Major River Basins Have Enough Water to Sustainably Double Food Production in the Coming Decades

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
NOT a fan of 'science daily'

It's the most reliable science news source on the internet - unless you can offer a better option? I know some people don't like it for obvious reasons - it's dull and mundane and relies on facts and silly stuff like that. Perhaps your prefer Sorcha Fal?

Are you kidding? "Science Daily" might be a good starting point for someone wanting to read about those subjects, but it's only a 'collection' of info. much of it poorly cited. There are FAR better sites available for someone wanting REAL science. How you come to the conclusion that I must be a 'sorcha fall' fan is beyond reason. In fact, I recall SD running a few Sorcha Fal stories in the past.

Regardless, this is not about Science Daily. Do you care to comment on the other 90% of my post?

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by freespirit1

 

You move the people to the water or the water to the people. Most people live in regions where there is insufficient water. What do you suggest we do?

Are you sure you read the article?

That's not what is being suggested whatsoever. they are talking about moving WATER, and changing agricultural methods. not moving massive population centers.

For example, Cook and his colleagues found that if donors and government ministries put more emphasis on supporting rain-fed agriculture, food production can increase substantially and rapidly. In Africa, it was found that the vast majority of cropland is rainfed and researchers found that only about four percent of available water is captured for crops and livestock.

reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican


I apologize for not being specific ... or not finding a more specific source... here are some others

news.yahoo.com...
www.physorg.com...

Although they appear to press release type reprints....

Look for keywords like:

Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF)
Living Water International
Water International (Volume 35, Issue 5 and Volume 36, Issue 1)

Maybe you'll have better luck than I did.

reply to post by Maxmars


I did a search for the article being cited, but found nothing.

Perhaps you have to purchase it?

I'd be interested to know what sort of specific agricultural methods being 'rain-farming' they are referring to that would increase yields.

reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican


On the Living Water web site their publication seems to be available.. I just don;t have the time to look through them one page at a time.... someone over there likes paper a lot... the reprints are graphically displayed so you have to thumb through them, and they don't have volume numbers on them.... so it will be a while....

i watched this show not too long ago about the up coming end times and the possible occurences.

and water was one of those in there thought the guy was a bit off to even suggest a thing.

but then after reading the clean air act which control this countries entire water supplies it got me to thinking

could that dude be right right now wells really arent being drilled anymore and now it takes billions of dollars to even to begin to build resevoirs.

and the kicker is no you dont ask the state and no you dont just go ask someone to drill and build them

you have to go straight to the federal government for permission.

people say whoever controls the oil in the world is the master
people say whoever controls the money in the world is the master

i say whoever controls the water is the master and that aint us.

and yes people will say desalinization of water and yet agian here i say that same clean air act gave government control over any water source in this country.

a sign of things to come? who knows but there was a time in america that people didnt pay 5 bucks for bottled water.

you make the call

reply to post by ARealandTrueAmerican


Sorry, my bad..... thought you were talking me personally!! LOL

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
....they are talking about moving WATER, and changing agricultural methods. not moving massive population centers.

So we shift all the water from the Congo to Somalia ....

(whilst plenty of rain may fall in Africa, most of it falls where it is not needed and very little fall where it is)

No doubt you have a good idea for doing that? Expecially since you poo-poo mainstream science news.

(You think Science Daily is bad? you should look a Nature Fact is it's the best internet science news source - and I really wish a few ATSers would read it from time to time. Except it doesn't talk about Nibiru and the NWO or holographs blowing up the WTC .....)

I'm of 2 lines of thought here. 1 and this is the biggie..... profit/money. This is not an original thought. Carlin said it 25 years ago. "If the corporations found a way to make a profit off of the homeless you would see the streets of America getting cleaned up really quickly." No profit = no action. Secondly, sometimes Mother Earth decides that a certain area has exceeded it's limit as to how many people she will sustain there. I don't give to any of these charities that try to play on your sensibilities to give money to children in, let's say, Ethiopia. The Earth has determined that this area is over populated and what do they do? HAVE MORE FRICKIN KIDS!!!!! If someone set up a program to introduce a decent program of birth control I could get behind that. Thirdly, these "charities" are also all about #1- profit.

Originally posted by intrepid
If someone set up a program to introduce a decent program of birth control I could get behind that.

Government sponsored birth control?

You want, what, the US to pay for sterilizing poor African women?

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
....they are talking about moving WATER, and changing agricultural methods. not moving massive population centers.

So we shift all the water from the Congo to Somalia ....

(whilst plenty of rain may fall in Africa, most of it falls where it is not needed and very little fall where it is)

Again, you should maybe read the article. It covers this. Then you will be informed!

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican

Originally posted by intrepid
If someone set up a program to introduce a decent program of birth control I could get behind that.

Government sponsored birth control?

You want, what, the US to pay for sterilizing poor African women?

What? Where did I say anything about the gov't or sterilization. Go back and read that again. Or would you prefer MORE children with no life and no hope?

reply to post by intrepid


The article isnt really about over-population. It's about agricultural methods and water use.

You should maybe read it.

Have a nice day.

