Shocking satellite image shows Alaska’s formerly frozen Yukon Delta is completely green

When most people have the option to work in farming or in the cities, they will choose the cities today. Many only possess some skills to do farm labor and no skills or language for city jobs. 18 to 30 year old people should be able to work in farming, but today even many in that group are unfit for hard labor. Those old people, with health issues, etc. won't do well in farming. Farming is a crappy job, low pay, hard work, sometimes long hours, and seldom guaranteed work...it's no wonder most people are not interested! Mechanization has developed but cannot replace all the necessary human labor. As the population grows, there is more and more demand for food...not less.

 

Instead of mass-migration there needs to be mass-distribution of food and water into areas where it is needed...

 

Well, if you can get congress to pass a bill on that, I'm all in favor. However, I'd bet this is no more than a mitigation of the larger problem of agriculture.

So far the US is low on the list of countries in terms of generosity.

 

As time marches on, and all of these issues worsen, and things like mass-migration are close to becoming a reality, something critical must be done about providing food and water and healthcare to all who need it. I suspect any solution can't be in capitalism because there won't be any money to profit. So, nations really need to discuss this stuff and put in place now whatever will be needed in the future...for example water pipelines from Canada to the US, develop more arable land, restrict population growth, etc. But since we are NIMBY's and feel entitled, and seldom do anything proactive...there is going to be some major problems to deal with in the future...it won't be pretty...

 

No you didn’t. I have cited those who study the issues. I have backed all my claims with data and/or studies. You have posted a bunch of links you haven’t read and don’t understand instead of posing an intellectual argument or one based on data. I know you didn’t read or understand because the first one I skimmed supports my position.

No they don’t. You can cherry pick data that suggests that. But from a total systems analysis that is not the case. Like the study above that you linked to that admits it doesn’t include carbon fertilization in much of it’s data analysis and still comes to this conclusion. Pull quote from YOUR LINK.

Furthermore, this study also predicted slight decreased production in India from climate change (the study is from 1999). Instead of a decrease we have seen a 30 point increase in India’s crop production index since 2007 alone.

So as I said before, the empirical evidence is on my side here. This study you linked to agrees with me and it even overestimated production loss from climate change. There has in fact been increases in the crop production index, not slight decreases predicted by your link.

You are actually incorrect here. I am involved in agricultural research from time to time. But none of that matters. What matters is I can back my posts up with empirical evidence. You on the other hand just linked to a “study” that comes to the opposite conclusion you thought it did and supports my position. Cool, huh? Isn’t science fun! You should pay more attention to science and less to people pulling your chain about climate change.

Want to post any more unsubstantiated claims in denial of science? I’m game to debunk them!

 

There is no shortage in Bangladesh. There is here. I’ve been offering young guys out of college the opportunity to become a millionaire before age 40 working into my operation for two decades. No takers. I gave up and have modified my operation so I can automate and do the work myself.

 

Sure I agree. My point was to counter the idea Bangladesh could never grow enough food because of dealing with the world bank.

People make the same mistake on ag production in California. They use total receipts to prove CA is self sufficient, but don’t account for the fact California has to import commodities and other feed feed to keep their ag sector functional.

One of the criticisms of the World Bank is they incentivize ag production that doesn’t help the country but instead destroys it. Shrimp farming being one example. It gives Bangladesh a shot in the arm temporarily on an economic basis but long term destroys both inland farming and offshore fisheries.

 

The topic is NOT the World Bank.

And, California is a MAJOR exporter of food to the US as well as abroad.

 

You brought them into the conversation. LOL

Really? You don’t say? They also rely on feed from outside the state to maintain their meat and dairy operations just as I said.

 

It's called CLIMATE CHANGE! Did mankind cause that or the farm animals?

 

Quite a lot of farming has to be done by humans, there is no mechanical replacement.

 

We already donate more food than the next to 10 nations combined.

How much more are we going to donate? That is not a solution, it is a bandaid.

 

As well as a major importer of it as well. And the industry has been shrinking each decade.

Hell, I am old enough to remember farms less than a mile from my house growing up in LA, and huge areas of farms and orange groves all around the city. Today, all gone. Many of the farming companies decades ago got into the housing business. And areas like Irvine and Newhall went from farms to houses. But look back almost 100 years, almost every major community in LA is named after what was a farm or farmer.

For example, are you aware that California is a net importer of dairy and meat products? Yep, it is. Half of their milk is used in the cheese industry, and the other half is not enough for the population so a lot comes from out of state. I know when I worked in the retail business in Sacramento a few years ago, all our milk and butter came in on trucks from Reno. Livestock used to be located quite close to cities, that dates back to when transportation and refrigeration were not easy, so the dairy and livestock producers could get their products to market quickly.

But all of those areas, are now gone. Absorbed by the very cities they once supported. Los Angeles was once the dairy capitol of the country, with hundreds of them all through the city. Today, there is only left in the entire county, near the border of Kern County in the Mojave Desert. And because of the man-made drought more and more of the agriculture is simply moving away and will not be returning. We saw millions of almond trees die, as the governor for years cut the ration of water from the canals to farmers, and they could do nothing but watch their trees die. There was a grove outside of Sacramento that had been there for over 100 years, I used to drive by it all the time. A few years ago they were all dead, and being put in piles for pulping. And signs announcing another mega-subdivision was going up on the site.

