Discussion in 'Breeding, Raising, Feeding and Caring for Animals' started by Eclipse, Sep 9, 2014.
saw this and it caught my eye. What do you think?
The oceans are full of uranium and hydrogen and soil is full of thorium,doesn't mean its economically viable to utilise these resources.
10 billion people need more than affordable food,they also need drinkable water and use up lots of other resources too.
There are limits to growth.
1. Uranium from seawater would already be economically viable to extract if there were not already abundant reserves on land that could last 50,000 years. (The fuel is a tiny fraction of the overall cost of nuclear power: insignificant really. The reactors were the expensive things, but soon we'll be mass producing them on the factory line and costs will plummet). Nuclear scientists never intended today's once-through fuel cycle to be dominant: they were always mindful that it was a precious resource and always thought that breeder reactors would burn up all the waste. (Well, most of it anyway). But Clinton banned GenIV studies and stopped the Viable EBR2 reactor program, all because he didn't understand that there were 'flavours' of Plutonium that can 'burn' but not go 'boom'. Today's nuclear waste could provide America with 1000 years of energy in breeders, and the UK has a 500 year stockpile. Uranium from seawater? We're talking hundreds of millions of years. James Hansen backs GenIV breeder reactors all the way.
2. There are limits to growth: I'm just asking how we are going to feed the 10 billion we're expecting soon.
The way things are going right now on planet earth, we will not have 10 billion to feed for long. Things like War, Ebola and Natural "Disasters" are escalating and should reduce the population if they continue on the upswing as they have for the last 20 years. We have reached the end of Mother Earths ability to sustain more human population already, it is not something that is coming, it has arrived.
If you can feed 10 Billion they will breed
If we can raise their lifestyles just a little bit they won't.
That requires more resources
Intensive animal 'production' is an abomination and should never ever be a 'solution'. If we grew more crops on the huge amounts of land used to raise cattle and sheep we would go much further in our efforts to feed the global population.
In terms of efficiency of the use of sunlight to field to plate, vegetarianism is more efficient.
I just don't know if we can generate the kind of culture change fast enough to make any difference. As I said above, there are people working on turning Algae into various nice tasting proteins. They're working for big pharma now, making protein tablets for the elderly. But that's how they got their funding. One day the whole meat question might be bypassed if these guys deliver: they're talking about food that's 10 times cheaper and really GOOD for you! (I can't find the TED talk right now, but it was quite inspiring).
But the algae to shrimp thing is already here! This is from my blog earlier this year: a summary of an ABC Landline episode.
Fantastic new source of food:
* traditional aquaculture trawls the oceans for by-catch to munch up and feed to captive fish
* this system replaces ocean feedstock with microorganisms grown in nearby tanks
* Or it can be grown in the prawn farm’s own prawn ponds in the 6 month off season
* half the world’s seafood is farmed, so if we eventually replace unsustainble by-catch feedstocks with sustainably grown feedstock pellets, the oceans may get a chance to recover
* it increases marginal prawn farms to profitable prawn farms because the prawns grow 40% larger and are healthier
* increased health gains mean more prawns can be grown in closer proximity
* more prawns in each pond increases production & profits,=
* spin off’s not listed on the show but that I am considering are possible increases in our understanding of micro-plankton or algae growth for feedstocks for other industries.
In Australia we could not, we simply do not have the water as the driest continent after the poles. The land by and large used here to raise cattle and sheep is not arable and has very limited water resources. That is unless you wish to try and make some more dams on this ancient, flat continent and not have environmental flow in our rivers.
I dont see the point of trying to feed more people isnt the green revolution during the age of cheap oil the reason we have got here in the first place.
This is just continuing the same madness kicking the can down the road.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
By not throwing away the food we already grow. It happens in commercial ag more then average people realize.
Then heal the soil and start making healthy, non contaminated food.
And the bulk of that is high in nitrates making them not exactly healthy for the average person. Remember, high nitrate levels in humans can and is carcinogenic.
I have never found anything positive about commercial growers of anything except the rate of growth of the pocketbooks of the suppliers. Most of the health issues of people in the countries where the "Modern Agriculture/ animal husbandry" model is follows, can be traced back to the foods these models grow and put on the market. There is a reason that Monsanto and other Ag companies keep trying to push their bad agriculture on the masses and that is the filling of their coffers, period. These are not people who have anyone else's well being on their minds. There is really no reason to worry about feeding 10 billion people, the earth will kill off the number required for earth to survive. It is happening already, and mankind, bless its heart, is helping with the natural warring way of humans.
I didn't know it was high in nitrates? I thought seafood was very good for you, especially the new prawns which are coming onto the market without all the antibiotics in 'traditional' aquaculture.
Several years ago I turned vegetarian. The story started by Listening to the Audio book, world peace diet. That got my interest and was follow by a long list of other books from medicine, agriculture some books printed over a healthy century ago.
Seafood specifically are high in heavy metals BUT having said the vegetarian swear word veggies these days are not as packed with nutrients as they could \ should be. They are grown for size and looks. Working the the food industry I have more insight than I would have liked to about food quality, supplier wheeling and dealing and bullying by corporates that haggle prices.
But luckily a variety of food (unprocessed) , exercise and fresh air would not cause anyone harm. If you have occasional prawns for the taste (or whatever the reason), balance it out with a lovely, rocket, lettuce salad with a little healthy dressing , some sesame seeds and a glass of cider you would probably be fine!
My wife and I eat the same diet our ancestors ate, it does include meat but at a much smaller percentage than what most of the "civilized" world has come to expect. My wife was previously entrenched in the "Meat and Potatoes" mind set. Now she feels better, has more energy too, she is amazed at how eating foods we grow and raise have such better flavors and nutritional value. She has finally realized that one does not need meat with every meal and when there is meat it is from our own animals or hunted animals, which means they are as wakantanka intended, all natural, no additives. The sea used to provide healthy food, now not so much because of man's polluting ways. Grocery stores sell what they think people want, not necessarily what is good nutritionally. To feed yourself the old way, you have to grow it yourself or find someone who grows it without any "chemical" inputs.
Hello everyone, it's been ages since I was last online due to the previous issues with the site ...anyway here's my take on this post:
Well, it's actually consumerism / capitalism that's the problem, definitely not overpopulation ... The industrial north (the self titled First world) are responsible for most of over consumption as well as the throwing away of food and resources.
Collectively though, according to probably conservative stat's, worldwide around One Third of all produced food is Wasted! ... One Third!!!
Now think about the land used, water and other resources, then the chemicals and soil mining to make food which ended up in rubbish and landfill for what reason?
this screenshot is from the site worldfoodclock.com, there is a live counter and clicking down there are other screens where you can see water wasted, land area, how much water is used to make 1 kg of meat etc. it's a real eye opener!!
yes, i wonder how well they account for production losses which return
to the soil via composting or worm composting...
i know we do very well here on not wasting food and all food scraps are
worm food. very little chemical fertilizers or poisons used here too and
not much oil/gasoline used either in production. so overall i think we're
doing our part.
Separate names with a comma.