Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

Salt water resistant rice can boost harvest by nearly 20 per cent

agriculture cornucopianism china

  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,227 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

Salt water resistant rice can boost harvest by nearly 20 per cent

 

Rice grown on a commercial scale in diluted seawater has, for the first time, made it into the rice bowls of ordinary Chinese people after a breakthrough in food production following more than four decades of efforts by farmers, researchers, government agencies and businesses

....

China has one million square kilometers of waste land, an area the size of Ethiopia, where plants struggle to grow because of high salinity or alkalinity levels in the soil.

 

Agricultural scientist Yuan Longping, known as China’s “father of hybrid rice”, told mainland media that if a tenth of such areas were planted with rice species resistant to salt, they could boost China’s rice production by nearly 20 per cent.

 

They could produce 50 million tonnes of food, enough to feed 200 million people.

 

Cornucopianist beliefs are being validated across the world, every day. That's 200 million people we couldn't have fed last year.

 

If implemented worldwide, this one innovation could add well over a billion to the carrying capacity.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#2
Erowind

Erowind

    Psychonaut, Aspiring Mathematician and Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 525 posts
  • LocationInside some convoluted formula I don't actually understand.

At which point those newly fed people will have children and triple their population creating an even larger deficit. I'm not saying we shouldin't feed people, but unless we are feeding all poeple and overproducing in advance to feed new incoming people, people will starve. This extra production may actually contribute to future famine because there is no plan outside of, "let's make more."


  • Frizz likes this

Current status: slaving away for the math gods of Pythagoras VII.


#3
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,227 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

What other plan could we possibly need? The universe is for all practical purposes infinite.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#4
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 716 posts
  • LocationLondon

At which point those newly fed people will have children and triple their population creating an even larger deficit. I'm not saying we shouldin't feed people, but unless we are feeding all poeple and overproducing in advance to feed new incoming people, people will starve. This extra production may actually contribute to future famine because there is no plan outside of, "let's make more."

 

What other plan could we possibly need? The universe is for all practical purposes infinite.

 

Also just because you can feed more people it doesn't mean everyone's going to suddenly start having more children, aside from areas where famines are a regular occurrence, population growth is rarely limited by food availability. Which is why many fully developed nations with no food supply issues have very low or negative population growth without factoring in immigration.

 

The availability of more rice could lower rice prices and result in some economic issues for rice farmers, especially the ones in areas where they don't normally have to worry so much about salt but aside from that i don't see how there would be any negative repercussions from being able to grow more per acre.


  • Jakob likes this

#5
tierbook

tierbook

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,195 posts
  • LocationCharleston sc

Does it cost 20% more?



#6
Frizz

Frizz

    fey pansexual alcoholic non-human

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,335 posts
  • Locationsomewhere over the rainbow
I advocate a soft approach to depopulation.

Lets face it, on the global level, we, the "golden billion" are the elite. It isn't in any of our interests or that of our descendants to allow unabated population growth.

Birth control initiatives through womens health clinics in the third world, increasing energy prices hence inflating the food transport costs, water scarcity as a precursor to widescale crop failure and ultimately the cutting off of global aid.

The world cannot be allowed to reach 9 billion, something drastic needs to take place, as uncomfortable as it is, just be thankful to not be one of them.
“Give me time and I’ll give you a revolution.”
- Alexander McQueen

#7
Frizz

Frizz

    fey pansexual alcoholic non-human

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,335 posts
  • Locationsomewhere over the rainbow
Just to clarify, it's not that i hate the human race, i just love the earth more.
“Give me time and I’ll give you a revolution.”
- Alexander McQueen

#8
Jakob

Jakob

    Fenny-Eyed Slubber-Yuck

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,227 posts
  • LocationIn the Basket of Deplorables

The golden billion is not a fixed number. Global wealth is rising far faster than population. In the past 150 years, the GWP has risen 100-fold while the population has risen 5-fold, so the average person is 20 times wealthier than 150 years ago. This suggests that by the time we become a Type I civilization, the average person will have an annual income of $200k in today's terms. And that's the average. In first world countries the average could be close to a million a year.


Click 'show' to see quotes from great luminaries.

Spoiler

#9
Alislaws

Alislaws

    Democratic Socialist Materialist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 716 posts
  • LocationLondon

The golden billion is not a fixed number. Global wealth is rising far faster than population. In the past 150 years, the GWP has risen 100-fold while the population has risen 5-fold, so the average person is 20 times wealthier than 150 years ago. This suggests that by the time we become a Type I civilization, the average person will have an annual income of $200k in today's terms. And that's the average. In first world countries the average could be close to a million a year.

 

I'm not sure the population control advocates really take in any of the arguments anyone makes around these issues. Simply looking at the population growth rate of any developed nation over the course of it's development will show that our population growth, as a species, is going to peak and start to drop off as the world continues to develop.

 

If we ever hit a point where, as a species, we can't produce enough to feed everyone we could basically double our global food output just by going vegan. Given that our population is a bit over 7 billion now, and none of the projections show us going beyond 14billion, the food supply issue is not going to be a factor, (unless we are very slow to respond to global warming)

 

The people who are really concerned with population growth can just refuse to have children, or if they're super committed they can kill themselves, which seems much fairer than forcing population controls on other people. 


  • Jakob likes this





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: agriculture, cornucopianism, china

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users