Translate

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Calling Prof.Waldo.... Where arrre youuuu?

My response to the commenter Where's Waldo, at my earlier posting got so very long, that I decided to make it into a posting. So, here's my reply to Where's Waldo.
Waldo, you said: "Once again you have demonstrated that you obviously don't read (or perhaps read, but do not understand) many documents, articles, or books that accurately describe macroeconomics or geopolitics, let alone anything other than ExxonMobil advertisements on environmental issues".
I know my limitations and will freely admit that some things just fly over my head and crash against the wall behind me. However, I also know that I graduated with honors from the University of Common Sense, and that no other medium of learning can come anywhere close to the UCS. Also, all of us cannot be profs of AnythingButCommonSensology. 
Waldo, you said: "If you and Scary, think population reduction through voluntarily reducing birth rates is such a horrible thing for the environment or the global macroeconomic situation should look at the current global economy. Who has the most important and fastest growing economy (but not yet the largest economy) in the world today? Think about it for a while....China. What has China had in place for the past generation? .... think a little harder....A one child policy - that has been more or less effective, if heavy handed. (Hut hey, Harper soundly criticized them on their human rights policies... hmmm - pot, kettle, get to know one another)Has the one child policy ruined their economy? Nope. It can actually be argued that this policy has driven significant improvements in their standard of living and enhanced the growth of their economy.Given the environmental and pollution disaster that China is experiencing today, what do you really think they would be experiencing if they had another 300-400 million people that had to house, clothe, and feed themselves?"
 Oh Waldo, Waldo.... we can get real mucky and sticky if we discuss China and their communist ways. It's true that their economy is booming and as a Communist regime they are much more flexible than Communist Russia ever was. How come, you as a leftist is commending their capitalistic ways? They are capitalistic to the core, every last Chinese man, woman and child have become capitalistic and that is a thing of wonder coming from a concept like Communism. However, for every one Chinese doing well on the "middle class" ladder, there are 5 or more of their fellow man languishing in utter poverty. China has been wrongly given an "aura" of a role model of what a country can achieve if the govt is strict with the populace and lays down hard and fast rules for human behaviour.

The real story is far, far, far from the truth. China's govt. will never let even 10% of the real misery happening to the poor in China, to slip out. What you see and hear about China is what China wants you to see and hear ... and I think you know that. You also admit that their "one child policy" was heavy handed but effective. I believe this policy was adopted in 1978 or thereabouts. Female baby infanticide in China, until recently, was such a common occurence that nobody, and I mean NOBODY, gave a damn about the probably 1000s of baby girls killed at childbirth on a DAILY basis because of the "one child" policy. Parents would willingly have their female babies killed at birth and keep trying until they gave birth to a boy.... but I didn't need to tell you that too. The Chinese, like the Indians... prefer sons .. that is also not news to you...but people like you will still bypass the inhumane aspects of Communism and blow up to unrealistic proportions the minuscule areas of the minimalistic good that a Communist regime achieves while in power. The gendercide that was the norm in China for decades has now come back to bite them as young Chinese men now face difficulty in finding female mates.

