So, a bit ago, we had knocked around ideas about population growth and food supply. During that convo, there was some disagreement with the notion that increased food production was tied in to population growth.
Here's some info on the subject from a great paper at http://www.mnforsustain.org/pimentel_hopfenberg_human_population_food_supply.htm
Our position is that population growth, the prime environmental problem affecting all ecological, biological, and non-living systems, is a function of increasing food production (Quinn, 1992, 1996, 1998a; Pimentel, 1966, 1996).
It is the current perspective in both the scientific and lay communities that food production must be increased in order to support a growing human population (Postel, 2001; Bongaarts, 1994; Waggoner, 1994; Brundtland, 1993; Baron, 1992; Anifowoshe, 1990; Brown, 1989; Robson, 1981).
However, as Farb (1978, p. 121) has pointed out, "intensification of production to feed an increased population leads to a still greater increase in population."
That is to say that as more food has been made available ostensibly to alleviate food shortages caused by the increased number of people, the biologically determined response has been an increase in the population.
*******************
The image (by Steve Greenberg, originally in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer) is from http://www.geographyalltheway.com
10 comments:
none of those people are real.
I haven't read this paper yet, so forgive me for my ignorance, but I can't help but immediately think of the example of western society - an overabundance of available food, and a dwindling rate of reproduction. There's much more to population growth than simple supply and demand, if you ask me.
Any discussion of the explosion of human population without reference to advancements in medical science is incomplete. I agree with the basic premise that food supply would likely increase human population, but let's see a chart that shows the increase in human population after the advent of vaccines and antibiotics. No comparison IMHO.
I'd have to agree with Ren here,
( i did, quickly mind you, read the article).
The article also indicates other things, namely food production should/could be leveled off, and that the unavailability of food would motivate people to have fewer children. It seems that in the end the article is talking about controlling reproduction.
According to the article there is an inevitable population decrease that will arise, it could be as a result of malnutrition and disease, which is tied to the production of more food to meet more need, (like the quotes you indicated in your post) and where the death rate will accomodate the need of a reduced human population, or that it can be done by reducing food availability and ostensibly this will cause people to have fewer chidlren...
What I think the article overlooks is how one reduces birth rates, and that availability of food is not always tied to increased birth rates and vice versa. Often, culture and other factors are more tied to people's reproductive behaviours than the availability of food.
For example in Canada, there is a 0 birth rate, if not a negative one at this point, we have ample access to food, if not pathalogical access to food.
I don't disagree that there are better ways to produce food, but I'm not sure that the only dichotomy to understand it is over production or under production.
I agree, way more going on than supply and demand.
And there are arguments, as mentioned above, that the over-supply of food may lead to decreases in the rate of growth of populations.
And as also mentioned, there is the role of public health technology.
And from what I know of the literature, it's pretty much a given that improvements to sanitation, to the quality control of the food supply, vaccines, education, etc, have all led to us to being healthier overall, at the population level I mean, i.e., decreases in infant morality, decreases in overall age-adjusted mortality, increases in the quality of life-yrs lived, etc.
Interestingly, it is pointed out that medical care in and of itself, namely the treatment by physicians and hospitals, does not do anything for population health, compared to the large-scale public health interventions above.
So it appears that it is variety of specific issues that do the trick, and none dominates over the others.
In the end though, we cannot escape the fact that issues of sustainability are at our doorstep, and food is prime among them.
I had spaghetti bolognese last night, yummy.
no no no... not "ignorance", ren. i just thought this was an interesting discussion worth continuing.
as far as disagreeing or not with the points made here, it is simply a fact that increase in food supply increases population.
this can be observed in any animal population. (the wolf and rabbit analogy is an easy one--
more rabbits = more wolves.
less rabbits = less wolves.)
and since we are animals too...
however, as disclaimer points out, there are other factors involved, namely medicine.
however (again), if you look at the graph, you see several spikes in population *before* the advent of modern medicine-- the Ag Revolution 8000 years ago, the Industrial Revolution in the 1500's, and the early improvements in medicine and public sanitation in the late 1800's.
yes, North America has a lower birth rate and more food, but this is an anomaly, not the rule. and it doesn't reflect "natural" conditions, but instead reflects a variety of interventions that are only possible due to economic prosperity--interventions such as birth control methods, etc.
the "lower birth rate" arguement doesn't quite hold up, though, because now, instead of 3 million Canadians with a high birth rate, you have 35 million with a low birth rate-- so the raw number of actual growth is still higher than it was 100 years ago.
and North America's population has increased from around 60 million in 1900 to 300 million today.
even when all other factors are considered, there are 6.5 billion people today because there is enough food to support them.
oh-- just read c-dog's comments.
so everyone disagrees with this idea?
ok, fine.
but if we increase the rabbit population of canada, and the wolf population increases accordingly, what other factors can account for that growth?
better medicine and sanitation among wolves?
No, but there could be better weather, less pathogens, etc.
You just can't point to food and say it is the single most important reason for population growth, which it seems is what your advocating.
And while yes, it may be more applicable to wolves, human populations have a greater number of factors determining their outcomes, just different enough, I guess it goes.
Well, yes, as I said, with humans, because of our big brains and our agricultural approach to survival, a whole bunch of other factors do play in to population growth.
But food is still the single most important factor.
At the end of the day, what is it that is keeping 6.5 billion people alive? Is it better sanitation? Better weather? Medical care? Those can all *help* sustain life, but ultimately, 6.5 billion people are eating food every day, and it is that which keeps them alive.
All the sanitation in the world won't keep you from starving to death.
When I studied this in my first Demographics class at U of W, the prof spent the entire first two classes going over, one by one, all of the arguements we had against this basic, underly principle of Demographics (word for word the same points being made here) until we all came to understand the inexorable fact that no food = no life.
All other factors are secondary to this.
If you don't believe me, try eating hand soap and small pox vaccine for the next two months.
:)
what people dont realize is that we dont need any medicine or vaccines or anything at all. If we properly practice breathing techniques, meditation, and excersice we could live way past 250 years old
LIKE WE USED TO!!!!!!!!!
Post a Comment