How to address the big problem of overpopulated Earth?

[przemeknowicki]

Because of our Christian roots and tradition (I am talking about this country, the US, not you) we don't dare even to discuss the subject of how to address the problem of too many people inhabiting this planet. This tabu, similar to other "lesser" tabus like the fear to discuss death does not serve us well. But inevitable we will be forced to confront the issue and the sooner we do it the better.

I would like to solicit your opinion about what would be acceptable in terms of policies designed to keep the population in this country under control. Please, include in your opinion the issue of immigration, too.

Another related issue I would like to discuss is how the country should deal with the threat of other countries, cultures, races, or whatever, who urge their members (citizens) to produce a lot of babies with the goal of "conquering" other cultures, races, religions.

If you believe that over population is not an issue you are invited to participate in this discussion, too.

Thomas Orr

[przemeknowicki]

But as for the news - bad news always sells better than good news. So the 5% who say that falling oil prices are a disaster for the economy and the (different) 5% who say that rising oil prices are a disaster for the economy are the ones who get covered in 48pt type above the fold (or in the first 5 minutes).

Yeah, you are right about that.

[przemeknowicki]

ST88,

Now my ranting aside there is one aspect of large population I appreciate. It provides for the large talent pool so the arts and science may thrive. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the admiration for arts and science as the element of the culture is the thing of the eighteen through twentieth centuries. We still have fascination with technology but we are definitely gravitating towards materialistic and consumeristic attitudes. This makes me feel "empty" inside.

[ST88]

Actually I am complaining about the industrial ways of growing the food. The mineral content of fruit and vegetables is now only about a fifth of what it was in the beginning of the twentieth century.

I have not been able to verify this, but it doesn't sound accurate. I could buy a 5 or 10% drop, but not an 80% drop. Plants would not be able to grow, much less even produce food with this kind of drastic reduction. Could you provide a source for this number?

From my childhood days I remember the difference in taste and flavor between berries grown in the wild and those grown in the garden. And this was in days when organic farming was the only known way of farming.

This, I'll wager, has more to do with the varieties of berries available for cultivation and those that are necessarily wild. Also a factor is the amount of water available to domesticated berries and the fact that soils in gardens are generally more nutrient rich than those found in the wild (there are exceptions, but the nutrient mix is at least different). This does not mean that the berries themselves are necessarily different in nutrient value. A certain amount of nutrients is required for the berries to form -- the difference in taste is largely a measure of water content. Exceptions include the excess sulfur in Hawaiian onions, from the volcanic soil in which it is grown, and the growing problem of lead in cocoa beans in certain South American countries.

this science is tainted by the corporate drive for profit and does not care for what I care. There is nothing wrong with genetic engineering except when the goal is to increase profits and not the quality of food.... Chemicals as the answer to farming problems turned out to be a total fiasco but that doesn't stop the chemical giants to impose their profit generating "solutions" on farmers all over the world.

Big Food is coming to the realization that chemicals are on the way out. For the same reason that bacteria can become antibiotically resistant, insects can become resistant to even the most toxic pesticides. The result? The development of different kinds of chemicals that act only on arthropods and are readily broken down into their organic constituents, such as pyrethrins and other substances made from chrysanthemum flowers and tropical fruit seeds. The elimination of monocultural growing regions means there is less chance of explosive growth in the numbers of insects and therefore fewer fertilizers. I do not dispute the the hubris of the 50s and 60s chemical revolution. They did not have the knowledge of a true ecology back then to see what they were doing.

The genetically altered plants at the core of the green revolution were designed to produce more and to withstand massive amounts of chemicals. They wouldn't grow at all without chemical fertilizers. But they turned out to be poor in micronutrients and specifically in zinc. The result? The whole generation of mentally underdeveloped children in the third world countries. Plus, the fertile soils turned into arid lands after only two decades of intensive fertilizing with chemicals.

This isn't exactly true. The soil ended up being poor in zinc because the climate didn't support the type of agriculture that the U.S. was used to. Not the food. The nutrients in grown food do not change simply because of the materials available. If there isn't enough zinc in the ground, the plant won't grow fruits with decreased amounts of zinc, it will simply not grow fruits.

The explanation for the decrease in crop yields is found in our misunderstanding of soil fertility. We understood that sustainable agriculture exists when the nutrients lost during cultivation are replaced. However, we did not understand everything that needed replacement. The nitrogen-phosphorous-potassium (NPK) fertilizers kept those major nutrient levels high. However, just as the human body needs small amounts of zinc and iron to function and grow, soils need their own levels of minor nutrients. With each year of Green Revolution cultivation, microdefiencies of zinc, iron, copper, manganese, magnesium, molybdenum and boron developed in soils across the Punjab region. Without these small concentrations of nutrients, soils cannot function and plants cannot grow.