And, Scary has responded to you with:"Check back in 20 years when the pampered only children of China reach their most productive years. You'll see euthanasia of the highest order to stem the economic decline.
The fact is, you are not taking into account the lag that happens of about 30 to 40 years. We had a baby boom in the 50's. Our best years economically were the 80's and 90's. Once they begin retiring (next 20 years) we will have serious problems.
If you want proof, look at Japan. Decades of population stasis leads to economic stagnation. It's kind of funny that all Progressives seem to want is a halt to progress.
"Waldo, you said "In the end, we live in a finite world. Based on available data and as demonstrated by the ongoig manmade catastrophes and, likely the climate change induced, natural catastrophes we are currently seeing everywhere around us, it is quite obvious that we are exceeding the carrying capacity of the planet to sustain the current population, let alone a growing population that wants to consume and pollute like people in developed economies do.I would postulate that the only possible reasons why someone would want to continue on the current destructive path of unlimited population growth is that they are ignorant, believe in the Rapture coming within their lifetimes, or they are selfish asses. Which of these three groups would you align yourself with?"
Waldo, your talking points above, I don't know why, but they reminded me of something I had read on Roger Walsh. I admit I agree with some of his thinking, but not his views on AGW. If you are a believer, and I surmise you are very faithful, given that you got your thongs all twisted because of my posting, there is nothing that anyone says, leave alone moi with a poor vocabulary, who can change your mind about AGW or the over-population issue.
You said "Also, would this comment have been treated any different by you (or other people with similarly narrow views of the world) if it was made by a male journalist? God/Allah/Vishnu/Buddha/Mother Nature/etc... forbid that the comment might have been made by a politician or, even worse, a scientist well versed in the topic of climate impacts from consumption.
"Waldo, the whole point of my posting was to imply that personal freedoms of women, like how many children we want to conceive or not, should be left to us, and not imposed on us. If the feminist groups who advocate Pro-Choice are all about women's freedom to choose then it is a never-ending mystery to me how they seal their lips with the most effective glue, (glue which is still not on the market but available solely to those raving feminist groups) when suggestions like "one child per female" crap is brandished about. Do you get my point? As a woman, I would hope that our status will never come to be that of  the fictional women in "The Handmaid's Tale".
Waldo, in a later comment you said: "I believe that people around the world need to have a thorough understanding of the facts about population, wealth, health, the environment, and the economy to make a decision about their family structure. Without education and open minds able to assimilate the information we have at hand, we are doomed or at least in for some very difficult times."
I agree a lot with this last comment. The key words are in the first sentence itself. It has to be left to the individual to decide and no one else should think they have the power to decide on behalf of the individual.

We need to eradicate illiteracy more than anything else. The people of the earth who need education the most, the proper kind of education, are the billion+ muslims on this planet. I would love to see how the "1 child per female" policy would work in muslim households. Would you or anyone of your ilk be willing to explain the "one child" policy to a typical muslim family?

Any takers out there who are willing to do this? How about you Ms Diane Francis? Wanna go and tell the muslims they should abide by the "one child per female" policy you are advocating? No... I thought not.

It's so "easy to put tongue to roof of mouth"  (bad translation) as my grandma used to say. Many of us, thankfully, have our feet firmly planted and are not flying around with unicorns and magicians.
 

 

17 comments:

  1. My body my choice only works for feminists. They would never support a woman who chooses to have 7 or 8 kids.

    My body my choice is all about killing babies, not having them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I hear that some uneducated Afghan women are just learning that birth control exists. Let's let the women decide, as they seem to be good at deciding what is in the best interests of their families, once they have a choice. That could work and would be cheaper than carbon credit scams or scary global governments.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Waldo could use an education in the shortcomings of Malthusian economics.

    Once upon a time, progressives argued that there were sufficient resources to safely support the world's population, and that it was merely capitalism that prevented the hungry of the world from being fed, and that it was capitalism that led to pollution.

    Meanwhile, as it turns out, it's actually been the top-down centrally-planned aid programs promoted by fools like Jeffrey Sachs that has prevented the world's hungry and impoverished from using market mechanisms to meet their own needs.

    Successful micro-economic programs such as micro loans have helped thousands of hungry people in Africa in particular. The problem is that individuals like Sachs, like Waldo, only seem to be interested in macro economics, despite the fact that macro economic programs have consistently failed.

    No one needs to take my word for this. William Easterly makes the case extremely strongly.

    As for individuals like Jeffrey Sachs? They've never been called to publicly account for their failures, and odds are they'll never have to.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is this dipshit actually trying to cite the "one child policy" as the source of China's economic growth? Check out the moment when the communist government begins to allow foreign business to do business in their borders. Then look at that precious growth.

