Global Human Population

[andrewl]

There seems to be this prevailing conventional wisdom in the world, amongst both progressives and conservatives, that population growth is mainly caused by poverty. And the solution proposed is always the same, solve global poverty and hunger by shipping food, creating markets, allowing foreign investment, etc..

The recent news that the world will hit 7 billion people, and that the overwhelming amount of that growth comes in the poorer underdeveloped countries, seems to confirm this hypothesis.

http://www.migrationexpert.com/Canada/Visa/canadian_immigration_news/2009/Aug/0/612/World_population_to_reach_7_billion_by_2011

But not so fast.

One of my favorite authors Daniel Quinn says that population growth is caused by food production. On the surface this is not a controversial statement - this is absolutely true for all other species on the planet.

Food availability increases for the "eater" and its population increases, this is followed by a decrease in the population of the "eaten", and followed again by a decrease in the population of the "eater", which of course allows for an increase of the population of the "eaten", which in turn causes an increase in the population of the "eater", and so on. This is how it works in an established ecosystem, there is a sort of undulating rhythm of population increase/decrease keeping an overall stable population over the long term.

But for whatever reason modern day industrial civilization violates this biological mechanism that keeps a population stable. We at first desire large population growth because we love big markets in which to sell our goods and commodities. But we hate to see poor starving people, most especially little children with their distended stomachs. It makes us upset, sad, angry, and motivated.

So naturally we fill our boats and planes with all sorts of food and we ship it to the poor people. We have a genuine belief that we are helping them, and that if we can just keep them alive long enough to solve global inequality once and for all their population growth will slow down as they become mass consumers like the west.

Daniel Quinn (and others) argue that all we are really doing is causing population growth and famine. Here is how it works.

In order to modernize and develop the colonies of africa (or wherever) we inevitably make their populations grow. But as we assist an 'underdeveloped" country to develop we cause their population to grow beyond the capacity that their land can support. This is fine for a short time. However, as soon as a drought hits (which it always does) they can no longer support the population. Then we see the terrible images and we naturally want to ship food. In effect, we keep them alive while they turn the food we give them into more babies - perpetuating famine endlessly while we fantasize about turning them into western style mass consumers (a project decades old but lacking in any noteworthy success, and i dare say impossible given the limited resources on this planet).

This is of course a provocative argument, and many people are truly horrified at this type of thinking.

What do others think of this? Is there any hope of a future where all people live only to the capacity their land can support, where we forbid the export and import of food as a commodity? Where we have the moral certainty to resist ongoing food charity that perpetuates famine and suffering?

Here is a talk by Quinn and Alan D. Thornhill where they discuss this in greater detail.

http://fertileground1.ning.com/video/food-production-and-population
http://fertileground1.ning.com/video/food-production-and-population-1

Andrew

[Korimyr the Rat]

People are usually horrified by any implication that natural laws apply to human populations. It violates or invalidates pretty much every moral principle that the bulk of them hold dear.

If we spent as much sending them agricultural equipment and experts as we do sending them food, they'd be more than capable of growing enough food to support their own population. Merely sending them food not only encourages further population growth, it discourages them from developing their own sustainable agricultural sector. Can't sell food to your neighbors when the First World is giving it away.

And, of course, noone is willing to accept that the most appropriate and beneficial response to nearly any demographic crisis-- whether famine or genocidal war-- is to stand back and let them die, so that the natural process can come to an end on its own.

[andrewl]

People are usually horrified by any implication that natural laws apply to human populations. It violates or invalidates pretty much every moral principle that the bulk of them hold dear.

If we spent as much sending them agricultural equipment and experts as we do sending them food, they'd be more than capable of growing enough food to support their own population. Merely sending them food not only encourages further population growth, it discourages them from developing their own sustainable agricultural sector. Can't sell food to your neighbors when the First World is giving it away.