If one looks around the Central Valley of California, it is littered with bankrupt farms. And while they say it is "drought", that is a lie. It is simply because the megacities are taking all of the water, and there is not enough left over for agriculture. The infrastructure set up for providing water to both agriculture and cities is over 100 years old now. Created back when the population of the entire state was around 1.5 million. Even some dams built in the 1950's and 1960's were designed to reduce flooding and to help augment the supply which was by then not enough.

But today, the state has over 39.5 million people. Los Angeles is taking water from as far away as the California side of Reno, and the deserts in Arizona. That is just not sustainable, this "drought" is not a real drought, there is simply not enough water to provide for both agriculture and the population. And as always happens, people always wins and agriculture either moves to crops that use less water, or have a higher profit margin. In this case, many are turning to cotton, cannabis, and "Tiffany Farming". In other words, "organic". High priced items, not the inexpensive bulk food that people rely on.

No, California has not been self-sufficient in food for decades. In fact, are you even aware of what their 4 main food exports are?

Well, by far number 1 is dairy. And ignore what I said earlier, remember that half of that is used for cheese. And "California Cheese" (TM) is a major export. After that is grapes. But once again, not in the form of grapes, but much is used in the wine industry. After that comes almonds and pistachios. Once again, not a single crop you can "live" off of. All of those are cash crops because of the value, leaving the production of "food" to other states where land is cheaper and they are still making them affordable.

And ironically, states to the east, which are literally in the same "drought conditions" that California is in. Idaho and Nevada to be specific. But strange, how those states still have enough water for both people and agriculture, as California has insane rationing. Even though they actually get less rain, being in the "rain shadow" of mountain ranges (Sierra-Nevada and Cascades). Of course, they also do not have the insane populations of California either. Where some single communities in California have more people than the entire state of Idaho.

Want to see one of the largest attempts at human migration in history, followed by a massive die-off? Simply destroy the ability of California to take water from the entire state and pump it to 4 cities. They all depend on "imported water", and would die without it. And even more crazy, not only are they not building more reservoirs to capture more water, they are actually destroying dams that do it now with the idea or "returning the land to nature". And just this year they approved the demolishing of 4 more dams.

In a state screaming about "drought" and suffering blackouts because of not enough electricity, they are removing even more dams. Simply figuring that there will always be enough to buy from somewhere else. That is essentially what is being repeated globally. And eventually, it is a house of cards that will fail.

 

Nature did. The same reason that 15,000 years ago, most of the American Midwest was the exact same as that area is today. That area was all tundra, permafrost, and frozen land. Then at about the time that humans arrived, it was changing to what we are familiar with today.

Maybe that is the truth. Humans moving to North America 25-30kya caused the glaciers to go away and the landscape warm to where it supported buffalo. Damned humans! They and their camp fires caused this!

 

Being self sufficient does NOT mean that there aren't imports. California has plenty of people wealthy enough to want cool food products from all over the world.

That does NOT mean they are food insufficient.

California is a net exporter of food. They are definitely self sufficient. The government is not having to buy food for the people.

Water is a serious and significant issue, but discussing CA water in this thread isn't consistent with the OP. You should start a thread, perhaps.

 

They are not self-sufficient, not even close. Most of their consumable food comes from out of state. They produce "Tiffany Food" mostly. Meat, dairy, over half of their agricultural food, more and more each year comes from out of state because they can not even come close to support their exploding population.

In fact, until 20 years ago California was a major exporter of corn. Today, it is an importer, with almost half of that crop now going to make fuel. California is also now an importer of wheat, with most of their production now being in "Winter Wheat", grown as ground cover in the off-growing months while their "summer wheat" production has been reduced dramatically. Once again, a recent development in the last few decades as I still remember the vast wheat farms that used to be all around LA.

You are missing that increasingly, more and more of their agriculture is not in "food", but "luxuries". Their biggest consumable food today is rice. Even their famed Oranges are largely a thing of the past, with most of them coming from Mexico. Most of the famous "Orange Groves" are long gone.

When a region is not self-sufficient in producing their own food, it is a disaster waiting to happen. They rely upon others for their food, water, and electricity. And eventually, it will collapse. It is the same problem that Rome faced two thousand years ago. Exploding population, that was dependent upon imports because they could not meet their own demand. And California can not hope to meet their own demand in almost anything. Other than overpriced cars and "Heritage Organics".

 

It's called "technology" although that isn't always 100% accurate.

At one time, it took 8 people -- including children -- to work a single acre of land.

By the 1750s here in Colonial America, you were down to 5 people --including children -- and by the 1880s down to four people -- including children.

That "technology" incorporated things like the 3-field crop rotation and better plows.

When agriculture became mechanized, not only could you do everything with one person (excepting harvesting), one person could farm more acres of land.

Later, because of technology, your crop yields were far higher, so you need fewer farmers.

I mention that, because a Solar/Nuclear EMP Event will put you in the Stone Age for a century or more.