    After Tiananmen Square, the Commies were paranoid about a backlash and loosened up restrictions on free enterprise. Enter growth. The one child policy had nothing to do with it. Government was suppressive under Mao, and millions of people died. The government controlled every business and followed the policies of Marx, and millions of people died. Eventually people demanded change, and while the tanks prevented democratic change, the ruling oligarchy did evolve, maybe not to the best but for the better. Enter growth.

    I feel like I should make this into a whole blog post, but I will donate it to Dodo.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The hilarious thing about Waldo's argument is that his "population reduction" solution would force the developing world -- China, India, Pakistan, Africa -- to carry the burden of fighting climate change.

    Am I the only who notices that a lot of these climate crusaders seem to favour solutions that don't require them to do anything, and forces other people to do it for them?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Marie,

    I will respond appropriately later, perhaps next week, since I have had a death In my immediate family. I will respond to your rebuttal as well as those of the Iceman and Patrick when I am back online. The responses from all three of you clearly indicate to me that you either do not read the entirety of my postings or simply choose not to understand or acknowledge the full meaning if my comments.

    BTW, I have both a masters in 'common sense' as well as an MBA. And technical undergrad from the best schools on Canada, so I would appreciate it if you did not denigrate any people fortunate enough to have take 4+ years to eduvcate themselves above and beyond what they can/have learned outside of universities and colleges.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Part 1 ....

    Wow, such hostility.... ya gotta wonder.

    Anyway, here is my rebuttal. I am hoping that I hit all of your complaints. If you have a rational, polite response, let’s continue the debate. If you can only lob insults, feel free to demonstrate your level of maturity.

    Maria said "we can get real mucky and sticky if we discuss China and their communist ways." and " you as a leftist is commending their capitalistic ways?"

    Well, I never said I admired China or gave any support to their oppressive regime, which can hardly be classified as Communist any more. BTW, I don't admire communists either. I believe that a robust, truly open, and representative democracy that allows free speech/debate/dissent, freedom of association, freedom of commerce, freedom for peaceful civil disobedience, and freedom of belief is the best way system for governance. I am also a staunch capitalist and certainly not a leftist. I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal verging on social libertarian.

    With respect to the Chinese economic renaissance, it has lifted more people out of poverty in a shorter time frame than has ever been recorded in our collective histories. So what if there are still people in poverty in China, and certainly fewer than 5 per every person in the Chinese middle class. If they are able to continue their economic development, even more people will be lifted out of poverty. The challenge will be to do this in a sustainable way that does not pollute the environment to create wealth for the current generation with a gift of poverty, disease, and despair for the next generation. China is certainly not a role model for development. I never said it was. I said that they had experienced tremendous growth and that the addition of 300-400 million more people would have created issues or precluded the development and growth they have experienced in the last generation.

    With respect to the deprivations and problems in China today, I wish they had an open social model that allowed debate and dissent. Then a lot of the pollution and deprivations they are currently experiencing would be brought to light and perhaps addressed, if not prevented.

    Scary said "Check back in 20 years when the pampered only children of China reach their most productive years. You'll see euthanasia of the highest order to stem the economic decline."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Part 2

    Honestly, how can you make that connection? If you consider Japan, which you referenced as a comparable, they certainly don't have a widespread problem with euthanasia. Maybe you meant they had a lack of "Youth in Asia" sort of like the posters that some of the approximately 20,000 people at the 9/12 protest march had.

    With respect to population stasis and economic stagnation, Japan's population started to stabilise in the 70s. Their economic boom was in the 80s and they remained a huge power house in the 90s and are still quite dominant in the new century. Their decline was caused not so much by population as by bad fiscal policy that was dealt with poorly. Just take a look at the disaster that Bush created and that Obama is, in my opinion, having a difficult time correcting since he is pursuing many of the same Bush fiscal policies as recommended by the team of Bernanke and Geithner - both Bush era technocrats.

