Quote:
Originally Posted by Patch
Parihaka, my curiosity is sparked and I've done a little reading around the subject. However, I can't find a reference to a 30-40% reduction. Could you tell me how this was derived?
Also, I'm not sure how the comparison to Cuba is fallacious. As far as I can tell (and I'm no expert) Cuba did indeed experience a crash in agricultural production following the loss of Soviet support, and has to a large extent rebuilt production using the methods outlined by Heinberg.
|
It's purely guesswork. Heinberg says "The invention of the petrol engine increased the amount of arable land available to grow food, the size and efficiency of farm machinery improved, and better pesticides were developed - all of which contributed to a better food supply."
and
"By the 1960s industrial-chemical practices had been exported to the third
world and
in the next half century food production tripled - but at an
unrecognised cost of water and soil pollution and enormous environmental damage."
also
"According to UN estimates, one third of the world's population lived in areas
with water shortages and 1.1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water.
The situation was expected to worsen dramatically over the next few decades."
So, I consider a thirty percent reduction in food production by removing modern farming practices, farm machinery, and no effective bulk transportation as a conservative estimate.
The reason I consider Cuba a fallacious example is that it is a tropical area that can supply it's own needs easily even with a basic infrastructure. Any of the water deprived areas that cannot supply its own population without modern agricultural methods will in no way be able to support its own people with a nineteenth century agricultural model, nor will the current major food exporters be able to supply because they will 1: not be able in this model to export that food, 2: be unable to produce anywhere near their current levels, or 3: the price will be so prohibitive as to make it unaffordable.
Another example is England, current population 60 million. What is the ratio of people required to work the land in a nineteenth century model, how much land will be viable for agriculture and what is the ratio of people to viable farming area?
But lets take his example of Cuba. Even under his scenario, there's a 10 percent drop in production in what is an ideal 3 crop per annum agricultural area. If we ignore the vast areas of the world that are only possible to farm with modern methods and simply claim a matching 10% reduction, which 10% of the worlds population is going to be culled?