Human population: Is it a problem? If so, what are the solutions?

rgambs

oftenreading said:

rgambs said:

The big paradox there is that the lands which are only marginally arable for plant farming are often able to support grazers like cattle and sheep, which increase the fertility of the land over time...if managed properly.

Still, less meat would be a big step.

I am not willing to eliminate meat from my diet, so I have cut back significantly and I'm working toward only consuming meat that I've raised myself.  
If you can't look your dinner in the eye as it dies, you shouldn't be putting it in your mouth when it's processed down into food.

I’m not sure my building manager would be happy with that. 

Well, in modern society I don't think it should be a requirement that you look every animal you eat in the eye, but I do think it's something everyone should have to do at some point relatively early in their life. 
If it's not something you can stomach, if it makes you sick or  very sad, then you should give up meat.

Most people don't actually think of their meat as an actual animal, it's just food.  When we order chicken at a restaurant, there's no thought of the living animal that it once was.  When I roast, smoke, or fry one of the chickens we raised and butchered, it is very much on our mind.  At first, my wife was a bit sad, but it was just another lesson for her in how insane our relationship to food is in America.
Now, instead of sad, we are thankful that the meat we are enjoying was raised humanely and cleanly and we are sad when we eat meat that was not.

brianlux

rgambs said:

The big paradox there is that the lands which are only marginally arable for plant farming are often able to support grazers like cattle and sheep, which increase the fertility of the land over time...if managed properly.

Still, less meat would be a big step.

I am not willing to eliminate meat from my diet, so I have cut back significantly and I'm working toward only consuming meat that I've raised myself.  
If you can't look your dinner in the eye as it dies, you shouldn't be putting it in your mouth when it's processed down into food.

I'm really biased on this subject from reading just about everything Edward Abbey ever wrote.  He often wrote quite convincingly about how grazing cattle has ruined marginal lands here in the west.

Edit:  Here's a good example of what I mean:

https://harpers.org/archive/2015/02/cowburnt/

"Most of the public lands in the West, and especially in the Southwest, are what you might call “cowburnt.” Almost anywhere and everywhere you go in the American West you find hordes of these ugly, clumsy, stupid, bawling, stinking, fly-covered, shit-smeared, disease-spreading brutes. They are a pest and a plague. They pollute our springs and streams and rivers. They infest our canyons, valleys, meadows, and forests. They graze off the native bluestem and grama and bunchgrasses, leaving behind jungles of prickly pear. They trample down the native forbs and shrubs and cactus. They spread the exotic cheatgrass, the Russian thistle, and the crested wheatgrass. Weeds.

Even when the cattle are not physically present, you’ll see the dung and the flies and the mud and the dust and the general destruction. If you don’t see it, you’ll smell it. The whole American West stinks of cattle. Along every flowing stream, around every seep and spring and water hole and well, you’ll find acres and acres of what range-management specialists call “sacrifice areas.” These are places denuded of forage, except for some cactus or a little tumbleweed or maybe a few mutilated trees like mesquite, juniper, or hackberry."

Edit #2:  I should add here that this is not just about reading Abbey.  I've seen the destruction from cattle that Abbey talks about all over the west.  It's disgusting.  Many of the "marginal lands" became marginal due to many decades of cattle grazing.  This grazing is especially destructive in more fragile ecosystems like desert lands which are often mistaken as wastelands.  The ecosystems maintain a balance and are quite beautiful when not disturbed.  US forest lands likewise.  Come visit El Dorado National Forest and you will see the evidence of cattle grazing almost ubiquitously. Only the National Parks are (sometimes) saved from the destruction and the Orange you-know-who would like to see that changed as well. 

rgambs

brianlux said:

rgambs said:

The big paradox there is that the lands which are only marginally arable for plant farming are often able to support grazers like cattle and sheep, which increase the fertility of the land over time...if managed properly.

Still, less meat would be a big step.

I am not willing to eliminate meat from my diet, so I have cut back significantly and I'm working toward only consuming meat that I've raised myself.  
If you can't look your dinner in the eye as it dies, you shouldn't be putting it in your mouth when it's processed down into food.

I'm really biased on this subject from reading just about everything Edward Abbey ever wrote.  He often wrote quite convincingly about how grazing cattle has ruined marginal lands here in the west.