    Maria said "It's kind of funny that all Progressives seem to want is a halt to progress."
    What's with the labels. I have not said that I am a progressive. I used to support the Progressive Conservatives, and even voted for Mulroney and Clark. I guess being progressive is a pejorative term now. No point looking to the future to make it a better place. That would be too progressive.

    With respect to the freedom of women, I specifically stated "voluntary population control". I never said that people should be forced to do anything. That includes giving people the RIGHT to make an informed decision about being pro-choice or pro-life. This is an individual decision and should be made by the pregnant woman and her partner. You stated that it is the woman’s right to conceive or not conceive. Does that mean you accept the right of access to birth control through condoms, IUDs, the Pill, etc...? Also, I would say that in the early stages of pregnancy (and the current practices in Canada appear to be reasonable), it should be the choice of the woman and man to terminate the pregnancy. My preference is that people take personal responsibility, but I will NOT impose my beliefs on someone else.

    With respect to explaining a one child policy, but rather a smaller family approach, this activity is not really necessary. History has shown that as a society becomes more wealthy, the birth rate drops quite quickly. One of the requirements for this to happen is female emancipation. Given your comments about Anne Cools and her delaying tactics with the Human Trafficking legislation, I suspect you agree that emancipation is essential.

    Where's Waldo

    ReplyDelete
  9. Part 3

    With respect to Patrick Ross’, or should I say Sparky’s comments, I never said that macro-economics or invalid Malthusian models were appropriate. Micro economic solutions do work. Capitalism does work. However, calling abuses resulting from one-sided, dominant player activities to create a monopolistic situation to take advantage of the less able is not capitalism. My point about the limited system is easily demonstrated by a petri dish with bacteria in a food medium. With the right temperature and humidity, the bacteria thrive and consume all of the available nutrients. Once the nutrients are consumed, the only organic matter left is their own waste products and the degradation of their petri-dish sized living space. When the balance shifts from nutrients to waste, the bacteria population peaks and starts to rapidly decline until all of the bacteria die. Using this metaphor, on our scale the earth as whole is our petri-dish. From what I have read, we are going to be peaking out on our population within my lifespan. I hope I am wrong. I have read a lot of depressing science on this, but I do believe that humans are innovative and will find some means of mitigating and potentially reversing the damage we have done. In fact, that is my direction as a capitalist business person.

    On Patrick/Sparky’s point about the developing world carrying the burden for addressing climate change, which hat did you pull that rabbit from? I never even implied that approach and would never condone it. The people who created the problem need to work to solve the problem, but no one should be allowed to stand aside and say that they have no obligation to act. Personally, I am living a very low carbon, low impact lifestyle and I am continually looking at ways to reduce my impact on the environment. It is too bad that too many people in the developed countries feel entitled to drive their SUVs when a smaller vehicle, public transit, a bike, or walking would suffice. Too bad that they choose to waste. And worst of all, too bad that we are stuck in a situation where our choices are constrained to those that create waste on a massive scale.

    With respect to Iceman, you do need to learn a bit of respect. If you insult people, you can only expect that in return. BTW, you need to read your history without bringing in your preconceived notions. China is not a society I would want to emulate or live in, but you plain and simply have your facts wrong other than the fact that Mao’s policies and practices resulted in the deaths of millions.

    Where's Waldo.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Where's Waldo - all pretty good come-backs and no comments from me as I am feeling mellow today.
    I doubt any of the others will see your responses because usually it's a "hit and go on to the next blog" kind of thing with commentors, and given that this is now over a week old, you have lost them.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Don't worry, Maria, I'm always up for giving a young ideologue a good spanking.

    "With respect to Patrick Ross’, or should I say Sparky’s comments"

    Alright, so we know now that you're a Groupthink Temple worshipper. That definitely explains your sudden (alleged) shift away from Malthusian economics.

    "I never said that macro-economics or invalid Malthusian models were appropriate."

    This comment suggests that you have no idea what the Malthusian model is. The Malthusian model is the argument that the Earth is overpopulated, and that population control is necessary to ensure humanity's survival.