Another explanation for the poor grain yields in India was the waterlogging of soil. The drainage system of the Punjab is designed to efficiently drain monsoons. Traditionally, farmers have irrigated their crops along naturally formed canals, and in this way the farmers subsisted in a delicate balance with the cycles around them. However, the introduction of canals that cut across land features, and the construction of major dams such as the Bhakra Dam and Nangal Dam, upset this delicate balance. As previously mentioned, the crops of the Green Revolution need a large readily available water source. As a result of unusually high water storage, 10 million hectares out of a total 83 million hectares of arable land are either waterlogged or saline.

The Effects of the Green Revolution on the Punjabi Soils of India

Personally, the food I am looking for are not "irradiated chicken" but beef from cattle grown without hormones or antibiotics and fed on grass only. If I buy such food from a local farmer I don't need to worry about ecola or salmonella contamination common in big processing plants.

You are correct about e.coli and salmonella poisoning, which are caused by dubious industrial chicken farming practices. But the whole reason for the antibiotics is because domestic varieties of poultry and livestock are susceptible to bacterial infections and other diseases, which can be passed into the food supply despite best husbandry efforts. I would never eat raw beef or chicken no matter where it came from.

Also, I don't need any new research to prove the superiority of such food. The advantages of it was quite sufficiently demonstrated in the works of Weston Price seventy years ago. And this only proves that corporate science is capable of marching backwards, quite an accomplishment for a science, don't you think?

Weston Price's research was based on the logical fallacy that correlation implies causation. His methods were suspect and his findings were specious. I am not surprised that many people feel that Price's research is being suppressed today because no one wants to acknowledge his greatness due to his "political incorrectness". The reason no one does is because of his flawed methodology. A) The native tribes he recorded were specifically selected by him out of numerous other tribes he studied in order to prove his theory about nutrition and teeth. B) That there were no "diseased" members of the tribes he came upon could be due to a number of factors -- such as the infanticide of malformed tribal births, the quick death of untreated diseased tribal members, and just plain experimenter error. C) The actual longevity of tribal members was not recorded, just the relative health of the individuals he studied. If all members of a society die before the age of 50, you can see how an unschooled, untrained, amateur anthropologist might not be able to see some of the age-related diseases that we see in our over-50 crowd. The tooth decay he failed to see has little to do with nutrition, and is merely the result of the Westernized practice of using refined sugar.

[przemeknowicki]

I have not been able to verify this, but it doesn't sound accurate. I could buy a 5 or 10% drop, but not an 80% drop. Plants would not be able to grow, much less even produce food with this kind of drastic reduction. Could you provide a source for this number?

Paul Bergner in "The Healing Power of Minerals" compars the numbers taken from the following sources: Lindlahr in 1914, Hamaker in 1948 und US Department of Agriculture in 1963 and 1992. The specific number of 80% drop is illustrated in the table, which reads as follows. Average mineral content in selected vegetables 1914 - 1997. Sums of averages of calcium, magnesium, and iron in cabbage, lettuce, tomatoes and spinach. Bergner asserts that the methods of assessing the mineral content of produce were essentially the same in 1914 as they are now so the comparison is valid. We have no data regarding important trace minerals like chromium, magnesium, zinc or copper because only recently there were recognized as essential. Even if you are sceptical about the accuracy of data gathered in 1914 and 1948 studies the decline between 1963 and 1997 was demonstrated on data from the same source and counts in double digits.

Here is another quote from Henry A. Schroeder "The trace elements and man". <i>When we compared the concentration of chromium in the tissues of Americans and foreigners at all ages, we found high levels in stillborn, newborn infants and children up to ten years of age, which declined precipitously in the next two decades. Chromium, present in all young bodies, was not detected in 15-23 percent of American tissues from people over 50, but was found in almost every foreign one (98.5%). Estimates based on organ weights indicated that Africans had twice, Near Easterners 4.4 times and Orientals five times as much chromium in their bodies as did Americans. While we cannot prove that those persons deficient in tissue chromium had severe atherosclerosis, we found that chromium in the aorta was not detected (too low to be found) in almost every person dying of coronary artery disease, one manifestation of atherosclerosis, and was present in almost every aorta of persons dying accidentally. </i>