Edit:  Here's a good example of what I mean:

https://harpers.org/archive/2015/02/cowburnt/

"Most of the public lands in the West, and especially in the Southwest, are what you might call “cowburnt.” Almost anywhere and everywhere you go in the American West you find hordes of these ugly, clumsy, stupid, bawling, stinking, fly-covered, shit-smeared, disease-spreading brutes. They are a pest and a plague. They pollute our springs and streams and rivers. They infest our canyons, valleys, meadows, and forests. They graze off the native bluestem and grama and bunchgrasses, leaving behind jungles of prickly pear. They trample down the native forbs and shrubs and cactus. They spread the exotic cheatgrass, the Russian thistle, and the crested wheatgrass. Weeds.

Even when the cattle are not physically present, you’ll see the dung and the flies and the mud and the dust and the general destruction. If you don’t see it, you’ll smell it. The whole American West stinks of cattle. Along every flowing stream, around every seep and spring and water hole and well, you’ll find acres and acres of what range-management specialists call “sacrifice areas.” These are places denuded of forage, except for some cactus or a little tumbleweed or maybe a few mutilated trees like mesquite, juniper, or hackberry."

Edit #2:  I should add here that this is not just about reading Abbey.  I've seen the destruction from cattle that Abbey talks about all over the west.  It's disgusting.  Many of the "marginal lands" became marginal due to many decades of cattle grazing.  This grazing is especially destructive in more fragile ecosystems like desert lands which are often mistaken as wastelands.  The ecosystems maintain a balance and are quite beautiful when not disturbed.  US forest lands likewise.  Come visit El Dorado National Forest and you will see the evidence of cattle grazing almost ubiquitously. Only the National Parks are (sometimes) saved from the destruction and the Orange you-know-who would like to see that changed as well. 

The key there is, "if managed properly".
Bison grazed the plains and the marginal zones in the billions and the ecosystems they inhabited only grew stronger.
Of course, there was no profit motive getting in the way back then.

brianlux

rgambs said:

brianlux said:

rgambs said:

The big paradox there is that the lands which are only marginally arable for plant farming are often able to support grazers like cattle and sheep, which increase the fertility of the land over time...if managed properly.

Still, less meat would be a big step.

I am not willing to eliminate meat from my diet, so I have cut back significantly and I'm working toward only consuming meat that I've raised myself.  
If you can't look your dinner in the eye as it dies, you shouldn't be putting it in your mouth when it's processed down into food.

I'm really biased on this subject from reading just about everything Edward Abbey ever wrote.  He often wrote quite convincingly about how grazing cattle has ruined marginal lands here in the west.

Edit:  Here's a good example of what I mean:

https://harpers.org/archive/2015/02/cowburnt/

"Most of the public lands in the West, and especially in the Southwest, are what you might call “cowburnt.” Almost anywhere and everywhere you go in the American West you find hordes of these ugly, clumsy, stupid, bawling, stinking, fly-covered, shit-smeared, disease-spreading brutes. They are a pest and a plague. They pollute our springs and streams and rivers. They infest our canyons, valleys, meadows, and forests. They graze off the native bluestem and grama and bunchgrasses, leaving behind jungles of prickly pear. They trample down the native forbs and shrubs and cactus. They spread the exotic cheatgrass, the Russian thistle, and the crested wheatgrass. Weeds.

Even when the cattle are not physically present, you’ll see the dung and the flies and the mud and the dust and the general destruction. If you don’t see it, you’ll smell it. The whole American West stinks of cattle. Along every flowing stream, around every seep and spring and water hole and well, you’ll find acres and acres of what range-management specialists call “sacrifice areas.” These are places denuded of forage, except for some cactus or a little tumbleweed or maybe a few mutilated trees like mesquite, juniper, or hackberry."

Edit #2:  I should add here that this is not just about reading Abbey.  I've seen the destruction from cattle that Abbey talks about all over the west.  It's disgusting.  Many of the "marginal lands" became marginal due to many decades of cattle grazing.  This grazing is especially destructive in more fragile ecosystems like desert lands which are often mistaken as wastelands.  The ecosystems maintain a balance and are quite beautiful when not disturbed.  US forest lands likewise.  Come visit El Dorado National Forest and you will see the evidence of cattle grazing almost ubiquitously. Only the National Parks are (sometimes) saved from the destruction and the Orange you-know-who would like to see that changed as well. 

