Wednesday, August 12, 2009

jeffbliss is a dweeb.

However, contrary to such abominations, contraception/family planning is the only way that the earth's impoverished have even a remote chance of making it out of poverty. For example, China cannot feed itself and grow its economy. It must lease land in other countries to grow enough food. It must build the equivalent of one coal-fired power plant per week. China runs the Yellow River dry using the water for industry and water shortages have been reducing food yield. China is depleting the aquifer in the north, where it grows about 1/2 of its grain and 1/3 of its corn, by about 10 feet/year. The deep aquifer is a fossil aquifer, once it's depleted, it's depleted. The shallow aquifer is replenishable, once its depleted the pumping rate can only match the recharge rate.
Actually they need to be out of poverty before birth rates fall. As I said before development and then birth rates will correct themselves. As far as China cannot feed itself...
Overseas food not China's staple
China relies little on the global food market, despite its increasing openness and growing trade.

According to Cheng Guoqiang, deputy director with the institute of market economy under the Development and Research Center of the State Council, the country has witnessed an annual 11-percent increase in its food exports following its entry into the WTO in 2001, and an annual 22-percent increase in its food imports.

Between 1998 and 2001, imports grew at 3 percent a year and exports at 2 percent.

However, in recent years the value of food exports has been less than 10 percent of agriculture GDP while food imports accounted for about 10 percent of that figure, which demonstrates a low reliance on the global market.

"The percentage ratio shows that the growth in the agriculture sector is mainly driven by domestic need," Cheng said at the 11th Sino-French Seminar on Wheat held yesterday in Kunming.


The agricultural outputs and the land areas of the two countries are similar, but China has a much larger labor force employed in agriculture and most of its population lives in rural areas (table B-1). Productivity and income of agricultural laborers in China are accordingly much lower than in the United States. China’s food share of exports is 6 percent, surprisingly high (only 2 percentage points less than the land-abundant United States) for a country with limited land resources. Its food imports are just 4 percent of total imports.
Surprisingly Self-Sufficient in Food
For a country with nearly 1.3 billion consumers and limited natural resources, China’s level of food imports is surprisingly low. China is nearly self-sufficient in food and is a major net exporter of many food products, including manufactured food and beverages, animal products, vegetables, fish and seafood, tea, and fruits (table B-2). China’s agricultural exports go primarily to neighboring Asian countries, including Japan and South Korea, which are also among the top markets for U.S. agricultural products. {From the PDF at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib775/aib775e.pdf}


And as far as grow its economy you might want to check out: GDP growth 1952-2008. Again continuing with the paper:
Poor, But Not Hungry
China has a rising urban middle class with world-class consumption standards, but it is still largely a poor country. Its per capita GDP is similar to those of developing countries, such as the Philippines and Sri Lanka.1 In 2000, China’s urban residents spent an average of $236 per person on food, and rural expenditures were even lower, at $56. Farm families, which still make up the bulk of China’s population, grow much of the food they consume.

Food insecurity, however, is not a problem for most of China’s population. China’s per capita food supply, measured by calories per person per day, was 8 percent above the world average in 1999 (fig. B-2). Famine and food insecurity were common in China’s past, but food consumption and food availability have soared since economic reforms began in the late 1970s.

Growth of the agricultural sector is important when we consider balanced growth strategies and makes development that much easier.

It is also worth noting that China is making a major push again to get more mechanization into the agricultural sector especially tractors as India has done in various stages also.
************************
You're saying that we must grow the population so that the pyramid has a wide base, with a lot of youth providing for a relatively smaller number of old, rather a some sort of ovoid or diamond, with fewer youth providing for a relatively larger number of old. That won't work because we are using scarce resources and degrading/changing the environment at too great a rate. This argument is from the know-nothing economists who don't understand natural systems and misapply economic theory to them.
I think you pretty well summed up your position in ideological terms. But seriously I am not advocating a pyramid since that is no longer possible anymore. It will be at best at column that has a slight decrease in width as you go up and then at the top a pyramid but shallow starting around 60 or so. Death rates among working age people is pretty low now.

Human capital is an economic concept and has no place in ecology or environmental sciences. Economics is defined as follows:
...
It is a subset of sociology, anthropology, and psychology. It is wholly incapable of discussing the carrying capacity of the earth.
So far this post is just you telling me what you believe not concrete proof or analysis of facts that are agreed upon. You are doing nothing more than making declarative statements.

The link I provided was from 2008 and most articles I read indicate that China is now struggling to maintain food production. I find it amazing that anyone would profess that just because basic needs may be met that that is acceptable for those people.
It is a far cry from 'struggling' than not being able to feed their citizens. I don't even need China to be able to feed itself 100% to prove that the world has enough resources only that if China and India can feed its citizens and USA can provide the necessary shortages then the world has plenty of resources. Well I would say it is more acceptable than being chosen to leave this world involuntarily.

It isn't only about agriculture. China cannot grow enough without huge amounts of fossil fuels to keep up with the demands of its increasing population without degrading our environment. Coal-fired plants are the backbone of its growth.
That is for industrialization. Do you think they use coal on their fields?

Your children are harmed by too many people. How do you propose any of the impoverished nations nurture their vast multitudes? I suggest you look carefully at the loads most developing nations are carrying in just meeting the basic needs of their people. Most of the world's population has no hope of getting any nurturing, only in making it day to day.
You can talk about your theoretical children but I know they will be harmed unless we avoid the demographic cliff. Again you saying tripe from the Neo-Malthusians will not convince me that all the propaganda I have been exposed to for 30 years is complete garbage. When was the last famine?

IR theory? You mean international relations? If so, it is just as incapable as economics in discussing real world systems. It/they is/are a subset of the social sciences and so is capable of dealing only with human behavior. A trillion people? We have been breaking the earth's systems as we grew to this point. If we do not change, we will collapse them. While the earth may be able to sustain greater than 3 billion people, human nature indicates that it won't happen. People would have to act to minimize the harm they do and evidence indicates that we don't do that for long. As proof, look at your attitude. You believe that there's nothing to worry about. Now multiply yourself by a few billion and you can see why there's no hope.
You say it but it does not make it so.

As far as attitude, you believe that there will be world wide famine and billions will die off and how that happens is immaterial but you insist it will happen. Now multiply yourself by a few billion of divergent thinkers constantly looking for this great die-off and sure enough we might just get it.

Those that have been praying for an economic calamity has gotten one right now. Just be careful what you wish for. By the way I never said there was nothing to worry about.

Labels:

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home