You're gonna need to farm 2 acres of land just to feed 1 person a diet of 1,250 calories/day for a year. If you got livestock, like cows, buffalo, bison, pigs, goats or sheep, you can cut that down to 1.5 acres per person. And your children are gonna have to work their freaking asses off if you wanna survive.

I have a BA in Economics, so I can tell you that all economies start out as ZERO Level Agricultural economies. Yeah, subsistence farming.

You can barely feed everyone, but through technology and other advances, you get surplus labor, which you use to weave cloth so you have clothes and make jewelry and invent alphabets.

One reason African States are poor, is because EU tariffs prohibit importing processed food.

Africans can grow tomatoes all day long, but they cannot process the tomatoes, meaning they can make canned tomatoes, or stewed tomatoes or tomato paste or sauce etc.

I mention that, because you get higher revenues and profits from processed goods.

Eventually, you grow a surplus of crops which you can trade for things you don't have or can't make because you don't have the labor, and then there's still more surplus labor that you use for your 1st Level Economy. Natural Resources. You're harvesting timber, oils, gas, coal, metallic ores and non-metallic minerals.

Initially, you're just mining bauxite. You get more labor and better technology and now you're shipping crushed bauxite ore. That fetches an higher price.

And, then you're processing the crushed bauxite into Aluminum ingots, which generates even more revenues and profits, and ultimately you're selling rolls of sheet metal, because you've entered into your 2nd Level Economy.

Your birth-rate naturally declines in the 2nd Level. Why? Because you need a helluva lot more services, like administration, accounting, engineering, architectural, finance, insurance, legal, management, etc etc etc.

Those all require advanced higher education, which means people delay marriage and thus delay child-birth.

Then you enter the 3rd Level Economy.

You find there are things you do better than others, and that others do better than you. So why not take advantage of that?

That's what trade's about. Brasil has a comparative advantage in producing coffee. The US will never be able to produce coffee in the quantities Brasil does and for the cost they do.

But you won't find salmon in Brasil. You have a comparative advantage over them, so it makes sense to trade.

Going back to your 0 Level Economy, if all you got is barley, that sucks. But, trade your surplus barley for the wheat and potatoes that you cannot grow, and you just improved the diet, the Standard of Living, and the quality of life for your people.

Again, that's what trade's all about.

You wanna have 100% Made in USA?

Okay, you just have to figure out how to get 430 Million immigrants to come to the US.

With an E-Pop Ratio of 62%, you'll need a population of 750 Million people -- more than 2x what you have now -- to have 100% Made in the USA.

I don't mind being a minority in my own country. Do you? Because you would be.

Don't get too upset about the lack of farms.

In Ohio, we have 7 Million acres of fallow farm/grazing lands.

Across Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Missouri, there are 35 Million acres of fallow farm/grazing lands.

It's there if you need it.

 

Great post. See, people can’t tell the difference between food self sufficiency and trade surplus based on cash receipts. I don’t think they are capable of distinguishing between the two.

 

That is not "technology". You are way off here, as usual.

Technology does not cause farmers to completely leave the business and sell their land to housing developments. Which houses more people, that need even more water than the farms did. And your claim about "technology" has nothing to do with the issues over water.

Tell me, what does "technology" have to do with the huge amounts of former farmland now unused in California, simply because they can not use the water anymore?

 

Yes, it does.

Technology results in higher crop yields.

US farmers average 48 bushels of wheat per acre.

Compare that with the 28 bushels of wheat per acre they were getting in the 1880s.

You don't need as many farmers. It's shocking you can't figure out why that is so. Go on FacePuke and have your 5th Grade Math teacher explain it to you.

 

And that has not a thing to do with water, or the issue that a lot of areas do not produce enough food to feed their population.

But I see, once again instead of discussing the actual issue, you run in circled then throw out insults.

Figure this into your claims. You claim that the amount of wheat produced per acre has increased what, 40% since the 1880's? The US population then was around 50 million.

Today, it is over 331 million. So even if we planted the same amount as we did 140 years ago, we would have starvation. So obviously your claims are coming up way short in a great many areas. Technology does not solve all problems. Oh, and farmland has increased. From around 285 million acres in 1880, to just under 900 million acres today. That is still not enough to feed everybody, even assuming your 40% increase is accurate across all crops (and it is not). But I do know we still produce the largest surplus in the world, and are also the largest donator and seller of food. But over the last 2 decades, the face of agriculture is changing.

And can you discuss things like a reasonable adult, or are you only able to regress to name calling and insults when you can not actually verify your claims?

 

As technology advances and industry to support it grows, even in Bangladesh and around the world more people have options for work other than farming. In most places there is plenty of actual labor but they're not interested in farming...maybe temporarily but not long term when they have other options. It is especially an issue in the US...

 

When the **** hits the fan, and masses are out of hope, the WORLD must kick in and do whatever can be done. Since we never do anything proactively when the time comes there will be lots of pain and suffering for everyone. And even if the US does more than 10 nations combined, the US must continue their efforts as well as encourage others to do more...

 

I was born in 1947 in Los Angeles...