And, of course, noone is willing to accept that the most appropriate and beneficial response to nearly any demographic crisis-- whether famine or genocidal war-- is to stand back and let them die, so that the natural process can come to an end on its own.

Yes, the major problem for the west is that this thinking, as you note, completely contradicts almost all religious traditions.

I would also add that the neo-liberal trade policies of the west are a huge discouragement to developing 3rd world agriculture at a scale that could support at least some of their current population levels. This is crystal clear in a place like mexico where corn crops collapsed very soon after NAFTA was implemented, and their corn imports from the us and canada skyrocketed at the same time their local agriculture plummeted.

Andrew

[dilettante]

There seems to be this prevailing conventional wisdom in the world, amongst both progressives and conservatives, that population growth is mainly caused by poverty. And the solution proposed is always the same, solve global poverty and hunger by shipping food, creating markets, allowing foreign investment, etc..

The recent news that the world will hit 7 billion people, and that the overwhelming amount of that growth comes in the poorer underdeveloped countries, seems to confirm this hypothesis.

http://www.migrationexpert.com/Canada/Visa/canadian_immigration_news/2009/Aug/0/612/World_population_to_reach_7_billion_by_2011

But not so fast.

One of my favorite authors Daniel Quinn says that population growth is caused by food production. On the surface this is not a controversial statement - this is absolutely true for all other species on the planet.

Food availability increases for the "eater" and its population increases, this is followed by a decrease in the population of the "eaten", and followed again by a decrease in the population of the "eater", which of course allows for an increase of the population of the "eaten", which in turn causes an increase in the population of the "eater", and so on. This is how it works in an established ecosystem, there is a sort of undulating rhythm of population increase/decrease keeping an overall stable population over the long term.

But for whatever reason modern day industrial civilization violates this biological mechanism that keeps a population stable. We at first desire large population growth because we love big markets in which to sell our goods and commodities. But we hate to see poor starving people, most especially little children with their distended stomachs. It makes us upset, sad, angry, and motivated.

So naturally we fill our boats and planes with all sorts of food and we ship it to the poor people. We have a genuine belief that we are helping them, and that if we can just keep them alive long enough to solve global inequality once and for all their population growth will slow down as they become mass consumers like the west.

Daniel Quinn (and others) argue that all we are really doing is causing population growth and famine. Here is how it works.

In order to modernize and develop the colonies of africa (or wherever) we inevitably make their populations grow. But as we assist an 'underdeveloped" country to develop we cause their population to grow beyond the capacity that their land can support. This is fine for a short time. However, as soon as a drought hits (which it always does) they can no longer support the population. Then we see the terrible images and we naturally want to ship food. In effect, we keep them alive while they turn the food we give them into more babies - perpetuating famine endlessly while we fantasize about turning them into western style mass consumers (a project decades old but lacking in any noteworthy success, and i dare say impossible given the limited resources on this planet).

This is of course a provocative argument, and many people are truly horrified at this type of thinking.

What do others think of this? Is there any hope of a future where all people live only to the capacity their land can support, where we forbid the export and import of food as a commodity? Where we have the moral certainty to resist ongoing food charity that perpetuates famine and suffering?

Here is a talk by Quinn and Alan D. Thornhill where they discuss this in greater detail.

http://fertileground1.ning.com/video/food-production-and-population
http://fertileground1.ning.com/video/food-production-and-population-1

Andrew

Sounds rather like the theories of Malthus.

This reminds me of some reading I've done on English history in the eighteenth century. Malthus posited both "positive" and "preventative" checks on population growth: the former being things like famine, disease and war, the latter being cultural choices to decrease population growth before things got too bad.
In the English case, age-of-marriage functioned as a "preventative check" on population. Culture norms kept couples from marrying until they could support their own families, which meant saving up land/funds from surplus. If times were good economically, this happened quickly: people married young and had more children. If times were bad, this having process took longer: people married later (and an increased number not at all) and had fewer children.
The system worked remarkably well, and helped end major famines in England long before they disappeared from France and most of continent.