The key there is, "if managed properly".
Bison grazed the plains and the marginal zones in the billions and the ecosystems they inhabited only grew stronger.
Of course, there was no profit motive getting in the way back then.

This is true.  Richard Manning discusses bringing bison back to the plains in his excellent book, Against the Grain.  I don't remember the particulars off hand, but he explains how ranging bison is way different that herding cattle.  Until something like that happens, I continue my abstinence from eating red meat.  Besides, beef, other than maybe in very small amounts, is unhealthy.

rgambs

brianlux said:

rgambs said:

brianlux said:

rgambs said:

The big paradox there is that the lands which are only marginally arable for plant farming are often able to support grazers like cattle and sheep, which increase the fertility of the land over time...if managed properly.

Still, less meat would be a big step.

I am not willing to eliminate meat from my diet, so I have cut back significantly and I'm working toward only consuming meat that I've raised myself.  
If you can't look your dinner in the eye as it dies, you shouldn't be putting it in your mouth when it's processed down into food.

I'm really biased on this subject from reading just about everything Edward Abbey ever wrote.  He often wrote quite convincingly about how grazing cattle has ruined marginal lands here in the west.

Edit:  Here's a good example of what I mean:

https://harpers.org/archive/2015/02/cowburnt/

"Most of the public lands in the West, and especially in the Southwest, are what you might call “cowburnt.” Almost anywhere and everywhere you go in the American West you find hordes of these ugly, clumsy, stupid, bawling, stinking, fly-covered, shit-smeared, disease-spreading brutes. They are a pest and a plague. They pollute our springs and streams and rivers. They infest our canyons, valleys, meadows, and forests. They graze off the native bluestem and grama and bunchgrasses, leaving behind jungles of prickly pear. They trample down the native forbs and shrubs and cactus. They spread the exotic cheatgrass, the Russian thistle, and the crested wheatgrass. Weeds.

Even when the cattle are not physically present, you’ll see the dung and the flies and the mud and the dust and the general destruction. If you don’t see it, you’ll smell it. The whole American West stinks of cattle. Along every flowing stream, around every seep and spring and water hole and well, you’ll find acres and acres of what range-management specialists call “sacrifice areas.” These are places denuded of forage, except for some cactus or a little tumbleweed or maybe a few mutilated trees like mesquite, juniper, or hackberry."

Edit #2:  I should add here that this is not just about reading Abbey.  I've seen the destruction from cattle that Abbey talks about all over the west.  It's disgusting.  Many of the "marginal lands" became marginal due to many decades of cattle grazing.  This grazing is especially destructive in more fragile ecosystems like desert lands which are often mistaken as wastelands.  The ecosystems maintain a balance and are quite beautiful when not disturbed.  US forest lands likewise.  Come visit El Dorado National Forest and you will see the evidence of cattle grazing almost ubiquitously. Only the National Parks are (sometimes) saved from the destruction and the Orange you-know-who would like to see that changed as well. 

The key there is, "if managed properly".
Bison grazed the plains and the marginal zones in the billions and the ecosystems they inhabited only grew stronger.
Of course, there was no profit motive getting in the way back then.

This is true.  Richard Manning discusses bringing bison back to the plains in his excellent book, Against the Grain.  I don't remember the particulars off hand, but he explains how ranging bison is way different that herding cattle.  Until something like that happens, I continue my abstinence from eating red meat.  Besides, beef, other than maybe in very small amounts, is unhealthy.

Yes, ranging and commercial herding are conpkecomp different.

My autocorrect has been a little funny lately lol

Have you read any of Joel Salatin's books or essays?  He does a small article for Mother Earth News every month, that's where I found him.  His whole deal (if you want to reduce a vibrant human mind to a "deal" or "thing") is the interplay between animal and plant in an ecosystem and how we can model our family and commercial farming practices to mimick the "symbiotic" (used in colloquial sense as opposed to correct scientific definition) relationships that make a system healthy and sustainable. If applied correctly, the same health and sustainability can be achieved in food production and still leave room for profit.
He's awesome.

rgambs

I don't eat much beef, it's overrated anyways.

