From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Overpopulation
Date: 2 Sep 1992 17:39:43 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <pkkn#pp.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <1992Sep02.064420.9689@bmerh85.bnr.ca> dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>>In article <l=knl5=.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:

>>>	Eric quoted a figure from ZPG about there being "enough" food to
>>>feed something like 3.2 gigafolk. Does it really take much thought to
>>>see this is a meaningless statement, a pseudo-statistic?

>>Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my impression that there is only
>>a finite amount of arable land on which to grow crops.

>	OK, I'll correct you: you're wrong. Not only is "arable land"
>another variable, the yield from land is variable, and even the _need_
>for land to grow food is pragmatic rather than theoretical. There is no
>theoretical limit to how much food the world can produce, only practical
>limits, which vary with time.

My origional post dealt with the variables of both yield, and the
amount of arable land. Again, I wish to point out that Kenn deleted
all this text when he responded to that post, and then he responded
in a manner that implied I didn't deal with these issues. I consider
this to be a sign of the dishonesty of Kenn's origional response.

As for the differnce between theoretical and practical food production,
you can't eat theoritical food.

>>Eric pointed out
>>that the amount of this land is decreasing due to soil erosion, and the
>>yield of the remaining land is decreasing because of the reduced use of
>>fertilizer.  I don't think it does take a great deal of thought to see
>>that our ability to produce food is decreasing.  Perhaps you disagree
>>with one or more of the premises, but if so, I wish you'd say so rather
>>than just ranting and raving.

>	Pay attention. The stuff mentioned from ZPG was _stupid_. That's
>what I said, that's what I meant, that's my objection, and I've even
>explained why. What is your problem? Perhaps you'd like to defend the
>statement that the world can only feed 3.2 billion, when the present
>population is ~5 billion, and growing all the time? What do you think
>they all eat, sand?

Reviewing Kenn's response to my origional post, I noticed that he
deleted my text where I explained that according to ZPG, there is
enough food to feed some 6.4 billion people on a straight grain
diet. Now he is claiming that I have stated that the world can only
feed 3.2 billion people. Again, this is either a dishonest argument
on Kenn's part or an indicator that he is in some way mentally
deficient to comprehend the article I posted.

I don't seem to be able to recover my origional article. If someone
has a news server where that article is still alive, I'd appreciate
it if they could post it. However, I have been able to recover Kenn's
response to it, which contradicts his claim that I stated the world
can only feed 3.2 billion people.

**********************************************************************
In article <l9qs7kINNbvb@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>Actually, according to ZPG there is enough food to feed everyone on
>earth, providing that we are all willing to go on a grain diet. However
>the margin is not a large one. The same article said that there is
>enough food to feed about 3.2 billion people the diet of the average
>American. This is a number about 2.3 billion less than the current
>world population.

    Are there really people stupid enough to pay attention to such
tripe? Geez.

    Food supply is not a constant.

    Duh.

                        Kayembee

**********************************************************************

>	There's a difference between having a point, and having an axe
>to grind. Go grind yours elsewhere.

Indeed.

>>ZPG and Eric say food supply is not a constant, but rather is decreasing.
>>You say that is this is a ludicrous argument for zero population growth.
>>I agree.  I think it's an airtight argument for negative population growth.
>>But we've got to start somewhere.

>	I have a suggestion where you and the rest of the elitists can
>start...

Indeed, again!

>						Kayembee

Eric