What? No more fertilizer?

[RickB]

Well if we are going to feed everybody..........
A lot of animals grown for meat utilize land that will not support crops grown for direct human consumption.

 

[Jstpssng]

In 1750 the world population was around 629 million. In 1959 when I was born it was just under 3 billion. Now it's somewhere around 7.8 billion. Any conversation about our impact on the planet needs to start with those numbers, especially when comparing now to then. They don't though, because it doesn't fit certain people's agenda.

 

[ChuckT]

Wasn't there.s guy named Malthus that predicted that human population would soon outgrown the resources available, and that was in 18nn or something.
Or if you wish - "The sky is falling!, the sky is falling!!" C. Little.

 

[not2old]

It's all the motor heads in the cities with nitrous injected cars!:laughing:

My first thought was that if they used more nitrous in cars that it would make the problem go away. That's assuming it wouldn't increase carbon dioxide production.

 

[Frankenkubota]

They're gonna tell you to stop raising animals for meat. It takes way more plant matter, therefore fertilizers, to convert meat to consumable protein than it does just to eat beans.

Fake meat. Wasent that the craze 6 months ago?

 

[Frankenkubota]

In 1750 the world population was around 629 million. In 1959 when I was born it was just under 3 billion. Now it's somewhere around 7.8 billion. Any conversation about our impact on the planet needs to start with those numbers, especially when comparing now to then. They don't though, because it doesn't fit certain people's agenda.

The worlds economy, and especially ours, is dependent on growth, population growth, customer base growth. Without growth we can not support the debt.

I read that domestication of agriculture made this huge population growth possible. It gave us a world in which we have 4-5? Billion poor people.

As long as you are not one of them, alls well!

 

[Frankenkubota]

I'd like to know where they got that figure for the year 1750? What kind of instruments were used to get that figure? To me, just throwing out a number like that without explaining how it was derived - I mean, who was measuring nitrogen levels in 1750 and why and how? Sounds like a big guess to me and to that I say garbage in = garbage out.

Lots of ways to measure the atmosphere from 1750 etc.

Ice deposits is just one.

 

[mikester]

I'd like to know where they got that figure for the year 1750? What kind of instruments were used to get that figure? To me, just throwing out a number like that without explaining how it was derived - I mean, who was measuring nitrogen levels in 1750 and why and how? Sounds like a big guess to me and to that I say garbage in = garbage out.

Ultimately science is a consensus. A big enough group gets together and agree on an answer along with the problem scope. If you get the required credentials (aka PhD), do the research, quantify the results, demonstrate a repeatable method, then you too can offer your opinion on the consensus.

The alternative is anarchy. Whoever shouts the loudest and carries the biggest stick replaces consensus with dogma.

 

[Frankenkubota]

Ultimately science is a consensus. A big enough group gets together and agree on an answer along with the problem scope. If you get the required credentials (aka PhD), do the research, quantify the results, demonstrate a repeatable method, then you too can offer your opinion on the consensus.

The alternative is anarchy. Whoever shouts the loudest and carries the biggest stick replaces consensus with dogma.

My karma ran over your dogma

 

[jjp8182]

Ultimately science is a consensus. A big enough group gets together and agree on an answer along with the problem scope. If you get the required credentials (aka PhD), do the research, quantify the results, demonstrate a repeatable method, then you too can offer your opinion on the consensus.

The alternative is anarchy. Whoever shouts the loudest and carries the biggest stick replaces consensus with dogma.

I might be in disagreement with that as from my perspective science is a process of asking a very specific question. Any consensus or lack there of is meaningless as it's only the results combined with the boundary conditions, assumptions that have any meaning. Anything else usually ends up turning science into a quasi-religion of the worst sort -- complete with partisan bickering, and cults of personality.

I've personally seen (and been paid to correct/validate) entirely too many teams of engineers/scientists that have reached an errant consensus and then waste a whole lot of time and money trying to make their errant consensus a reality. I've also run across many PhDs who were/are very smart in their (very narrow) respective field, but also left the impression that someone must have helped them get dressed that morning because they clearly lacked the mental capacity to do it for themselves.

So as far as I'm concerned it's the data, how it was obtained, the conditions under which it was obtained and the assumptions that were made (either consciously or not) that matter. Degrees, and credentials don't matter so much (beyond potentially indicating the person may understand how to perform the scientific process) as degrees and credentials don't keep reality from kicking a person in the posterior - or keep the end users from being killed because the designer relied on their degrees and credentials rather than observing and designing based on reality.

I'll step off my soap-box now and apologize if I've come across as a complete a-hole as I pretty routinely deal with "experts"/"professionals" failing failure to follow basic processes -- who then wanting to attempt to prove their point by shouting the loudest or hiding behind their degrees, credentials and/or experience.... and it's been usual enough it's really not even much of a joy/relief when they end up realizing they were not only wrong, but completely out of line in their approach.

So in short I've pretty much hit the point of: in God I (mostly) trust, but all others better bring data and complete records/documentation..... as beliefs do not alter reality - and reality can kill if ignored.