The Malthusian cycle started to break down in the early nineteenth century when changing labour practices and industrialization meant the economy could absorb every increasing populations without a corresponding decrease in per captia production, and then it became entirely obsolete in the later nineteenth century when the equation "more food/production = increased population growth" stopped working. Cultural shifts meant that people stopped marrying early and having more children even when they did have the resources.

There are lots of problems in Africa, and more than a few are caused by Western exploitation, but so long as the culture encourages them to always "turn the food we give them into more babies", as you put it, the problem of famine won't go away. A cultural shift is needed here.

[andrewl]

Sounds rather like the theories of Malthus.

This reminds me of some reading I've done on English history in the eighteenth century. Malthus posited both "positive" and "preventative" checks on population growth: the former being things like famine, disease and war, the latter being cultural choices to decrease population growth before things got too bad.
In the English case, age-of-marriage functioned as a "preventative check" on population. Culture norms kept couples from marrying until they could support their own families, which meant saving up land/funds from surplus. If times were good economically, this happened quickly: people married young and had more children. If times were bad, this having process took longer: people married later (and an increased number not at all) and had fewer children.
The system worked remarkably well, and helped end major famines in England long before they disappeared from France and most of continent.

The Malthusian cycle started to break down in the early nineteenth century when changing labour practices and industrialization meant the economy could absorb every increasing populations without a corresponding decrease in per captia production, and then it became entirely obsolete in the later nineteenth century when the equation "more food/production = increased population growth" stopped working. Cultural shifts meant that people stopped marrying early and having more children even when they did have the resources.

I think that once we can no longer afford to pump crops full of fossil fuels (i.e., fertilizer, mechanization, pesticides) that the mechanisms that malthus wrote about will once again become dominant. With fossil fuels we are simply using up capital we can't replace, essentially cheating biology for a time, but without an equivalent replacement to the energy we get from fossil fuels we will mostly be subject to the same natural laws.


There are lots of problems in Africa, and more than a few are caused by Western exploitation, but so long as the culture encourages them to always "turn the food we give them into more babies", as you put it, the problem of famine won't go away. A cultural shift is needed here.Or we could just step away and let them drop back down to their natural carrying capacity, or whatever carrying capacity they are able to achieve based on the technology and fuels that they can afford. Soon enough the famines will end. Waiting perpetually for a shift in their social paradigm to happen only means billions more people while we wait, and that means billions more people suffering from what the west believes they are preventing....

Andrew

[Michael]

Here's an interesting addition to the debate...

Apparently the number one way the average American citizen can have the single greatest impact on reducing global warming...

Stop having babies!

Source: Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=are-babies-bad-for-the-environment-09-08-06)

Apparently forgoing having one child will do far more than any other policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Though, if this theory is correct, the very best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be to sterilize the whole USA.

[andrewl]

Here's an interesting addition to the debate...

Apparently the number one way the average American citizen can have the single greatest impact on reducing global warming...

Stop having babies!

Source: Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=are-babies-bad-for-the-environment-09-08-06)

Apparently forgoing having one child will do far more than any other policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Though, if this theory is correct, the very best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be to sterilize the whole USA.

Yes, this does underline the point that we could as individuals be as damaging to the earth as the average citizen of the west without much concern for the earth as a whole if only there was a fraction of the people we have now.

The problem of course is that the comfort we enjoy seems to depend directly on the idea of economic growth, of which one of the obvious consequences is population growth.

Catch 22?

Andrew

[Lasher]

I think that once we can no longer afford to pump crops full of fossil fuels (i.e., fertilizer, mechanization, pesticides) that the mechanisms that malthus wrote about will once again become dominant. With fossil fuels we are simply using up capital we can't replace, essentially cheating biology for a time, but without an equivalent replacement to the energy we get from fossil fuels we will mostly be subject to the same natural laws.


