There is a plausible route from disrupting large-scale agriculture to hundreds of millions+ starving, although they mostly would just ignore any organic, small-scale mandates.
I find most people who espouse your views typically don’t because the people they are always imagining dying/killing/banning from having babies are usually in the third-world, or at least very far away. They don’t imagine the very real killing, wars, etc. that would have to take place to forcibly sterilize people.
I don’t think organic agriculture is such an important end that we should render 7/8 of the population dead or infertile so that we can transition to organic.
The greenest people are north Americans (excluding Mexico) and Europe. They just so happen to not have any kids.
The solution is to put the economic burden of pollution onto those that cause it the most and right now the biggest burdens are on western states who do the most already to greenify their economies.
And don't post the innane," they're poor and need to burn coal to get ahead!". India is the worst offender with dumping plastic in the ocean. China is even worse with industrial pollutants destroying what good land they had.
The 3rd world needs to be brought to heel if climate change is to be stopped.
This is just reskinned eco-racialist rhetoric. We do not need to reduce our population to 1 billion by bringing billions of people in poorer countries ‘to heel’ via forced sterilization or killlings.
Until people like accept that reality either by visiting those countries to see how bad it really is, nothing will ever change.
Your "basic understanding" is certainly that.
FWiW tv and education are great at reducing population growth, Hans Rosling presentations of the past decades show the high correlation between these, women's rights, and reducing population growth.
Mitigating the effects of AGW is multi pronged, population will peak and fall, and then stabilise, this is already projected. Reducing insulating gas emmissions comes with changes in behaviour; alternate energy, reduced consumption, etc.
Doomsayers don't have to go full genocidal in their thoughts, you may consider winding back on that kind of simplistic thinking.
have a good one
"Reducing population" is phrased as an active control of population numbers. Populations fluctuate by other means than just genocidal ones, and I made no mention of one billion as a taget.
Do better.
there are real problems, you identify yourself as a greater contributor than the average global person, then you imply that others in this discussion feel superior to people in “those countries”
maybe stop blowing the consumption of “the marginal Chinese child out of the water”?
think globally, act locally
Given the precipitous drops in fertility in the developed world, I'd say that this is happening.
Just educate people on sexual health and offer contraceptives. It works.
also, to address the sentiments in your posts in general, if you’re against government intervention in farming, go ahead and give up farm subsidies, subsidies to oil companies, etc.
be consistent at least. lots of fingers on the scale, most of which prop up farmers and plastic producers.
Also, are there any agricultural billionaires? I kind of doubt it: usually they are rich but not that rich.
0: see Sri Lanka’s attempted shift to local, small scale agriculture and how that went.
Another great example case, thank you for pointing that out.
0: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oxfam-us/static/oa4/OA-CubaGoingAga...
What does that even mean? Sounds like depopulating most of the entire US West
Climate change is bad enough, but it is not going to render agriculture untenable in the next hundred years or so.
Show how the productivity per acre of arable land times the amount of land available produces enough calories to keep the current population of the world from starting. If you can't produce enough calories, vitamin content doesn't matter.
(hint: the productivity of small-scale farming is often << 10% of the productivity of large-scale farming and the productivity of garden-scale farming is typically < 1%)
Nutritionally-dense food can also change gut biome. I have no idea if anyone ever did a study on long term effects, but it would be interesting to see if the body ends up needing less overall calories if the food quality went up, along with changes in the gut biome.
As far as productivity goes, I don’t think the figures you are quoting takes into account methods other than monocropping. Industrial scale famers who went to polycropping, for example, find smaller yields on individual crops but their overall yield and profit were better. No-till, as another example, underperforms until about five years in.
And then there are losses during transport.
The closest I have seen was someone attempting 100% of his diet from gardens he has planted for a year or harvested himself. It was rough, in a tropical climate (Florida), but was possible. He had to use three gardens, though the deal he made with the residential landowners gave them the right to harvest anything at anytime in exchange for using their front yard. According to him, 80% was doable. I don’t know if he had integrated livestock.
As I mentioned in other comments, post-Soviet Cuba, under sanctions, were forced into developing this because of the lack of oil (trucks, tractors, fertilizer, and pesticides) and other imports.
Many. But maybe you mean only those getting their hands dirty in the field? Howard Buffet, perhaps. Some sources claim he is a billionaire.