    Maria quotes you in this very post talking about population control. That's a Malthusian principle.

    "Micro economic solutions do work. Capitalism does work. However, calling abuses resulting from one-sided, dominant player activities to create a monopolistic situation to take advantage of the less able is not capitalism. My point about the limited system is easily demonstrated by a petri dish with bacteria in a food medium. With the right temperature and humidity, the bacteria thrive and consume all of the available nutrients. Once the nutrients are consumed, the only organic matter left is their own waste products and the degradation of their petri-dish sized living space. When the balance shifts from nutrients to waste, the bacteria population peaks and starts to rapidly decline until all of the bacteria die. Using this metaphor, on our scale the earth as whole is our petri-dish."

    Unfortunately for you, Waldo, your metaphor is inherently flawed on its most basic premise: the world is not as limited as a petri dish, and humankind are not so limited as bacteria.

    Bacteria are capable of essentially two things: consuming nutrients and reproducing. Humankind, meanwhile, is capable of much, much more.

    For example, over the past hundred years technological innovations have allowed humankind to expand its food-production capabilities at a continually-exponential rate. Likewise, technological innovations have allowed us to do so by methods that are continually sustainable.

    Admittedly, this hasn't always been the case. Humankind has learned harsh lessons about the careless use of fertilizers and pesticides, and difficult lessons about preventing soil erosion and about how to maintain the arability of farm land.

    Innovations like, for example, genetically modified foods, and enterprises like the Green Revolution have allowed us to continually expand our ability to produce food for human population.

    The Malthusian model -- which you oddly enough continue to push, despite your attempt to disavow it -- is actually defensible on one point alone, and that is energy consumption.

    That being said, human enterprise -- the trait that bacteria sorely lack -- has been working on solving this particular challenge as well. Renewable and sustainable energy resources will render that particular model utterly obsolete -- if they haven't already.

    "From what I have read, we are going to be peaking out on our population within my lifespan. I hope I am wrong. I have read a lot of depressing science on this, but I do believe that humans are innovative and will find some means of mitigating and potentially reversing the damage we have done. In fact, that is my direction as a capitalist business person."

    This is like saying that you don't believe in the Malthusian model, but everything you've read leads you to believe in the Malthusian model.

    Get your argument straight.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "On Patrick/Sparky’s point about the developing world carrying the burden for addressing climate change, which hat did you pull that rabbit from? I never even implied that approach and would never condone it."

    You've invoked the Malhtusian model to insist that population growth is the culprit for various environmental ills, and will eventually render the planet uninhabitable.

    Apparently, you never bothered to find out where in the world population grows the fastest. It's in the developing world.

    There are simple reasons for this. An evident one is the lack of birth control methods in those countries. Another is the fact that, in poor countries, there is a decided incentive to have large families -- as people look toward their twilight years, they know full well that it is in their best interests to have a large family to care for them.

    Likewise, having a surplus of older children available to work brings additional resources -- be it income or produce -- into the home.

    If population reduction is going to be key to averting various environmental catastrophes, including climate change (so far as there will be any catastrophe) you have to focus those efforts where the population problem is the most serious.

    Not only is the population problem, as you define it, currently most serious in the developing world, but it's only going to get worse in coming years. China, India, Pakistan, Africa... their populations aren't going to shrink at any point in the near future. In fact, they're going to continue to grow.

    "The people who created the problem need to work to solve the problem, but no one should be allowed to stand aside and say that they have no obligation to act. Personally, I am living a very low carbon, low impact lifestyle and I am continually looking at ways to reduce my impact on the environment. It is too bad that too many people in the developed countries feel entitled to drive their SUVs when a smaller vehicle, public transit, a bike, or walking would suffice. Too bad that they choose to waste. And worst of all, too bad that we are stuck in a situation where our choices are constrained to those that create waste on a massive scale."