Or we could just step away and let them drop back down to their natural carrying capacity, or whatever carrying capacity they are able to achieve based on the technology and fuels that they can afford. Soon enough the famines will end. Waiting perpetually for a shift in their social paradigm to happen only means billions more people while we wait, and that means billions more people suffering from what the west believes they are preventing....

Andrew
Just curious, Andy, what fossil fuels are being pumped into our crops?

[Lasher]

Here's an interesting addition to the debate...

Apparently the number one way the average American citizen can have the single greatest impact on reducing global warming...

Stop having babies!

Source: Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=are-babies-bad-for-the-environment-09-08-06)

Apparently forgoing having one child will do far more than any other policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Though, if this theory is correct, the very best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be to sterilize the whole USA.
Why the whole USA? Why not just the non-productive louts who lie about and draw their "checks" from the "gummint?"

[Lasher]

Here's an interesting addition to the debate...

Apparently the number one way the average American citizen can have the single greatest impact on reducing global warming...

Stop having babies!

.
Tell that to the welfare leeches!

[Lasher]

People are usually horrified by any implication that natural laws apply to human populations. It violates or invalidates pretty much every moral principle that the bulk of them hold dear.

If we spent as much sending them agricultural equipment and experts as we do sending them food, they'd be more than capable of growing enough food to support their own population. Merely sending them food not only encourages further population growth, it discourages them from developing their own sustainable agricultural sector. Can't sell food to your neighbors when the First World is giving it away.

And, of course, noone is willing to accept that the most appropriate and beneficial response to nearly any demographic crisis-- whether famine or genocidal war-- is to stand back and let them die, so that the natural process can come to an end on its own.
Lasher approves of your post in general, but it would be much easier to just stop sending ANYTHING to the impoverished nations of the world, and let them either sink or swim. What doesn't kill them will make them stronger. It's the law of nature - the weak die off and allow the strong to flourish. Man is the only animal that nurture's its weak, and that is an unnatural act for any species to adopt. Who was around to succor and protect the brave men and women of the American pioneers who faced the worst elements and conditions one can imagine while forging a new and glorious nation of people? Only themselves. The pioneer spirit that drove our ancestors to explore and develop the west, while taking care of their own needs, and not expecting largess from stronger societies, is what is needed in the world today, not the whining, whimpering, needy type that is getting so much undeserved attention these days by our bleeding-heart, weepy liberals who are liberal with everyone's money except their own.

[Donkey]

Just curious, Andy, what fossil fuels are being pumped into our crops?
Try reading the Omnivore's Dilemma.

[Lasher]

Try reading the Omnivore's Dilemma.
Objection! Not responsive.

[Donkey]

Objection! Not responsive.
Let me help you out then. In stark terms, it costs more than one calorie of fossil fuels to produce one calorie of food in industrial agriculture.

[Lasher]

Let me help you out then. In stark terms, it costs more than one calorie of fossil fuels to produce one calorie of food in industrial agriculture.
What form of fossil fuels, and how do they help grow food? Thanks for the help.

[Donkey]

What form of fossil fuels, and how do they help grow food? Thanks for the help.
In the operation of machinery for cultivation and harvest, transport and processing.

But perhaps even more importantly, the manufacture of nitrogen fertilizer.

[Lasher]

In the operation of machinery for cultivation and harvest, transport and processing.

But perhaps even more importantly, the manufacture of nitrogen fertilizer.
How do you suggest we grow, harvest, and transport crops to the best of our ability?

Is nitrogen fertilizer a fossil fuel, and what if it is, don't we need to eat?

[Donkey]

How do you suggest we grow, harvest, and transport crops to the best of our ability?

Is nitrogen fertilizer a fossil fuel, and what if it is, don't we need to eat?
There is a myriad of ways in which we could make our production of food both healthier and more efficient.

