet is literally going to become uninhabitable soon, certainly for 90% of the population.
I'd much rather live in current day Chad if it meant I knew we were all living sustainably.
I cannot imagine a more selfish answer to say no. You are essentially saying I'll have a good life so those in the future cannot. | |
| |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 14:18 - Jan 23 with 534 views | StokieBlue |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 14:04 - Jan 23 by BackToRussia |
It's a very simple equation though. The planet is literally going to become uninhabitable soon, certainly for 90% of the population.
I'd much rather live in current day Chad if it meant I knew we were all living sustainably.
I cannot imagine a more selfish answer to say no. You are essentially saying I'll have a good life so those in the future cannot. |
I said it was an honest answer, I didn’t say it’s a good one. It’s pragmatic though. For instance just sitting at my desk working is likely going to use more energy than someone somewhere else uses — should I not work?
I said I would be happy to try and live more sustainability but unless it’s a countrywide effort it’s not really possible. Food prices are what they are, transport isn’t good enough to do it, clothes cost what they cost etc. It’s all very well saying you’d do it but in reality it’s much harder than you are making out. Just posting on here burns lots of energy which someone elsewhere in the world won’t be doing. None of that means we shouldn’t try and live more sustainably — you are right and probably a better person than me.
On your first point, that’s simply not true. It will be bad but it won’t be uninhabitable. You are 100% right to highlight it but hyperbole is exactly what the climate deniers want as it’s easier for them to dismiss.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 14:38 - Jan 23 with 526 views | BackToRussia |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 14:18 - Jan 23 by StokieBlue |
I said it was an honest answer, I didn’t say it’s a good one. It’s pragmatic though. For instance just sitting at my desk working is likely going to use more energy than someone somewhere else uses — should I not work?
I said I would be happy to try and live more sustainability but unless it’s a countrywide effort it’s not really possible. Food prices are what they are, transport isn’t good enough to do it, clothes cost what they cost etc. It’s all very well saying you’d do it but in reality it’s much harder than you are making out. Just posting on here burns lots of energy which someone elsewhere in the world won’t be doing. None of that means we shouldn’t try and live more sustainably — you are right and probably a better person than me.
On your first point, that’s simply not true. It will be bad but it won’t be uninhabitable. You are 100% right to highlight it but hyperbole is exactly what the climate deniers want as it’s easier for them to dismiss.
SB |
Portions of it will be uninhabitable. If you push this level of CO2 production for another 50 to 100 years, the planet is not going to be recognisable. Billions will have to die simply because the planet will no longer be able to sustain the population it has. To me that's a fate on a par with the world ending totally.
It will take mass action, not just countrywide but obviously globally. I am not trying to make out I am a better person or even have a lower carbon footprint than you, but I do think anyone not voting for a party advocating a move away from fossil fuels needs to have their head looking at, for instance. Ultimately we need to put pressure on our political leaders to make the changes at state level. But those who do this are suppressed by government-led police forces. So anyone supporting this government is complicit with climate change even if they are a vegan. [Post edited 23 Jan 2020 14:38]
| |
| |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 15:27 - Jan 23 with 519 views | StokieBlue |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 14:38 - Jan 23 by BackToRussia |
Portions of it will be uninhabitable. If you push this level of CO2 production for another 50 to 100 years, the planet is not going to be recognisable. Billions will have to die simply because the planet will no longer be able to sustain the population it has. To me that's a fate on a par with the world ending totally.
It will take mass action, not just countrywide but obviously globally. I am not trying to make out I am a better person or even have a lower carbon footprint than you, but I do think anyone not voting for a party advocating a move away from fossil fuels needs to have their head looking at, for instance. Ultimately we need to put pressure on our political leaders to make the changes at state level. But those who do this are suppressed by government-led police forces. So anyone supporting this government is complicit with climate change even if they are a vegan. [Post edited 23 Jan 2020 14:38]
|
Totally agree that it's a global issue (that was the thrust of my point) and you are absolutely correct that pressure needs to be put on the government of not just the UK but everywhere.
I do think the message is starting to sink in, targets are being set although perhaps with too long a time frame for many. There really is no need to somewhere like the UK to use fossil fuels, a combination of renewable and nuclear could work very well. The elephant in the room is the millions of gas boilers on which something will need to be done.
The issue is how to convince China, USA and India which make up the vast majority of emissions. Africa might be able to totally skip fossil fuels much like they have skipped cabled phone infrastructure and jumped straight to mobile/wireless.
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 15:49 - Jan 23 with 508 views | StokieBlue |
| This is pretty depressing with regards to global food output on 14:38 - Jan 23 by BackToRussia |
Portions of it will be uninhabitable. If you push this level of CO2 production for another 50 to 100 years, the planet is not going to be recognisable. Billions will have to die simply because the planet will no longer be able to sustain the population it has. To me that's a fate on a par with the world ending totally.
It will take mass action, not just countrywide but obviously globally. I am not trying to make out I am a better person or even have a lower carbon footprint than you, but I do think anyone not voting for a party advocating a move away from fossil fuels needs to have their head looking at, for instance. Ultimately we need to put pressure on our political leaders to make the changes at state level. But those who do this are suppressed by government-led police forces. So anyone supporting this government is complicit with climate change even if they are a vegan. [Post edited 23 Jan 2020 14:38]
|
Just saw this which you might find interesting:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/MtJYmYFONq/finland_carbon_neutral_in_15_years
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
