>>Humans seem to be doing pretty well
>>on Earth, from a biological perspective. I would argue that high-yield
>>agriculture is one of our best hopes for allowing room for wild nature,
>>unless you think that a large human die-off should be allowed to occur.
>Except for the comment above, I agree with a lot of what you have to
>say, Dale. But, please consider that yeast in a tub of grape juice appear
to be doing "pretty well", too,.....
Good point! You are right. I meant that I don't think there will be a
big change in market orientation and agricultural infrastructure, in
North America at least, in the face of rising shortages. Food shortages
will be good news for farmers, and the economically advantaged will
spend a larger fraction of their income on food.
>Our agricultural system in North America and Europe is very heavily
dependent on non-renewable and, in many cases, toxic inputs.....
>It would be a mistake to focus heavily on tools linked to
continued dependence on and heavy use of fossil fuels.
Tractors will run on biodiesel or hydrogen. And farmers will still apply
substantial nitrogen (probably half current rates) to their genetically
engineered corn. The less fortunate will starve, mostly elsewhere.
Family planning will become socially enforced. Humans will continue to
dominate the earth, and you will still be able to get twinkies at the
corner gas (ethanol?) station.
Of course, my prediction could be totally wrong because of unforseeable
occurences like nuclear terrorism, an asteroid, or unexpectedly large or
rapid climate change. I just don't think people should plan on a
cataclysm to save wild nature from humans.
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command