The food shortage problem:
-
There is none. As with any species that faces food shortage, our population will shrink, and that will be the end of the shortage. Even if all of mankind is wiped out .. so what? There would be no one left to care about it.
Very sarcastic POV - may be you never experienced REAL hunger ...
-
Very sarcastic POV - may be you never experienced REAL hunger ...
-
Very sarcastic POV - may be you never experienced REAL hunger ...
Klaus-Werner Konrad wrote:
Very sarcastic sadistic POV - may be you never experienced REAL hunger ...
There fixed. I'm not sure how much of a food shortage there is as to a transportation issue of it. A lot of food get's wasted here in the states because it either has no place to go or just rots at the market. I will say this, milk has gone up some, but not above historical averages except for whipping cream. I bought a qt for making ice cream at it was nearly double what I normally paid.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
How is that relevant? Of course it will suck for some people. But the point is that the problem is self-solving
You aren't considering the implications of what people will do for food. Ever wonder why Somali pirates are getting to be such a problem? It isn't the thrill of the high seas. The phrase food riot should strike fear into the heart of every idiot who thinks the problem doesn't effect them, it may not at first, but when someone decides that you have food that should be shared, or better yet, you look tasty, you'll have a whole new problem to deal with.
-
You aren't considering the implications of what people will do for food. Ever wonder why Somali pirates are getting to be such a problem? It isn't the thrill of the high seas. The phrase food riot should strike fear into the heart of every idiot who thinks the problem doesn't effect them, it may not at first, but when someone decides that you have food that should be shared, or better yet, you look tasty, you'll have a whole new problem to deal with.
David1987 wrote:
the point is that the problem is self-solving
Distind, you're making a moot point, David1987 has it right in the quote above. If there is not enough food to go around, people will die. How they die is irrelevant. The population will continue to reduce until the food supply can sustain it. This guy[^] said "The [earth] scarcely can provide for our needs ... The scourges of pestilence, famine, wars and earthquakes ... serve to prune away the luxuriant growth of the human race." And that was approximately 1800 years ago. If everyone went around living in fear all the time of things entirely outside of their control and as necessary to the ecology of the planet as oxygen, water and sunlight, no one would enjoy life. PS Have you heard? The sun will eventually run out of fuel and will no longer provide us with life-giving light! Let's all start monitoring and controlling the use of sun light to mitigate the problem!
-
You aren't considering the implications of what people will do for food. Ever wonder why Somali pirates are getting to be such a problem? It isn't the thrill of the high seas. The phrase food riot should strike fear into the heart of every idiot who thinks the problem doesn't effect them, it may not at first, but when someone decides that you have food that should be shared, or better yet, you look tasty, you'll have a whole new problem to deal with.
-
You aren't considering the implications of what people will do for food. Ever wonder why Somali pirates are getting to be such a problem? It isn't the thrill of the high seas. The phrase food riot should strike fear into the heart of every idiot who thinks the problem doesn't effect them, it may not at first, but when someone decides that you have food that should be shared, or better yet, you look tasty, you'll have a whole new problem to deal with.
-
There is none. As with any species that faces food shortage, our population will shrink, and that will be the end of the shortage. Even if all of mankind is wiped out .. so what? There would be no one left to care about it.
A very Darwinian POV.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
A very Darwinian POV.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
There is none. As with any species that faces food shortage, our population will shrink, and that will be the end of the shortage. Even if all of mankind is wiped out .. so what? There would be no one left to care about it.
Reasonable point which I think some of the others have missed. No doubt that should it occur there will be considerable pain for all but, as you point out, the end result is that there will be no one left to care. Goes to the same point as GW: if GW does lead to the demise of humankind the earth will still be here and it doesn't care.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Reasonable point which I think some of the others have missed. No doubt that should it occur there will be considerable pain for all but, as you point out, the end result is that there will be no one left to care. Goes to the same point as GW: if GW does lead to the demise of humankind the earth will still be here and it doesn't care.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
Or, as St. George (Carlin) said... "The planet is fine. The planet isn't going anywhere..... WE ARE! We're going away... Pack your #%&*, folks."
