How to address the big problem of overpopulated Earth?

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

przemeknowicki
Student
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:21 pm
Contact:

How to address the big problem of overpopulated Earth?

Post #1

Post by 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

User avatar
ST88
Site Supporter
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 11:38 pm
Location: San Diego

Post #21

Post by ST88 »

przemeknowicki wrote: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.
I agree with you on this. The Dairy Farmers of America are one of the most powerful food lobbying groups in Washington (after the National Beer Wholesalers Association). Unfortunately, policy is going to be influenced by those who have the interests in maintaining the denominating profit motive. I don't know if rBGH is passed on through the milk or not. Personally, I get the stuff without it (& buy non-rBGH sour cream, butter, & cream cheese also, though I think it's just coincidence because I'm at the same market -- though I can't imagine how it would survive the cheese fermentation process even if it survives milk production). Interestingly, the non-rBGH stuff is cheaper than the doped-up stuff. Go figure.

przemeknowicki
Student
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:21 pm
Contact:

Post #22

Post by przemeknowicki »

ST88,

I would like to go back to one of the statements from your previous posts. You stated that if the soil lacks in essential microelements the plants simply would not grow. I found similar opinion expressed on the website of Stephen Barnett, the vitamin basher and known stooge of the chemical industry, and I am simply baffled by statements like that. In order to educate myself on the modern knowledge on minerals and their role in human nutrition I once studied the monography "Trace Elements in Human and Animal Nutrition", fifth edition edited by Walter Mertz. Substantial part of this work reads like what we learned from human and animal diseases caused by inadequate mineral composition of soils. In fact, those endemic diseases taught us that certain trace minerals must be classified as essential. It all started with iodine and continued with the discovery of copper, zinc, selenium and other trace minerals causing health problems if deficient in soils and consequently in plants grown on such soils. In the extreme example of some Australian soils plants would grow but sheep would die. It seems to me that there was a lot of interest and research on the effects of minerals on health going back to seventies of the 20th century. So what happened with the science of minerals in human nutrition in the past 30 years that could cause a drastic change in how we view the minerals?

Also, back in seventies I read scientific papers studying the effect of extensive use of chemical fertilizers on the protein and aminoacid composition of grains and other plant foods. The results were quite clear, the variety of aminoacids present was significantly reduced and scientists were in agreement that it should be interpreted as a negative effect on the food quality. The recommendation at the time was to compensate by increasing the variety of grains in farming.

Now, compare it with the growing number of Americans suffering from mineral deficiencies and get yourself familiar with alternative treatments quite successful in dealing with those deficiencies with simple mineral supplementation. For starters I would recommend this website:
http://www.ithyroid.com/

I understand that mineral composition of the food we eat is not the only and maybe even not the most significant factor in developing mineral deficiencies but I think that the problem of soil quality deserves more attention that you seem to acknowledge.

Could you elaborate further on this issue?

User avatar
ST88
Site Supporter
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 11:38 pm
Location: San Diego

Post #23

Post by ST88 »

przemeknowicki wrote:I would like to go back to one of the statements from your previous posts. You stated that if the soil lacks in essential microelements the plants simply would not grow. I am simply baffled by statements like that.
This is from The University of Hamburg
the cations K+, Ca2+, Mg2+ and small amounts of Fe2+ or Fe3+, as well as the anions SO42-, H2PO4- (or H3PO4) and NO3- are essential for the growth and survival of the plants. Oxygen, carbon dioxide and hydrogen that are taken up from the air or the water (respiration, photosynthesis) are also imperative. The lack of one of these elements cannot be made up for by the surplus of another, chemically closely related one. Potassium, for example, cannot be replaced by lithium, sodium or rubidium.
That is, the essential micronutrients potassium, calcium, magnesium, iron, sulfur, phosphorous, and nitrogen are all essential for the life of the plant -- not for the lushness or the yield or the nutritive value to remain intact, but essential for the plant to actually survive.

This is from Copper Deficiency in Cereal Crops.
Summarizing, copper deficiency is associated with decreased yields, diseased crops (ergotism, for those familiar with the Salem witch trials) due to decreased resistance, malformation of grain, and absence of grain on the stalk. In other words, no grain at all, rather than a decrease in the amount of copper in the grain.

This is from Ask a Scientist
Magnesium is a critical mineral. It forms the core of chlorophyll, the major molecule involved in photosynthesis. Photosynthesis, the process by which light is converted into chemical energy and oxygen, is vital to plant growth. Basically, chlorophyll absorbs the energy in sunlight and shuttles it to proteins as electrons. Magnesium is also a cofactor (something that helps a chemical reaction take place) for the enzyme rubisco, which incorporates carbon dioxide (CO2) into sugars. Thus, magnesium is essential for a plant not only to produce energy from light but also to use that energy to create the carbohydrates required for survival. A deficiency of magnesium causes yellowing of leaves (chlorosis) because the plant is unable to make green chlorophyll.
In other words, a plant deficient in magnesium will not be able to sustain photosynthesis and will not survive long enough to produce a seed (grain, fruit, etc.).

These are just a few examples.

przemeknowicki wrote: In the extreme example of some Australian soils plants would grow but sheep would die. It seems to me that there was a lot of interest and research on the effects of minerals on health going back to seventies of the 20th century.... I understand that mineral composition of the food we eat is not the only and maybe even not the most significant factor in developing mineral deficiencies but I think that the problem of soil quality deserves more attention that you seem to acknowledge.

