Originally posted by no1smootha
Originally posted by Lucifer777
Over-population is a myth.
The World Food Crisis, Capitalism and Collectivism.
Unfortunately, the science doesn't support your dismissal. If food were distributed to all of the poor we could probably feed the world for the
present but without controlling population growth we would rapidly exceed the global carrying capacity. The video you posted suggests that we produce
more food on less land, and this is true however this is the result of technology generally frowned upon as these methods lead to soil erosion, and
pollutes the water with pesticides. On the other hand, organic farming methods which maintain the fertility of the soil actually requires more land
for lower yield.
Only certain agricultural products require organic field based farming. Modern agricultural technology, such as polyhouse, hydroponic and aeroponic
farming, such as used by the Israelis, Saudis and the Dutch for agriculture and floricultiure and, for example by the Dutch and Californian marijuana
growers, can produce large yields using organic fertilizers; crops which might produce around 1-2 tons per acre can produce "up to" ton tons per acre
with such methods; since plants take in most of their water from humidity in the air, rather than the soil, humidity tent farming is vastly superior
to soil based farming. This is not "rocket science;" it is a very simple tried and tested method. I have had spectacular results with indoor farming
myself in the past though at the moment I am growing outdoors on just about a sixth of an acre, and that is hard work for much less yield.
Originally posted by Lucifer777There are probably "up to" and estimated 30,000 animal species, some of whom have dietary
requirements which are far greater than human beings; yet nobody really speaks of the animal over-population problem, because there simply is no
problem.
If only this claim were true, but alas there are scores of news articles detailing overpopulation in the wild and methods of control.
Feral cat overpopulation
Deer overpopulation
Mallard overpopulation
Rabbit overpopulation
Jellyfish overpopulation
Buffalo overpopulation
In the context of the "world food problem," none of the above is really such a problem when millions of people are starving, since all of the above
are edible, even jellyfish, which is rich in protein. Cats, and even dogs are a traditional delicacy in China and Korea. In the Capitalist West they
are pets and are often fed on chicken and expensive foodstuffs; the thought of eating them may seem even more outrageous to an American than the image
of starving children, but it is the starving child which is the obscenity, not cats and dogs in butchers shops.
I thought that with your academic credentials that you would have been familiar with the Tragedy of the Commons, an essay written by Garret
Hardin. The problem is that it is not possible to maximize two variables, we can maximize population size or we can maximize quality of life for each
person living, we can't do both. The essay is critical of the strategies of capitalist and the communist systems as this grapple with the issue.
The Tragedy of the Commons
The Return to Year Zero.
Hardin's argument with the present world population is a "capitalist" and "consumerist" argument, not really a scientific argument, though certainly
he states it in those terms. Obviously there are limits to the population of human beings which planet earth could support, in which case he is
speaking simple common sense, but since much of the world is uninhabited, and most of the land is not farmed, we are a long way from that.
Since we are living in a global Capitalist dictatorship, then certainly there "seems" to be an overpopulation problem, but this is caused by
Capitalism and the selling of food as a commodity. In the current system the Chinese "one child" policy may not be such a bad idea; it would not be
necessary in the First World where population is relatively stable, but it would be more appropriate for the the Third World and the Developing World
where the populations are spiralling food prices are rising and especially in urban areas this causes people to live in greater destitution and
squalour.
Half the world's population now live in cities and very few of them produce food. Pol Pot's "Return to Year Zero" was a diabolical, genocidal,
primitivist solution; one cannot have an overnight instant agricultural revolution; nevertheless the urbanisation of Capitalist societies also causes
mass deprivation and impoverishment; in a world of millions of hungry people argiculture, fishing and livestock should be a priority, and this would
require de-urbanisation to a great extent..
In much of the Third World, especially in rural Africa, having a large family is a sign of prestige, and since there are little or no state welfare
systems for the elderly, having many children provides security in old age, thus there would be massive cultural barriers to introduce a Chinese style
"one child" policy, and it would probably be fervently resisted anyway. Further, contraception in Africa is not free for the entire population and
most of the income of the poor goes on food. If it is between purchasing a pack of condoms or eating for a day, people will tend to eat.