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
There is none. As with any species that faces food shortage, our population will shrink, and that will be the end of the shortage. Even if all of mankind is wiped out .. so what? There would be no one left to care about it.
I read a great book that covered this in depth 10 years ago. Unfortunately, I'll have to dig it out as I can't remember the title. It pointed out a study of deer populations on an isolated island, where there were sporadic and almost exponential growths and die offs due to limitations of the amount of food the island could provide. The thing was, most deer didn't end up starving to death. They were killed off by diseases, stress, and an increase in aggression amongst themselves. Let me put it this way, if there was a food shortage leading to starvation, we will kill each other long before we all starve to death. This is not any different than what you were saying, just an elaboration based on previous reading.
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" — Hunter S. Thompson
-
I read a great book that covered this in depth 10 years ago. Unfortunately, I'll have to dig it out as I can't remember the title. It pointed out a study of deer populations on an isolated island, where there were sporadic and almost exponential growths and die offs due to limitations of the amount of food the island could provide. The thing was, most deer didn't end up starving to death. They were killed off by diseases, stress, and an increase in aggression amongst themselves. Let me put it this way, if there was a food shortage leading to starvation, we will kill each other long before we all starve to death. This is not any different than what you were saying, just an elaboration based on previous reading.
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" — Hunter S. Thompson
But they are deer, not that I expect humans to not kill eachother (hell no, we'd do it more readily than deer I think, really how often do you see a murderous deer?) but differences between species have been noted. Someone did an experiment where monkeys could reach food, but doing so would give his mate in the other cage an electric shock - strangely they starved themselves to death. Humans would never do that except maybe some weird nutcases, but I still find it surprising that such behaviour exists at all. What's the evolutionary advantage of starving to death?
-
But they are deer, not that I expect humans to not kill eachother (hell no, we'd do it more readily than deer I think, really how often do you see a murderous deer?) but differences between species have been noted. Someone did an experiment where monkeys could reach food, but doing so would give his mate in the other cage an electric shock - strangely they starved themselves to death. Humans would never do that except maybe some weird nutcases, but I still find it surprising that such behaviour exists at all. What's the evolutionary advantage of starving to death?
David1987 wrote:
really how often do you see a murderous deer?
That was what made it odd, deer rarely fight to death, but it seemed they were killing each other (maybe regular, survivable blows to a weakened deer became fatal).
David1987 wrote:
Someone did an experiment where monkeys could reach food, but doing so would give his mate in the other cage an electric shock - strangely they starved themselves to death.
First the monkey experiment. The shocking is a sudden, noticeable pain to observers, I'm sure the shocked monkey yelped or screamed. However the pain of starvation would be constant, slow, and more internal, though still leading to death. The monkeys that starved saw the immediate pain of the other and thought, "Shit, he's worse off than me, I don't need the food right now." until it died, probably not realizing it was making a decision to choose death.
David1987 wrote:
What's the evolutionary advantage of starving to death?
I actually can see a point to this. If there is a surplus population and scarce food, and some chose to starve so others can eat, the species would have a better shot of surviving. Example, there is enough food to constantly sustain 10 beings, yet there are 50 beings. Rather than split up the food for 10 among all 50, supplying each with only 20% of needed foods (which would lead to a decrease in health, increase in disease, risking the entire 50's lives; it is better for the species to cull or suicide itself to the level so the species' survival is more certain. Those beings that choose starvation so others can eat would be the more empathetic of the species, and they would not carry on in the species, which may actually increase the chance of survival by allowing the more selfish and competitive to carry on.
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" — Hunter S. Thompson
-
David1987 wrote:
really how often do you see a murderous deer?
That was what made it odd, deer rarely fight to death, but it seemed they were killing each other (maybe regular, survivable blows to a weakened deer became fatal).
David1987 wrote:
Someone did an experiment where monkeys could reach food, but doing so would give his mate in the other cage an electric shock - strangely they starved themselves to death.
First the monkey experiment. The shocking is a sudden, noticeable pain to observers, I'm sure the shocked monkey yelped or screamed. However the pain of starvation would be constant, slow, and more internal, though still leading to death. The monkeys that starved saw the immediate pain of the other and thought, "Shit, he's worse off than me, I don't need the food right now." until it died, probably not realizing it was making a decision to choose death.
