Deer culling on massive scale.

[monkey104]

Soylent Green. "It's people!"

 

Aw come on! Soylent Green. Is there only me old enough to remember?

[MrSmith]

No we dont.

 

Although 70% of the land is arable farmland not all of that land is farmed on and and used, that 70% represents 9.2 million hectares of land only in England. The figures (albeit from 2006) show that of all the crops grown in England only 4.2 million hectares was used, which is less than half of that land available that can be used for growing crops. So we have plenty of room in England alone to grow more crops if needed.

 

The EU pays subsidies to farmers to the tune of 200 euro's per hectare at the moment to encouraged them not to grow crops. That helps stop overproduction and what was known as the food mountains from accumulating, and also to help keep food prices stable.

 

If half is used for crops then most of the remainder will be used to produce dairy and meat. Cows and sheep graze on grass.

Distribution of farming

 

In the UK and in other places in the world, even in the driest deserts it is possible to grow food. It not that we cant but as always its about the cost. The same is also true when it come to energy and water.

Whilst growing food in deserts is possible it uses valuable resources and doesn’t produce cheap food.

 

You may have noticed that people may be starving around the world in poorer countries but, in the modern societies they are suffering from obesity and over consumption.

 

Which is why I'm suggesting these societies should be the ones to reduce their population size, we consume the most so can save the most if the population is smaller.

[Parvo]

Well I agree with you Mr Smith....to me it seems to be a simple mathematics problem.

Ultimately resources are finite.....

If world population keeps increasing there will not be enough resources to go round (even without the inequities of rich and poor this would eventually be the case)

If we overpopulate and push our our ecosystems into ever smaller areas eventually they will die........

If our ecosystems die....humanity dies too.......

 

The sooner we learn to live within our means (as a species) the greater our chance of survival as a species are......this means a drastic cut in population

This requires an ability to work together and to adapt....

Sadly I think as a species we are too stupid and selfish to do this....

We are in simple terms...F*****

[Dromedary]

If half is used for crops then most of the remainder will be used to produce dairy and meat. Cows and sheep graze on grass.

Distribution of farming

 

I think you should look at that link again. Cows and sheep may graze on grass but the land they are on is not classes as arable. Also it represents the whole of the UK and not just England.

 

 

Whilst growing food in deserts is possible it uses valuable resources and doesn’t produce cheap food.

 

Which is why I was saying it is about cost and not the fact that we are overpopulated.

[MrSmith]

I think you should look at that link again. Cows and sheep may graze on grass but the land they are on is not classes as arable. Also it represents the whole of the UK and not just England.

 

 

I know, you apparently didn't when you claimed

70% of the land is arable

I thought it would be petty picking you up on it. So I posted the link for your benefit.

 

Which is why I was saying it is about cost and not the fact that we are overpopulated.

 

You haven’t shown that we aren’t over populated; you thought 70% of the UK was arable when it isn’t, you thought half of it was unused when in fact it’s used, and we clearly don't have enough land to feed our selves.

 

The Environmental Benefits of Set-Aside in the EU

Letting farmlands lie fallow is one of the best ways of allowing the land to replenish its nutrients, and regain its fertility, without having to resort to the application of fertilizers. It is an important component of crop rotation. And leaving the land to lie fallow also prevents erosion, as the roots of the plants left to grow on the land help to hold the soil in place against the ravages of wind and rain.

 

Intensive farming is a method of farming that attempts to maximize the yield of crops on available land.

Intensive farming also has a similarly devastating impact upon soil ecology, particularly when the farms are mismanaged. The aggressive plowing methods employed by intensive farmers destroy the habitats of wild creatures, which are needed for natural soil maintenance. For example, earthworms are natural tillers that gently filter the soil and ensure that it doesn't suffer from erosion. But mechanical plows kill earthworms and other useful lifeforms, creating the first requisites for desertification (this will happen anyway, since the poisons sprayed on the land will eventually render the land toxic and infertile regardless of how well it is looked after).

[Dromedary]

I know, you apparently didn't when you claimed

I thought it would be petty picking you up on it. So I posted the link for your benefit.

 

A link that does not prove what you state either.

 

You are correct that the figure I quoted was wrong. Agriculture occupies 70% or roughly 9.2 million hectares of English land. Out of which (2006) only 4.3 million hectares was used for crops. The rest however is not solely used for animals as a lot of what is left is not farmed on or used. Hence the many £millions of EU subsidies that the farmers get for keeping the land barren.

 

Now perhaps you could prove this that you stated and refused to back up;

Quote, "The UK's resources can only sustain a quarter of its population"

 

You haven’t shown that we aren’t over populated;

I know but you have not show that we are which is for you to prove.

[truman]

Now perhaps you could prove this that you stated and refused to back up;

Quote, "The UK's resources can only sustain a quarter of its population"

 

 

 

You'll be waiting a while..I asked Mr Smith to do this ages ago and all I got was a list of Google links to "Optimal population"..

[MrSmith]

A link that does not prove what you state either.

I agree it doesn't prove anything, but it does support my claim.

 

 

 

You are correct that the figure I quoted was wrong. Agriculture occupies 70% or roughly 9.2 million hectares of English land. Out of which (2006) only 4.3 million hectares was used for crops. The rest however is not solely used for animals as a lot of what is left is not farmed on or used. Hence the many £millions of EU subsidies that the farmers get for keeping the land barren.

Do you have a link that shows the amount of farm land that is not being used or left fallow? Because the links I supplied apears to contradict your claim.

 

 

Now perhaps you could prove this that you stated and refused to back up;

Quote, "The UK's resources can only sustain a quarter of its population"

I can't prove it but I did post links that support what I claimed, if you disagree with the links or my claim then please provide links that support your stance.

I know but you have not show that we are which is for you to prove.

 

It’s not for me to prove at all, I've posted links that support my opinion; you disagree with me but you haven't provided anything to support your stance. I can live with the fact that you disagree, so I have no reason to try and prove anything to you.

Having said that if you can provide me with some evidence that the UK can sustain over 16,000,000 people indefinitely at our current average rate of consumption, then I will happily read it.

 

---------- Post added 12-03-2013 at 16:36 ----------

 

You'll be waiting a while..I asked Mr Smith to do this ages ago and all I got was a list of Google links to "Optimal population"..

 

If you read through the topic you will find the links I posted that support my claim, it became apparent that some of you don’t know how to used Google so I did it for you.

 

 

Here just in case you are too lazy to look back.

 

 

There isn't a source just my calculations based on a mass of information and to claim it is inaccurate would mean you have a source which proves optimum population isn’t aproximataly 16,000,000.

 

You must be capable of using Google and reading, but here I will do a little work for you.

 

 

This puts it a little higher than my figure, but any calculations are dependent on each person’s consumption, high consumption gives a lower optimum population than low consumption.

 

 

 

This one puts it a little lower.

 

Top 10: the world’s most overpopulated countries

 

Research newly published lists the most overpopulated countries. When we talk about "overpopulation" (as opposed to population size), we are referring to the link between the human population and its environment. Therefore, it's not just the size or density of the population that matters, but how that population relates to sustainable resources.

 

The UK comes in at a slightly less respectable 17th. Its self-sufficiency rating is 25.8 per cent, meaning that Britain could only support a quarter of its population -- about 15 million -- if it had to rely on its own resources.

 

The optimum population of Earth – enough to guarantee the minimal physical ingredients of a decent life to everyone – was 1.5 to 2 billion people rather than the 7 billion who are alive today or the 9 billion expected in 2050, said Ehrlich in an interview with the Guardian.