SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Can We Feed Billions of Ourselves Without Wrecking the Planet?
We are now producing more food more efficiently than ever, and there is plenty to go around for a human population of 7 billion. But it is coming at a drastic cost in environmental degradation, and the bounty is not reaching many people.
Sustainable Food Production, a new Earth Institute primer from Columbia University Press, explores how modern agriculture can be made more environmentally benign, and economically just. With population going to maybe 10 billion within 30 years, the time to start is now, the authors say.
The lead author is ecologist Shahid Naeem, director of the Earth Institute for Environmental Sustainability. He coauthored the book with former Columbia colleagues Suzanne Lipton and Tiff van Huysen.
This is an interesting interview with the author. Do you agree (or disagree) with his conclusions?
[Also Covered By]: Phys.org
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 19 2022, @04:49PM (4 children)
First - what does this do to the argument: "The solution is to promote economic development everywhere."?
Second - dem scientist types is moar clever then yew giv um credit fer. Ratios are a thing, and they know how to use them. Arguments like: "We'd have lower COVID rates if we did less testing" only work on the weak minded.
Sorry, but this isn't a new story, nor is it hysterical, it continues to be re-confirmed by every group who studies the situation with no credible opposition for decades now. A lot like climate change was 20 years ago.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 19 2022, @05:36PM (3 children)
It strengthens the argument since the developing world would then be transitioning into a part of the developed world with its greater care for the environment - such as much lower pollution, growing land set aside for wilderness and habitat, and all the things that Joe cares about like CO2 emissions or the broad list of stuff mentioned in this discussion.
Bottom line is that poor people can't afford to care about the environment or the future.
Ratios only are relevant, if they know what the ratios are and actually use them. Here, I see a huge case of not comparing like to like. You're the first to mention those alleged ratios.
Well, it's getting opposed now. And yes, it is hysterical - if you look at those past extinctions, they are huge with large percentages of genus level groupings going extinct. Sorry, we don't have anything comparable here.
The weakest (ignoring that there are probably a bunch of others of more serious nature than today's wave of extinctions) of the five great extinctions, the Triassic-Jurassic [soylentnews.org] extinction event is thought to have killed somewhere in the neighborhood of a third of all species. Even at the worst alleged rate of 13% since 1500 CE, that's another thousand years before the total number of extinctions can match the level of the weakest of the five big extinctions.
I find it interesting how once again, your only argument is a sad argument from authority. Fallacy once again is your go to argument.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday January 19 2022, @06:09PM (2 children)
Greater care = greater extinction of species? I think you mean greater short term exploitation. Short, in this case, being ~100 years or less.
Agreed there. UBI would solve that.
I'm sure you've read the statistical methods of the underlying research thoroughly. /s Popular press is incapable of expressing anything as sophisticated as a ratio.
Not by anyone credible.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 19 2022, @06:47PM
You really think I said that? Reread it again.
So you haven't actually read the research. Not my problem.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 20 2022, @01:31AM
So why quote the popular press rather than the underlying research in the first place? And then foist off the work of showing your correctness onto me when the going got hard?
My bet is that the popular press sold a sexy narrative while the underlying research does not. Moving on, I've actually parsed the research and well, it doesn't have that ratio you claimed it would have. For example, the authors of the research just took the background species extinction rate at face value - likely because it showed a background rate two or more orders of magnitude lower than the estimated modern rate.
When I read the actual research [wiley.com] on background extinction rates, it's remarkably useless. They don't take into account the narrow habitat range of most species on Earth. Widespread genuses are much more likely to be fossilized than a collection of species on a small island. Similarly, narrow niche species would be far less likely to leave a fossil record and far more likely to go extinct for any reason.
Notice the boilerplate. They've got models and simulations galore, but no estimate of the island effect in there at all or any factor between fossil-based estimates of speciation creation and extinction and modern ones. The fundamental problem is that islands (both natural ones and the metaphorical ones of niche ecological zones on the continents) have exaggerated species creation and extinction rates - almost none of which will show up in fossil records.
In your article, the island effect is exaggerated for effect.
Golly, 2000 bird species gone extinct! Almost one six of the current worldwide fauna! Sounds like a lot, until you realize it's bird species that have almost no habitat and hence, little impact environmentally and would be on the razor's edge anyway. Even primitive humans can easily drive extinct birds in that situation. As can volcanic eruptions, well-placed hurricanes at the wrong time, unusually large tsunami, wildfires (for continental niches) and other perfect storm disasters.
My take is that this research exaggerates the extinction rate by playing the sort of games I've noted before. Such as comparing geological continental rates of species extinction to modern island extinction rates. Or ignoring the spottiness of fossil records of extinctions, assuming all extinction rates must be lower because the ones you can see are lower.