David1987 wrote:
What's the evolutionary advantage of starving to death?
I actually can see a point to this. If there is a surplus population and scarce food, and some chose to starve so others can eat, the species would have a better shot of surviving. Example, there is enough food to constantly sustain 10 beings, yet there are 50 beings. Rather than split up the food for 10 among all 50, supplying each with only 20% of needed foods (which would lead to a decrease in health, increase in disease, risking the entire 50's lives; it is better for the species to cull or suicide itself to the level so the species' survival is more certain. Those beings that choose starvation so others can eat would be the more empathetic of the species, and they would not carry on in the species, which may actually increase the chance of survival by allowing the more selfish and competitive to carry on.
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" — Hunter S. Thompson
wizardzz wrote:
First the monkey experiment. The shocking is a sudden, noticeable pain to observers, I'm sure the shocked monkey yelped or screamed. However the pain of starvation would be constant, slow, and more internal, though still leading to death. The monkeys that starved saw the immediate pain of the other and thought, "sh*t, he's worse off than me, I don't need the food right now." until it died, probably not realizing it was making a decision to choose death.
Makes sense - I guess that's immediately the reason why humans wouldn't do this, they'd realize what they were doing.
wizardzz wrote:
If there is a surplus population and scarce food, and some chose to starve so others can eat, the species would have a better shot of surviving.
It depends. The ones sacrificing themselves would have to be the weak ones. Doesn't it make more sense, evolutionary, to fight over the food and let it go to the winner?
-
wizardzz wrote:
First the monkey experiment. The shocking is a sudden, noticeable pain to observers, I'm sure the shocked monkey yelped or screamed. However the pain of starvation would be constant, slow, and more internal, though still leading to death. The monkeys that starved saw the immediate pain of the other and thought, "sh*t, he's worse off than me, I don't need the food right now." until it died, probably not realizing it was making a decision to choose death.
Makes sense - I guess that's immediately the reason why humans wouldn't do this, they'd realize what they were doing.
wizardzz wrote:
If there is a surplus population and scarce food, and some chose to starve so others can eat, the species would have a better shot of surviving.
It depends. The ones sacrificing themselves would have to be the weak ones. Doesn't it make more sense, evolutionary, to fight over the food and let it go to the winner?
David1987 wrote:
It depends. The ones sacrificing themselves would have to be the weak ones. Doesn't it make more sense, evolutionary, to fight over the food and let it go to the winner?
I should elaborate what I meant, the ones that would choose to starve would be ones unwilling to fight for whatever reason (too weak, empathy, pacifism, knowing they would lose if they even tried). These would benefit the survivors because survivors wouldn't have to had risked their health, energy, remaining resources, etc, on eliminating others. I understand this is not really an evolutionary concept, more of an immediate likeliness of survival theory. I don't know, just my theory and I'm glad we're having a nice, civilized discussion on CP!
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" — Hunter S. Thompson
-
David1987 wrote:
It depends. The ones sacrificing themselves would have to be the weak ones. Doesn't it make more sense, evolutionary, to fight over the food and let it go to the winner?
I should elaborate what I meant, the ones that would choose to starve would be ones unwilling to fight for whatever reason (too weak, empathy, pacifism, knowing they would lose if they even tried). These would benefit the survivors because survivors wouldn't have to had risked their health, energy, remaining resources, etc, on eliminating others. I understand this is not really an evolutionary concept, more of an immediate likeliness of survival theory. I don't know, just my theory and I'm glad we're having a nice, civilized discussion on CP!
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" — Hunter S. Thompson
-
David1987 wrote:
really how often do you see a murderous deer?
That was what made it odd, deer rarely fight to death, but it seemed they were killing each other (maybe regular, survivable blows to a weakened deer became fatal).
David1987 wrote:
Someone did an experiment where monkeys could reach food, but doing so would give his mate in the other cage an electric shock - strangely they starved themselves to death.