[Lasher]

There is a myriad of ways in which we could make our production of food both healthier and more efficient.
Why don't those dumb farmers realize that? Also, why didn't you answer the other part of the post?

[Donkey]

Why don't those dumb farmers realize that? Also, why didn't you answer the other part of the post?
Government policy preempts responsible agriculture in this country.

As to the other part of the post, industrial agriculture fertilizer is indeed made from fossil fuels.

And yes we have to eat.

[Americano]

Lasher approves of your post in general, but it would be much easier to just stop sending ANYTHING to the impoverished nations of the world, and let them either sink or swim. What doesn't kill them will make them stronger. It's the law of nature - the weak die off and allow the strong to flourish. Man is the only animal that nurture's its weak, and that is an unnatural act for any species to adopt. Who was around to succor and protect the brave men and women of the American pioneers who faced the worst elements and conditions one can imagine while forging a new and glorious nation of people? Only themselves. The pioneer spirit that drove our ancestors to explore and develop the west, while taking care of their own needs, and not expecting largess from stronger societies, is what is needed in the world today, not the whining, whimpering, needy type that is getting so much undeserved attention these days by our bleeding-heart, weepy liberals who are liberal with everyone's money except their own.

Capitalism requires a semi-compliant populace for looting of natural resources in undeveloped countries. Far more efficient and cost effective to keep them somewhat starving than fielding military forces to protect those investments. Dictators with accessible military aid and food aid for the populace using humanitarian organizations to eliminate the fear of uncontrollable plagues has been used for quite some time in our self-defined modern society.

You seem far removed from the reality of why ruling elite condone such practices. Perhaps you need professional tax advice. It almost sounds like you believe the US was developed without capital investment.

[Lasher]

Government policy preempts responsible agriculture in this country.

As to the other part of the post, industrial agriculture fertilizer is indeed made from fossil fuels.

And yes we have to eat.
Are all industrial agriculture fertilizers made from fossil fuels? Which fossil fuels, if Lash may inquire?

[Michael]

Who was around to succor and protect the brave men and women of the American pioneers who faced the worst elements and conditions one can imagine while forging a new and glorious nation of people? Only themselves. The pioneer spirit that drove our ancestors to explore and develop the west, while taking care of their own needs, and not expecting largess from stronger societies, is what is needed in the world today...

Excellent point. Too bad we don't have any lightly populated continents lying around with endless expanses of virgin land ripe for exploitation for these noble pioneers to show us what great people they are. :shrug:

[andrewl]

Just curious, Andy, what fossil fuels are being pumped into our crops?

Oil an natural gas.

Fertilizers and Pesticides are made from fossil fuels (natural gas). Harvesting, planting, and irrigation equipment is also powered by fossil fuels (oil). Moreover, we also use a tremendous amount of fossil fuels (oil) to transport food from farms, to factories, to slaughter houses, to supermarkets, and ultimately to our dinner table.

Here is an article that goes into detail on this.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/5045

Andrew

[Lasher]

Capitalism requires a semi-compliant populace for looting of natural resources in undeveloped countries. Far more efficient and cost effective to keep them somewhat starving than fielding military forces to protect those investments. Dictators with accessible military aid and food aid for the populace using humanitarian organizations to eliminate the fear of uncontrollable plagues has been used for quite some time in our self-defined modern society.

You seem far removed from the reality of why ruling elite condone such practices. Perhaps you need professional tax advice. It almost sounds like you believe the US was developed without capital investment.
Don't say you think all those pioneers who went west to explore and develop America were subsidized by the government, friend, if that's what you think, Lash has a bridge . . .

[Lasher]

Excellent point. Too bad we don't have any lightly populated continents lying around with endless expanses of virgin land ripe for exploitation for these noble pioneers to show us what great people they are. :shrug:
That isn't necessary, since they have already shown us their spirit and drive to succeed without any help or interference from a "Big Brother" government that would hinder their progress with all sorts of rules, regulations and restrictions as they now do in their quest to enlarge the federal bureaucracy and retard the natural abilities of the American public to do for themselves.