Weston Price's research was based on the logical fallacy that correlation implies causation. His methods were suspect and his findings were specious. I am not surprised that many people feel that Price's research is being suppressed today because no one wants to acknowledge his greatness due to his "political incorrectness". The reason no one does is because of his flawed methodology. A) The native tribes he recorded were specifically selected by him out of numerous other tribes he studied in order to prove his theory about nutrition and teeth. B) That there were no "diseased" members of the tribes he came upon could be due to a number of factors -- such as the infanticide of malformed tribal births, the quick death of untreated diseased tribal members, and just plain experimenter error. C) The actual longevity of tribal members was not recorded, just the relative health of the individuals he studied. If all members of a society die before the age of 50, you can see how an unschooled, untrained, amateur anthropologist might not be able to see some of the age-related diseases that we see in our over-50 crowd. The tooth decay he failed to see has little to do with nutrition, and is merely the result of the Westernized practice of using refined sugar.

I don't know what to say because I cannot comprehend your logic. Look, we have the whole industry treating decayed teeth, crooked teeth or acne with little success I should say. Weston Price showed that with proper nutrition you don't need to suffer from those ailments. He actually further proved his point by supplementing his little patients with meals prepared according to the knowledge he gained by studying primitive tribes, and got results. Reverse of decay and spontaneous remineralization of teeth and ... better results in school. I don't care how flawed his research methodology was but if an average doctor tells me that bad teeth and acne are something of a norm then I know that something is wrong with this picture. I am not saying that we have to erect a monument for Weston Price. I am only saying that we have to follow what he started. I suspect that most scientists are afraid of continuing what Weston Price started fearing they will be ridiculed and ostricised by the scientific establishment for whatever reason. I don't care what that reason might be. However, if this is what science is about call me a superstitious moron or whatever you want to call me. My consolation is that the public rejecting science and going for organic foods and alternative methods in medicine is wiser than science as you just described it.

By the way, if everybody, including the governement, knows that sugar and white flouer cause tooth decay why do we put people in jail for smoking marijuana and sue tobaco industry for billions but do nothing about the sugar and grain industries? In the beginning of 20th century the bleached flour was banned from interstate commerce. Today, the sugar lobby has the face to threaten WHO with withdrawing US funding for their recommendation that daily consumption of suger be limited to 10% of calorie intake. They wanted 25%.

[ST88]

Paul Bergner in "The Healing Power of Minerals" compars the numbers taken from the following sources: Lindlahr in 1914, Hamaker in 1948 und US Department of Agriculture in 1963 and 1992. The specific number of 80% drop is illustrated in the table, which reads as follows. Average mineral content in selected vegetables 1914 - 1997. Sums of averages of calcium, magnesium, and iron in cabbage, lettuce, tomatoes and spinach.

I did a little digging, if you will, on this, because I had never heard this claim before. Before I get into the science behind this, let me just say that I acknowledge there is a topsoil problem with industrial farming. Monocultures have produced a rapidly deteriorating quality of soil, and are starting to affect the choices of industrial farms in terms of crop rotation and natural soil augmentation (manure, compost, additive crops like fava beans, etc.)

The Berger results are accurate, to my susprise, but they do not imply what Berger says they do. There are four main problems with this research. 1) The varieties of the vegetables were not controlled for. We have no idea which varieties were used to make the mineral claims, and different varieties yield different mineral results. Second, different parts of the country yield different mineral results in the soil. Third, vegetables and fruits will yield different mineral results at different times of the year. But this is nothing compared with the results of the research on other produce:
Produce: Calcium (1963/1999); Magnesium (1963/1999); Potassium (1963/1999) (amounts are milligrams per 100gram sample, raw)
Apples: 7/7; 8/5; 110/115
Beans: 56/37; 32/25; 243/209
Broccoli: 103/48; 24/25; 382/325
Carrots: 37/27; 23/15; 341/323
Lettuce: 20/19; 11/9; 175/158
Oranges: 41/40; 11/10; 200/181
Peaches: 9/5; 10/7; 202/197
Peas: 26/25; 35/33; 316/244
Strawberries: 21/14; 12/10; 164/166
Tomatoes: 13/5; 14/11; 244/222
http://www.soils.wisc.edu/~barak/poster ... olis2000a/
If soils were being depleted and the vegetables were suffering as a result, we would expect to see marked declines across the board, not only in nutrition, but also in production. As you can see from the above data, a few declines were precipitous, some were modest, but most are marginally different results. There is no trend of complete decrease as would be expected if soil depletion was a factor.

Tomatoes, for example, are apparently notoriously sensitive to soil culture. Tomotoes grown hydroponically have different nutritional contents from those grown in soil.