Pork is another issue, bad for you and the environment...but oh so much more delicious!

Meltdown99

Isn't farming bad for the environment in general?

brianlux

rgambs said:

brianlux said:

rgambs said:

brianlux said:

rgambs said:

The big paradox there is that the lands which are only marginally arable for plant farming are often able to support grazers like cattle and sheep, which increase the fertility of the land over time...if managed properly.

Still, less meat would be a big step.

I am not willing to eliminate meat from my diet, so I have cut back significantly and I'm working toward only consuming meat that I've raised myself.  
If you can't look your dinner in the eye as it dies, you shouldn't be putting it in your mouth when it's processed down into food.

I'm really biased on this subject from reading just about everything Edward Abbey ever wrote.  He often wrote quite convincingly about how grazing cattle has ruined marginal lands here in the west.

Edit:  Here's a good example of what I mean:

https://harpers.org/archive/2015/02/cowburnt/

"Most of the public lands in the West, and especially in the Southwest, are what you might call “cowburnt.” Almost anywhere and everywhere you go in the American West you find hordes of these ugly, clumsy, stupid, bawling, stinking, fly-covered, shit-smeared, disease-spreading brutes. They are a pest and a plague. They pollute our springs and streams and rivers. They infest our canyons, valleys, meadows, and forests. They graze off the native bluestem and grama and bunchgrasses, leaving behind jungles of prickly pear. They trample down the native forbs and shrubs and cactus. They spread the exotic cheatgrass, the Russian thistle, and the crested wheatgrass. Weeds.

Even when the cattle are not physically present, you’ll see the dung and the flies and the mud and the dust and the general destruction. If you don’t see it, you’ll smell it. The whole American West stinks of cattle. Along every flowing stream, around every seep and spring and water hole and well, you’ll find acres and acres of what range-management specialists call “sacrifice areas.” These are places denuded of forage, except for some cactus or a little tumbleweed or maybe a few mutilated trees like mesquite, juniper, or hackberry."

Edit #2:  I should add here that this is not just about reading Abbey.  I've seen the destruction from cattle that Abbey talks about all over the west.  It's disgusting.  Many of the "marginal lands" became marginal due to many decades of cattle grazing.  This grazing is especially destructive in more fragile ecosystems like desert lands which are often mistaken as wastelands.  The ecosystems maintain a balance and are quite beautiful when not disturbed.  US forest lands likewise.  Come visit El Dorado National Forest and you will see the evidence of cattle grazing almost ubiquitously. Only the National Parks are (sometimes) saved from the destruction and the Orange you-know-who would like to see that changed as well. 

The key there is, "if managed properly".
Bison grazed the plains and the marginal zones in the billions and the ecosystems they inhabited only grew stronger.
Of course, there was no profit motive getting in the way back then.

This is true.  Richard Manning discusses bringing bison back to the plains in his excellent book, Against the Grain.  I don't remember the particulars off hand, but he explains how ranging bison is way different that herding cattle.  Until something like that happens, I continue my abstinence from eating red meat.  Besides, beef, other than maybe in very small amounts, is unhealthy.

Yes, ranging and commercial herding are conpkecomp different.

My autocorrect has been a little funny lately lol

Have you read any of Joel Salatin's books or essays?  He does a small article for Mother Earth News every month, that's where I found him.  His whole deal (if you want to reduce a vibrant human mind to a "deal" or "thing") is the interplay between animal and plant in an ecosystem and how we can model our family and commercial farming practices to mimick the "symbiotic" (used in colloquial sense as opposed to correct scientific definition) relationships that make a system healthy and sustainable. If applied correctly, the same health and sustainability can be achieved in food production and still leave room for profit.
He's awesome.

Sounds great, I'll check out his work, thanks!

rgambs

Meltdown99 said:

Isn't farming bad for the environment in general?

When it's done for maximal profit, yes.

Meltdown99

rgambs said:

Meltdown99 said:

Isn't farming bad for the environment in general?

When it's done for maximal profit, yes.