    Wastefulness is a serious issue. But I'm not entirely clear on how you imagine that population control is going to cut back on the amount of wastefulness there already is within western societies. I'm not sure that you yourself are clear on this.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Part 1

    Patrick,

    I promise not to treat you like an idiot as long as you don't make any attempt to insult my integrity or intelligence. Deal?

    With respect to your points:

    Petri dish analogy - please explain how we would receive additional matter, materials, or foodstuffs from outside our planet in any meaningful way within the next century. We are already experiencing tragic cases of environmental degradation since we are running out of places to put our (frequently toxic) waste or are too dumb as a societies not to regulate the disposal of the waste to prevent us from "soiling our own nests". Granted, our technological capabilities allow us to extract more energy/food/commodities to suit our needs. I am less concerned on that side of the equation. I am more concerned about our waste profile. As such. I will stand by the petri dish analogy. You have simply defined the size of your figurative petri dish to be much, much bigger than the one I believe we are living in.

    Malthusian models - This petri dish rebuttal should also address your unlimited view that you are using to complain about Malthusian models. The Malthusian model is flawed. However, we live in a constrained environment. The Malthusian model does not incorporate the idea that we can develop technology to minimize waste and to sustainably increase our standard of living. This is why the model is flawed, even though there are elements of the model that are accurate.

    With respect to the wonders of GMO food, I challenge you to find a peer reviewed paper that describes a long term (e.g., more than 15 years) agricultural study where GMO or currently accepted industrialized food production approaches have increased yields without requiring dramatic increases in the use of synthetic fertilizers or pesticides. Most of the industry sponsored studies stop after 10 years. Go figure, the studies not sponsored by the agri-foods and pesticide companies that have gone for 15 and in some cases over 20 years, have shown that productivity drops off dramatically after about 11-13 years. (I may have the number slightly wrong on this since I am going from memory on a paper I read several years ago.) On the other hand, several such long term studies have been done that show that the yields for organic farming (in one case, starting from a depleted field that was chemically sterilized by industrial farming) increases consistently and plateaus after about 15 years. The productivity of these organically farmed fields become greater than the productivity of the industrially farmed fields after about 7-8 years of practices to rebuild the soil health through sound, organic farming practices.

    Exclusive of the short term gains of the indsutrialized "green revolution" practices, GMO crops have been shown time and again to produce no greater gains for any party involved other than the seed and pesticide producers. I challenge you to find a study that says otherwise that is not sponsored by the company that produces the seed or the pesticides.

    The major drawback of organic farming practices is that they require more labour than indisutrial farming practices. On the other hand, how many people could be employed when the farmer avoids paying for $500K in equipment, $100K annually for seed he could save from previous harvests, and $200K annually for chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The problem is finding people who respect the job of being a farmer and getting rid of the obscene subsidies that prevent farmers from making a living.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Part 2

    Climate change and population growth - Take a close look at the environmental impact of an average resident in Canada and the corresponding impact of an average resident in Ethiopia. Canadians consume energy in orders of magnitude greater than the Ethiopians. We also generate waste materials including GHGs also orders of magnitude greater than the Ethiopians (I think the number is approximately 300:1). Given these differences, do you really think that changing the short term behaviours in the developing world will make any real difference if the average Canadian (or American, or European, or Japanese) citizen continues to consume and waste as we do today? Note that I said "short term". Even without any climate catastrophes, in the medium term, the population growth in most of the developing world will take care of itself. Given this situation, the developed world countries have an obligation to act now.

    If you don't like my selection of a Canadian for the developed world resident or the Ethiopian as the developing world resident, feel free to pick any two countries and do your research. You will find that the differences I have noted are comparable regardless of the pairs that you pick.

