Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 15 May '09 11:11 / 4 edits
    I have been continually worried about the possibility of a world famine occurring because our world agriculture is so economically dependent on oil that when the oil finally becomes too scarce we simply not be able to produce enough to eat unless we adapt by getting rid of our economic dependency on oil (I think I already made a thread about this but cannot seem to find it).

    Now I have found this link that makes me think that global warming ALONE might cause a world famine EVEN completely ignoring the problem of our agriculture‘s economic dependency on oil:

    http://www.stoweboyd.com/ground/2009/01/the-third-horse.html

    -yet another reason to do urgent research and development into renewables to get rid of our dependency on oil as SOON as possible!
  2. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    15 May '09 11:48
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    I have been continually worried about the possibility of a world famine occurring because our world agriculture is so economically dependent on oil that when the oil finally becomes too scarce we simply not be able to produce enough to eat unless we adapt by getting rid of our economic dependency on oil (I think I already made a thread about this but ...[text shortened]... esearch and development into renewables to get rid of our dependency on oil as SOON as possible!
    I think the world will be a far better place if 80% of mankind starves to death.
  3. Standard member Bosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    15 May '09 12:00
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I think the world will be a far better place if 80% of mankind starves to death.
    I've been digging underground for the last twelve years. Contact me if you need cans.
  4. 15 May '09 18:38
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I think the world will be a far better place if 80% of mankind starves to death.
    As of May 2009, the Earth's population is estimated to be about 6.77 billion.
    80% of 6.77 billion people is 5.416 billion people.
    Personally I would not like to trust my luck that I wouldn’t be part of that 80%.
    For a famine to starve to death 5.416 billion people would be unprecedented to say the least.
    Not sure if it would solve all the problem of dependency on oil for the remainder of the population -sure the 20% of the remaining population would consume oil at 20% of the rate of total consumption rate of the original 100%, but I presume many of the people that were working to find economical alternatives to oil (mainly scientists) would be killed off by such a famine and the remaining ones may not get any further funding for their work because of the economic collapse so this may make it even harder to get rid of our dependency on oil. So my guess is life wouldn’t be much easier for the survivors of such a disaster.
  5. 15 May '09 18:53
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I think the world will be a far better place if 80% of mankind starves to death.
    Maybe. But at least the world is a better place now compared to when there were only 1 billion people around.
  6. 15 May '09 19:04
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Maybe. But at least the world is a better place now compared to when there were only 1 billion people around.
    that is true

    I think the original post is wrong...the same question was asked around the turn of the last century...And it was more of a problem then as farmers had to rotate fields in order to grow crops, limiting land.

    Fertiliser solved the problem you can grow tons of crops all year round , even in poor soil, we over produce food already.
  7. 15 May '09 19:21 / 10 edits
    Originally posted by Black Star Uchess
    that is true

    I think the original post is wrong...the same question was asked around the turn of the last century...And it was more of a problem then as farmers had to rotate fields in order to grow crops, limiting land.

    Fertiliser solved the problem you can grow tons of crops all year round , even in poor soil, we over produce food already.
    …Fertiliser solved the problem you can grow tons of crops all year round , even in poor soil, we over produce food already.
    ..…


    Are you aware that the manufacture of these chemical fertilisers are totally dependent on the burning of fossil fuels? One of the main chemical fertilisers and probably the most important for maximising crop yields is ammonium nitrate which is manufactured using the Haber process:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

    This requires high temperatures and pressures that currently can only be achieved by guzzling loads of fossil fuels.
    -to cut a long explanation short: unless we find alternatives and adapt, when the oil runs out so will the fertiliser (and not just ammonium nitrate) and then the food (at least for most of us).

    In addition, fossil fuels are needed to both fuel and manufacture tractors, harvesters etc AND also to transport the harvested food (else it may just be left to rot in the field) AND in some cases to do essential processing of the food (such as drying wheat so that it doesn't rot in storage and then grind up wheat to turn it into usable flour) -so when the oil runs out, unless we find alternatives and adapt, every part of modern farming and food production will come to a complete standstill (this is why I am worried).