[Lasher]

Oil an natural gas.

Fertilizers and Pesticides are made from fossil fuels (natural gas). Harvesting, planting, and irrigation equipment is also powered by fossil fuels (oil). Moreover, we also use a tremendous amount of fossil fuels (oil) to transport food from farms, to factories, to slaughter houses, to supermarkets, and ultimately to our dinner table.

Here is an article that goes into detail on this.

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/5045

Andrew
Can you name the fertilizers that contain natural gases, and how else do you expect the farmers to plant and reap their crops except with machinery made to do those jobs? Do you want to return to slavery, or do you want to import every Mexican and Latrino in the world to do it?

Your ideas on just how we should transport the products to the marketplace would also be appreciated.

Also, the marketplace seems to be doing a fine job of distribution of their goods.

[Donkey]

Can you name the fertilizers that contain natural gases, and how else do you expect the farmers to plant and reap their crops except with machinery made to do those jobs? Do you want to return to slavery, or do you want to import every Mexican and Latrino in the world to do it?

Your ideas on just how we should transport the products to the marketplace would also be appreciated.
Did you read the article?

[Lasher]

Did you read the article?
Not in its entirety, no, but why didn't you answer my questions?

[Donkey]

Can you name the fertilizers that contain natural gases, and how else do you expect the farmers to plant and reap their crops except with machinery made to do those jobs? Do you want to return to slavery, or do you want to import every Mexican and Latrino [sic]in the world to do it?

Your ideas on just how we should transport the products to the marketplace would also be appreciated.

Also, the marketplace seems to be doing a fine job of distribution of their goods.The market is not concerned with sustainability.

Do you want the specific trade names of various fertilizers made from fossil fuels? Why don't you do your own research, are you too lazy?

No one is suggesting that you can take all energy input out of the food process. There are numerous ways in which the process can be made more efficient and, consequentially, more sustainable.

Not in its entirety, no, but why didn't you answer my questions?Maybe you should read the article.

[Americano]

Don't say you think all those pioneers who went west to explore and develop America were subsidized by the government, friend, if that's what you think, Lash has a bridge . . .

You referring to the easy harvest of unexploited natural resources or actual development?

[Lasher]

The market is not concerned with sustainability.

Do you want the specific trade names of various fertilizers made from fossil fuels? Why don't you do your own research, are you too lazy?

No one is suggesting that you can take all energy input out of the food process. There are numerous ways in which the process can be made more efficient and, consequentially, more sustainable.

Maybe you should read the article.
Lasher will infer from your answer that you don't know of any fertilizers that are made with fossil fuels.

Tell Lasher how products are supposed to be transported from producer to consumer without the use of fuel.

Lasher read enough to see the propaganda purpose of the slanted article.

[Donkey]

Lasher will infer from your answer that you don't know of any fertilizers that are made with fossil fuels.

Tell Lasher how products are supposed to be transported from producer to consumer without the use of fuel.

Lasher read enough to see the propaganda purpose of the slanted article.
How many sources would you like?

http://www.agbio.ca/NewspaperArticles/na_n_fertilizer_rm.asphttp://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.htmlhttp://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:ajNc-sxjZ90J:www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1714.pdf+nitrogen+fertilizer&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNHZLrdO6dDIji0ua6AMl5zc58Abpg

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207171703.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nitrogen-fertilizer-anniversary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer#Nitrogen_fertilizer

[andrewl]

Can you name the fertilizers that contain natural gases, and how else do you expect the farmers to plant and reap their crops except with machinery made to do those jobs? Do you want to return to slavery, or do you want to import every Mexican and Latrino in the world to do it?

Your ideas on just how we should transport the products to the marketplace would also be appreciated.

Also, the marketplace seems to be doing a fine job of distribution of their goods.