Two tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cultivars were grown in two organic and two inorganic media to evaluate the effects upon the levels of Ca, Fe, K, P, and vitamin C in the fruit. 'Platense' tomato was grown in a glasshouse, on sand or peat-perlite (hydroponic substrates) irrigated with a complete solution of macro and microelements, or on 100% vermicompost or 50% vermicompost-50% soil (organic substrates) irrigated with water. Fruit were harvested at physiological maturity, and levels of P, K, Ca, Fe, and vitamin C were determined. Fruit grown on organic substrates contained significantly more Ca and vitamin C and less Fe than did fruit grown on hydroponic media. Phosphorus and K content did not differ between fruit from organic and hydroponic substrates.

Agronomic Aspects: Yields

About spinach: an early transcription error led to the overestimation of the iron content in spinach by a factor of 10. This error was not discovered until 1937. I am not saying that this is the "cause" of the decline in iron content from 1914 to the present, but it must be suspected as a contributing factor to the steep decline in iron levels.
http://www.innvista.com/health/foods/ve ... pinach.htm

Here is another quote from Henry A. Schroeder "The trace elements and man". <i>When we compared the concentration of chromium in the tissues of Americans and foreigners at all ages, we found high levels in stillborn, newborn infants and children up to ten years of age, which declined precipitously in the next two decades. Chromium, present in all young bodies, was not detected in 15-23 percent of American tissues from people over 50, but was found in almost every foreign one (98.5%). Estimates based on organ weights indicated that Africans had twice, Near Easterners 4.4 times and Orientals five times as much chromium in their bodies as did Americans. While we cannot prove that those persons deficient in tissue chromium had severe atherosclerosis, we found that chromium in the aorta was not detected (too low to be found) in almost every person dying of coronary artery disease, one manifestation of atherosclerosis, and was present in almost every aorta of persons dying accidentally. </i>

Chromium is not readily accepted into the body. It disperses quickly through sweat and urine and only 1% of ingested Chromium actually stays resident in the body to do any good. Further complicating the picture is that simple sugars (refined sugar again) cause the Chromium that hangs around to be released. This, I think is the primary reason that Chromium is lacking in Western adults over 50. The ability of the body to retain Chromium decreases with age and the consumption of refined sugar, refined flour, and antacids (substances not readily available to or desired by other cultures) further weakens the body's ability to retain it.

By the way, if everybody, including the governement, knows that sugar and white flouer cause tooth decay why do we put people in jail for smoking marijuana and sue tobaco industry for billions but do nothing about the sugar and grain industries?

Because the tooth effects of refined sugar and refined flour are easily mitigated, but the effects of tobacco and marijuana are not.

[przemeknowicki]

Because the tooth effects of refined sugar and refined flour are easily mitigated, but the effects of tobacco and marijuana are not.

I am afraid the health implications of refined sugar and refined flour are far more profound than what can be 'easily mitigated' as you put it. Regarding chromium Schroeder stated that extra amount of chromium and several other microelements are required for proper metabolism of carbohydrates. You didn't have bad effects on teeth among natives in Caribbean and Hawaii who chewed on sugar canes. I'd rather buy Schroeder's explanations than yours, which borders on dismissing the chromium metabolic function as irrelevant phenomenon. In general, I am with the public siding with the European view (or what used to be the European view) that in food and nutrition it is better to err on the side of caution. I appreciate your skills when it comes to finding the factual data and when you do the research on the subject of the debate. However, I am almost enraged when you seem to side with the industry line that whatever their practices they are based on science because "no scientific proof exists that they are harmful". On top of that in many areas they make sure that no such proof will ever exists because there will be no fundings for the necessary research. There will be plenty of fundings, however, for any attempt to discredit vitamins and other natural remedies.The severe implications of diet rich in refined sugar and refined flour very likely include obesity, heart problems and diabetes. It is only a matter of years before the bomb drops and we will hear it from official sources. Unfortunately, this is not making me happy because I know where they will be looking for scapegoats. They will go after McDonalds rather than after the chemical and pharmaceutical corporations.

Well, but how all this fits into the debate on population control?

[ST88]

Because the tooth effects of refined sugar and refined flour are easily mitigated, but the effects of tobacco and marijuana are not.

I am afraid the health implications of refined sugar and refined flour are far more profound than what can be 'easily mitigated' as you put it.

Please do not misunderstand. I only intended this statement to be for the effects of refined sugar on teeth. You are correct in pointing out that these refined substances have far more deleterious effects throughout the body. However, my point was not that refined sugar and flour were not inherently bad, which they are, my point was that Chromium deficiency is not caused by the lack of it in the diet, it is caused by other substances that react negatively with it in the body.