Collectivism and Capitalism. Public Property, Private Property and "use value."
Hardin suggests that as population increased, the quality of life reduces and that one can either have a lower population with a higher quality of
life or a higher population with a higher quality of life. This is just common sense, but only at a point where the human population has become out of
control, however we need to also ask, "what is quality of life?
By the consumerist values of American Capitalism, the American Dream seems to include such things as rampant consumerism; shopping malls full of
trinkets which are often manufactured by vast armies of labour slaves in poorer nations, such as the millions of Chinese workers working to fill the
shelves of the world's largest corporation, Walmart; a mega-corporation which has decimated small independent business in the US and transferred much
of US consumer manufacturing overseas. The American dream also includes supermarkets and fast food chains full of foodstuffs guaranteed to create the
most obese nation on earth, and all the health problems which go along with that. It is also desirable in American style Capitalism to have one or
more homes, the larger the better, one or more cars, sufficient money to gamble and to accumulate a mountain of private property, etc. Not so long ago
Emilda Marcos caused a sensation when it was discovered that she had 100's of pairs of shoes, but today many American women have 100's of pairs of
shoes, and labour hours which could be invested in agriculture and food are diverted to feed the needs of the Capitlist's addiction to
over-consumption and greed.
In a collectivist / kibbutz system there would be no need for everyone to have an American style detached home; people simply need somewhere to sleep
and socialise. There would be no need for everyone to have a kitchen if there is a communal canteen. There would be no need for everyone to have a
car. I barely use my car more than a few hours a week, and the rest of the time it sits around idle, but in the Kibbutzim there are shared communal
cars; there is simply no need to have one car for one person. Some people don't use their PC's more than a few hours a week, and the rest of the time
they sit idle; in an agricultural or technological collective it would not matter if a person had a PC as private or public property, as long as they
could go somewhere and use a PC. The same goes for all the tools and equipment that sit around in the garages of homes as private property.
When you go to a public park, it does not matter that it is not your private property; and the "use value" of public transport or shared transport has
nothing to do with whether you own it or not, similarly with technology, homes, tools and just about anything you can think of. There are of course
very rare exceptions; a short sighted person would need their own customised pair of spectacles, but there are very few things that we need to own as
private property since public property has the same "use value " as private property.
I think that it is just that Capitalist society makes us familiar with the idea of rampant consumerism and a life spent in the acquisition of personal
property, but the recipe for "quality of life" or "human happiness" is rather simple and universally applicable; we are social creatures and a person
can have an abundance of love and happiness without accumulating private property; it is simply our conditioning in a Capitalist society which makes
some of us think that way and turns human beings into Capitalist devils.
This is all not "theoretical" as far as I am concerned by the way; I have lived in "communes" for around eight years of my life in the past, though I
no longer do so for various reasons, however my personal happiness and "quality of life" had absolutely nothing to do with the amount of private
property I owned; indeed apart from a few items of clothing, I did not own anything and I did not need to; this is not to suggest that I did not work
and that I had no Capital; on the contrary when I walked off the property I was back in the Capitalist system and I felt sorry for most of those who
had to live that way.
Anyway in a future post-revolutionary world, once the US Imperialists have been defeated; we will have to think of something to do with the US
miltiary and all the militant ideological Capitalists, state terrorists and assorted economic parasites who would oppose revolution, and since the
Christians anyway believe that "the wheat shall be separated from the chaff and the caff cast into the fires;" once their bodies are burnt, their
crushed remains would make excellent fertiliser to assist agricultural revolution ("sword to ploughshares") and were they to be placed in industrial
microwaves and carbonised, their carbon would make excellent cooking fuel for people in the Third World who have no electric cookers. So you see, you
ideological Capitalists might even have some "use value" for the 1000 Year agricultural revolution after all.
"Another world is possible."
edit on 22-4-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Text was not blasphemous and diabolical enough; not enough Christian flesh and blood sacrificed and
devoured.
