It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Germany was blockaded during World War I, dependent on imports of agricultural commodities and faced real uncertainties about its food supply.
(second goal removed because nobody needs to be reminded of the primary goal.)
To expand Germany’s Lebensraum, (the monsters) aimed to seize Ukraine from the Soviet Union, starve 30 million Eastern Europeans and transfer the food to Germany. When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, the campaign had two major aims: the control of fertile Ukrainian soil and...
"Today, 66 countries are not able to be self-sufficient due to water and/or land constraints," said Fader. This equates to 16% of the world's population depending on food imported from other countries.
The countries with the most reliance on imports were found in North Africa, the Middle East and Central America, with over half the population depending on imported food in many of these locations. Outside those locations many countries could become food self-sufficient if they chose to.
A number of developed countries, including the UK, the Netherlands and Japan, are already unable to meet the food requirements of their populations. This reliance on imports looks set to become worse as population levels rise. However, unlike the developing countries, these nations will probably be able to buy their way out of the problem.
Let's put it another way. Since we have more people, our wars are bigger. Our famines may affect more people, and more people will have diseases and be poor. But population growth didn't create these problems--they have have existed since people have existed.
In other words, we can't blame population for problems that have been around forever. The only difference is, since there are more of us now, these problems affect more people.
originally posted by: Metallicus
What do you expect when our worldwide population exceeds 7 billion? Climate change isn't the issue. Our overpopulation is the real problem and there is no easy or humane way to fix the dilemma.
originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: StanFL
Yes, one child, however recently a woman can have a second child if she pays a very large fee. So, for the wealthy, they can have another child.
Poor women still undergo forced abortions and must pay about $3,000 in penalty fees.
In Syria, where an estimated 90 percent of fresh water is used for agriculture harvests failed – and due to necessary food imports the price of staple foods like wheat and barley doubled. The farming collapse led to the migration of 1 to 1.5 million people from the countryside to larger cities. This in turn helped spark the Syrian uprising (early 2011), experts claim.
It is not being developed for the benefit of the locals.
The US does not seem to be publishing it's figures on food imports and skirting around the issue
the global economic maxim to cope is still growth, growth and more growth. We need to grow out of that, pause, consolidate and adapt.
I'm not holding my breath.
But what we would say is that some of the changes climate change could bring are likely to be unprecedented, so in many ways looking at history is going to be limited in terms of how informative that can be. In 20 years, we might be looking at situations that are so extreme they could lead to security breakdown. So we need to be proactive in creating the institutions necessary for cooperation — to ensure we don’t have conflict in the future.
- cue the deniers... it's all fun and games until somebody can't feed their baby
originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
I explored some of these figures, and got varying results. Most of our imported foods come from Canada and Mexico, and the reasons are "it gives more variety; and some agricultural products are cheaper to import than grow domestically".
Of course, we import lots and lots of COFFEE. Thank God. : )
As far as importing from Canada and Mexico, we also export many food items to them, as they are numbers 2 and 3 in agricultural exports, with China being of course, number one. Our exports to China comprise 40% of their food imports. I found an article on Mother Jones entitled "How the U.S. Became China's Grocery Store". (Much of that seems to be grains and livestock feed though.)
One of the widely criticized export policies of the US was the PL 480 (Public Law 480), instituted in 1954, which lasted till 1969. India had a major share of about 50% in receiving this aid under it. This policy was criticized because it had damaged the export potential of many countries, in particular Canada and Australia. It was also said that this policy discouraged countries from developing their own agriculture. In India, in particular, this aid in fact "bankrupted large numbers of Indian farmers."
It is generally accepted that wheat is beneficial to grow in the off season compared to other crops as its planting occurs, depending on the agro-climatic condition, in late fall or early spring. This results in reduced application of fertilizers and pesticides and less need for irrigation, and helps in preventing soil erosion. However some of the negative effects identified in a study conducted by the FAO are natural habitat loss due to encroachment into new lands after degraded lands are abandoned, loss of indigenous species affecting the biodiversity, and milling operation causing dust pollution. Historically, habitat conversion in the US has occurred in agropastoral land areas as in many other countries and is considered a natural development. In the western US, habitat conversion is still an ongoing process due to the subsidies provided by the government for wheat and other crops in the US has made it financially profitable to develop areas which otherwise would lie fallow; blue stern prairie is one such area. However, habitat expansion for wheat has stabilized since 2000.