[przemeknowicki]

Please do not misunderstand. I only intended this statement to be for the effects of refined sugar on teeth. You are correct in pointing out that these refined substances have far more deleterious effects throughout the body. However, my point was not that refined sugar and flour were not inherently bad, which they are, my point was that Chromium deficiency is not caused by the lack of it in the diet, it is caused by other substances that react negatively with it in the body.

Thanks for clarifying. However, I am convinced that the mineral content of the soil, or mineral balance, is very important. Have you heard about the "Remineralized the Earth" movement? I have experimented with the rock powder in my garden and I have seen the results. On the other hand, you are right that different components of the diet may have far stronger effect on assimilation of minerals than the mineral content of the food itself. But that, again, would give importance to the work of Weston Price. Healthy teeth and perfectly developed bones are unmistaken indicators that the mineral metabolism was perfect in those individuals studied.

Mineral circulation on Earth is by the way a fascinating topic in itself. I was very impressed with the theory crediting the cyclic heating up and cooling off of the Earth with the availability of minerals from the cosmic dust. According to this theory the Earth gets plenty of minerals from cosmos when it is orbiting the Sun on the eclyptic (parallel to the eclyptic) where the dust in concentrated. The wobbling of the Earth orbit creates an angle between the orbit and the eclyptic. The bigger the angle the less minerals available. Plenty of minerals makes the trees grow faster and healthier, which has a cooling effect on the climate. The scarcity of minerals makes the tree sick. Sick trees are decimated by parasites and burn in forest fires. The deforested Earth heats up. According to the retired geologist who came up with this theory the deforestation has far more profound effect on the grren house effect than the production of green house gases. At least this is what shows on the data collected by science.

[ST88]

However, I am almost enraged when you seem to side with the industry line that whatever their practices they are based on science because "no scientific proof exists that they are harmful". On top of that in many areas they make sure that no such proof will ever exists because there will be no fundings for the necessary research.

I can tell you that I am not an industry schill. I don't believe that industry has all the answers any more than you believe it. But science is another matter. Whether industry chooses to implement rational scientific methods to its production is the function of market forces and government regulation.

My stance is that we are not in any sort of "doom and gloom" scenario that will push the food industry into the dumper. And this is how it applies to population dynamics. Big Food will tend to produce more where it can find new markets. If there is a rise in the number of Hispanic immigrants, it will produce its food accordingly. Here in San Diego, I see this on a daily basis. Piloncillo, a raw sugar solid used for Mexican desserts, is available in regular grocery stores, something that I had not noticed in other areas of the country. And the market forces that created Big Food will not allow a food vacuum somewhere in the market, it will be filled with one piece of the industry or another, depending on what people demand.

Should refined sugar be banned? No. But I wouldn't say boo if the next big fad diet claims that the stuff is poison (which it isn't). Should refined flour be banned? No. But the public should be educated about the effects of using bleached white flour over whole grain flour (or potato-based breads). These are not harmful substances when used properly, like tobacco -- which when used properly is harmful -- it is just that they should not be eaten to the exclusion of other kinds of sugar and flour. The word properly here means the same thing as moderation.

Like I was saying about the news, doom and gloom sells.

[przemeknowicki]

My stance is that we are not in any sort of "doom and gloom" scenario that will push the food industry into the dumper. And this is how it applies to population dynamics. Big Food will tend to produce more where it can find new markets. If there is a rise in the number of Hispanic immigrants, it will produce its food accordingly. Here in San Diego, I see this on a daily basis. Piloncillo, a raw sugar solid used for Mexican desserts, is available in regular grocery stores, something that I had not noticed in other areas of the country. And the market forces that created Big Food will not allow a food vacuum somewhere in the market, it will be filled with one piece of the industry or another, depending on what people demand.

Well, I see similar changes in my supermarket and I welcome them. There are more fruit and vegetables from the local farms. There is more European food in the dairy section including European style butter. There is traditional bread baked in clay oven. For many years the only tomatoes I could buy was the Florida variety, the tasteless thing I hated. Thanks to the collapse of the Florida tomato industry finally I can buy tomatoes that are quite good. They are from the local farms (in the season) and from Canada and Mexico.

I also see the Big Food (as you say) in retreat in many areas, which is another welcome change. However, when on the milk carton right after producer's claim that no hormones or pesticides were used I see another note saying "FDA finds no difference between milk from cows treated with the synthetic growth hormone and from the cows not treated" I am angry again. Obviously, no milk producer would place such a note motivated solely with his own desire to inform the public. It is not cool among intellectuals and critically thinking people to subscribe to conspiracy theories but the note on the milk carton I am talking about is the conspiracy.