    Waste - Cutting waste is EXTREMELY easy. Put a price on it. Once waste is fully costed, individuals, companies, and governments will find a way to reduce or eliminate waste. This approach has been PROVEN time and again. For example, to horrendous protest from industry groups and manufacturers that they would be driven out of business, California implemented strict regulations to mandate improvements in compressor efficiencies in the 1970s. As a result, we have refrigerators and air conditioners that use perhaps 20% of the energy that was required for a 1970s model with comparable capabilities. In addition, the real, inflation adjusted cost of refrigerators and air conditioners has fallen by several percent a year almost every year since the mid-70s. The impact - the US alone has avoided the requirement to have ~40 (or perhaps 50 - I can't recall the exact number) 1,000 MW power generating stations active today. That is a waste reduction approach where everyone won.

    You can also look at the differences between Northern European countries and Canada. Countries like France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and UK produce a fraction of the waste that we do in Canada? We can do better. One way to do this is to implement meanigful regulations for Extended Producer Responsibility for their waste products. Most of Europe does an acceptable job on this and is shows when you looks at the volume of their waste streams and their energy consumption.

    We also need to put in serious regulations for environmental pollution of all sorts. This is truly the tragedy of the commons. This will be the biggest challenge to address, but is perhaps the most important.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "I promise not to treat you like an idiot as long as you don't make any attempt to insult my integrity or intelligence. Deal?"

    If you don't want your intelligence or integrity insulted, don't give me cause.

    "Petri dish analogy - please explain how we would receive additional matter, materials, or foodstuffs from outside our planet in any meaningful way within the next century."

    Is there something about "your petri dish analogy is catastrophically flawed" that you didn't understand?

    "Granted, our technological capabilities allow us to extract more energy/food/commodities to suit our needs. I am less concerned on that side of the equation. I am more concerned about our waste profile."

    Then you must also understand that technological and scientific capabilities are constantly increasing our ability to deal with waste, including some breakthroughs in recycling that can, for example, reduce plastics to their original compnents.

    Malthusian policy is not the answer to this, either. Rather, continuing to expand our scientific and technological capacities are.

    "The Malthusian model is flawed. However, we live in a constrained environment. The Malthusian model does not incorporate the idea that we can develop technology to minimize waste and to sustainably increase our standard of living. This is why the model is flawed."

    If the Mathusian model is flawed, then why do you insist on using it -- even if you refuse to admit that you are?

    "With respect to the wonders of GMO food, I challenge you to find a peer reviewed paper that describes a long term (e.g., more than 15 years) agricultural study where GMO or currently accepted."

    I would suggest that you read the studies you're alluding to regarding GMO food more closely. They don't state that productivity drops off after 15 years, but rather that increases in productivity drop off after that period of time.

    The punchline, of course, being that such studies are always based on the current state of technology.

    Meanwhile, the firms that develop GMO foods continue their work. They don't bother conducting these studies over a period of more than 10 years on any one particular product because they know that these products will have been supplanted by new developments within that time.

    Applying 10-, 15- or even 20-year snapshots of technology over the course of human history is gnerally a poor practice, especially at times in which technological advances tend to come faster and faster, in virtually every field in which human ingenuity is applied.

    "Climate change and population growth - Take a close look at the environmental impact of an average resident in Canada and the corresponding impact of an average resident in Ethiopia."

    Now if only Canadians were to agree to live at the same levels of poverty at which Ethiopians live, you'd be in business, wouldn't you?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sparky,

    You clearly do not understand what an olive branch is when you see one. Oh well.

    With respect to the Malthusian concept - you brought it up. I did not. I do not subscribe to the logic or directives of this concept. I simply believe that we live in a limited planet. The only debate is when the time when humanuty reaches the limits of the plantet. Many scientists have already indicated that we are consuming at a rate that is 2, 3, or 4 times greater than what the planet can sustainably support.

    With respect to GMO, the peer reviewed studies I have read clearly indicate that productivity drops after 10-15 years of industrial farming without significant increases in chemical fertilizers. The studies supported by the agri-foods business stop after 10-15 years because the data no longer supports their thesis that industrial farming practices are sound or economical.

    To be honest, I find your comments contemptible. I hope you start to read something other than the Harper web site and realize that the world has serious issues that cannot be dealt with by attack ads and insults.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.