by inculcated » Tue 30 Oct 2007, 22:30:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'W')e could lose another 25% of our per capita food production before going back to the horrible global starvation days of the 1960s...
A survey of permaculture sites will provide estimates from less than one to over ten people per acre can be supported by following that form of agriculture. Given that there are just over 5 billion total arable acres at our disposal, barring any reduction by warble gloaming, the idea that we can support the current or future increase in population without petroleum inputs seems dubious at best and borders on morally reckless.
Let us say for sake of argument that a global average of four people can be provided for per acre of permacultivation. We should be able to approach a population limit of 20 billion, correct? That is if you are willing to have 20 billion naked wretches living in pure exposure. What is quickly forgotten is that we also have to grow our clothing, not to mention rely a fair amount on wood for shelter. Where are you going to plant cotton, hemp or trees? It also completely ignores the water issue.
As of late we manage to feed upwards of 6 billion folk at the mercy of electricity, petroleum and a horrendous rate of aquifer depletion. Switching to organic or even permaculture practices may be approached by eliminating the need for petroleum pesticides etc., and can be done swapping infernal combustion equipment with beast or human labor, but it will still require water. Presumably some water will be rendered redundant by the feature of permaculture practices improving water infiltration and reducing runoff. However, it is open to much debate as to how much those savings will go toward offsetting the precipitous drop in aquifer levels as a result of large scale crop production.
It is all fine and well to point at one New Scientist blurb with little supporting evidence and no holistic math, but until these methods of cultivation are scaled and tested to a far greater extent than what we have currently in production, touting them as the population panacea borders on criminal. These are lives you are playing fast with in refusing to open the discussion into the realities of proportion. Should the promise fail to deliver, billions stand to be sanctioned with loss of life through starvation. Are you steadfast in your science enough to risk that possibility?