Yet the fact remains that its all dependent on intensive application of finite resources. What i want is quite irrelevant to that fact.

What do you suggest we do faced with the knowledge that these fuels will become increasingly scarce until they are unavailable?

Andrew

[Lasher]

How many sources would you like?

http://www.agbio.ca/NewspaperArticles/na_n_fertilizer_rm.asphttp://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.htmlhttp://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:ajNc-sxjZ90J:www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1714.pdf+nitrogen+fertilizer&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AFQjCNHZLrdO6dDIji0ua6AMl5zc58Abpg

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207171703.htm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nitrogen-fertilizer-anniversary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer#Nitrogen_fertilizer
Just one would be adequate if it mentions any fertilizer containing fossil fuel, but every one you gave mentions no such thing.

The first link was not in service, the second mentioned nothing about fossil fuel being used in fertilizer, only being used as combustion fuel for transportation, etc., the third one mentioned mixing biofuels and fossil fuels for use in transportation, and the last one (the ever-reliable Wikipedia) mentions not one thing about any fossil fuel being used in fertilizer. Try again, and try to find one that says that fossil fuels are used in FERTILIZERS, my friend.

[Lasher]

Yet the fact remains that its all dependent on intensive application of finite resources. What i want is quite irrelevant to that fact.

What do you suggest we do faced with the knowledge that these fuels will become increasingly scarce until they are unavailable?

Andrew
What Lasher wants is also irrelevant to the problem.

[andrewl]

What Lasher wants is also irrelevant to the problem.

so what is your point?

Andrew

[Lasher]

so what is your point?

Andrew
Possibly, there is no point.

[andrewl]

Just one would be adequate if it mentions any fertilizer containing fossil fuel, but every one you gave mentions no such thing.

The first link was not in service, the second mentioned nothing about fossil fuel being used in fertilizer, only being used as combustion fuel for transportation, etc., the third one mentioned mixing biofuels and fossil fuels for use in transportation, and the last one (the ever-reliable Wikipedia) mentions not one thing about any fossil fuel being used in fertilizer. Try again, and try to find one that says that fossil fuels are used in FERTILIZERS, my friend.

Its pretty common knowledge that nitrogen fertilizers (the most widely used in agriculture) come from natural gas.

Andrew

[Donkey]

Just one would be adequate if it mentions any fertilizer containing fossil fuel, but every one you gave mentions no such thing.

The first link was not in service, the second mentioned nothing about fossil fuel being used in fertilizer, only being used as combustion fuel for transportation, etc., the third one mentioned mixing biofuels and fossil fuels for use in transportation, and the last one (the ever-reliable Wikipedia) mentions not one thing about any fossil fuel being used in fertilizer. Try again, and try to find one that says that fossil fuels are used in FERTILIZERS, my friend.
Are you stupid, or just a liar?

Another problem with inorganic fertilizers is that they are now produced in ways which cannot be continued indefinitely. Potassium and phosphorus come from mines (or saline lakes such as the Dead Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea)) and such resources are limited. Nitrogen sources are effectively unlimited (forming over 70% of atmospheric gases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_gas)), however, nitrogen fertilizers are presently made using fossil fuels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel) such as natural gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas) and coal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal), which are limited.


Was this link already posted?

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

[Michael]

Just one would be adequate if it mentions any fertilizer containing fossil fuel, but every one you gave mentions no such thing.

The first link was not in service, the second mentioned nothing about fossil fuel being used in fertilizer, only being used as combustion fuel for transportation, etc., the third one mentioned mixing biofuels and fossil fuels for use in transportation, and the last one (the ever-reliable Wikipedia) mentions not one thing about any fossil fuel being used in fertilizer. Try again, and try to find one that says that fossil fuels are used in FERTILIZERS, my friend.

Fossil fuel is the single largest component of the rising cost of agriculture and has been for many years.

Indeed, it should be called the "petro-agriculture" industry.