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
reply to post by intrepid

 

The article isnt really about over-population. It's about agricultural methods and water use.

You should maybe read it.

I did. Maybe you should consider others posts and not interject what you THINK a member is saying. You may learn something.

Have a nice day.

Been a good one so far. Back at you.

Originally posted by intrepid
Maybe you should consider others posts and not interject what you THINK a member is saying. You may learn something.

I asked for clarification of a point you made.

You gotta sorta postal.

No biggie.

reply to post by Maxmars


I guess water is just like food then. There is more than enough in the world for everyone, the problem is with resource allocation and efficiency...

reply to post by Maxmars


This immediately brought to mind two different scenario's I've seen in my life relevant to this topic.

Los Angeles, California is a great example of Human stupidity. During the 1990's they attempted to steal all the water from the Snake River via the Columbia with plans to divert it somehow to Los Angeles. They attempted legally to take all the Farmers water away in Idaho. Luckily it did not work.

They did not want the water for agriculture, but wanted to divert it for drinking water in Los Angeles because L.A. was allowed to grow in a place without water and they must take all their water away from somewhere else. Add to that the earthquake issues and Los Angeles is one of the stupidest mistakes in history. It simply should not exist where it is.

I spent most of my Childhood in Utah County in Utah. My Father had Fruit Orchards, Berries and some small scale farming. Utah County around Utah Lake was famous for it's fruit. The water table is near the surface, in fact Utah Lake is a water table lake. That and lots of snow melt water so we had Canal systems to irrigate. We had very deep loamy black soil that produces excellent fruit. In fact I've never had anything to compare since my Father died and we sold the land.

I once dug a pit to determine how deep the soil was on our land and gave up after I reached ten feet in depth and still had not hit the bottom of the rich soil. When we irrigated mounds of loam would float down the ditches it was so rich.

My point in this is I recently visited after many years. The orchards are all gone from the entire valley, replaced by houses. They took some of the best land in the whole country with plenty of water and replaced the agriculture with houses. This is happening all over the place. Stupidity knows no bounds.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Your tale speaks of the exact point of the matter at least I felt inclined to address.

Apparently, humans are generally inclined to focus on either a: short term gains, or long term gains based upon narrowly defined parameters.

Such a shame to lose a grove that could feed many, for a few houses that "might" have made money for a third-party..... politicians like to pretend its "progress for the people". But often... it is far from it.

Food Limits

The lifetime of past civilizations correlates well with their topsoil resources.

But now consider that once topsoil depths drop below the depth of the root zone (about 6 inches) cropland erosion becomes nearly irreversible and increases rapid. Current optimistic average depths of cropland topsoil are not over 11 inches, and some data say several inches less.

So civilization has only about half of its topsoil to spend down before things get really bad.

This gives a lifetime for human civilization of about 70 years--barely one human lifetime, and just an eye-blink in terms of human history.

Maximum Global Population

Each of these assumes that the current depletion of fossil fuel reserves has continued to completion. No fossil fuels are left, except possibly for a small stock, priced high, and used for limited durable uses such as new plastic production and for some pharmaceuticals.

1. Everyone at the current U.S. standard of living and with all the health, nutrition, personal dignity and freedom that most Americans currently enjoy [Pimentel, 1999]. 2 billion

2. Everyone at the same affluence level as in 1, but with few restrictions on commerce, pollution, land use, personal behavior (within current law), etc. Basically a libertarian, laissez faire economy, with only limited environmental restrictions. This points out that there is a population price to pay for the current American way of commerce. 0.5 billion

3. Everyone at the same affluence as indicated in 1, but with many and onerous restrictions on freedoms relative to behaviors leading to environmental degradation. In order to accommodate populationlevels greater than 2 billion, restrictions such as the following would have to be instituted: Massive recycling. Driving restrictions (gasolene rationing, fuel rationing even to mass transit systems). Restrictions on the transport of food (food transported no more than 100 miles for example to its point of retail sales). Prohibitions against cutting of trees on one's property. Limitations on the burning of fossil fuels in order to save these complex molecules for more valuable or durable uses, such as in the manufacture of plastics and pharmaceuticals. Limitations on the areas of open spaces that can be converted to renewable energy power plants, such as solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, and wind energy systems. This latter results from the need to preserve natural areas for atmospheric oxygen generation and food growing. Of course many rooftops can accept solar energy systems and this scenario basically assumes a nearly complete saturation of coverage of roof tops and covers over parking lots for solar energy production. 4 billion

4. Only people in the U.S. and Europe at current level of affluence. Everyone else at the current prosperity level of Mexico. 6 billion

5. Everyone in the world at Mexico's current prosperity level. 20 billion

6. Everyone in the world at the current "prosperity" level of Northwest Africa. 40 billion
maxpop

"Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom, and we have agriculture to thank for that. Without farming, the world population would probably have reached half a million by now."

Humanity as a whole was using, by 2006, 40 percent more than what Earth can regenerate.

Overpopulation

So don't worry yourselves about how much food you can or cant grow there wont be any soil to grow it in left after 70 years

What good will this do if there aren't many alive to take advantage of it? Polluted??