Posted: Jun 16, 2018 1:22 pm
Mac, I snipped your post because otherwise it would have been repetition.
I'm not arguing whether or not a future human population could be fed - I'm sure it could be. But at what cost to the rest of the planet?
There will be other factors resulting from sea level rise: changing climate as well as loss of land. These will have an effect on species survival (both flora and fauna) which may in turn affect how a technologically advanced human population can be fed. We can't all live as some Chinese communities do or be fed 'artificial' foods.
One only has to consider Palm Oil plantations replacing virgin Rain Forest and the effect on local species. The Orang-Utan is now considered endangered because of this.
But as long as we can feed our '10 billion', they (and others) don't matter, perhaps.
See also the link in the OP's article here with regard to measurements including the Arctic Circle melting.
And then, of course, there is the extra pollution caused by the needs of the extra 3 billion or so...
AGW is here to stay unless there is a dramatic world-wide change with how we manage ourselves in relation to the only planet we have. But with each country claiming they are 'special' because of 'sovereignty', I can't see that happening any time soon.
The proposed ideas on how to feed a burgeoning population are all well and good but they must be carried out in conjunction with the well-being of the rest of the planet upon which all of us ultimately rely. They cannot be carried out in isolation.
As one of the commentators wrote with regard to the three years out of date Brookings article:
I'm not arguing whether or not a future human population could be fed - I'm sure it could be. But at what cost to the rest of the planet?
There will be other factors resulting from sea level rise: changing climate as well as loss of land. These will have an effect on species survival (both flora and fauna) which may in turn affect how a technologically advanced human population can be fed. We can't all live as some Chinese communities do or be fed 'artificial' foods.
One only has to consider Palm Oil plantations replacing virgin Rain Forest and the effect on local species. The Orang-Utan is now considered endangered because of this.
But as long as we can feed our '10 billion', they (and others) don't matter, perhaps.
See also the link in the OP's article here with regard to measurements including the Arctic Circle melting.
And then, of course, there is the extra pollution caused by the needs of the extra 3 billion or so...
AGW is here to stay unless there is a dramatic world-wide change with how we manage ourselves in relation to the only planet we have. But with each country claiming they are 'special' because of 'sovereignty', I can't see that happening any time soon.
The proposed ideas on how to feed a burgeoning population are all well and good but they must be carried out in conjunction with the well-being of the rest of the planet upon which all of us ultimately rely. They cannot be carried out in isolation.
As one of the commentators wrote with regard to the three years out of date Brookings article:
Other comments were in a similar vein.Meditor wrote:In short: the article completely neglected the environment, except to note
we should stop cutting the last forests to produce soy and turnips for
cattle production, for example. The declining state of the seas was
neglected; global climate change and the uncertainty of weather makes
farming very difficult. This cheery piece is simply fantasy. Very
poorly informed. In my view.