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.
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
Yeah, I agree that handouts do not solve anything, and education is the key. But no matter how the food is produced, you still need to hand it out to those people that cannot pay for it. They do not care where the food is coming from. So yes, food produced efficiently and locally would be a good thing, but it would NOT solve starvation. To solve this, you need to change not the food industry, but the starving people themselves!
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by weedwhacker
I personally took the size of land needed as a means to show that the amount of land required is a lot less than what conventional farming techniques tell us is required as well as the amount of resources or how much can actually be grown in a certain size of land.
I personally think we should live in mini familial arcologies with their own vertical farming systems that these families take care of as well as their own renewable energy generators to power the homes and farm. This ridiculous idea of building outwards and taking up more land and resources is going to be our demise if we don't act and think differently soon, if it isn't already too late!
We have a resource and biosphere management problem.
NOT a population problem.
But they are one and the same thing. Resource and biosphere management problem means that there is a part of the population that cannot get the resources it needs - a population problem. Population problem does not mean that the Earth as a whole is overpopulated. Overpopulation on a city or country level is a serious problem, too.
But it is not a population issue at all, it's purely an issue on how we manage the resources we have.
When citizens of some country cannot support themselves and they starve and need charity help from other countries, that means this country is overpopulated.
Maybe if somehow magically all of these poor uneducated people had their nice arcologies, they would live decent lives. But that will not happen because nobody is gonna built those for free for them.
Handouts never solve anything, they only make things worse. Your nice arcologies would be destroyed and turned into ghettos in a few years, and the population of charity-dependent people living in them would increase even more while the resources lasted.
Another part of the problem is harmful globalization - importing food into regions that are unable to support themselves naturally, which causes overpopulation of these regions and further poverty and starving.
In my opinion, all these charity handouts are part of the problem. If the developed world would not start massive charity programs after WW2, there would be much less starving people today. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, and tomorrow you will have two men asking you for fish. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
Originally posted by Maslo
There are more obese people than starving people in the world. We have enough resources to feed everyone. But it will never happen. Not because of some evil TPTB, but because
1. it is not profitable to feed the poor
2. all it would lead to is further procreation of those who "need to be fed" and cannot provide for themselves.
Population control of the poor is the only answer if we ever want to end starving and scarcity.
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
Still...EVEN IF you have (and it's not possible) ONE space the size of West Virgina producing all this "food"....think it through logically!!
HOW do 7 billion people gain access to it??
Honestly....it's great idea for future space exploration, or local food sources...but 7 billion?? The entire PLANET??
And there you have it! So long as we have a continuation of this mindset where slips of paper and shiny metal discs have value and we act as individuals out for our greedy selves, then such a change in global society will never happen.
I'm not sure why your envisioning a despotic post apocalyptic type of arcology lifestyle when I described nothing of the sort.
Where are you getting this charity handout BS from my posts?
When greed dictates where the resources go, then you have an issue with people not receiving what they need to survive.
I disagree. Many of these third world nations with starving populations don't live on land that can be farmed or have piss poor governments managing the resources improperly. You can't blame the population itself as the issue of enough land and food has nothing to do with the population.
Despite its shortcomings... it works.
We need to embrace how global society works and work in cooperation with it, not trying to "change" it into something it is not.
Because if this arcology lifestyle would be economically viable, the transition would happen on its own naturally. I dont think arcologies would solve anything, and I dont know how could they be brought to reality, in the first place. It would be a waste of resources.
(Greed does not dictate where the resources go, you do with your wallet.)
If not by charity handout, how exactly do you intend to transfer resources from the rich and greedy to those that do not recieve enough to survive?
Yes, low quality land and a bad government are a big part of the problem. Strangely enough, their citizens are still procreating rapidly, even though the land is unable to support even current population. That is another part of the problem - overpopulation which you seem to ignore.
Originally posted by Ex_MislTech
Feed 7 billion on 155 mi. sq.
(visit the link for the full news article)
Via Hydroponics and Aquaculture using 10 times less water
a man was able to grow 1 million pounds of food on 3 acres.
It works? Really? Food shortages, foreclosures, insane national debts, economic recession and collapses.
Please explain how freeing up more habitable land and more area to farm is a waste of resources. Seriously, I would absolutely love to see the logic behind such an inane statement.
Do you understand what a resource based economy is?
There is plenty of land to house and feed a larger population than we currently have without having any population living in harsh environments.
Insane national debts, some food shortages, economic recessions and collapses, even big part of foreclosures are not caused by capitalism, but by states trying to turn it into socialism. We do NOT have true capitalism.
Because we already have more than enough habitable land and land for farming? There is enough food for everyone, we have problem with its distribution. Hydroponic farms are good, more ecological and efficient. But are they more economical in the current situation? That is the question..
Its that Venus thingy, isnt it? I dont believe it would work, it totaly ignores human nature and economy. My favourite socialist utopia is this:
Population living in harsh environments is already free to move to nicer places.
No, they are not free at all. Free implies FREE. They are allowed to move to nicer places IF they have units of fictitious value in the form of paper slips and metal discs. They are not free to move elsewhere without these worthless things.
There is that catch phrase that holds distribution back. Is it economical? No, of course it's not because we place value where value doesn't exist. If these population groups can't produce this play money then they can't receive basic human necessities. Honestly, I'm surprised governments find it economical to allow us to still breath for free!
No, you do not need money to move. You just need a place to stay. For example, I exchanged my last house for my current one without any payments.
Thats because someone has to create those resources.
Air is free because it is abundant AND is created without our work needed. If air was manufactured by humans, it would (theoretically) not be free. So until food and water is magically provided to everyone everywhere without human intervention, it would have cost.
These population groups cannot produce anything of substantial value, not just money. Money is just another commodity, I dont know why are you blaming it. If money would somehow ceased to exist, another commodity would take its place, provided its value is stable enough and it is practical. Or barter economy could arise, but this would not be very practical.
Basic income could provide all of humanitys basic needs, like food, water (and an internet connection ). It is already somehow implemented by welfare in a big part of the world, but this implementation is complicated and abused. Coupled with negative income tax, it could be even cheaper than welfare, and would not kill incentive to work as much. Basic income for poor countries would be much easier, due to their cheap living costs.
Most important of all, it is not science-fiction like resource based economy is.
Um... So you hauled everything by hand and foot?
How do you create resources that already exist? Oh you're referring to doling out fictitious units of value!
We can solve that problem with proper management of resources and with a resource based economy.
I read the wiki links and in both of the criticisms sections they discussed how such economic models lead to people not working as much. Besides, didn't you say socialism was the problem and now your advocating it? I'm seriously confused now.
I can't eat slips of paper or metal discs. I can't live in them. They can't cloth me. They are worthless to my survival.