Food waste in general shouldn't be adding extra CO2 in the environment, unless they are extrinsically adding tons of CO2 to the system from e.g. synthetic chemicals derived from oil.
First of all, you *do* use synthetic chemicals derived from oil in agriculture -- well, more accurately, from natural gas (ammonia). Second, you *also* use extra amounts of oil-derived fuel to grow this waste food. And third, of course, there's also the issue of methane being much more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, so even if you're neutral in terms of (physical) CO2 consumed and produced, you're still not necessarily neutral in terms of CO2-equivalent GHG emissions.
and water is a much stronger greenhouse gas than methane.
The antihumanists should just unite behind water, pretty sure people are so dumb now they can be convinced to stop drinking and get all this over with quickly.
Antihumanists? You mean the people who are willfully abusing the biosphere to the point that it won't support humanity, despite the obvious outcomes for their fellow humans?
Antihumanists are the people characterised by Agent Smith in the Matrix.
People who believe human beings are a cancer of the planet. Mostly follow the work of Thomas Robert Malthus, fund eugenics programs like planned parent hood and forced sterilisations of people the deem particularly unworthy.
Lot of them in the US after the mass immigration from Germany after WWII.
Antihumanists are the people characterised by Agent Smith in the Matrix.
People who believe human beings are a cancer of the planet. Mostly follow the work of Thomas Robert Malthus, fund eugenics programs like planned parent hood and forced sterilisations of people the deem particularly unworthy.
Lot of them in the US after the mass immigration from Germany after WWII.
You made a pretty big strawman there.
One does not be all of those things to say, understand Malthus. The idea that Malthus was wrong once, therefore he will always be wrong, shared by so many is their version of the cold hand fallacy. And those who I have pressed on the issue go into ancient aliens ideas, where humans somehow become creatures of pure energy to support their ideas.
Eugenics? forced sterilization? No need at all, a waste of energy because Nature will take of the human issue all by itself.
The idea that Malthus was wrong once, therefore he will always be wrong,
Ah the falling sky fallacy. Maybe you will be right at some point but since you have a 0% accuracy so far, I'm going to go with no. Why do we teach ideas from the 18th and 19th century in liberal arts still? They have a track record on par with religion.
The idea that Malthus was wrong once, therefore he will always be wrong,
Ah the falling sky fallacy. Maybe you will be right at some point but since you have a 0% accuracy so far, I'm going to go with no. Why do we teach ideas from the 18th and 19th century in liberal arts still? They have a track record on par with religion.
The irony is that I was posting what other people have claimed to me which is their using the "Hot Hand Fallacy".
And never said one thing or another about the sky is falling.
This is pretty simple. If the earth has infinite capacity to sustain humans, Malthus will have been proven completely wrong, There is no limit to either the ability to provide sustenance, therefore there is no limit to population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
His argument was that abundance cannot be sustained forever.
Where he erred was that as a man of the 18th/early 19th century, he was not clairvoyant. He was born at the very beginnings of the Industrial revolution, and didn't forsee the advances that would take place. He didn't forsee the Industrialization of food production, In the 19th and early 20th century, https://www.foodsystemprimer.o... [foodsystemprimer.org] nor the Green revolution of the 1950s and 60shttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
Now for all the crap he has taken, he was quite correct that population would follow abundance. The availability of food in the mid 19th to mid 20th century caused one population jump, and the green revolution caused the huge jump in population we've seen today.
Since those times, apparently the only divot in population growth was 1939 to 1945. We all know why.
So if we avoif the admittedly silly infinite carrying capacity/infinite food production argument, we can move on to questions like:
Will another food production revolution come along allowing us to say - double the world's present population of almost 8 Billion to 16 billion?
I've done a Back of the Envelope calculation where if we move humanity underground, and use as much useable space above ground to generate algae we can process to foodstuff, we might be able to hit 50 billion. Maybe - I suspect we'll run out of potable water before hand, and that would be pretty stressful on humans, as the standard of living will be pretty grim only goal of life being eating and reproduction. There might be reproduction problems. I was just using the Malthus based idea that population follows food production.
Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:1, Insightful)
Food waste in general shouldn't be adding extra CO2 in the environment, unless they are extrinsically adding tons of CO2 to the system from e.g. synthetic chemicals derived from oil.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:1)
and water is a much stronger greenhouse gas than methane.
The antihumanists should just unite behind water, pretty sure people are so dumb now they can be convinced to stop drinking and get all this over with quickly.
Re: (Score:1)
The antihumanists should just unite behind water
Antihumanists? You mean the people who are willfully abusing the biosphere to the point that it won't support humanity, despite the obvious outcomes for their fellow humans?
Re: (Score:-1, Flamebait)
Antihumanists are the people characterised by Agent Smith in the Matrix.
People who believe human beings are a cancer of the planet. Mostly follow the work of Thomas Robert Malthus, fund eugenics programs like planned parent hood and forced sterilisations of people the deem particularly unworthy.
Lot of them in the US after the mass immigration from Germany after WWII.
Re: (Score:2)
Antihumanists are the people characterised by Agent Smith in the Matrix.
People who believe human beings are a cancer of the planet. Mostly follow the work of Thomas Robert Malthus, fund eugenics programs like planned parent hood and forced sterilisations of people the deem particularly unworthy.
Lot of them in the US after the mass immigration from Germany after WWII.
You made a pretty big strawman there.
One does not be all of those things to say, understand Malthus. The idea that Malthus was wrong once, therefore he will always be wrong, shared by so many is their version of the cold hand fallacy. And those who I have pressed on the issue go into ancient aliens ideas, where humans somehow become creatures of pure energy to support their ideas.
Eugenics? forced sterilization? No need at all, a waste of energy because Nature will take of the human issue all by itself.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that Malthus was wrong once, therefore he will always be wrong,
Ah the falling sky fallacy. Maybe you will be right at some point but since you have a 0% accuracy so far, I'm going to go with no. Why do we teach ideas from the 18th and 19th century in liberal arts still? They have a track record on par with religion.
Re: Seems like a stupid argument to me. (Score:2)
The idea that Malthus was wrong once, therefore he will always be wrong,
Ah the falling sky fallacy. Maybe you will be right at some point but since you have a 0% accuracy so far, I'm going to go with no. Why do we teach ideas from the 18th and 19th century in liberal arts still? They have a track record on par with religion.
The irony is that I was posting what other people have claimed to me which is their using the "Hot Hand Fallacy".
And never said one thing or another about the sky is falling.
This is pretty simple. If the earth has infinite capacity to sustain humans, Malthus will have been proven completely wrong, There is no limit to either the ability to provide sustenance, therefore there is no limit to population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
His argument was that abundance cannot be sustained forever.
Where he erred was that as a man of the 18th/early 19th century, he was not clairvoyant. He was born at the very beginnings of the Industrial revolution, and didn't forsee the advances that would take place. He didn't forsee the Industrialization of food production, In the 19th and early 20th century, https://www.foodsystemprimer.o... [foodsystemprimer.org] nor the Green revolution of the 1950s and 60shttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
Now for all the crap he has taken, he was quite correct that population would follow abundance. The availability of food in the mid 19th to mid 20th century caused one population jump, and the green revolution caused the huge jump in population we've seen today.
Since those times, apparently the only divot in population growth was 1939 to 1945. We all know why.
So if we avoif the admittedly silly infinite carrying capacity/infinite food production argument, we can move on to questions like:
Will another food production revolution come along allowing us to say - double the world's present population of almost 8 Billion to 16 billion?
I've done a Back of the Envelope calculation where if we move humanity underground, and use as much useable space above ground to generate algae we can process to foodstuff, we might be able to hit 50 billion. Maybe - I suspect we'll run out of potable water before hand, and that would be pretty stressful on humans, as the standard of living will be pretty grim only goal of life being eating and reproduction. There might be reproduction problems. I was just using the Malthus based idea that population follows food production.