Around my area it seems bad ... I was on the 401 heading to London and passed a farm that was in the process of removing his few remaining trees.  That's been going on on a lot of farms...and there are no policies in place ... like cut a tree, replace a tree...

rgambs

Meltdown99 said:

rgambs said:

Meltdown99 said:

Isn't farming bad for the environment in general?

When it's done for maximal profit, yes.

Around my area it seems bad ... I was on the 401 heading to London and passed a farm that was in the process of removing his few remaining trees.  That's been going on on a lot of farms...and there are no policies in place ... like cut a tree, replace a tree...

My guess is that is nothing compared to what we have happening in the corn belt and California's central valley here in the US.
It's insane.

brianlux

From what I've learned (mostly from my brother who has run a small farming operation in western Washington for many years) smaller is better.  Large mono-cropping is a horrible practice.  Small farming utilizing rotated crops, companion planting, letting land lay fallow, etc.  is much easier on the land, better for the environment and produces healthier food.

Bummer about the tree removal, Meltdown.  Deforestation helped bring down the Greek and Roman empires.  Not a good practice!

brianlux

rgambs said:

Meltdown99 said:

rgambs said:

Meltdown99 said:

Isn't farming bad for the environment in general?

When it's done for maximal profit, yes.

Around my area it seems bad ... I was on the 401 heading to London and passed a farm that was in the process of removing his few remaining trees.  That's been going on on a lot of farms...and there are no policies in place ... like cut a tree, replace a tree...

My guess is that is nothing compared to what we have happening in the corn belt and California's central valley here in the US.
It's insane.

For sure.  Ruined lands, drained aquifers.  Terrible.

Meltdown99

rgambs said:

Meltdown99 said:

rgambs said:

Meltdown99 said:

Isn't farming bad for the environment in general?

When it's done for maximal profit, yes.

Around my area it seems bad ... I was on the 401 heading to London and passed a farm that was in the process of removing his few remaining trees.  That's been going on on a lot of farms...and there are no policies in place ... like cut a tree, replace a tree...

My guess is that is nothing compared to what we have happening in the corn belt and California's central valley here in the US.
It's insane.

 It's probably not as bad ... but we are not a heavily forested/tree area ... so I would like to see some kind of policy in place to replace cut down trees...and I don't blame the farmers...a lot of these farms are family farms.  The solutions sometimes are not easy...

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Go Beavers said:

Funny timing. Just announced today that in 2017 there were the fewest number of births in the US in the last 30 years, and that the fertility rate in the US is below replacement level

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/17/611898421/u-s-births-falls-to-30-year-low-sending-fertility-rate-to-a-record-low

It's like that across the developed world - that why immigration from less developed nations is needed. Trump didn't get the memo I guess.

I would like to respond to this but I would risk making some false assumptions.   What do you mean by "immigration from less developed nations is needed"?

I meant that in order for developed nations to maintain the population numbers, they need immigrants from less developed and overpopulated nations where the birth rates are continuing to increase to come and keep the population at least steady.
What were the possible false assumptions going through your mind, out of curiosity?

PJ_Soul

Meltdown99 said:

Isn't farming bad for the environment in general?

Usually, but it doesn't have to be. It depends on how the farming is being done.

HughFreakingDillon

we should change the name from farming to farting. 

brianlux

HughFreakingDillon said:

we should change the name from farming to farting. 

LOL, Cattle ranching at least, for sure.

mattsl1983

Without reading every post in this thread, yes it is going to be a huge problem.  And not even on the resources to provide food and water, but way before that will be the economic and job side of it.  A two bedroom house was only built to sustain adequate life at a certain quality for x amount of people.  Once you hit x are start surpassing it, the house even though the it still sustains a quality of life, the quality goes down lower and lower, until you reach the negatives.  There’s a line, and as humans we are inching towards it.  I don’t think I’m my lifetime, or my future kids lifetime we will cross that number, but it’s definitely going to happen.

PJ_Soul

I am very interested in this endeavor to make meat in a laboratory. It seems to me that it's totally possible, and for it to taste very good and have nutrition. If that can be brought to mass market (and the product remains accessible in terms of pricing, and I don't see why it wouldn't), that will change so much for the better. It would be just an incredible leap forward for humanity, in terms of both environment and animal welfare..... Not so good for those who raise livestock, but hey, times change. I would imagine that milk and egg production would still continue too.