    I should know -I have a C&G in horticulture and have been a farm labourer for a few decades and briefly have even been a farmer myself.
  8. Standard member uzless
    The So Fist
    15 May '09 20:28
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I think the world will be a far better place if 80% of mankind starves to death.
    If someone were to surmise that the world's problems would be much easier to deal with if the world population were massively decreased what would be the most effective and least environmentally damaging way of doing it?

    Some would say a virus perhaps?

    And what would be the most efficient way of transmitting that virus?

    Some would say by having humans transmit it to each other willingly...but how do you get humans to willingly transmit a virus?

    A virus transmitted through sex would do the trick! Now, are there any viruses that are transmitted through sex that can kill people? For a long time there wasn't really anything like that.

    Is there anything like that now?
  9. 16 May '09 10:14 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by uzless
    If someone were to surmise that the world's problems would be much easier to deal with if the world population were massively decreased what would be the most effective and least environmentally damaging way of doing it?

    Some would say a virus perhaps?

    And what would be the most efficient way of transmitting that virus?

    Some would say by having hu ...[text shortened]... ? For a long time there wasn't really anything like that.

    Is there anything like that now?
    …Is there anything like that now?
    ..…


    You are talking about AIDS.
    But I don’t think AIDS will kill off enough of those pesty humans unless it mutates to spread like the common cold.
    -maybe swine flue would do the trick if it mutates into something really nasty?
  10. 17 May '09 03:15
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I think the world will be a far better place if 80% of mankind starves to death.
    Starves to death or maybe some kind of killer flu or something. I'm sure the NWO is working on both right now.
  11. 17 May '09 03:44
    http://www.forces.org/Multimedia_Portal/index.php?selection=174

    Don't loose sleep over global warming. Just a scam by the UN. Gonna get them carbon taxes.
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    17 May '09 04:25
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    http://www.forces.org/Multimedia_Portal/index.php?selection=174

    Don't loose sleep over global warming. Just a scam by the UN. Gonna get them carbon taxes.
    I once taught a high school science class, where I showed the class "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on consecutive days; really more as a lesson in critical thinking than in anything else.

    Interestingly, I took a poll afterwards and the students were more convinced by the latter than by the former.

    Although I'm sure both exaggerated and both were motivated at least partially by politics, unfortunately, I believe that the former is closer to the truth.
  13. 17 May '09 04:33 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    I once taught a high school science class, where I showed the class "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on consecutive days; really more as a lesson in critical thinking than in anything else.

    Interestingly, I took a poll afterwards and the students were more convinced by the latter than by the former.

    Although I'm sure both exa ...[text shortened]... ast partially by politics, unfortunately, I believe that the former is closer to the truth.
    About 10 years or so ago I watched a scientific documentary about global warming on PBS. I wish I could remember the scientists name so I could look it up now, but he went through his entire lecture and showed the evidence from ice cores, tree rings etc... that sunspot activity was the cause of climate change. It was very convincing. I would watch it again if I could figure out who it was. Most arguments don't really show evidence concerning the matter. Just a lot of scare tactics and emotion.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    17 May '09 04:35
    Originally posted by sh76
    I once taught a high school science class, where I showed the class "An Inconvenient Truth" and "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on consecutive days; really more as a lesson in critical thinking than in anything else. Interestingly, I took a poll afterwards and the students were more convinced by the latter than by the former.
    How did you handle it in terms of it being a lesson in critical thinking?

    You gave them material that you admit was exaggerated and motivated partially by politics and then took a poll.

    How did you turn this exercise into something beneficial for this high school science class?
  15. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    17 May '09 05:53
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    About 10 years or so ago I watched a scientific documentary about global warming on PBS. I wish I could remember the scientists name so I could look it up now, but he went through his entire lecture and showed the evidence from ice cores, tree rings etc... that sunspot activity was the cause of climate change. It was very convincing. I would watch it agai ...[text shortened]... ents don't really show evidence concerning the matter. Just a lot of scare tactics and emotion.
    All we know is that it is getting warmer. That evidence is overwhelming: glaciers retreating, permafrost melting, polar bears suffering due to less pack ice, heat-loving plants expanding their ranges northward.

    Unfortunately, that's about all we know for sure.

    We don't know why it is happening.
    We don't know how the planetary ecosystem will react.
    We don't know if we could or should try to reverse the trend.