First the monkey experiment. The shocking is a sudden, noticeable pain to observers, I'm sure the shocked monkey yelped or screamed. However the pain of starvation would be constant, slow, and more internal, though still leading to death. The monkeys that starved saw the immediate pain of the other and thought, "Shit, he's worse off than me, I don't need the food right now." until it died, probably not realizing it was making a decision to choose death.
David1987 wrote:
What's the evolutionary advantage of starving to death?
I actually can see a point to this. If there is a surplus population and scarce food, and some chose to starve so others can eat, the species would have a better shot of surviving. Example, there is enough food to constantly sustain 10 beings, yet there are 50 beings. Rather than split up the food for 10 among all 50, supplying each with only 20% of needed foods (which would lead to a decrease in health, increase in disease, risking the entire 50's lives; it is better for the species to cull or suicide itself to the level so the species' survival is more certain. Those beings that choose starvation so others can eat would be the more empathetic of the species, and they would not carry on in the species, which may actually increase the chance of survival by allowing the more selfish and competitive to carry on.
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" — Hunter S. Thompson
wizardzz wrote:
I actually can see a point to this. If there is a surplus population and scarce food, and some chose to starve so others can eat, the species would have a better shot of surviving. Example, there is enough food to constantly sustain 10 beings, yet there are 50 beings. Rather than split up the food for 10 among all 50, supplying each with only 20% of needed foods (which would lead to a decrease in health, increase in disease, risking the entire 50's lives; it is better for the species to cull or suicide itself to the level so the species' survival is more certain. Those beings that choose starvation so others can eat would be the more empathetic of the species, and they would not carry on in the species, which may actually increase the chance of survival by allowing the more selfish and competitive to carry on.
Interesting hypothesis... If you carry it forward, though, I don't think it would work in the long term. If, during the first food crisis (For lack of a better term), the more empathetic ones choose to die to allow the others to survive, what do you end up with? The ones that survive and reproduce would be, on average, less empathetic than their ancestors. Move forward a generation or two, and you could breed out that trait entirely... That's assuming it's genetically-based, of course. So with repeated events like this, such as cold winters, the more selfish ones still come out on top, assuming the entire population isn't eliminated. On the other hand, if instead of a 5:1 ratio of beings:food, it was closer to 2:1, the empathetic trait might win out, as a group that shared would maintain a higher population than one that competed and culled. Half rations would probably weed out those who were already weak, but the overall population size might remain larger than the group that culls itself down to 1:1. Granted, there are enough gray areas in all of this to make every one of my deductions flawed :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
wizardzz wrote:
I actually can see a point to this. If there is a surplus population and scarce food, and some chose to starve so others can eat, the species would have a better shot of surviving. Example, there is enough food to constantly sustain 10 beings, yet there are 50 beings. Rather than split up the food for 10 among all 50, supplying each with only 20% of needed foods (which would lead to a decrease in health, increase in disease, risking the entire 50's lives; it is better for the species to cull or suicide itself to the level so the species' survival is more certain. Those beings that choose starvation so others can eat would be the more empathetic of the species, and they would not carry on in the species, which may actually increase the chance of survival by allowing the more selfish and competitive to carry on.
Interesting hypothesis... If you carry it forward, though, I don't think it would work in the long term. If, during the first food crisis (For lack of a better term), the more empathetic ones choose to die to allow the others to survive, what do you end up with? The ones that survive and reproduce would be, on average, less empathetic than their ancestors. Move forward a generation or two, and you could breed out that trait entirely... That's assuming it's genetically-based, of course. So with repeated events like this, such as cold winters, the more selfish ones still come out on top, assuming the entire population isn't eliminated. On the other hand, if instead of a 5:1 ratio of beings:food, it was closer to 2:1, the empathetic trait might win out, as a group that shared would maintain a higher population than one that competed and culled. Half rations would probably weed out those who were already weak, but the overall population size might remain larger than the group that culls itself down to 1:1. Granted, there are enough gray areas in all of this to make every one of my deductions flawed :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)I took his hypothesis to mean that the unwillingness to fight for food wasn't so much due to genes specific to that individual, but due to "giving up early because it knows it's inferior from earlier experiences" - a trait like that could stay, could it not? The stronger individuals would continue to fight for survival but still carry those genes..