SHOULDN'T WE BE SERIOUSLY STOPPING OUR POPULATION GROWTH?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rammypluge

My impression is that most of the ancient advanced civilisations that died, did so due to growing too much and incurring environmental catastrophes, such as soil salinity or draining the water table.

---

And drought.
5 ancient civilizations that were destroyed by climate change | MNN - Mother Nature Network
You'll note, these civilisations collapsed when the CO2 in the atmosphere was at pre industrial levels. This proves climate change has been going on for millennia and will continue to do so. The climate isn't as stable as we, with our extremely short lives, think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hd_lWdVNi_...+australia.jpg

I like that picture.Not sure if it's accurate, but its interesting.

I still think we could support a higher population on less usable land, but we'd have to get a lot smarter about landuse and put community survival ahead of individual selfishness, which probably won't happen, human nature being what it is.
If we all became vegans, grew all our vegan food in factories and put public transport and renewable energy first, it could happen, but it would certainly be a different lifestyle. Of course, if things get really bad, we might not have any other choice.

---

Don't care how bad it gets, I really hope I'm dead by the time everyone has to become Vegan. I couldn't imagine it getting much worse than that...[biggrin]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

We're already one degree hotter and rapidly heading for 2 degrees, possibly in my remaining lifetime. That means the land is already getting hotter and drier and the desert is spreading. Droughts are no longer unusual, they are the new normal. People are already moving from the inland to the coastal fringe. Decentralisation is a myth. The opposite is happening.
Meanwhile the ocean is already warming and rising as the ice melts. The coral reefs are dying. As the water comes up the population will be forced back onto higher land. More of our continent will be submerged and there will be less dry land.
We still export most of the food we produce, but we also import a lot of food. If our food imports were threatened by war or because source societies have collapsed or crops have failed, then we would be in serious trouble.
Climate change, crop failure and wars have already caused about 60 million people to leave their homes and that is becoming worse every day, which will continue. Books are already being written predicting worse wars over fresh water and food. It's already happening.

---

I'm at a loss as to why WE would be in serious trouble, shouldn't that be the other way around?

What will bring us undone is the lack of fertile usable land and the farmers to farm it. We have a tendency to pic the best land to build housing estates on, leaving the crap to be farmed, which as we all know, just gets left to the weeds and grows nothing.

That's true, we're pretty dumb with our landuse choices.

'Don't call it a disaster': how to change the conversation about drought | Environment | The Guardian

In terms of arable land and water availability, australia actually has significant untapped opportunities. If push came to shove we could do all sorts of things in affluent western civilisations. At the extreme end australia could just dig up its uranium and coal and use it to desalinate, and use earthmoving equipment to make more suitable land (after all that is already unused is used). In terms of geoengineering(?), we are keeping it pretty tame so far. Thankfully.

It's a shame big business is still putting profits ahead of the greater picture.

When Tony Galati entered the Ord River Scheme he had a great vision.( Galati Group walks away from Kimberley's Ord Irrigation Scheme, leasing mango and banana operations to interstate growers - ABC Rural - ABC News ) but when companies are undercutting you by selling below cost on the major item you've just invested $50M in, you can't afford to sit there and bleed money for 5 years.

Big business is a part of the big problem here for sure.

Unfortunately, as seen here, there's a whole lot more to it than having all the ingredients such as arable land, water and supply chain. Tony has all those things, but he runs a business, and has to make a profit.

There's no reason we couldn't grow a lot more food right here in our cities. Animals can be bred in much smaller land areas if we concentrate their food supplies instead of relying on them free range foraging to survive. Once the hard hoofed animals are moved off marginal land it can recover and also grow food. Mixed cropping is more productive and resists diseases better than mono-cropping, with cotton being a prime example of an extremely wasteful landuse.
There are lots of better ways to use our land more productively.
One theory is to increase centralisation of our population in urban areas, intensively farm the freed up better quality rural land and return the bulk of the land to being nature reserves. Overall, society would be better off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russrobe

It's a shame big business is still putting profits ahead of the greater picture.

---

illegal for them not to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

There's no reason we couldn't grow a lot more food right here in our cities. Animals can be bred in much smaller land areas if we concentrate their food supplies instead of relying on them free range foraging to survive. Once the hard hoofed animals are moved off marginal land it can recover and also grow food. Mixed cropping is more productive and resists diseases better than mono-cropping, with cotton being a prime example of an extremely wasteful landuse.
There are lots of better ways to use our land more productively.
One theory is to increase centralisation of our population in urban areas, intensively farm the freed up better quality rural land and return the bulk of the land to being nature reserves. Overall, society would be better off.

---

Animals can be bred in much smaller land areas if we concentrate their food supplies instead of relying on them free range foraging to survive. Already done - it's called "feedlotting" and produces huge amounts of toxic waste, and meat that will eventually kill you.

Once the hard hoofed animals are moved off marginal land it can recover and also grow food. Most of that marginal land is used for grazing because it is too marginal to grow crops and/or vegetables in anywhere near an economic manner.

Mixed cropping is more productive and resists diseases better than mono-cropping It also costs a lot more to do on a large scale - which is why mono-cropping is popular.

with cotton being a prime example of an extremely wasteful landuse. Cotton employs many more people in rural Australia than other types of farming. It is also the best cash return of all agricultural enterprises. Not to mention the economic stimulus it provides in many regional towns, which would die without it.

One theory is to increase centralisation of our population in urban areas Yep, that's working really well now, what with high crime rates, pollution, traffic congestion, etc.

intensively farm the freed up better quality rural land and return the bulk of the land to being nature reserves. Overall, society would be better off. So the nature reserves will make up for the land degradation and habitat destruction that the intensive farming will cause?

Unfortunately, the simple-seeming solutions are often not the best once the cruel light of day is shone upon them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donh54

Animals can be bred in much smaller land areas if we concentrate their food supplies instead of relying on them free range foraging to survive. Already done - it's called "feedlotting" and produces huge amounts of toxic waste, and meat that will eventually kill you.

Once the hard hoofed animals are moved off marginal land it can recover and also grow food. Most of that marginal land is used for grazing because it is too marginal to grow crops and/or vegetables in anywhere near an economic manner.

Mixed cropping is more productive and resists diseases better than mono-cropping It also costs a lot more to do on a large scale - which is why mono-cropping is popular.

with cotton being a prime example of an extremely wasteful landuse. Cotton employs many more people in rural Australia than other types of farming. It is also the best cash return of all agricultural enterprises. Not to mention the economic stimulus it provides in many regional towns, which would die without it.

One theory is to increase centralisation of our population in urban areas Yep, that's working really well now, what with high crime rates, pollution, traffic congestion, etc.

intensively farm the freed up better quality rural land and return the bulk of the land to being nature reserves. Overall, society would be better off. So the nature reserves will make up for the land degradation and habitat destruction that the intensive farming will cause?

Unfortunately, the simple-seeming solutions are often not the best once the cruel light of day is shone upon them.

---

Have to agree with Donh here. Centralisation causes monocuktures and monocroppping to serve the central monoculture. We are destroying human diversity and ecological diversity to sustain big cities which is just as unhealthy as eating an unbalanced (not diverse) diet.

PS: this has also been responsible for Land Rover prioritising urban SUV’s and no longer building work vehicles for the bush.