Could you elaborate further on this issue?
I think I stated before that there was no dispute that there are mineral deficiencies existing in the American diet. My contention is that it is not the produce that has declined in mineral content (an orange is an orange and requires the same amount of material each time it is formed), it is the formation of substances, such as refined sugar and highly caffeinated beverages, that we, as a species, did not evolve with in our ancestral history and that are now playing havoc with our body chemistry.

The depletion of mineral content in our soils is a problem, but not in the way that causes food to retain fewer minerals. The main problem is that when we grow the same crop time after time on a single plot of land, the soil is gradually depleted of whatever minerals the crop needs in order to grow properly. These minerals leave the area permanently when the crops are cut down or threshed for market.

Ruminants are a special case because the grasses they feed on are special cases. Grasses grown for grazing are less affected in terms of growth than other types of plants, and since they don't produce fruits and are not useful for grain purposes, necessarily, the plant is a very simple structure. The minerals, or lack thereof are taken up in direct proportion to what they are in the ground. I think the condition you are referring to is called grass tetany, when the amount of magnesium available in forage is too low to maintain adequate levels in the blood. This is largely due not to the absence of magnesium, but the excessive levels of nitrogen and potassium in the soil, which prevents the uptake of magnesium. For example, grass tetany occurs more often when the grass in young, when magnesium availability is naturally low. Here is more information on grass tetany than perhaps most of us would want to know.

User avatar
ST88
Site Supporter
Posts: 1785
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2004 11:38 pm
Location: San Diego

Post #24

Post by ST88 »

przemeknowicki wrote:Also, back in seventies I read scientific papers studying the effect of extensive use of chemical fertilizers on the protein and aminoacid composition of grains and other plant foods. The results were quite clear, the variety of aminoacids present was significantly reduced and scientists were in agreement that it should be interpreted as a negative effect on the food quality. The recommendation at the time was to compensate by increasing the variety of grains in farming.

Now, compare it with the growing number of Americans suffering from mineral deficiencies and get yourself familiar with alternative treatments quite successful in dealing with those deficiencies with simple mineral supplementation.

Could you elaborate further on this issue?
Amino acid composition is a separate issue from mineral deficiency. Just as an example of how nutrients are affected by fertilization, a study from Washington State University, "How Foliar-Applied Nutrients Affect Stresses in Perennial Fruit Plants", shows that increased nitrogen fertilizer applications decrease the amount of Vitamin C produced in cabbage, and increased boron applications in tubers, like potatoes, actually increase the amount of vitamin C in the tuber. (I wish I could link to this PDF file, but I haven't been able to -- PM me if you would like the file: but it's rather dry and only mentions the relevant portions in a small section.)

About mineral applications: Chemical mineral applications are actually technically more efficient than organic mineral applications. This is because the plant needs nutrients, like nitrogen and phosphorous, in a mineral (ionic) form, something that is not available in organic forms. So the soil must provide for the microorganisms that break down the organic materials into the usable minerals. It is just an extra step. However, as you may have guessed, there is a catch. A "live" soil, which contains microorganisms that help break down the organic matter, is necessarily more water retentive because by breaking down the soil, spaces are created for the water to accumulate. In a non-"live" soil there is more chance for erosion and runoff, increasing the leaching capacity of the soil and decreasing the available minerals.

However, the production of amino acids and other nutrients that the plant converts the nutrients found in the soil into are not required by the plant in order to survive, per se. These nutrients, like Vitamin C, have been selected for, in the process of natural selection, in order that the animals who consume the fruits of the plant (or the whole plant) will survive better than the animals who don't. These animals are then more likely to spread more of the seed of the plant. But because they are not necessary for plant survival, there are varying degrees of these nutrients found in present-day plants. This may be what you are referring to. Mineral deficiencies are not a part of this process.

przemeknowicki
Student
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 10:21 pm
Contact:

Post #25

Post by przemeknowicki »

ST88 wrote: About mineral applications: Chemical mineral applications are actually technically more efficient than organic mineral applications. This is because the plant needs nutrients, like nitrogen and phosphorous, in a mineral (ionic) form, something that is not available in organic forms. So the soil must provide for the microorganisms that break down the organic materials into the usable minerals. It is just an extra step. However, as you may have guessed, there is a catch. A "live" soil, which contains microorganisms that help break down the organic matter, is necessarily more water retentive because by breaking down the soil, spaces are created for the water to accumulate. In a non-"live" soil there is more chance for erosion and runoff, increasing the leaching capacity of the soil and decreasing the available minerals.
This is actually a fascinating topic and I am in slight disagreement on this issue. To me the organic and mineral non-ionic applications plus sound microbial life in the soil are the most efficient way of mineral delivery. This is "Just in time" delivery where very little is waisted because non-ionic minerals are stable and don't wash-out with the rain. I would compare it to the electronic fuel injection in the car engines. This is how the rain forests recycle minerals even if very little is available from the soil and most of the outside input comes from the rain.

With the thriving microbial life the minerals from the rocks become available and this is how the rock powder works. Economically speaking the most efficient way of fertilizing is the combination of all of the above including the chemical fertilization. The rock powder, which is dirty cheap if obtained from local sources reduces the amount of chemicals to one third of what would be the standard application without it. Plus the rock powder stimulates the microbial life in the soil while the chemicals tend to kill it.

It is interesting that the existence of fertile rich in minerals soils of Europe and North America is the result of the glaciers during the Ice Age, which pulverized the native rocks into a fertile mixture of rock powders.

Post Reply